Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue.
In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share.
You can have a 10 GB smartphone plan with Rogers for $75. If you don't like that, you can switch to Bell's 10 GB plan for $75. If you don't like Bell, of course you can switch to Telus's 10 GB plan for, wait for it, $75.
The Big 3 operate smaller brands with fewer bells and whistles and lower costs. You can get a 4 GB cell plan from Koodo (Telus subsidiary) for $50, or from Fido (Rogers subsidiary) for $50, or from Virgin Mobile (Bell subsidiary) for $50.
Sometimes one of them has promotional pricing, like $45 instead of $50 for 4GB. The other two offer the same pricing for the same duration. Sometimes one of them increases their prices by $5 a month citing reasons such as infrastructure investments, lower Canadian dollar value, or inflation. The other two increase their prices by the same amount a couple of days later.
And none of this is collusion in the legal sense. They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. There is not back-channel communication whatsoever. And it is not because the competition is so perfect the prices have been commoditized. In fact, Canada has some of the highest cell plan prices in the world, even adjusting for factors such as population density and GDP.
It's just that the big companies have decided to stop competing. If you live in, say Alberta or Ontario or BC, you have three options and they are all the same overpriced crap. Cell carriers in Canada are not a monopoly, but you don't have to be a monopoly to harm customers with anti-competitive behaviour. Apple and Google, Android and iOS do not have a monopoly or a collusion agreement. But they are harming the customers all the same.
You see something like this with gasoline pricing - major brands will have "competing" stations across the street from each other, but their prices moves in lock step without a race to the bottom.
Memory vendors have explicitly colluded in the past, but they really didn't need to - they just needed to copy their competitors' posted pricing. Presumably that is what they do now.
If there are high barriers to new competitors entering the market, then the situation is unlikely to change.
I think I have a better analogy: Apple operates a market with a significant portion of economic activity in several industries / verticals, yet it sets its own rules and even is party to transactions. That's basically the definition of a black market.
Black markets are useful in some circumstances, but when they grow too big they have to be regulated and taxed. A lot.
It's a regulation issue. Things were similar in my country until the state decided to sell the fourth frequency range licence at a reduced cost (to offset the lead of the other three) and made routing cheaper. In exchange the new provider had to commit infrastructure investments. At about the same time, it was legally mandated that transferring phone numbers between providers be simple and cheap. The prices cratered pretty much instantly.
I think I'm on a 15€/100GB plan at the moment (plus a bunch a stuff like 25GB a month of international roaming).
> reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK.
Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly.
Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run the marked and provide products there but give their products an unfair competitive advantage (access to internal APIs, fast review, not applying app guidlines, subvention developent for the apps etc.) while haven basically rip-of pricing for (at least part of) the competition and intentionally preventing many business model and undermining how companies can freely present their products and company to users inside of their own products...
Not sure how anyone can call it ok, tbh.
Maybe legal due to a laws not yet having arrived in the 21st century but definitively not ok.
As far as I remember it is a perfect Nash-Pareto equilibrium strategy: "keep the same price as the other side until the other side changes it". And, if all sides follow this strategy then prices are always $50
It's likely that the investors in each company are mostly the same institutions, namely index funds and ETFs issuers. When you have investors that own everything, they don't want the companies to compete.
Yup. We have similar behaviour with cell phone companies here in South Africa. The big two have reached a stable state, are happy with their market share, and know that as long as they don't directly talk to each other when raising prices, they are legally in the clear.
> It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue.
Indeed. It is a common misconception that antitrust only applies to monopolies. You can engage in anti-competitive behavior of various kinds, illegally, without actually having a monopoly in strict terms.
For locations in Canada with a local cell provider or internet provider, the pricing is much better. Either lower prices, more services for price point, or a combination of both.
I suspect this is/was part of the push to get non-incumbents into the cell market.
Not to contradict your point, because I agree fully, but given how concisely you put it, I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on Freedom Mobile? I know they're kind of independent, but also their coverage sucks.
That sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't begin to change until and unless someone either starts putting up their own towers or VoIP becomes ubiquitous enough to be a real threat to the cell business model.
From working with Canadians, it always supprised me how they seemed fine with these non-competitive practices for Telecom and Banking. It seems that they are systematically over-paying for what they are getting.
Maybe it's a form of pride to have the "Canadian alternative"? Or they feel they couldn't really compete with the US/Europeans?
