3 ms·

I don't understand how Apple isn't facing intense antitrust lawsuits. Compared to Microsoft in the 90s, Apple is far worse in the ways that it unfairly competes

by leoh 9y ago

I don't understand how Apple isn't facing intense antitrust lawsuits. Compared to Microsoft in the 90s, Apple is far worse in the ways that it unfairly competes: * any competitor has to pay a portion of its revenue for every sale to Apple * apps cannot use private APIs that would otherwise greatly enhance usability and value * little to no integration with built in services; for example, I can't tell Siri "play the Beatles on Spotify" I would refuse to use Apple Music over Spotify because I feel that Apple is playing dirty. Luckily, I don't even think about using Apple Music because I feel it's an inferior product.

caconym_ 9y ago
The article says Spotify has "nearly twice" the number of subscribers, so maybe that's why? (no snark intended, these numbers are new to me) I feel like maybe these days such anticompetitive practices are just felt more strongly by consumers because subscription-based walled gardens (often involving locked hardware) are being pushed in seemingly every market where it even vaguely makes sense, from food and drink to professional software.
sien 9y ago
Android has 80+% of the global market in mobile operating systems. MacOS has about 5% of the desktop. MS have about 90% of the desktop. Apple are very profitable but they only have a monopoly on their own products. It's more like Nintendo does on the Switch than MS in 1990.
m0th87 9y ago
If apple had the same market dominance as Microsoft did in the 90s, they likely would be pegged for antitrust violations.
IBM 9y ago
I keep this answer by Keith Rabois bookmarked for whenever this question pops up [1]: >Simple answer: American antirust law is not a mandate to "play nice" with competitors and only governs a very small set of prohibited activities. For the most part, a company can do whatever it wants so long as it acts unilaterally. As a result, Apple can do whatever it pleases, period, so long as it does not act in concert with another company. The only exception to this rule is when a company has achieved "monopoly power" in a relevant market, which normally requires a market share (properly defined) of at least 60% and more close to 80%. Apple lacks such a market share in any market, Microsoft was believed to have that share in Operating Systems. (The only exception is an attempt to monopolize claim which would still require at least a market share of 40% to even state a claim. These claims have other elements that would be difficult to satisfy). Finally, even if Apple had the requisite market share to state a non-frivolous claim, American law does not recognize harm to competitors as a legitimate concern, you must establish harm to consumers, which is almost always very challenging unless there is a good theory of how you are raising prices at a super-competitive level. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished/answer/Keith-Rabois https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
inapis 9y ago
You may not like Apple and some of their practices are inherently abhorrent but it is no where in the same league as MS of the 90s. Today, if you want, you can instantly switch away from iOS to a plethora of options. Apple has the highest revenue and maybe the most influence in the industry but their numbers are paltry. Android has 80% share globally and 70% in US. When it came to MS, you didn't really have much of a choice. Something akin to the MS anti trust case would be Google pushing Chrome exclusively on Android and shutting out all competitors. And point two and three are trivial to argue. 2 - increased security is a great counter point. No publicly available apps could abuse private APIs to mine personal data 3 - No one's stopping you from using spotify. It's just not in the way you like.
- leoh 9y ago
  But Apple DOES do this. Safari's integration is so tight with iOS that it's inconvenient to use anything else 100% of the time. They really aren't playing fair.

by leoh 9y ago

caconym_ 9y ago

The article says Spotify has "nearly twice" the number of subscribers, so maybe that's why? (no snark intended, these numbers are new to me) I feel like maybe these days such anticompetitive practices are just felt more strongly by consumers because subscription-based walled gardens (often involving locked hardware) are being pushed in seemingly every market where it even vaguely makes sense, from food and drink to professional software.

sien 9y ago

Android has 80+% of the global market in mobile operating systems. MacOS has about 5% of the desktop. MS have about 90% of the desktop. Apple are very profitable but they only have a monopoly on their own products. It's more like Nintendo does on the Switch than MS in 1990.

m0th87 9y ago

If apple had the same market dominance as Microsoft did in the 90s, they likely would be pegged for antitrust violations.

IBM 9y ago

I keep this answer by Keith Rabois bookmarked for whenever this question pops up [1]: >Simple answer: American antirust law is not a mandate to "play nice" with competitors and only governs a very small set of prohibited activities. For the most part, a company can do whatever it wants so long as it acts unilaterally. As a result, Apple can do whatever it pleases, period, so long as it does not act in concert with another company. The only exception to this rule is when a company has achieved "monopoly power" in a relevant market, which normally requires a market share (properly defined) of at least 60% and more close to 80%. Apple lacks such a market share in any market, Microsoft was believed to have that share in Operating Systems. (The only exception is an attempt to monopolize claim which would still require at least a market share of 40% to even state a claim. These claims have other elements that would be difficult to satisfy). Finally, even if Apple had the requisite market share to state a non-frivolous claim, American law does not recognize harm to competitors as a legitimate concern, you must establish harm to consumers, which is almost always very challenging unless there is a good theory of how you are raising prices at a super-competitive level. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished/answer/Keith-Rabois https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...

inapis 9y ago

You may not like Apple and some of their practices are inherently abhorrent but it is no where in the same league as MS of the 90s. Today, if you want, you can instantly switch away from iOS to a plethora of options. Apple has the highest revenue and maybe the most influence in the industry but their numbers are paltry. Android has 80% share globally and 70% in US. When it came to MS, you didn't really have much of a choice. Something akin to the MS anti trust case would be Google pushing Chrome exclusively on Android and shutting out all competitors. And point two and three are trivial to argue. 2 - increased security is a great counter point. No publicly available apps could abuse private APIs to mine personal data 3 - No one's stopping you from using spotify. It's just not in the way you like.

leoh 9y ago
But Apple DOES do this. Safari's integration is so tight with iOS that it's inconvenient to use anything else 100% of the time. They really aren't playing fair.