5 ms·

Apple does not have a monopoly on Smart Phones or App Stores. They're able to as much as anyone to control how their platform is used - there's no law against m

by mythz 8y ago

Apple does not have a monopoly on Smart Phones or App Stores. They're able to as much as anyone to control how their platform is used - there's no law against maintaining a closed and curated platform and your product or platform is not considered a Market in by itself. There's also no law against having a monopoly, only for abusing your monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.

aaomidi 8y ago
Which is what spotify is arguing is happening with Apple Music
- mythz 8y ago
  iOS isn't considered to be a market so they don't have one to abuse. Unless the courts declare that iOS is a market then the App Store would be considered to have a monopoly on App Stores in iOS, but you can't have a monopoly on your own product/platform (then everyone would be a monopolist). A monopoly is measured against the overall market. If Android didn't have an App Store or it was the size of Windows App Store then iOS App Store could be considered a monopoly, but not at the fraction of the user base that iOS has now.
  - aaomidi 8y ago
    The fraction doesn't matter at all in this case. Spotify is saying they're abusing the 30% to be able to push their own music application for cheaper.
    - mythz 8y ago
      It doesn't matter in this case because iOS isn't a Market and the iOS App Store doesn't have a monopoly on App Stores. They can appeal to the public about the unfairness of it all (which is likely what their open letter was designed for) but they don't have a legal case against Apple nor an inalienable right to be able to participate in their platform on their own terms.
    - Someone 8y ago
      If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues. I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what exactly the difference is. I’m not sure that is as simple as “physical vs digital”.
      - aaomidi 8y ago
        McDonald's doesn't host other food companies though. In this case apple has a marketplace AppStore.
      - syshum 8y ago
        App stores feel different because they are different. You seem to have an incorrect definition of what a market is McDonalds is not a market, McDonalds is a vendor in a Market. Apples has a created a market on is the platform by virtue of the App Store, a case can be made for Anti-Trust due to to this, but it would be a hard one. Defining what is and is not a market is always one of the largest challenges for Anti-Trust, take for example the Merger of Sirus and XM, there was a debate over if Sat Radio was a market separate and independent of Traditional Radio, in the end Sirus / XM won and was able to establish that Sat Radio was not an independent market because consumer could easily switch between Sat Radio and Traditional Radio Given the Lockin, and increasing Costs associated with Changing Mobile Platforms it becomes more of a question on if iOS and Andriod should be separate markets or be considered a single market. I can see cases for both
        mediocrejoker 8y ago
        I am not familiar with the legal history you cite but it is intriguing. Are there other antitrust cases that hinged on whether or not two things were their own markets or part of a larger one?
rocqua 8y ago
> There's also no law against having a monopoly, Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. It's also illegal to use your monopoly in a market to get advantages in that market. Most notably, you can't use your monopoly to keep your monopoly. (I.e. intel making a deal with dell where dell cannot use AMD processors)
- mythz 8y ago
  > Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. That's not a law against having one, only abusing one.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly.
    - mythz 8y ago
      > That is a straight up ban on monopoly. No, it's still not illegal to have a Monopoly. The FTC can block mergers that can create them if they believe it will harm consumers, e.g. through higher prices caused by less competition, but they typically won't block them if they think consumers will benefit through operational efficiencies gained by consolidation.
- threeseed 8y ago
  It's legal to have a monopoly. It's legal to have a monopoly and get advantages in the market. It's illegal to have a monopoly and then try and extinguish your competition in the current or any adjacent markets.
  - rocqua 8y ago
    Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly. My given example of dell and Intel actually happened and was prosecuted. How does that fit your claims?

by mythz 8y ago

aaomidi 8y ago

Which is what spotify is arguing is happening with Apple Music

mythz 8y ago
iOS isn't considered to be a market so they don't have one to abuse. Unless the courts declare that iOS is a market then the App Store would be considered to have a monopoly on App Stores in iOS, but you can't have a monopoly on your own product/platform (then everyone would be a monopolist). A monopoly is measured against the overall market. If Android didn't have an App Store or it was the size of Windows App Store then iOS App Store could be considered a monopoly, but not at the fraction of the user base that iOS has now.
- aaomidi 8y ago
  The fraction doesn't matter at all in this case. Spotify is saying they're abusing the 30% to be able to push their own music application for cheaper.
  - mythz 8y ago
    It doesn't matter in this case because iOS isn't a Market and the iOS App Store doesn't have a monopoly on App Stores. They can appeal to the public about the unfairness of it all (which is likely what their open letter was designed for) but they don't have a legal case against Apple nor an inalienable right to be able to participate in their platform on their own terms.
  - Someone 8y ago
    If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues. I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what exactly the difference is. I’m not sure that is as simple as “physical vs digital”.
    - aaomidi 8y ago
      McDonald's doesn't host other food companies though. In this case apple has a marketplace AppStore.
    - syshum 8y ago
      App stores feel different because they are different. You seem to have an incorrect definition of what a market is McDonalds is not a market, McDonalds is a vendor in a Market. Apples has a created a market on is the platform by virtue of the App Store, a case can be made for Anti-Trust due to to this, but it would be a hard one. Defining what is and is not a market is always one of the largest challenges for Anti-Trust, take for example the Merger of Sirus and XM, there was a debate over if Sat Radio was a market separate and independent of Traditional Radio, in the end Sirus / XM won and was able to establish that Sat Radio was not an independent market because consumer could easily switch between Sat Radio and Traditional Radio Given the Lockin, and increasing Costs associated with Changing Mobile Platforms it becomes more of a question on if iOS and Andriod should be separate markets or be considered a single market. I can see cases for both
      - mediocrejoker 8y ago
        I am not familiar with the legal history you cite but it is intriguing. Are there other antitrust cases that hinged on whether or not two things were their own markets or part of a larger one?

rocqua 8y ago

> There's also no law against having a monopoly, Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. It's also illegal to use your monopoly in a market to get advantages in that market. Most notably, you can't use your monopoly to keep your monopoly. (I.e. intel making a deal with dell where dell cannot use AMD processors)

mythz 8y ago
> Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. That's not a law against having one, only abusing one.
- rocqua 8y ago
  Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly.
  - mythz 8y ago
    > That is a straight up ban on monopoly. No, it's still not illegal to have a Monopoly. The FTC can block mergers that can create them if they believe it will harm consumers, e.g. through higher prices caused by less competition, but they typically won't block them if they think consumers will benefit through operational efficiencies gained by consolidation.
threeseed 8y ago
It's legal to have a monopoly. It's legal to have a monopoly and get advantages in the market. It's illegal to have a monopoly and then try and extinguish your competition in the current or any adjacent markets.
- rocqua 8y ago
  Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly. My given example of dell and Intel actually happened and was prosecuted. How does that fit your claims?