In Canada, Fido has $10/m + tax "Tablet Plan" which can be used on phones and gives you 4GB/m data. You may need to find someone who already has a Fido plan.
I use the 2ndLine app for (very rare) calls and SMS. It gives you a local number. Data-only is the most cost effective imo
You gave an example of price fixing, not anti competitive behavior. They don't have to meet up in a secret room either for it to count. If they are constantly adjusting their prices to all be exactly the same, that is illegal in the U.S. as price fixing.
The sadder part of this is when one of those not-colluded companies decide to increase a big number their service, the others wait to see is people accept this and then they do it as well. There is where we hurt ourselves.
This is not surprising to me, and I have to say, I completely agree with it. Epic publicly and blatantly bypassed multiple App Store restrictions with their move today.
Surely they were expecting this to happen, so what comes next? Perhaps Epic has been planning a major lawsuit and this will provide them with the reason to launch it?
Really hoping regulators crack down hard on Apple's clearly anticompetitive practices.
If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.
What is Apple’s end game here? It seems like they’re fighting a losing battle and digging their own antitrust grave.
Pretty clever on Epic’s part to specifically highlight how Apple’s app store fee hits the user directly. Pretty short-sighted of Apple to immediately pull an app for providing consumers with additional disclosure about where their money is going.
Apple platform is closed like gaming consoles. Epic almost certainly knew this was going to happen. I think they are trying to build a case for regulatory intervention.
US Antitrust is still in the 80's Chicago School era where antitrust is solely based on consumer benefit and and efficiency. EU has more broad approach where economic power in the public interest is important. It may be up to the EU to change how Apple does business.
We have been given court-side seats to a sophisticated game of feints and dramatic negotiation. Pre-Game, Epic lined their shot with care. They've come prepared with media and assets, (no doubt) lawyers (and potential lawsuits?), PR strategy, regulatory strategy etc. They know the argument they would like to make. And they know how to make it.
How will Apple respond? Will Epic's strong start lead to a strong finish?
Their machinations have been laid scandalously bare. If you listen closely, you can hear your local business school clickety-clacking away to a ludicrously overpriced case study. And the local #hustle blogger RSI their way to a million views.
O'Think of the great blog posts and MBA lessons this drama will make!
It's interesting how the industry is shaking up in so many different ways lately.
1. TikTok and WeChat getting banned (This will also have a huge side effect for Apple)
2. Uber and Lyft regulated to classify drivers as employees
3. Influential companies trying to tear down the Apple payment walled garden (Last time it was Hey, but this time it's Fortnite, which is infinitely more formidable). Now the only thing left is for Google to come out and say "we're going to charge zero commission for our in-app payments", and the wall will be down pretty soon.
I feel like there's some pattern here that may change the overall game of the tech industry. Grabbing some popcorn and waiting for new opportunities to open up!
You could say that the disruption is being disrupted.
Regulators are slowly getting sick of the tech industry's behavior of overthrowing markets by VC-ing out competitors to establish their own monopoly all while dodging taxes through global schemes.
I am ignorant of the rules applying to apps with payments in the apple app store. Is it true retailers do not have to pay a percentage to Apple when people pay to reload cards through the app?
Apple and Google are able to gatekeep what you can install on entire generations of devices, from smartphones to tablets. Their power to gatekeep billion dollar markets needs to be looked at through the lens of antitrust legislation.
App store fees are on the unjustified side in the current spectrum of value assessment.
The more reasonable approach is to figure out ways for customers to get more values from the platform, instead of extracting more efficiently.
I bet this decision is some form of lower-to-middle level decision, without consulting Tim and his close subordinates. I would expect Tim and his close subordinates to be sensitive enough to at least not doing something so abruptly (not that it's not complying with the rules). I would guess this decision didn't even surfaced to VP level. AFAIK, VPs should be owning such sensitive decisions at Apple.
Has Google done anything yet? This is in violation of their guidelines as well from what I can tell. On the Google Play store only games must use the Play Store In App purchase system. Other types of apps can link to their own.
This is really bad for Apple users like me and ultimately for Apple.
People are talking anti-trust, but I don't think it'll take a legal case for them to eventually lose this broader fight. Apple has enough money they COULD do whatever they want for as long as they want, but if this grows to even more companies, Apple's negotiating position becomes weaker.
[+] [-] smnrchrds|5 years ago|reply
In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share.
