How does Apple get away with the App store exclusivity? By that, I mean the fact that they actively block other companies from opening their own App store. Wikipedia says about the Sherman anti-trust act:
It is pretty apparent to me that it does. Amazon can’t open their own app store to compete with Apple’s app store. They are blocked by Apple. Thus, Apple suppresses market competition by using its position as the manufacturer to block other app stores. What am I missing?
Amazon can’t open an Apple app store. They are perfectly free to sell apps for other platforms, such as Android. Both the iPhone and iPad (and by extension the apps on them) are undergoing vigorous competition from various sources, so I don’t see how your “rule of reason” applies here.
That is for Android apps.
I’m not talking about competing with the iPhone or iPad. I am talking about competing with Apple in the distribution and selling of Apps for those devices.
Right now, if I want to sell or buy an App, I have one, and only one, choice. Not because of market dynamics, nor because of hardware limitations, but because of anti-competitive policies.
It depends on what you mean.
First off, in general the argument is that there’s lots of choice in smart phones, so Apple isn’t being monopolistic by preventing access to their own hardware. If Apple’s practices are abhorrent to enough people, they’ll go buy Android, etc. Lots of companies either recommend or require that you use the manufacturer’s parts or supplies with their equipment, and protect that right via trademark or patent law (or just proprietary interfaces) to greater or lesser degrees.
There’s also no legal “right to integration” with any given software package, so it’s not clear what rule Apple would be breaking, anyway.
Alternatively, you may be thinking of the specific argument Apple and Amazon are having about the trademarked phrase “App Store.” This is a straightforward trademark dispute: Apple claims their trademark to the phrase prevents other folks from using it, Amazon claims the phrase is “Generic” and therefore not a valid trademark. Nobody’s saying Amazon can’t make their own App store, they’re disputing the right to commercially CALL IT THAT. Note that in this case the Apple App store is the Mac App store, not the iOS one.
Finally, there’I’ve heard the argument that since Apple doesn’t prevent those same competitors from selling their products through Apple’s app store, and the guidelines don’t discriminate between companies (for example, the mythical “No Flash” rule doesn’t actually exist in such a specific form, and the actual rule covers a wide range of technologies that present an actual, documentable, security threat), that they (Apple) aren’t inhibiting the commerce of the other companies. I have no idea if that argument is valid: it doesn’t sound like it to me, but I’m not a lawyer.
They do have a Mac app store. Not for iPhone or iPad, though.
In that case you need to stop saying “App” and start saying “Apple App”. Because an Android App is also an App.
And I’m saying that the competition between the devices (or more correctly the underlying OS), which is also competition in App stores at one remove, is enough to obviate your claim that Apple’s exclusive right to market Apple Apps breaches Sherman.
You don’t have “only one choice”; you can get the same App from Apple or Amazon, you just have to purchase the underlying device to match your preferred App retailer.
You are defining the market as “Apps” instead of “iPhone/iPad” apps, which there doesn’t seem to be a reason to do so. Look at what I quoted.
Does Apple’s activities promote or suppress market competition? It is pretty clear that it suppresses market competition. I can’t open treis’ wonderful world of Apps and undercut Apple’s fee.
They get away with in an engineering sense it by designing the iphone etc. to only run apps signed by apple. Barring implementation bugs or some insider at apple leaking the signature codes you should not be able to run software that apple has not approved. When people jail break an iphone they are exploiting an implementation bug to allow fuller control over their device.
They get away with it in a legal sense because popular opinion has not swayed against apple enough so that someone can further their career by taking down big brother.
[quote=“treis, post:9, topic:585397”]
You are defining the market as “Apps” instead of “iPhone/iPad” apps, which there doesn’t seem to be a reason to do so. Look at what I quoted.
But the point is that that’s a very narrow market definition: it would be like defining a market as “Kellog’s Cereals”, then complaining they were keeping your cereal out of the market. Reasonably, it would seem you could only define a market as a single vendor’s property if that vendor has a monopoly (e.g. Microsoft in the PC OS market a few years back), and Apple clearly does not – they’re not even the market share leader. “Market” almost by definition means “multiple vendors,” doesn’t it?
To address your quote more specifically: Google is actively using Apple’s supposed lack of “openness” to market products against them, as is RIM, which would imply that in fact the practice is explicitly promoting market competition.
The same Apps are available from a different App store. That is, unarguably, competition. Were we to define an “Apple app market”, then yes competition is absent. But there is no reason to do so, as Apps on the Apple App store compete with the same Apps on the Amazon Android App store.
You are defining the App market overly narrowly, so as to exclude the very real competition there is.
Nothing to stop you doing that other than making sure you don’t infringe any Apple patented technology, copyrights or trademarks. If you can built apps that work with Apple products but don’t use any apple proprietary software, you’re golden.
You raise an interesting point. I wonder about this issue myself.
Apple, I suspect, would argue that any developer is free to produce software for their system, provided they are vetted by Apple through their developer program. In essence, no one is barred from selling Apps, they’re just barred from selling them without Apple’s checkmark. It’s one of the murky corners of intellectual property law.
For me, it falls short of the standard of “antitrust” because they aren’t in fact the producers of all this software. They’re simply the pushers. Unlike Microsoft and “Netscape,” they aren’t barring any producer (that I know of) explicitly from making ipad software. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If any company is clever enough to figure out how to get around the various technical obstacles Apple has put in place, they are certainly free to create their own “app store” for Apple devices. Apple has simply designed their product in such a fashion that that is very difficult to do.
This thread is not about app developers, but app stores. OP is claiming that Apple only allowing the Apple App store to sell apps for the iP*d is an anti-trust violation. I’m saying that since the same apps can be and are sold on Android app stores, there is no such violation.
Apple’s argument in similar situations has been that it is a matter of quality control. They are currently facing a class action suit complaining that the forced link between Apple iTunes downloads and Apple hardware violates sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act. (The case is Apple iPod, iTunes Antitrust Litigation, C05-0037JW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose) Their recent argument to have that suit dismissed was essentially that they believe they have the legal right to control the entire experience, quality of delivery, future technical support, etc. for products intended to be used on any of their hardware as they see fit. And by doing it or managing it all themselves in certain cases they are ensuring quality in markets where they believe it would be compromised if they allowed competitors to handle any aspect of the user experience. ‘It was never intended to be anti-competitive behavior, Your Honor’. The request was denied, at least in part, and the suit continues with some portions ruled out by the judge. So depending how that all pans out they would likely make a similar argument if a related complaint came up about the App store specifically.
They aren’t the same apps. The app sold in the Android store can not function on an iPad, which makes them different. Besides, read my quote again. There is no requirement for a monopoly to be an anti trust requirement.
Is a market with multiple vendors selling apps for the i family more or less competitive than one with just Apple selling those apps. Clearly it is more competitive. Do Apples actions have the sole intent of maintaining their app store dominance? Clearly they do.
Apple isn’t developing the apps in question, though. Thus your analogy fails. It is more akin to Kellog’s taking steps to prevent non-approved spoons, bowls, milk, and fruit being used with their cereal.
Again, it depends on what you call the Market. What is true is that Apple is the sole vendor of software for 160 million devices, in what is sure to be a billion dollar marketpalce. That, to me, is a sufficient install base to consider it a market on its own.
Did they base their legal reasoning on any prior cases? As far as I can tell, the argument is “we should be able to act anti-competitively because we want to”.
There is an alternative app store for the iphone its called cydia, but you need jailbreak your phone to use it.
Atari’s lack of publishing/quality control was a leading cause of the video game market collapse of 1983.