3 ms·

> From the consumer perspective, if one doesn't like the app store, buy a different brand of phone. There is no monopoly here from a legal or functional perspec

> From the consumer perspective, if one doesn't like the app store, buy a different brand of phone. There is no monopoly here from a legal or functional perspective. That is not how monopolies are defined. Apple says all apps for the iPhone must be signed by them and they must collect 30% of sales and in-app-purchases. The fact that they run an "App Store" means there is a market for iPhone apps. They control the market for iPhone apps. I don't know how to make that any clearer. The fact that Android exists does not change anything about the market for iPhone apps. However, side-pay will be a very interesting defense. I haven't really considered that enough to speak on it.

dev_tty01 7y ago
I understand that Apple defines the narrow market for iPhone apps. That doesn't mean anything illegal is happening. Antitrust law doesn't say that the existence of a monopoly is illegal. There has to be harm, or exploitation, or price fixing, etc., for the courts to take action. A monopoly may just be the result of great execution by a company and it may not be in violation of any antitrust laws. Again, controlling a particular market may or may not be illegal. Also, while it is true that Apple is controlling the marketplace for iOS apps, it does not control the market for smart phone apps in general. There is a good chance that that is sufficient for the courts to find no monopoly. As many of others have pointed out, there are many, many examples of narrowly defined monopolies. With a different definition, there is no monopoly. Of course, none of us know what the courts and I get your concern. My point is that the simple control of a marketplace (created by Apple) for a specific product is not a sufficient condition for court action. The benefits to consumers could easily outweigh any concerns about control. Time (years) will tell. Here is an interesting essay on press (public) perception of monopolies vs antitrust laws: https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2019/two-systems-belief-about-monopoly-press-vs-antitrust https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2019/two-systems-be...

dev_tty01 7y ago

I understand that Apple defines the narrow market for iPhone apps. That doesn't mean anything illegal is happening. Antitrust law doesn't say that the existence of a monopoly is illegal. There has to be harm, or exploitation, or price fixing, etc., for the courts to take action. A monopoly may just be the result of great execution by a company and it may not be in violation of any antitrust laws. Again, controlling a particular market may or may not be illegal. Also, while it is true that Apple is controlling the marketplace for iOS apps, it does not control the market for smart phone apps in general. There is a good chance that that is sufficient for the courts to find no monopoly. As many of others have pointed out, there are many, many examples of narrowly defined monopolies. With a different definition, there is no monopoly. Of course, none of us know what the courts and I get your concern. My point is that the simple control of a marketplace (created by Apple) for a specific product is not a sufficient condition for court action. The benefits to consumers could easily outweigh any concerns about control. Time (years) will tell. Here is an interesting essay on press (public) perception of monopolies vs antitrust laws: https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2019/two-systems-belief-about-monopoly-press-vs-antitrust https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2019/two-systems-be...