5 ms·

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

by tdkl 10y ago

dirkdk 10y ago
True. Just that I bet with the $$$ that iPhone owners have, a massive chunk of Spotify's revenue comes from iPhone owners
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.
- xemoka 10y ago
  In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    You're conflating a website owned and operating by the company, and consumer's personal devices owned and operated by the consumer.
    - redial 10y ago
      Should Microsoft be forced to let Sony sell Playstation games on the XBox?
      - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
        If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist. A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.
        redial 10y ago
        What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal. In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.
        UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
        We're discussing competition law. Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment. As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.
        redial 10y ago
        You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
        UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
- redial 10y ago
  Yes. If you define the market the way it suits you you'll always be right.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  We don't, though. We define the "market" as mobile in general. As such, they are extremely far from a monopoly.
samfisher83 10y ago
Look at Herfindahl index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index It is over .25 which means the government will scrutinize it.
canuckintime 10y ago
Apple/iTunes has(had?) the dominant marketshare for digital music retail in the USA
- MBCook 10y ago
  That's true it did, but there were perfectly reasonable alternatives such as CDs. That was always the problem with the argument against iTunes Music Store. As time went on other DRM free stores came around like Amazon. The difference with the App Store (full disclosure: I don't think there's anti-trust issues here) is that it's THE ONLY place to buy apps for iOS. There's no place to get a substitute (HTML isn't competitive). The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.
  - canuckintime 10y ago
    > The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store. Well what makes the case compelling to the original parent point is not exclusive access but market share. Apple's iPod (hardware players) and iTunes Store (digital music store) had a dominant 70%+ USA market share for most of the past decade. In comparison the iPhone has been between 40%-50% USA market share for the past 5 years (the iPad though has 60%-70%+ market share). What makes a case compelling for Anti-trust issues though is not market share per se but ABUSE of that market share. A compelling case can be made that Apple is using their market share to muscle in from the digital music downloads business to the digital music streaming business (preferential links between iTunes and Apple Music etc) with unfair tactics against Spotify and other competitors (Rdio for one has already been driven out of business)

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

by tdkl 10y ago

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

True. Just that I bet with the $$$ that iPhone owners have, a massive chunk of Spotify's revenue comes from iPhone owners

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.

xemoka 10y ago
In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  You're conflating a website owned and operating by the company, and consumer's personal devices owned and operated by the consumer.
  - redial 10y ago
    Should Microsoft be forced to let Sony sell Playstation games on the XBox?
    - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
      If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist. A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.
      - redial 10y ago
        What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal. In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.
        UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
        We're discussing competition law. Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment. As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.
        redial 10y ago
        You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
        UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
redial 10y ago
Yes. If you define the market the way it suits you you'll always be right.
st3v3r 10y ago
We don't, though. We define the "market" as mobile in general. As such, they are extremely far from a monopoly.

samfisher83 10y ago

Look at Herfindahl index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index It is over .25 which means the government will scrutinize it.

canuckintime 10y ago

Apple/iTunes has(had?) the dominant marketshare for digital music retail in the USA

MBCook 10y ago
That's true it did, but there were perfectly reasonable alternatives such as CDs. That was always the problem with the argument against iTunes Music Store. As time went on other DRM free stores came around like Amazon. The difference with the App Store (full disclosure: I don't think there's anti-trust issues here) is that it's THE ONLY place to buy apps for iOS. There's no place to get a substitute (HTML isn't competitive). The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.
- canuckintime 10y ago
  > The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store. Well what makes the case compelling to the original parent point is not exclusive access but market share. Apple's iPod (hardware players) and iTunes Store (digital music store) had a dominant 70%+ USA market share for most of the past decade. In comparison the iPhone has been between 40%-50% USA market share for the past 5 years (the iPad though has 60%-70%+ market share). What makes a case compelling for Anti-trust issues though is not market share per se but ABUSE of that market share. A compelling case can be made that Apple is using their market share to muscle in from the digital music downloads business to the digital music streaming business (preferential links between iTunes and Apple Music etc) with unfair tactics against Spotify and other competitors (Rdio for one has already been driven out of business)