Apple is often accused of being a monopoly. To understand why, you first need to look at their history. We know that Steve Jobs and Steve 'Woz' Wozniak started Apple in Job's garage. The company grew, took on John Sculley, and started work on the Macintosh. Tensions rose as Jobs tried to perfect the Mac. During a standoff where Jobs said it was him or Sculley the board chose Sculley and Jobs got the boot from Apple.
During his time away Jobs created NeXT. While not as big as Apple it had a big following, especially amongst creative people. Apple faltered under Sculley and a few other CEOs which led to Jobs coming back to Apple. With him he bought NeXT which became MacOS X - now known as macOS. Job's managed to convince investors of his idea for Apple and thus saved them from bankruptcy.
In their early existence they were reliant on word of mouth or selling in computer stores. As Apple faltered most computer shops reduced Apple from view. They could sell more cheap and nasty DOS and Windows PCs than they could the more expensive Macs. This caused a lot of problems for Apple until Jobs introduced the world to the Apple Online Store. This was nothing new, Gateway Computers started this and Dell made it big. Apple now had a guaranteed way of getting their machines to their customers. Not only that, but it meant that customers would be getting the latest version of the Mac. This was not guaranteed in the retail stores who would get rid of old stock before getting the latest Macs. The Apple Store can get credit for saving Apple. Now Apple was making a lot more money with less overheads. That money went into R&D which led to the development of the iPod.
The iPod changed many things for Apple. On initial release it was Mac only as it had a FireWire connector. Once Apple went USB and Windows the iPod took off. Getting music onto it was an issue though. iTunes was already available and ripping CDs to MP3. These were then uploaded to the iPod through the same software. But people were wanting an easier way to get music and the music industry wasn't ready. Apple had got ahead of the music industry and the music industry was slow to move.
Jobs loved music and was unhappy with the digital music distribution services available. The worst part was that the music industry required DRM on each track. None of the existing services worked with iPod so Jobs did what Jobs did best... he made his own service. Apple was now in the music distribution services - much to the disgust of The Beatles.
Apple now had two stores that ensured Apple would have access to content for their devices. Apple also made more money selling their devices through their website. But this wasn't the end of the story. A lot of people couldn't buy online either because they didn't know how or because they didn't have a computer. That meant Apple was beholden to salespeople who didn't care about Apple. They made more profit selling cheap PCs. Apple controlled the price of their devices and seller margins were set by Apple. This meant you could go into any store and buy an Apple device for the same price as down the road. Store owners only treated Apple as a way of getting people into their store. This didn't go down too well for Apple so Apple created the brick and mortar versions of their website. Now people could go to an Apple Retail Store and see Apple products promoted the way they deserved. Sales went through the roof. But more was to come.
For many years there had been speculation that Apple was working on a cellphone. Apple had, but no one cottoned on at first during the Keynote speech. Jobs had to repeat "an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator" until people worked it out. On the iPhone's release, developers moaned that you couldn't develop native apps for it. Apple only allowed developers to build web apps for it. Apple weren't happy with the security issues that could result from native apps. But that didn't mean it wasn't on the cards. The next year Apple released the App Store so developers could develop native apps. With this store Apple included a set of rules for developers to follow. If they want to sell their apps on the iOS platform they HAVE to follow those rules. If they do not then their apps don't go on the store. It's simple, it's easy to understand, and it hasn't changed since Day 1. Apple has time and again stated it will NEVER allow side loaded apps nor competing app stores. The reality is that it is not obliged to by law. If it was then the judge in the Epic Games vs Apple trial would have said so and told Apple they had to allow this. The judge instead said that they found no reason to believe Apple has done anything wrong by letter of the law.
The law is the law and according to the law Apple is NOT GUILTY. Thus, according to the law Apple is NOT a monopoly. Whether you agree or not is immaterial. YOU are not the law. YOU are not assigned the role of upholding the law... unless you are a judge.
Apple has the right to set rules for their platform because it's their platform. You can make any argument against this all you want. The reality is that you are wrong to think Apple must change things. You are wrong to suggest Apple is a monopoly. You are wrong because the law says Apple is NOT a monopoly. The court of public opinion does not trump law.
But one commenter decided to prove I was wrong by linking to a bunch of articles that proves I'm wrong. Here's those articles:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee-apple-has-monopoly-power.html
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2020/10/apples-social-monopoly-how-apple-is-monopolizing-the-world
https://www.fastcompany.com/90628510/apple-app-store-monopoly-hearing-arguments
https://www.verdict.co.uk/apple-has-a-monopoly/
Contrary to his claims, I did in fact read those articles. All I could see were accusations and no proven facts. He then rebutted saying what about the statement made by the European Commission?
