4 ms·

An Android app and an iPhone app are not compatible goods. You cannot replace one with the other. Try installing an APK on the iphone and let me know how that g

An Android app and an iPhone app are not compatible goods. You cannot replace one with the other. Try installing an APK on the iphone and let me know how that goes. The "market" is smaller than you think. A classic way to determine alternatives to a product is by asking "if I raise the price of all apps, how many people will buy something else?" Iphone owners are kinda stuck eating the increase, aren't they? Apple controls 100% of the iPhone app market. An iPhone owner made a $1000 investment into their phone and cannot just switch to Android. Apple takes advantage of that fact for their own benefit.

zaroth 7y ago
Every manufacturer controls their own supply chain, and can choose what to put in or take out of their own product. And everyone makes a choice when they purchase a product— you could say invest in a product—if they want to buy into that. Of course it costs money to buy something different. The salient point is that there is a obvious and competitive choice before you buy, that Apple does nothing to restrict you from making that choice before you buy, and that you can switch if you feel like it, which makes it not a monopoly. Monopoly is not defined as the lack of compatibility between two competing products. Monopoly is also not defined as having a closed ecosystem. I think it’s fair to argue if you think it should be illegal to have closed ecosystems. Personally I strongly disagree because there are clear trade-offs involved and the market should be able to decide if it wants a closed ecosystem product offering from Vendor A or an open ecosystem offering from Vendor B. The problem with a closed ecosystem is when it is combined with a monopolistic market. In this discussion I believed the two points have become conflated, but while Apple certainly has a walled garden, there is compelling evidence the smartphone market is highly competitive.

zaroth 7y ago

Every manufacturer controls their own supply chain, and can choose what to put in or take out of their own product. And everyone makes a choice when they purchase a product— you could say invest in a product—if they want to buy into that. Of course it costs money to buy something different. The salient point is that there is a obvious and competitive choice before you buy, that Apple does nothing to restrict you from making that choice before you buy, and that you can switch if you feel like it, which makes it not a monopoly. Monopoly is not defined as the lack of compatibility between two competing products. Monopoly is also not defined as having a closed ecosystem. I think it’s fair to argue if you think it should be illegal to have closed ecosystems. Personally I strongly disagree because there are clear trade-offs involved and the market should be able to decide if it wants a closed ecosystem product offering from Vendor A or an open ecosystem offering from Vendor B. The problem with a closed ecosystem is when it is combined with a monopolistic market. In this discussion I believed the two points have become conflated, but while Apple certainly has a walled garden, there is compelling evidence the smartphone market is highly competitive.