3 ms·

If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. These kind of practices make Microsoft's anti trust practices from the 90's look like child's play

by mnm1 8y ago

If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. These kind of practices make Microsoft's anti trust practices from the 90's look like child's play. I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for their bullshit lies about security being the reason for this setup but I doubt any of the justices will even understand the case properly, let alone make intelligent decisions.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Because Android and it's various stores exist, and have fairly good marketshare? Remember, the market isn't defined as "iOS apps", it's "mobile apps".
- mark212 8y ago
  actually at this stage of this litigation, the market is defined as whatever the plaintiff says it is. Because the issue here is standing to sue. The case will get to the definition of relevant market later on, assuming this standing hurdle is resolved in favor of the plaintiff consumers. But I do agree with you on the merits. The relevant market ought to be mobile apps generally, not iOS apps. That's just not the question for which the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (as other comments have pointed out).
Jtsummers 8y ago
Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. They spent $1 billion to market a free product in order to eliminate or undermine a competitor (Netscape). They threatened hardware vendors with increased licensing fees if they sold non-Windows PCs (this helped kill BeOS and held back some efforts on selling Linux to consumers as well). MS did all of this and got away with it because of their marketshare. Without it, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they did in these behaviors. Apple isn't in the same position, at all.
- berthe 8y ago
  >> If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. > Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. Whether a company is a monopoly or not seems to depend a lot how the market in question is defined, for instance: Apple has a 100% marketshare in the distribution of iOS apps. Monopoly-era AT&T had far less than a 100% marketshare in electricity-powered devices.
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    That is a fair statement, but as far as the FTC is concerned that's probably not enough. The fact is that there are alternatives (for both consumers and developers) to the iOS app store. They don't get products from or on iOS, but they can still buy and sell comparable products. By the reasoning of your statement, all that's needed to establish a 100% monopoly is a sufficiently narrow definition of market. Walmart has a 100% monopoly on products (legally/officially) sold in Walmart stores. Do they have a monopoly as far as the FTC and courts are concerned? https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... EDIT: Fixed typo
    - berthe 8y ago
      > The fact is that there are alternatives (for both consumers and developers) to the iOS app store. They don't get products from or on iOS, but they can still buy and sell comparable products. But that's usually always true: 90s era Windows users had alternatives in the Macintosh and Sun workstations, and Monopoly-era AT&T users had alternatives in CB radios, etc. That explainer you linked even uses language that excludes some competitor products: "Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers" [emphasis mine]. That is a fair statement, but as far as the FTC is concerned that's probably not enough.... > By the reasoning of your stament [sic], all that's needed to establish a 100% monopoly is a sufficiently narrow definition of market. I don't think the reasoning in my statement is sufficient to identify a monopoly, and it wasn't indented to be such. What I was trying to communicate is that you can't disprove a monopoly based on comparing marketshare numbers, and the actual determination is probably rather complicated and requires a lot of expert judgement. I think Apple's business practices warrant careful and continuous antitrust scrutiny. If they're a monopoly, the form that takes will probably be significantly different than the one taken by 90s-era Microsoft.

by mnm1 8y ago

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Because Android and it's various stores exist, and have fairly good marketshare? Remember, the market isn't defined as "iOS apps", it's "mobile apps".

mark212 8y ago
actually at this stage of this litigation, the market is defined as whatever the plaintiff says it is. Because the issue here is standing to sue. The case will get to the definition of relevant market later on, assuming this standing hurdle is resolved in favor of the plaintiff consumers. But I do agree with you on the merits. The relevant market ought to be mobile apps generally, not iOS apps. That's just not the question for which the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (as other comments have pointed out).

Jtsummers 8y ago

Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. They spent $1 billion to market a free product in order to eliminate or undermine a competitor (Netscape). They threatened hardware vendors with increased licensing fees if they sold non-Windows PCs (this helped kill BeOS and held back some efforts on selling Linux to consumers as well). MS did all of this and got away with it because of their marketshare. Without it, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they did in these behaviors. Apple isn't in the same position, at all.

berthe 8y ago
>> If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. > Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. Whether a company is a monopoly or not seems to depend a lot how the market in question is defined, for instance: Apple has a 100% marketshare in the distribution of iOS apps. Monopoly-era AT&T had far less than a 100% marketshare in electricity-powered devices.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  That is a fair statement, but as far as the FTC is concerned that's probably not enough. The fact is that there are alternatives (for both consumers and developers) to the iOS app store. They don't get products from or on iOS, but they can still buy and sell comparable products. By the reasoning of your statement, all that's needed to establish a 100% monopoly is a sufficiently narrow definition of market. Walmart has a 100% monopoly on products (legally/officially) sold in Walmart stores. Do they have a monopoly as far as the FTC and courts are concerned? https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... EDIT: Fixed typo
  - berthe 8y ago
    > The fact is that there are alternatives (for both consumers and developers) to the iOS app store. They don't get products from or on iOS, but they can still buy and sell comparable products. But that's usually always true: 90s era Windows users had alternatives in the Macintosh and Sun workstations, and Monopoly-era AT&T users had alternatives in CB radios, etc. That explainer you linked even uses language that excludes some competitor products: "Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers" [emphasis mine]. That is a fair statement, but as far as the FTC is concerned that's probably not enough.... > By the reasoning of your stament [sic], all that's needed to establish a 100% monopoly is a sufficiently narrow definition of market. I don't think the reasoning in my statement is sufficient to identify a monopoly, and it wasn't indented to be such. What I was trying to communicate is that you can't disprove a monopoly based on comparing marketshare numbers, and the actual determination is probably rather complicated and requires a lot of expert judgement. I think Apple's business practices warrant careful and continuous antitrust scrutiny. If they're a monopoly, the form that takes will probably be significantly different than the one taken by 90s-era Microsoft.