But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules.
Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.
Can Android install firmware without carrier approval? I know that they've structured things so many updates can be installed without a true firmware update but I was under the impression the carrier restrictions still existed in some form.
That's true, but what percent or android phones bought every year our carrier specific models? I'm guessing it's a very high percentage. So for the average user things are restricted by the carrier.
I think they meant how Apple is able to update iPhones without first getting permission from the phone carriers, whereas on Android & Windows Phone the OS updates for devices can be delayed by the carrier imposing a certification process before it is released.
For example, here's an Australian phone carrier / ISP blocking updates to Google Nexus devices on their network:
The meaning seemed clear, I think the question is why requiring carrier approval is a good idea? Ignoring security and other such things, it's only a cost for the carriers to update the software and they sell lots of phones so it's their your best interest to delete all software updates to make you buy a new or phone to get the new features.
That's why iPhones get regular updates, the carriers are involved. That's why Google has been moving Android to have most things in a piece of software they can update without actual carrier approval, so the phones don't get stuck in the Stone Age.
Is there a single benefit to the carriers getting to choose if an update should be approved?
The Google support pages say "Based on your carrier, it may take longer than two weeks after release to get an update." See the section marked Timing For Android Software Updates and click on Nexus devices.
I'm not saying that it's RIGHT that carriers block updates for anyone. I'm saying that was a rule that was in place by carriers before Apple came along and made a stink about it. Now they're complaining about Spotify trying to get Apple to change their rules.
After spending multiple years having agreed to the original deal.
In fact Apple IMPROVED the deal this year when they said that for people who have been a subscriber for over year they'll cut their fee to 15%. I believe it may even have been applied slightly retroactively.
Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite.
> Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite.
Actually Spotify has been privately complaining for years. Obviously Spotify are "loudly complaining" NOW because Apple launched a directly competing product to Spotify last year.
- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP.
Sibling comment covers this perfectly.
- Fast lanes for their services with ISPs.
I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this?
- Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music.
You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? The kind that lots of goods are sold with? Or are you talking about getting rid of the right for Apple to undercut the price of the book and force the publishers to eat the loss?
It's not like Amazon had a ridiculous giant horrible stranglehold on the eBook industry right?
Which one? The one that asked if it was wrong for carriers to block updates in the first place? Right vs wrong isn't my concern here.
Here is the sum of my comment: Apple used their market pressure to make carriers (and others) change. Now they're whining about somebody trying to make them change.
That's all.
I didn't say that I have evidence that they force carriers to do anything through any means other than market pressure.
> You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause?
No. I mean the illegal price fixing that they were convicted of 3 times. You can read the rulings here:
The final ruling - "In June 2015, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote concurs with Judge Cote that Apple conspired to e-book price fixing and violated federal antitrust law."
I'm not a believer in the idea that breaking up an illegal monopoly by selling books under a reasonable contract the publishers came up with before Apple was involved is a criminal act on Apple's part.
That case never made sense except as a way to generate headlines by attacking Apple.
Amazon had a TRUE monopoly in eBooks and WAS abusing it.
The fact of the matter is Amazon had a huge lion's share of the market for e-books (measured by $$$). They had such a huge monopoly position that they could dictate terms to all publishers, more than once they refused to carry a publishers e-books (effectively killing them) if a publisher didn't agreed to some terms that Amazon wanted. They would stop selling PHYSICALS books to push the contract. Since no one else old e-books in any reasonable quantity, Amazon was in the monopsony position of being the only real buyer.
So not only did they do that, what they really like doing with selling Kindles. And a great way to sell Kindles is to discount the books below the actual selling price; eating the loss and making the publishers e-books on other platforms (as well as physical books) worth less. To a fair degree it didn't matter to Amazon if the prices were unsustainable, it fueled growth in their devices which fueled growth in their profits.
And then they would do something like push Prime since you could get free books that way (more loss for publishers) and Amazon would make up the money. And the publishers could either choose to go along with it and get a small price for each book or say no and get all their e-books pulled.
Plus Amazon had cable direct, which was a publishing platform that anyone could access. This meant that they had TONS of content by authors who were willing to sell it dirt cheap. This put the publishers in the same position that the media is right now competing with YouTube. And of course some of those books were actually really really good (Silo series by Howey) and became great sellers. Maybe even books that the publishers had passed on. It wasn't all garbage. So Amazon could show the publishers that they weren't nearly as necessary as the publishers thought they were.
