> Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's no money to be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly inferior just because Apple are being dicks.
It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too.
Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?
I recall reading that Android was shipped on more phones in Q4 than iOS. If true, how can you consider Apple a monopoly if they aren't even the most popular mobile OS out there?
Android was shipped on three times as many phones as iOS in Q4 (in the US).
You might be confusing it with the fact that installed base of Android is now equal to iOS on smartphones. (It's not yet caught up with iOS across phones, pods and pads)
Correct me if you disagree, but it sounds like there is a pretty healthy non-monopolistic ecosystem in the mobile market, doesn't it? It confuses me how people can equate Apple with a monopoly, when they clearly are not controlling the entire market (unless you reduce the market to "Apple App Store", which really doesn't make sense).
Well, I'm probably not a typical case, because I'm European and have an economics degree so I see the core problem with IT today as being the constant chasing after network effects and monopolies. How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?
On the other hand, I think Android has already earned its place as the next Windows, which I'm glad of, because it's open source which avoids the possibility of it being abused too much.
But monopolies are about power rather than simple numbers. One good test would be if Apple can single-handedly dictate a price rise across the industry, which is one possible outcome of this latest announcement. Though, I actually think the interlocking demands are specifically intended to remove certain competitors from iOS without explicitly naming and kicking them out, much like they blocked Flash apps via over-broad limitations on programming language choice.
I definitely see where you're coming from -- excellent point, mentioning that monopolies are about power, not numbers.
However, your comment, "How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?" stuck out. From my perspective, the fallacy there is that we as a society exist as something more than a collection of individuals. I read a very interesting article today about how Darwin might actually be a better economic father, as opposed to Adam Smith. The reasoning was that Darwin's theory explains self-interest outside of the context of society; that individuals act in their best interests which may or may not benefit society.
Perhaps our differences are down to our backgrounds. Europe, as a whole, tends to look at the societal unit, whereas Americans tend to look at the individual level, where societal consequences are emergent behavior.
Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known Ask Netscape. Does its resemblance to Microsoft in the '90s make Apple's actions more justifiable somehow?
You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today.
And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
Regarding your first paragraph: Are you seriously suggesting that the iPhone, iPod and iPad are anything but ridiculously profitable without Apple taking a 30% cut from Pandora? Apple's reports to its shareholders seem to indicate otherwise. (And if you're not claiming that, bringing up Sun is a red herring.)
Regarding your second paragraph: I agree with you. The Mac is the best personal computing platform, yet it is not a monopoly. But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
>But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
They don't. Doesn't Android actually have more apps in their app store? It really is what the parent said: the Apple market place is just better, it's not any kind of monopoly.
|Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition
Do you even know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do.
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
So tell me what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/
There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them.
It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too.
Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.