They can let people know it exists through any number of ways. They just can’t bundle that advertisement explicitly into product they sell on the App Store. But they actually do (in the radio spots). They just can’t do it in plain text.
Again, this is can be true in other places in retail as well. Walmart may not be happy if I slap a giant sticker on my box that says, “Buy direct from us for less!” Sometimes the stores don’t care. Sometimes they do. If they don’t like it they reserve the right to kick you off the shelf or ask you to remove it.
You keep conflating Apple's store with Apple's hardware. All of Apple's policies would be fine if they allowed any store on their hardware, because then other stores could have other policies.
But since Apple doesn't allow other stores, it's not the same as regular retail, because the consumer can't choose another store with better policies.
No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain.
I understand that a lot of people really want to use Apple phones, because they feel that they are superior to Android phones. But this is not a monopoly, it's literally how the market is supposed to work.
You can't walk into a Walmart physical store and ask to see their embedded Target store. Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.
>No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain.
Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation.
>Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.
No, they aren't. You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example.
> Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation.
Antitrust law considers the entire market, not just how one company treats their own customers. Apple's policies have no effect on your ability to sell apps on Android.
Here's an example of what would be potentially anti-competitive behavior by Apple: if they made 3rd party developers sign exclusivity contracts that said in order to sell in the Apple App Store, they have to agree to NOT sell a version of the same app in the Google Play store. That would be Apple using its position in the market to exclude competition.
But Apple does not do this. Developers are free to release the same app on Apple and Android, and customers are free to buy into the Apple system or the Android system. Competition exists and is robust. In fact, as measured by unit sales and installed base, Android is arguably ahead of Apple.
> You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example.
This is Apple's choice in how they configure those computers; it's not legally mandated.
>Antitrust law considers the entire market not just how one company treats their own customers. Apple's policies have no effect on your ability to sell apps on Android
Android and iOS are separate markets. Let's say I have a hugely popular app on iOS that I make millions a month selling. Some company comes out with an exact replica for Android and begins giving it away for free. The impact on my sales will basically be zero. There are few people out there that own an Android and iOS device and even fewer that will switch based on one app.
>Developers are free to release the same app on Apple and Android, and customers are free to buy into the Apple system or the Android system.
Again, you can't use your position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). The existence of a competitor or competitors in phone sales doesn't change that.
>This is Apple's choice in how they configure those computers; it's not legally mandated.
Does that mean you no longer think this:
>Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.
The textbook examples are Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T and Microsoft. It's closest to the Microsoft example, but when you actually READ the textbook you realize the Microsoft example really focuses on specific actions that Microsoft took to prevent companies from promoting Netscape. Much of the Microsoft example was about intent. Moreover, the case was settled and the government dropped the case.
Only if you independently know that it exists. They can't link out to their web store. Apple can though.