3 ms·

Profit is a function of competition. If Apple had competitors, it would not be able to charge as much as it did for its computers. You argue that Apple does ha

Profit is a function of competition. If Apple had competitors, it would not be able to charge as much as it did for its computers. You argue that Apple does have competition, and that's nominally true if you are very coarse and sloppy with your comparisons, but due to marketing and their walled garden, they are basically a monopoly over the upper / more artistic portions of the market: https://wccftech.com/apple-iphone-counterpoint-premium-smartphone-market-share/ https://wccftech.com/apple-iphone-counterpoint-premium-smart...

scarface74 8y ago
Profit is a function of competition. If Apple had competitors, it would not be able to charge as much as it did for its computers. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? Apple has been competing against commodity PC makers for 40 years. Or are you saying that Apple doesn’t have competition making MacOS computers? Apple competes with generic PC makers by making a differentiated experience. There was nothing stopping any PC maker from doing the same. It wasn’t like Apple was making massive profits in the late 90s when it bought NeXT and started developing OS X. You argue that Apple does have competition, and that's nominally true if you are very coarse and sloppy with your comparisons, but due to marketing and their walled garden, they are basically a monopoly over the upper / more artistic portions of the market: They out competed. Any of the PC manufacturers could have produced a differentiated ecosystem in the 80s or 90s instead of using Microsoft. Apple didn’t have a monopoly on marketing channels.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? They can have no competition for their computers when other people are selling computers. The reason the pricing power standard is used in antitrust is that a intuitively appealing descriptive category may not actually be a domain in which all products are actually considered against each other by purchasers and thus may not actually be a single market within which competition occurs. > They out competed. That's usually how younger a monopoly, other than a government grant or leveraging another existing monopoly. It's not a contradiction to having a monopoly.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    So every company is therefore a monopoly on their products since competitors can’t sell them? Coke has pricing power on Coke and can sell it at premium over Generic Cola. Does that make Coke a monopoly?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So every company is therefore a monopoly on their products since competitors can’t sell them? No, not every company has pricing power, which is the ability to raise prices without losing sales to competitors. > Coke has pricing power on Coke That's an interesting claim, but not one I've seen the evidence for. > and can sell it at premium over Generic Cola. A premium price alone does not establish pricing power (in fact, that the sustainable price is some additive or multiplicative premium of the price of competing goods would be evidence against pricing power.) > Does that make Coke a monopoly? If Coke actually had pricing power such that increases in price did not produce movement to competing products, then, yes, it would mean it was a monopoly, because the descriptively similar products would empirically not be competing with it.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        No, not every company has pricing power, which is the ability to raise prices without losing sales to competitors. Unless you have an essential good. No company has complete pricing power. If Apple tripled the price of Macs, no one would buy them. The Mac’s demand is far from inelastic. > Coke has pricing power on Coke That's an interesting claim, but not one I've seen the evidence for. Have you compared the price of a Coke to a generic cola? A premium price alone does not establish pricing power (in fact, that the sustainable price is some additive or multiplicative premium of the price of competing goods would be evidence against pricing power.) And this is different than Apple charging a premium how? If Coke actually had pricing power such that increases in price did not produce movement to competing products, then, yes, it would mean it was a monopoly, because the descriptively similar products would empirically not be competing with it And this is different than Apple?
- tathougies 8y ago
  > Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? Of course not. A company need not have a monopoly in every market they compete in. For example, Apple produces an office suite (iWorks), but due to the competitive nature of that industry doesn't make money off of it. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers, but it does not make much profit off of them. Most of its profit comes from smartphones, where they do have a monopoly on the upper portion of the market, and also within their own walled garden. For example, in 2015, 50% of Apple's revenue was iPhone: https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-where-apple-really-makes-its-money-2015-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-where-apple-really-mak...
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You realize that the Mac revenue alone would put it in the Fortune 100....

scarface74 8y ago

Profit is a function of competition. If Apple had competitors, it would not be able to charge as much as it did for its computers. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? Apple has been competing against commodity PC makers for 40 years. Or are you saying that Apple doesn’t have competition making MacOS computers? Apple competes with generic PC makers by making a differentiated experience. There was nothing stopping any PC maker from doing the same. It wasn’t like Apple was making massive profits in the late 90s when it bought NeXT and started developing OS X. You argue that Apple does have competition, and that's nominally true if you are very coarse and sloppy with your comparisons, but due to marketing and their walled garden, they are basically a monopoly over the upper / more artistic portions of the market: They out competed. Any of the PC manufacturers could have produced a differentiated ecosystem in the 80s or 90s instead of using Microsoft. Apple didn’t have a monopoly on marketing channels.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? They can have no competition for their computers when other people are selling computers. The reason the pricing power standard is used in antitrust is that a intuitively appealing descriptive category may not actually be a domain in which all products are actually considered against each other by purchasers and thus may not actually be a single market within which competition occurs. > They out competed. That's usually how younger a monopoly, other than a government grant or leveraging another existing monopoly. It's not a contradiction to having a monopoly.
- scarface74 8y ago
  So every company is therefore a monopoly on their products since competitors can’t sell them? Coke has pricing power on Coke and can sell it at premium over Generic Cola. Does that make Coke a monopoly?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So every company is therefore a monopoly on their products since competitors can’t sell them? No, not every company has pricing power, which is the ability to raise prices without losing sales to competitors. > Coke has pricing power on Coke That's an interesting claim, but not one I've seen the evidence for. > and can sell it at premium over Generic Cola. A premium price alone does not establish pricing power (in fact, that the sustainable price is some additive or multiplicative premium of the price of competing goods would be evidence against pricing power.) > Does that make Coke a monopoly? If Coke actually had pricing power such that increases in price did not produce movement to competing products, then, yes, it would mean it was a monopoly, because the descriptively similar products would empirically not be competing with it.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      No, not every company has pricing power, which is the ability to raise prices without losing sales to competitors. Unless you have an essential good. No company has complete pricing power. If Apple tripled the price of Macs, no one would buy them. The Mac’s demand is far from inelastic. > Coke has pricing power on Coke That's an interesting claim, but not one I've seen the evidence for. Have you compared the price of a Coke to a generic cola? A premium price alone does not establish pricing power (in fact, that the sustainable price is some additive or multiplicative premium of the price of competing goods would be evidence against pricing power.) And this is different than Apple charging a premium how? If Coke actually had pricing power such that increases in price did not produce movement to competing products, then, yes, it would mean it was a monopoly, because the descriptively similar products would empirically not be competing with it And this is different than Apple?
tathougies 8y ago
> Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in computers? Of course not. A company need not have a monopoly in every market they compete in. For example, Apple produces an office suite (iWorks), but due to the competitive nature of that industry doesn't make money off of it. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers, but it does not make much profit off of them. Most of its profit comes from smartphones, where they do have a monopoly on the upper portion of the market, and also within their own walled garden. For example, in 2015, 50% of Apple's revenue was iPhone: https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-where-apple-really-makes-its-money-2015-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-where-apple-really-mak...
- scarface74 8y ago
  You realize that the Mac revenue alone would put it in the Fortune 100....