It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.
Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:
"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"
Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?
> You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil ... It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
She lost, she didn't win. Tarbell's confrontation with Rockefeller & Standard Oil and the legal actions of the authorities did the exact opposite of taking down Standard Oil. Standard Oil became even larger and more powerful. JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward. The Standard split itself into a more potent back-office interconnection of separate state chartered monopolies. No longer was there one monopoly controlled by Rockefeller, but numerous, all operating in concert as an oligopoly behind the scenes. The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any anti-monopoly/trust action taken in the US that's been a net positive to the consumer. Can anyone point me to one?
Breaking up Ma Bell into baby Bells just created regional monopolies instead a national one. This was largely before my time, though. I've heard anecdotally that consumer prices went up as a result, but I don't know for certain.
I was negatively affected by AT&T being forced to divest their cable internet business, leading me to become a long-time Comcast customer through no desire of my own. Now, I'm back with AT&T with fiber to the home. Before AT&T ran fiber (just within the last 2 or 3 years), it was a choice between Comcast/Xfinity or terrible DSL.
"JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward."
"The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire."
Yeah, right, Rockefeller's family got richer but the influence of the founders rarely lasts more than a few generations before either the company goes belly-up or it settles into the position of an also-ran.
Sometimes it isn't true but it's more often than not the case with companies that have come to power and riches on a new wave of tech where the founders were instrumental in developing the tech. There are hundreds of examples. Let me list just a few:
* Baldwin Locomotive Works: if you'd said to anyone in the U.S. in 1900 that this famous company would eventually go belly-up in a couple of generations then they'd have said you were mad and would have escorted you to the asylum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Locomotive_Works.
* The Stanley Rule & Level Co. Also around 1900 many would have almost said the same about Stanley, today it's hardly even an also-ran (it now just packages tools made by others). In the latter half of the 19th Century, Stanley along with other parts of New Britain's manufacturing sector was known as the Patent Center of the world. Stanley, had hundreds of patents and one of the key innovators of the time, Justus A. Traut, whose patents Stanley used, was known as the Patent King. Today, few techies would have ever heard of Justus Traut let alone know what he did for the U.S. tool industry.
* Marconi Company, aka the Wireless Telegraph & Signal Company. The once famous Marconi company was one of the biggest and most important electronic companies in the world, it's now long defunct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Company.
* RCA/Radio Corporation of America. Another Guglielmo Marconi operation with the once legendary/infamous David Sarnoff at its helm—it too is now defunct (1986). Not long ago this was the biggest electronics company in the world. For starters, by about 1970, RCA was the principle equipment supplier to over 80% of all radio and TV stations in the U.S. alone (supplying complete turnkey operations). RCA built everything from semiconductors—transistors, ICs (e.g.: its famous 4000 series CMOS) to broadcast videotape recorders to satellites and everything in between. Now there's nothing left but scraps—the best of which were picked up by other companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA. (BTW, I'm quite familiar with this company as I once worked for it, excellent job it was too.)
Like it or not, Microsoft, Google and Apple will most likely go the same way for the very reason that those I've listed above have. In the end, history is against them surviving. Their tech will get tired and outdated and they will not adapt quickly enough (it's especially so with high tech after the founders leave or die off).
If you're a Microsoft, Google or Apple devotee then this seems an inconceivable outcome, for others it cannot come soon enough. However, the majority of the population couldn't give a damn either way.
I'm not arguing that all tech companies are or are not monopolies. I think Google and Facebook are specifically candidates for anti-trust regulation. But I don't see it with Apple at all, especially around this App Store issue, and I'm not really convinced that Amazon is either.
50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is.
They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time, which significantly increases risk.
One press of a button, and your business is obliterated.
Imagine if every car was either Ford or Tesla, and Tesla charged your destinations 30% on everything you do. Every bagel you buy, or every concert you attend.
Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
> 50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway.
> You can't reach them without paying Apple Tax
And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers, and as a developer you don't like that. As a consumer, I love it. If they stop passing those costs and stop collectively bargaining against developers for me then the cost of the iPhone goes up.
> Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model? If it comes to having fewer apps on the Apple App Store or having multiple stores, as an iPhone user I prefer fewer apps for sure.
I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more.
> Isn't this article about Korea?
The choice Korea is making is the same one the EU, Japan, etc. should be making. And ultimately, the same one to make right back at home.
> If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users.
I'm pissed that I could write software for everyone pre-App store. This is all artificial nonsense that Apple invented. There's no cost to run instructions on your mobile CPU.
I hope Tesla starts charging businesses when Tesla customers arrive. Or maybe your clothing brand can charge stores because they keep you from being nude so you can safely buy things without being obscene. It's the same analogy.
> The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers
What costs? Their cartel is pure margin.
They don't charge websites, because it would be impossible and they'd never have been able to bootstrap their device. (Yet they certainly bar browser runtimes so that they maintain complete control.)
> the cost of the iPhone goes up.
No it doesn't. They want more people on their hardware platform so they reap services revenue and can cross sell other devices. They're already making a killing.
Apple can innovate new products and revenue streams with all that money and all those engineers. If the only innovative business they can do is imposing an artificial tax, then they're simply a market distortion.
> As a consumer, I love it.
You love our pain?
> Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model?
> I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more
What if we already listened to the arguments and discussion and just disagree? Maybe you should empathize more with me and not try to change something that I enjoy and have enjoyed since it was originally released? Where's your empathy?
> What costs?
Apple makes money. That money funds the development of the iPhone. It also funds and allows them to create programs and initiatives I support like data privacy labels. If Apple is forced to throw this stuff out, those are costs that I now bear as a consumer. Apple might have to raise the price of the iPhone either directly or indirectly. Or competitive pressures may force them to remove simple payment methods like Apple Pay, not force developers to allow anonymous sign-ons, and other things. From my perspective there is nothing to gain. I don't want two or more App Stores. Period. I want one, just how it is, with Apple dictating the terms. It works well for me. Apple and I are on a team here.
> Their cartel is pure margin. They invented this scheme
Weren't you just complaining about not having high enough margin? So only you get to make money and not Apple or other companies? I'm an Apple shareholder (directly and indirectly). Their margins benefit me directly. Yours? Not so much. So let's not act like it's some big evil David vs Goliath thing. You're running just another business.
> You love our pain?
It might be pain to you, but it certainly isn't to me. I'd rather have far fewer apps than to see things change or have to deal with another App Store. I love my walled garden and developers like you are metaphorically barbarians at the gates coming to destroy a system I enjoy and works well for me. But why would you care about that when you want to make higher margins for your business? Something about empathy I think?
Sorry to sound like an asshole here. Just a hot topic.
Our field is being carved up by giants. It's a harvesting.
Companies like Apple decided to put energy into extraction rather than enrichment.
It's a shame. I wish I or someone like me was in charge, because I see a way to run things much differently and still produce great value for customers, shareholders, and the ecosystem.
Hoping the DOJ or Congress breaks this up since the Apple leadership won't.
It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.
Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:
"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"
Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?