Is Apple now abusing its iPhone/App Store market position?
Summary: An interesting story posted up on TechDirt suggests that Apple is abusing the power it wields by having created the iPhone/App Store ecosystem.
An interesting story posted up on TechDirt suggests that Apple is abusing the power it wields by having created the iPhone/App Store ecosystem.
The story revolves around Apple's decision to block Google's location-tracking service called Latitude from the iPhone while at the same time trying to patent a similar technology.
Now, the question as to who developed the app first and whether Apple's patent application is valid is up to bureaucracy and possibly the court system to decide, but the way that Apple seems to be leveraging the App Store approval policy to gain the upper hand on competitors is certain to raise a few eyebrows.
I say "seems too be leveraging" because it's hard to know the ins and outs of the story. Google launched Latitude back in February 2009, while Apple's patent application was filed back in June 2008. Also, it's hard to know what level of privilege those approving or denying apps have. Are apps supplied by big hitters such as Google looked at by the same folks that wade through the fart machines and notebook apps, or do they undergo more (or less) scrutiny?
Another issue here is how long can Apple play the "duplicates functionality" card to keep rejecting apps without that becoming a monopoly monkey on the company's back? While some small "at home" developer, or even a small to medium sized dev house might not have the power to mount an assault on Apple, a big hitter such as Google sure does.
Some else to keep an eye on in 2010.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Probably nothing illegal about it
approval policy to gain the upper hand on
competitors is certain to raise a few
eyebrows.[/i]
But as an app developer, I would [b]never[/b]
release any sort of application for the App
Store knowing that Apple would just turn around
and steal it from me. Google is learning first
hand just how backstabbing a "partner" Apple
is.
With 3 Billion downloads
But I'd bet that Palm would love to talk to you, girl. Check in with them.
For the open minded it's pretty obvious that Apple is doing what Apple
wants to do. Some companies and/or developers will work with them
and do pretty well. Others prefer the warm & fuzzy feelings you get
when you work with, say, MS.
Ignoring the troll bait
Its worse than thrying to force MSN on people in windows 95, far worse than bundling works or office (or even Internet explorer).
Ask yourself this if MS made the iphone would they be allowed to do this? the answer is almost certainly no as it the situation with the ipod.
Whats this have to do with MS
Guess that makes it OK now.
DEFLECT!!!!
defensive because their immediate reaction is to
introduce MS to any topic.
@NonZealot
Links please!!
that would stoop that low[/i]
Where did I do this?
@NonZealot
Re; @NonZealot
I don't know about his other posts, but this one seems to state the obvious, which is that Apple is doing the same things that MS did in the past, which led to the Justice Dept. suits against MS.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that Apple is guilty of some anti-competitive activities. However, it would appear that their limited market share protects them on that front. If the iPhone ever becomes the dominant Mobile platform (or if justice somehow combines DAPs with the iPhone, then maybe things will change).
Personally, i think Apple is about as MS was 15+ years ago.
Are you sure about that?
obvious, which is that Apple is doing the same things that MS did in
the past, which led to the Justice Dept. suits against MS.[/i]
Let's see. One of those was about bundling IE with the OS--that
seems to be the most relevant one here. However, what you seem to
conveniently ignore is that MS not only bundled IE, but went out of
their way to prevent any other browser from operating in Windows. Is
this really what you feel Apple is doing? I can't say one way or the
other, myself, but I do know that Apple sure isn't preventing any other
browser from operating in OS X.
Which reminds me: Why don't web pages created in Front Page parse
properly in other browsers?
@notsofast
You obviously don't know what Microsoft was like 15+ years ago then.
@vulpine
Where'd you get that from? There was never a complaint, case or conviction in either the US or UK that MS was preventing alternative browsers from being installed or used.
Netscape, Opera, Firefox, and now Chrome and Safari all install and work as intended on any supported (by the developer) OS.
@rtk
It was brought up in the anti-trust case and Microsoft was order by the court to make it easier for someone to use an alternate browser. Look it up.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
I searched for quite a while on your link
The case was about not allowing the uninstallation of IE.
edit: more accurately, there's nothing about the end user using a different browser, or MS doing anything to prevent the installation or use of an alternate browser by an end user.
Firefox's marketshare before the UK fiasco showed how pointless the entire affair really was.
@rtk
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#v
Here is some quotes starting at 170
"First, they did not provide users with the ability to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows 98."
"The second way in which Microsoft's engineers implemented Allchin's strategy was to make Windows 98 override the user's choice of default browser in certain circumstances."
"Microsoft's refusal to respect the user's choice of default browser fulfilled Brad Chase's 1995 promise to make the use of any browser other than Internet Explorer on Windows 'a jolting experience.'"
Face it rtk, Microsoft broke the law and did every illegal thing in their monopoly power to crush Netscape, and they did so very quickly. Oh and that was only after Netscape refuse to illegally collude with them and divide the market.
Let's go back to Vulpine's original claim
This is false, other browsers operated just fine on windows.
The default browser ruse was about Windows Update requiring IE.
@rtk
Why? so you can try and wipe the egg off your face?
@Axsimulate
@rtk
I realized the error and admitted it and corrected it. Microsoft may not have prevented any other browser to be installed, but they jumped through hoops to make it as "jolting" as they possibly could so the user would gravitate back to IE. No matter how you try to spin it, that's pure malice. And that is the way Microsoft treats its customers, the way only a monopoly could, full of contempt. And you apparently approve of this behavior. Because you defend them from this despicable behavior.
@ Axsimulate
No, they didn't, and no court found that they did. They made it hard to remove IE, not use another browser. At the time WU used ActiveX, therefore requiring IE to update Windows. As well, many small developers coded their programs to not look for the default browser, but to just launch the browser they knew for sure would be there, namely IE.
Most of those have now been "fixed", but none of them prevented you from using an alternative browser and there were no hoops or jolts to deal with.
[i]No matter how you try to spin it, that's pure malice.[/i]
Except of course that the spin is yours, since the malicious parts have been fabricated.
[i]And you apparently approve of this behavior. Because you defend them from this despicable behavior[/i]
I've happily and successfully used Fx as my default browser since it was Phoenix and Firebird, more than 5 years ago, as have millions of others. There's nothing to defend against.