Apple NEVER did anything like that. When Apple sold music it was at a flat price. They never undercut the publisher. After a little while to even let the publishers raise prices. And the whole time selling on the iTunes Music Store was an option since you could still sell CDs or sell to other DRM music stores like Amazon.
Amazon was easily the standard oil of the e-book market. They WERE the e-book market. No one ever went after them.
Then Apple came along, is part of the deal with publishers that broke Amazons monopoly, and they got an antitrust suit. None of that makes any sense to me.
> That's not true. The fact of the matter is Amazon had a huge lion's share of the market for e-books (measured by $$$).
As does/did Apple with the iPod and the iTunes digital music store. Apple had 70%+ market share for over a decade and could dictate terms to publishers as well.
> They had such a huge monopoly position that they could dictate terms to all publishers, more than once they refused to carry a publishers e-books (effectively killing them) if a publisher didn't agreed to some terms that Amazon wanted. They would stop selling PHYSICALS books to push the contract.
The publishers decided to connect both physical books and eBooks rights in a contract. Amazon had to stop selling the physical books when those contracts expired.
> So not only did they do that, what they really like doing with selling Kindles. And a great way to sell Kindles is to discount the books below the actual selling price; eating the loss and making the publishers e-books on other platforms (as well as physical books) worth less. To a fair degree it didn't matter to Amazon if the prices were unsustainable, it fueled growth in their devices which fueled growth in their profits.
And then they would do something like push Prime since you could get free books that way (more loss for publishers) and Amazon would make up the money. And the publishers could either choose to go along with it and get a small price for each book or say no and get all their e-books pulled.
Plus Amazon had cable direct, which was a publishing platform that anyone could access. This meant that they had TONS of content by authors who were willing to sell it dirt cheap. This put the publishers in the same position that the media is right now competing with YouTube. And of course some of those books were actually really really good (Silo series by Howey) and became great sellers. Maybe even books that the publishers had passed on. It wasn't all garbage. So Amazon could show the publishers that they weren't nearly as necessary as the publishers thought they were.
Apple NEVER did anything like that. When Apple sold music it was at a flat price. They never undercut the publisher. After a little while to even let the publishers raise prices. And the whole time selling on the iTunes Music Store was an option since you could still sell CDs or sell to other DRM music stores like Amazon.
The DOJ looked at Amazon's books and found that despite the sale prices for many bestsellers the Amazon ebook division made profit as whole so it wasn't unsustainable. The bestseller ebook sale prices were no different than the Walmart hardcover book sale prices or a grocery milk sale prices i.e. a standard retailer loss-leader retail strategy. And publishers didn't lose money on these ebook as they were paid a set amount no matter Amazon's sale price.
Amazon's preference for lower digital prices were no different from Apple's. Prior to the iTunes Store, music publishers sold singles for $3.99 and preferred to sell whole albums. Apple negotiated that $.99 per track and that the album be broken up so customers could buy any individual track. Apple also let indies upload their music to the iTunes Store. And Apple had their own free music promotions; Apple used to give away a free single on the iTunes Store every week. All in service of course of the iPod hardware profits as Apple infamously barely made back their margin with iTunes Store squeezing out other digital music store competitors.
It's worth pointing out that the book market was particularly perverse compared to the music market. The book publishers practiced a version of windowing (some still to this day) where books are released exclusively as expensive hardcovers for months before later being made available as paperbacks/ebooks. That would be the equivalent of the music publishers demanding everybody purchase vinyl versions if they want an album at launch! Amazon's fight to reduce the prices of books and make simultaneous release of all versions was a clear win for customers even if it reduced the worth of hardcovers and publishers inflated profits.
> Amazon was easily the standard oil of the e-book market. They WERE the e-book market. No one ever went after them.
Amazon was not the first to the ebook market (Sony released the first ebook reader) but they were the best for customers. Just like Apple was the best music player for customers and reduced music prices despite having a monopoly.
>
Then Apple came along, is part of the deal with publishers that broke Amazons monopoly, and they got an antitrust suit. None of that makes any sense to me.
Well obviously even if you're right — Amazon was an evil monopoly bad for customers — that's does NOT give Apple and the publishers the right to break the law in order to take down Amazon. The Apple and publishers collusion was a textbook antitrust case and resulted in higher prices and poorer experiences for customers. It was a bad move by Apple and the publishers.
- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP.
- Fast lanes for their services with ISPs.
- Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.)
- Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music.
The list goes on and on and on. Apple has always tried to work it so they get preferential treatment from every angle.