4 ms·

Apple has a “monopoly” on their own products, not smartphones or apps, or anything else. It’s like complaining that Ford has a monopoly on cars made by Ford. Th

Apple has a “monopoly” on their own products, not smartphones or apps, or anything else. It’s like complaining that Ford has a monopoly on cars made by Ford. There are other phones, other ecosystems, other cars. A monopoly isn’t “I want an Apple product on my own terms, and if I can’t get that, it’s a monopoly.” This trend of claiming Apple is a monopoly or Facebook is because you don’t like the alternatives is puerile and incorrect. You have a right to competition, not the premium product. You have a right to the marketplace of for example, cars, not a right to a Mercedes. I’m getting very tired of the phrase “de facto” bandied about in front of monopoly as a way to use the latter word in a way that has no legal or technical merit. Words have meanings. Apple has a walled garden which competes with similar products, it’s just that Apple’s is better in many ways. They have a valuable audience, they don’t suffe from the security issues of their competitors, and that may make you want to use them. So use them, or don’t, and accept the trade-offs. Don’t like Apple? Try android, their competition in the same space.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The monopoly they have isn't phones, it's iOS app distribution. It's a different market -- and the market isn't combined with apps for other systems because they have disjoint sets of customers. You can't use Android apps when you don't have an Android device.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Right, and WalMart has a “monopoly” on WalMarts, but that’s not actually a monopoly. If they had a monopoly on supermarket, that would be a legal issue. Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms. People just want something they can’t have, so they play word games to make themselves sound righteous rather than selfish or petulant. No amount of talking around the issue or downvotes changes it, and it’s why an AG will laugh in your face if you claim Apple is violating antitrust regulations with their system.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Right, and WalMart has a “monopoly” on WalMarts, but that’s not actually a monopoly. If they had a monopoly on supermarket, that would be a legal issue. Which is likewise why Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. > Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms. The market isn't the app market itself, it's not that there aren't a hundred flashlight apps, it's the distribution market. All the flashlight apps have to come through Apple. It's as if Walmart is the only retailer in California. That there are arbitrarily many manufacturers or that other retailers exist in Florida doesn't mean they don't have a retail monopoly in California. And the fact is you can't get an app for your iPhone from the Play Store. They aren't the same market because they can't be substituted for each other.
    - mrep 8y ago
      This is why I think we need a new way of identifying market abuse because you can make anyone a/not a monopoly based on what definition you use. IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > This is why I think we need a new way of identifying market abuse because you can make anyone a/not a monopoly based on what definition you use. Which is why it matters if there are close substitutes or not. > IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly There are no good substitutes for this. There is no viable alternative for distributing apps to the people with iOS devices. Distributing apps to people with Android devices isn't a substitute because they're different people, in the same way that distribution in the Northeast is not a substitute for distribution in the Southwest. > High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly There are high end Android phones that are probably adequate substitutes. But if there weren't (or you think they aren't adequate substitutes) then sure. > Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly The market you've specified is "phones" which is obviously not something Apple has a monopoly on. Whole Foods doesn't have a monopoly on food just because they have high margins. There are tons of non-Apple phones if all you need to satisfy to be part of the market is to be a phone. It may even be a weak market definition because it's too broad -- a feature phone isn't a very good substitute for an iPhone. A better market definition might be smartphones, but even then they still don't have a monopoly. It's not about revenue or margins, it's a question of whether the consumer has a reasonable alternative supplier of something sufficiently equivalent. > Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly The market in that case is would be "phone OS" but then Android has the obvious competition from iOS. Also, Android isn't a company, it's a product. It's nearly impossible for a piece of open source software to have "a monopoly" when literally everyone is allowed to supply it and anyone can do so at trivial cost. All the Android phone manufacturers are each independent suppliers of it. > Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly The market in that case is "computer OS" which is a poor market definition because desktop and phone operating systems are poor substitutes for each other.
imh 8y ago
Apple does have a monopoly on their own products. No need for scare quotes. They also have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. One of those bothers more market participants than the other, and for the same reasons monopolies can (but don't always) cause trouble for the markets in which they exist. As per usual, competition is a good answer. Competition in making iPhones is nonsensical. Competition in distributing and selling iOS apps isn't, and would be good for the market. Or at least it might be good for the market. That's the whole premise of this discussion, and for most discussions about monopolistic tendencies.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

The monopoly they have isn't phones, it's iOS app distribution. It's a different market -- and the market isn't combined with apps for other systems because they have disjoint sets of customers. You can't use Android apps when you don't have an Android device.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Right, and WalMart has a “monopoly” on WalMarts, but that’s not actually a monopoly. If they had a monopoly on supermarket, that would be a legal issue. Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms. People just want something they can’t have, so they play word games to make themselves sound righteous rather than selfish or petulant. No amount of talking around the issue or downvotes changes it, and it’s why an AG will laugh in your face if you claim Apple is violating antitrust regulations with their system.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Right, and WalMart has a “monopoly” on WalMarts, but that’s not actually a monopoly. If they had a monopoly on supermarket, that would be a legal issue. Which is likewise why Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. > Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms. The market isn't the app market itself, it's not that there aren't a hundred flashlight apps, it's the distribution market. All the flashlight apps have to come through Apple. It's as if Walmart is the only retailer in California. That there are arbitrarily many manufacturers or that other retailers exist in Florida doesn't mean they don't have a retail monopoly in California. And the fact is you can't get an app for your iPhone from the Play Store. They aren't the same market because they can't be substituted for each other.
  - mrep 8y ago
    This is why I think we need a new way of identifying market abuse because you can make anyone a/not a monopoly based on what definition you use. IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > This is why I think we need a new way of identifying market abuse because you can make anyone a/not a monopoly based on what definition you use. Which is why it matters if there are close substitutes or not. > IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly There are no good substitutes for this. There is no viable alternative for distributing apps to the people with iOS devices. Distributing apps to people with Android devices isn't a substitute because they're different people, in the same way that distribution in the Northeast is not a substitute for distribution in the Southwest. > High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly There are high end Android phones that are probably adequate substitutes. But if there weren't (or you think they aren't adequate substitutes) then sure. > Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly The market you've specified is "phones" which is obviously not something Apple has a monopoly on. Whole Foods doesn't have a monopoly on food just because they have high margins. There are tons of non-Apple phones if all you need to satisfy to be part of the market is to be a phone. It may even be a weak market definition because it's too broad -- a feature phone isn't a very good substitute for an iPhone. A better market definition might be smartphones, but even then they still don't have a monopoly. It's not about revenue or margins, it's a question of whether the consumer has a reasonable alternative supplier of something sufficiently equivalent. > Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly The market in that case is would be "phone OS" but then Android has the obvious competition from iOS. Also, Android isn't a company, it's a product. It's nearly impossible for a piece of open source software to have "a monopoly" when literally everyone is allowed to supply it and anyone can do so at trivial cost. All the Android phone manufacturers are each independent suppliers of it. > Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly The market in that case is "computer OS" which is a poor market definition because desktop and phone operating systems are poor substitutes for each other.

imh 8y ago

Apple does have a monopoly on their own products. No need for scare quotes. They also have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. One of those bothers more market participants than the other, and for the same reasons monopolies can (but don't always) cause trouble for the markets in which they exist. As per usual, competition is a good answer. Competition in making iPhones is nonsensical. Competition in distributing and selling iOS apps isn't, and would be good for the market. Or at least it might be good for the market. That's the whole premise of this discussion, and for most discussions about monopolistic tendencies.