You can have a 10 GB smartphone plan with Rogers for $75. If you don't like that, you can switch to Bell's 10 GB plan for $75. If you don't like Bell, of course you can switch to Telus's 10 GB plan for, wait for it, $75.
The Big 3 operate smaller brands with fewer bells and whistles and lower costs. You can get a 4 GB cell plan from Koodo (Telus subsidiary) for $50, or from Fido (Rogers subsidiary) for $50, or from Virgin Mobile (Bell subsidiary) for $50.
Sometimes one of them has promotional pricing, like $45 instead of $50 for 4GB. The other two offer the same pricing for the same duration. Sometimes one of them increases their prices by $5 a month citing reasons such as infrastructure investments, lower Canadian dollar value, or inflation. The other two increase their prices by the same amount a couple of days later.
And none of this is collusion in the legal sense. They don't gather in smoke-filled rooms and decide how to screw over their customers. There is not back-channel communication whatsoever. And it is not because the competition is so perfect the prices have been commoditized. In fact, Canada has some of the highest cell plan prices in the world, even adjusting for factors such as population density and GDP.
It's just that the big companies have decided to stop competing. If you live in, say Alberta or Ontario or BC, you have three options and they are all the same overpriced crap. Cell carriers in Canada are not a monopoly, but you don't have to be a monopoly to harm customers with anti-competitive behaviour. Apple and Google, Android and iOS do not have a monopoly or a collusion agreement. But they are harming the customers all the same.
[+] [-] musicale|5 years ago|reply
You see something like this with gasoline pricing - major brands will have "competing" stations across the street from each other, but their prices moves in lock step without a race to the bottom.
Memory vendors have explicitly colluded in the past, but they really didn't need to - they just needed to copy their competitors' posted pricing. Presumably that is what they do now.
If there are high barriers to new competitors entering the market, then the situation is unlikely to change.
[+] [-] cm277|5 years ago|reply
Black markets are useful in some circumstances, but when they grow too big they have to be regulated and taxed. A lot.
Good for Epic.
[+] [-] Bayart|5 years ago|reply
I think I'm on a 15€/100GB plan at the moment (plus a bunch a stuff like 25GB a month of international roaming).
[+] [-] dathinab|5 years ago|reply
Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly.
Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run the marked and provide products there but give their products an unfair competitive advantage (access to internal APIs, fast review, not applying app guidlines, subvention developent for the apps etc.) while haven basically rip-of pricing for (at least part of) the competition and intentionally preventing many business model and undermining how companies can freely present their products and company to users inside of their own products...
Not sure how anyone can call it ok, tbh.
Maybe legal due to a laws not yet having arrived in the 21st century but definitively not ok.
[+] [-] artembugara|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smabie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandinj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|5 years ago|reply
Indeed. It is a common misconception that antitrust only applies to monopolies. You can engage in anti-competitive behavior of various kinds, illegally, without actually having a monopoly in strict terms.
[+] [-] beached_whale|5 years ago|reply
I suspect this is/was part of the push to get non-incumbents into the cell market.
[+] [-] luisfmh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowgovt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|5 years ago|reply
While that makes for nice rhetoric in your great comment, you don't actually know that this doesn't happen.
[+] [-] jakub_g|5 years ago|reply
Wow. In France it's the reverse: during promotions, you can get 70GB for €10.
Out of promo, it's €15-€20 at low cost operators, and €35 at traditional brands.
[+] [-] Veen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 908B64B197|5 years ago|reply
Maybe it's a form of pride to have the "Canadian alternative"? Or they feel they couldn't really compete with the US/Europeans?
[+] [-] redthrow|5 years ago|reply
I use the 2ndLine app for (very rare) calls and SMS. It gives you a local number. Data-only is the most cost effective imo
[+] [-] avasthe|5 years ago|reply
Same for webdev
[+] [-] lancepioch|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jairofloress|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smoosh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrJaws|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] norswap|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miah_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chodeboy|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FriendlyNormie|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] parasubvert|5 years ago|reply
I suppose the state could implement price controls and force Rogers et al to lower their prices. That worked well in the past!
[+] [-] xoxoy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epaga|5 years ago|reply
Surely they were expecting this to happen, so what comes next? Perhaps Epic has been planning a major lawsuit and this will provide them with the reason to launch it?
Edit: https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293984290326433792
They have an entire short prepared for this. This is nothing if not fascinating deep-level company poker.
