I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest.
Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.
I'm probably more progressive than most on HN, and would love to see big conglomerates broken up.
But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons.
1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena.
2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like.
3) This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble.
If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. That's much more of a legitimate antitrust complaint than Apple controlling what content they host in the App Store.
> If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS.
I agree, because this is practically the same issue. The app store isn't just a way to get iOS software, it's the only way to get iOS software. Which means that being rejected from the app store means you cannot provide your product to those consumers. Which means Apple rejecting products from the store is the same thing as Apple stating that that company cannot provide that app to customers. You could see where this might become an issue when that reason for rejection has nothing to do with the actual application and everything to do with mentioning a competing product in the description.
If side-loading was permitted, then I think (2) would hold. However, in our current world without side-loading, (2) basically states that Apple has full control over what software products consumers may purchase for their device. IANAL, but to me, that fact could bring antitrust liability.
We only differ on whether Apple should be compelled to host content it doesn't want to. I would say no, but it should be compelled to allow iPhone owners to modify their devices and install third party software.
I actually haven't stated a position on solutions, only that IMO the current state opens them up to liability. I think allowing for applications to be side-loaded would be a fine solution.
> This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble.
Seeing as Apple only started enforcing this against apps advertising Pebble support after coming out with the Apple Watch, yes, this very much is being brought out to squash Pebble.
> Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like.
So Amazon has the right to forbid the sales of Apple TVs and Rokus on Amazon.com now that they've come out with the Fire TV and friends? I guess it also has the right to forbid the sales of iPads now that it's selling Kindle Fire HDs, or forbid the sales of books that are being made available for B&N's Nook (or some other non-Kindle e-reader).
While we're at it, I guess Microsoft has the right to strong-arm OEMs into selling Windows with their PCs exclusively.
How much farther would you like to take this?
> Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena.
They have significant influence (if you don't believe me, look at how many "Show HN" posts about mobile apps focus on iOS without even mentioning Android unless somebody asks in the comments, and even then).
Barring this, this would be an attempt to establish vendor lock-in, which is one of several means of effecting a vertical monopoly (and one of the more harmful ways to consumers).
> If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS.
I agree completely. The lack of an ability to sideload apps as a normal user (and no, jailbreaking doesn't count) makes this already-scummy situation that much worse.
Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.