17 ms·

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, it's a funn

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, it's a funny thing, how to define anticompetitive and monopoly practices, depending on how you frame the scope of the market. See Peter Thiel's book for a chapter on this. You could say that Apple has a monopoly over developers building apps and providing their services to people using iPhones. Someone else looking at it could say that Spotify has a multitude of ways to provide its content to customers -- web, it's own Windows + Mac desktop apps, Android, etc. Which way is a regulator supposed to look at it? The point about Apple Music is also interesting. Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case.

oarsinsync 8y ago
> Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case. A bit of apples to oranges comparison, but Internet Explorer was also the newer entrant in a previous case.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s3r3nity 8y ago
I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs and Telecoms, I find this to be pretty easy in the US - unless you signed an unreasonably stifling contract. Admittedly I'm unsure how difficult this would be in most of the EU.) Supply-Side Price elasticity argument: In theory, if the 30% cut was too high, developers wouldn't want to develop on the iOS platform, and would instead focus resources on developing on Android; the specific cut would be at an equilibrium point that enough developers would find profitable, and would still provide choice in the app marketplace for customers. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
- jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
  Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can move to a different state or country and get another provider. Or use your phone for internet instead. > Ease of customer switching argument This is confusing the consumer market for smartphones and the markets for distribution of smartphone app. > Supply-Side Price elasticity argument Yeah, if any monopoly's cut is too high, you can exit the market. This is not an argument that the monopoly is not a monopoly. This only means there is a limit to the monopoly's power.
  - nihonde 8y ago
    Defining markets is what competition law is all about. There will be enormous resources thrown at both sides of this argument. I think odds are in favor of Apple. They’ll will win on the basis that the market is mobile devices generally.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    Thats like saying that the market for car parts for fords and chevrolets are separate market and monopolized by ford and chevrolet respectively. It's bunkum and doesn't fit with 100 years of antitrust law.
    - jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
      If the products aren't interchangeable, then they are separate markets. Someone in the market for a part that fits a Ford can't solve their problem by buying the similar part that only fits a Chevy. Likewise, he can't but a new tire to replace a carburator. The tire and carburator are also in separate markets. However, he can buy an aftermarket part. It's a different product but the same market. So they don't have a monopoly. I don't know much about antitrust law so I can't comment on that But I do understand basic economics. And from an economic perspective, Apple most definitely created a monopoly which they most definitely use for rent seeking.
dzhiurgis 8y ago
Does Apple Music has to go thru app review process, is forbiden from private api use and overall started with 30% handicap?
weavejester 8y ago
"Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. What? No, they're not just about protecting new entrants, and if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious why. Microsoft lost it's 1998 antitrust case, despite Internet Explorer being released after Netscape.

oarsinsync 8y ago

> Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case. A bit of apples to oranges comparison, but Internet Explorer was also the newer entrant in a previous case.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

s3r3nity 8y ago

I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs and Telecoms, I find this to be pretty easy in the US - unless you signed an unreasonably stifling contract. Admittedly I'm unsure how difficult this would be in most of the EU.) Supply-Side Price elasticity argument: In theory, if the 30% cut was too high, developers wouldn't want to develop on the iOS platform, and would instead focus resources on developing on Android; the specific cut would be at an equilibrium point that enough developers would find profitable, and would still provide choice in the app marketplace for customers. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe

jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can move to a different state or country and get another provider. Or use your phone for internet instead. > Ease of customer switching argument This is confusing the consumer market for smartphones and the markets for distribution of smartphone app. > Supply-Side Price elasticity argument Yeah, if any monopoly's cut is too high, you can exit the market. This is not an argument that the monopoly is not a monopoly. This only means there is a limit to the monopoly's power.
- nihonde 8y ago
  Defining markets is what competition law is all about. There will be enormous resources thrown at both sides of this argument. I think odds are in favor of Apple. They’ll will win on the basis that the market is mobile devices generally.
- Aloha 8y ago
  Thats like saying that the market for car parts for fords and chevrolets are separate market and monopolized by ford and chevrolet respectively. It's bunkum and doesn't fit with 100 years of antitrust law.
  - jeremydeanlakey 8y ago
    If the products aren't interchangeable, then they are separate markets. Someone in the market for a part that fits a Ford can't solve their problem by buying the similar part that only fits a Chevy. Likewise, he can't but a new tire to replace a carburator. The tire and carburator are also in separate markets. However, he can buy an aftermarket part. It's a different product but the same market. So they don't have a monopoly. I don't know much about antitrust law so I can't comment on that But I do understand basic economics. And from an economic perspective, Apple most definitely created a monopoly which they most definitely use for rent seeking.

dzhiurgis 8y ago

Does Apple Music has to go thru app review process, is forbiden from private api use and overall started with 30% handicap?

weavejester 8y ago

"Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. What? No, they're not just about protecting new entrants, and if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious why. Microsoft lost it's 1998 antitrust case, despite Internet Explorer being released after Netscape.