[+] [-] FreakyT|5 years ago|reply
If Apple allowed sideloading the entire point would be, of course, moot, but Apple's continued refusal to allow this is really the biggest problem, IMO.
[+] [-] elliekelly|5 years ago|reply
Pretty clever on Epic’s part to specifically highlight how Apple’s app store fee hits the user directly. Pretty short-sighted of Apple to immediately pull an app for providing consumers with additional disclosure about where their money is going.
[+] [-] nabla9|5 years ago|reply
US Antitrust is still in the 80's Chicago School era where antitrust is solely based on consumer benefit and and efficiency. EU has more broad approach where economic power in the public interest is important. It may be up to the EU to change how Apple does business.
[+] [-] areoform|5 years ago|reply
We have been given court-side seats to a sophisticated game of feints and dramatic negotiation. Pre-Game, Epic lined their shot with care. They've come prepared with media and assets, (no doubt) lawyers (and potential lawsuits?), PR strategy, regulatory strategy etc. They know the argument they would like to make. And they know how to make it.
How will Apple respond? Will Epic's strong start lead to a strong finish?
Their machinations have been laid scandalously bare. If you listen closely, you can hear your local business school clickety-clacking away to a ludicrously overpriced case study. And the local #hustle blogger RSI their way to a million views.
O'Think of the great blog posts and MBA lessons this drama will make!
edit: and they've filed for relief! https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
[+] [-] cocktailpeanuts|5 years ago|reply
1. TikTok and WeChat getting banned (This will also have a huge side effect for Apple)
2. Uber and Lyft regulated to classify drivers as employees
3. Influential companies trying to tear down the Apple payment walled garden (Last time it was Hey, but this time it's Fortnite, which is infinitely more formidable). Now the only thing left is for Google to come out and say "we're going to charge zero commission for our in-app payments", and the wall will be down pretty soon.
I feel like there's some pattern here that may change the overall game of the tech industry. Grabbing some popcorn and waiting for new opportunities to open up!
[+] [-] foepys|5 years ago|reply
Regulators are slowly getting sick of the tech industry's behavior of overthrowing markets by VC-ing out competitors to establish their own monopoly all while dodging taxes through global schemes.
[+] [-] isoprophlex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgrote|5 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360
"Wow. Epic outright promoting direct in-app payment around iOS store but in iOS apps
And users collect 100% of the savings. No monetary benefit to Epic.
Note: McDonalds, Starbucks, et al are 'allowed' to do this today - but not gaming/media cos"
[+] [-] kayodelycaon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrep|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|5 years ago|reply
Edit: The youtube comments are hilarious because no one knows what it's a spoof of. For those who don't know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
[+] [-] ryneandal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heavyset_go|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghiculescu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justicezyx|5 years ago|reply
App store fees are on the unjustified side in the current spectrum of value assessment.
The more reasonable approach is to figure out ways for customers to get more values from the platform, instead of extracting more efficiently.
I bet this decision is some form of lower-to-middle level decision, without consulting Tim and his close subordinates. I would expect Tim and his close subordinates to be sensitive enough to at least not doing something so abruptly (not that it's not complying with the rules). I would guess this decision didn't even surfaced to VP level. AFAIK, VPs should be owning such sensitive decisions at Apple.
[+] [-] samcat116|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EastSmith|5 years ago|reply
Everything that has 10% market share should have some kind of regulation for things like this.
Defining things like this is hard though. What to regulate is hard too.
[+] [-] elicash|5 years ago|reply
People are talking anti-trust, but I don't think it'll take a legal case for them to eventually lose this broader fight. Apple has enough money they COULD do whatever they want for as long as they want, but if this grows to even more companies, Apple's negotiating position becomes weaker.
[+] [-] tomxor|5 years ago|reply
> Why would epic even do this.... they know the rules. Why would they expect to use another companies platform for free. With apple 100% on this.
Use? they add value to the platform, Apple is just double dipping because crazy hardware markup wasn't enough for them. Are people really this blind?
[+] [-] EE84M3i|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vffhfhf|5 years ago|reply
Its not for consumers. Consumers will always feel safe with what they have.
Its to not stifle the competition.
Look what happened to vine.
A competitor bought it, twitter. Gutted it and left it. It could have been next tiktok in a few years. We would never know.
How many competitor have google and apple stiffed?