The European Commission said:
“Apple has a monopoly in the Apple App Store,”
It's an odd statement to be honest. Do they mean as in "you have a friend in me"? Or do they mean as I read it that Apple has a monopoly by having the only Apple App Store? If the latter, it is a non-sensical claim. That's the same as saying "Walmart has a monopoly in Walmart stores". Of course Apple monopolises Apple App Stores, they're the only ones building them. Walmart are the only ones building Walmart stores as well. Is that wrong? Is that a monopoly? NO IT IS NOT. It doesn't control a market. The only market Apple has 100% control over is the market for Apple products. That's not a monopoly, that's simple business.
But what about this statement by the judge in the trial:
"The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
Bold mine.
Does this imply that Apple could be a monopoly but Epic Games failed to prove it? Sure it could. But not according to the Sherman Act it can't. Without the Sherman Act any claim against Apple is like the scene in "Dumb and Dumber":
Roy: "What are the chances of you and me getting together?"
Mary: "Oh, I'd say about one in a million."
Roy: "So what you're saying is... there IS a chance."
Most likely, anyone claiming Apple is a monopoly without the Sherman Act will find Mary has a husband.
Roy: "What was all that 'one in a million' talk about?"
It still could happen with the right attack but this ruling makes it pretty darn difficult:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/09/13/apples-flat-out-victory-will-cause-problems-for-antitrust-regulatory-efforts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-11/apple-ruling-poses-hurdles-for-biden-s-vow-to-tackle-tech-giants
But let's say they do pull it off. What happens if the courts CAN prove Apple is a monopoly? Most likely nothing. The DOJ more or less proved Microsoft to be one. NOTHING happened. Slapped with a wet bus ticket and let off with a couple of fines, including one from the European Union. Nothing major happened at all.
Some who call Apple a monopoly call for Apple to be split into different companies. They call for macOS and iOS to be split from the Mac and iPhone. After all isn't a Mac another computer and isn't an iPhone another phone? Saying that proves they don't know a thing about Apple's devices. What would a Mac with Windows or Linux be like or an iPhone running Android? Here's how to explain it.
Take your best friend. Remove their brain and transplant someone else's brain into their body. Then transplant their brain into that person's body. Who is your best friend? Is it the body or the brain? It's neither. Neither the body or the brain are your best friend because your best friend is the body AND the brain.
Taking macOS from a Mac or iOS from an iPhone is your grandad with dementia. Sure in body it's the same person but the thing that made your grandad your grandad is gone. You can't have a Mac without macOS or an iPhone without iOS. They aren't the product you know and trust and get things done with.
So we come full circle. Apple NEEDED to build the Apple Store, iTunes Store, Apple Retail Stores, and the App Store to survive. Without them Apple wouldn't exist. It needed to control everything. Retail outlets and multimedia industries didn't care about Apple. They made music with DRM that didn't work on Macs. They made movies with similar non-Mac DRM. Apple built iTunes store to allow iPods and Macs to play music and movies. No one cared about Apple devices at all. They do now. They only care about Apple's control because they can't control Apple. Rather than accepting that they make more money because of Apple they fear Apple.
Apple built the App Store to protect the user experience. It also built it to ensure developers would create software for iPhone. Sure it set some rules as what a developer could make. No one cared so much until developers started making freemium titles. They were circumventing Apple's 30% cut by making the title free. Then they would tell customers to go to their website and buy stuff to enhance their titles. Realising that this could affect the user experience, Apple developed the in-app service. The rule was that if you used it you paid 30%. Fair enough. If you chose NOT to use it you were not allowed to promote the use of your website for purchasing within the app. A little borderline but nothing major. You could still link to your own website but the link would take you to Safari not an in-app browser. Netflix went this latter route. It hasn't affected them. Why would it affect others?
The judges ruling only attacked this part of Apple's actions. It is forcing Apple to allow this advertising. It forces Apple to allow developers to use things like PayPal, Stripe, or even the possible use of crypto. But developers MUST also include the option to continue to use Apple's IAP system.
"[Apple is] restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app,"
Once again, bold is mine.
It is of note that Apple only has to make this change. If Apple was extending its legal abilities the judge would have forced more than this change. There is no call for Apple to end IAP or their 30% fee. There's no call to reduce this fee. There's no call to split Apple into separate companies or the OSs from the devices. They only have to allow links or button calls as well as IAP.
Apple hasn't done anything wrong other than find a way to survive. Their way helped so many other people including developers. This in turn allowed Apple to thrive. But people with small minds can't allow other people to be successful. They feel they need to destroy them. And so they make baseless claims.
"Apple is a monopoly" is one of them.
