I do think it’s notable that (a) the iPod is what really pushed Apple off the brink and into the mainstream, setting them on the path that got them to be the biggest tech company in the world and (b) the iPod really took off once Windows users could buy it, and Apple would not have been able to do this if Microsoft had the same rules in place that Apple has over the iPhone and iPad.
Microsoft traditionally did the OS, and left hardware and apps to others. This led to a huge market for PC hardware, open to true competition. It also led to a really robust market for windows apps, also open to competition.
Love or hate windows, but this greatly benefited computer users and led to a great year over year decline in the cost of computing.
Apple on the other hand has inserted itself to tightly control hardware and software on its platforms (somewhat less on macos). But it is only passably to the benefit of computer/phone/tablet users. It drove the price users were willing to pay for software to zero, and maintained or inflated the price of its hardware year over year.
and the worst part, users don't really have sovereignty over their devices or software. You can't know what your phone is doing. You can't see who it communicates with. And you can't control or opt-out of anything unless apple allows it in the ways apple allows it.
I would like to know what's running on my phone. I'd like to see what apps are doing, who they are communicating with and what they are sending. And I'd like to be able to say no to what I don't like, possibly in a way that apple hates. I'd like to run my own apps, without asking apple for permission, and with no restrictions.
This comparison to Windows and MSFT is really interesting. And it is really crazy how much we’ve accepted from Apple regarding lock-in. I’m impressed that the Apple Watch made it in the lawsuit exactly because it feels like a niche product because of the plethora of other smartwatches. But the anti-competitive behaviors in so many little decisions stifle innovation in the space and prevent basic consumer choices. And the trend over the last 20 years has only been getting worse. The Apple Watch is more locked down than iPhones which are much more locked down than PCs. Just been a bad trend in computing that 80s Apple benefitted from in a way that today’s Apple doesn’t allow.
Microsoft was a large owner (7% stake) in Apple when this stuff was happening. It seems a little bit off to use Microsoft's implicit support of their investment (Apple) as a rationale for why Apple should support companies it has no direct interest in. Microsoft stopped so playing nicely with Apple after divesting -- for a very long time they stopped releasing anything for Apple's platforms.
The biggest sin of Apple's business is the fact that no new platform can be built inside the iOS platform. When Windows got extremely high market share and solidified Microsoft's dominance over the desktop OS market, the web browser gave a chance for new companies to emerge to build on top of the desktop OS paradigm, like Google Search and Amazon. Now, no new platform can be built off of iOS because Apple doesn't allow alternate App Stores and Safari is crippled. You can't create a whacky app because Apple will most likely reject it however they see fit The Apple walled garden is basically a black hole and Apple sucks all the energy to themselves. Nothing can escape it.
The idea that real “wealth” can’t be built on the back of the iPhone is out of line with the facts.
Uber has a market cap of $160B. A not-insignificant fraction of Meta’s $1.2T value is derived from Instagram (which was notoriously iPhone-only when it took off like a rocket).
Apple has chosen to toll the specific market of digital goods delivered outside the open web. Even there, much wealth has been built: Before they decided it wasn’t worth the “broker fee”, Netflix was far and away the highest grossing app in the store for years on end.
Ride-sharing (as a meatspace sale) never fell under Apple’s 30% IAP fee.
And as I pointed out, Netflix was for a long time willing to pay a massive aggregate fee (though not 30%, terms of their deal with Apple have not been disclosed).
Also, you may have heard something in the news recently about TikTok.
Right, so Uber got grandfathered in (a startup unlocking a new style of market a-la Uber wouldn't get the same treatment for sure!), Netflix got a sweetheart deal because they were already dominant in the space, and the only new app you can cite is TikTok, an ad-supported service that until recently didn't sell anything at all.
I don't see how this helps your case. Basically the only way to win on iOS with a new idea is to pay apple, or be big enough that Apple doesn't want to lose your customers. That's a complete non-starter for (heh) startups.
Arguably TikTok started as Musical.ly – that's where the popularity outside of China originated from, and ByteDance acquired them for the userbase because it was taking off. That said, it also started in China.
I mean, the recommendation tech is pretty clearly ByteDance, and that's really (IMO) what drove TikTok's popularity, in a way that Musical.ly never really was.
My issue with Apple has been less about green vs blue text and more about how they lockout to lockin. In effect you can’t make equally competing products around and on the iPhone unless Apple supports and has decided the API, or user default options for the OS is safe for their business to make public. Innovation around the phone is steered and gatekept by Apple for when Apple is ready, not if the hardware is. This article makes a good point about the iPod and iTunes on Windows.
There are lesser known examples of policy based lockouts like mobiussync for syncthing being held back by background scheduling limitations or that bit torrent software isn’t allowed.
Then also there’s the issue of control center only allowing Apple builtin (unchangeable) default app controls… when interestingly a number of these have become more than just preinstalled conveniences but are now also fronting funnels to an iCloud subscription.
Lots of comments about "I’m no lawyer" and "But is this illegal? Once again, I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know," which makes the conclusion a bit, um, weird:
"A lot of this feels yucky, and none of the things mentioned in the case should be a surprise to anyone who has been following the Apple space for years. That said, it’s one thing for me to blog that Apple should change something, it’s another thing when the DOJ says it’s illegal. I think the DOJ has an uphill battle in winning this case..."
Imagine if MSFT didn’t allow iPods on Windows or took 30% of every song sold in iTunes. Crazy how much we’ve been collectively gaslit. Apple helped the anti-trust case against MSFT.
> A path-clearing antitrust enforcement case, brought by the United States and state attorneys general, against Microsoft opened the market and constrained Microsoft’s ability to prohibit companies like Apple from offering iTunes on Xbox.
Learning other people's perspectives helps broaden your own, and if you don't agree then formulating a counter-argument helps consolidate and crystalize your position.
Had never considered this, great points.