6 ms·

Exactly - Apple has about 20% market share in Germany (https://www.statista.com/statistics/461900/android-vs-ios-market-share-in-smartphone-sales-germany/ https

Exactly - Apple has about 20% market share in Germany (https://www.statista.com/statistics/461900/android-vs-ios-market-share-in-smartphone-sales-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/461900/android-vs-ios-ma...). When 80% of people are using a competitor to your product, it’s hardly a monopoly.

oceanplexian 7y ago
It seems like people are misinformed and think that "monopoly" means someone who has the all the market share. That's not how it works. A monopoly is the control or advantage obtained by an entity over the commercial market in a certain area, who uses that advantage (willfully) to fix prices or exclude competitors. Granted, control or advantage of the market is a component, but what really makes a monopoly a monopoly is the intent behind the actions of the entity. If a memo, or meeting minutes were to come out showing that Apple was signing exclusivity agreements, or disabling payment apps on the iPhone (NFC) to specifically put competition out of business, well then that would be monopolistic. By the way, even when this sort of behavior can skirt the law, it's still unethical. I'm not saying businesses need to actively support their competition, but seeking to put them out of business through backroom deals and price fixing is wrong. It's the antithesis of a free market and unfortunately is rampant in the tech industry.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >If a memo, or meeting minutes were to come out showing that Apple was signing exclusivity agreements, or disabling payment apps on the iPhone (NFC) to specifically put competition out of business, well then that would be monopolistic. I think people get confused because the way APIs work on Apple's platforms, effectively open to all subject to you agreeing to their license, that people don't realize there's no obligation for Apple to create APIs for anything. Literally every app or feature could be the result of one-on-one business development agreements.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Exactly. For instance I don’t know of any other company that has access to Apple’s iTunes movie library to add movies that are considered as “purchased” when the movie is purchased from a competitor except for Movies Anywhere. Yet there is a setting for allowing access to your iTunes library for it.
  - izacus 7y ago
    Germany just created that obligation for Apple.
    - Despegar 7y ago
      Not necessarily. The law will be challenged in the courts and they'll have a strong case that it infringes their intellectual property rights.
      - izacus 7y ago
        What court would this law be challenged at when its... a law built by lawmakers?
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        Lawmakers can make illegal laws. Not sure how it’d work in Germany, but in the US, for example, it’d be challenged on the basis of constitutionality.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So that still goes back to my other response and their is a reason that neither the US nor EU has ever defined “monopoly” as broadly as HN not-lawyers do. Every platform has certain technologies it doesn’t allow competitors to access and have exclusive deals. Should Apple be scrutinized because it harmed potential suppliers for its cameras and screens by making “exclusive deals” with Sony, LG, or Samsung for their respective components? Apple is not “price fixing”. Price fixing is when competitors get together to “fix prices” not when one company gives another company a good deal to be the “exclusive provider of X”.

oceanplexian 7y ago

It seems like people are misinformed and think that "monopoly" means someone who has the all the market share. That's not how it works. A monopoly is the control or advantage obtained by an entity over the commercial market in a certain area, who uses that advantage (willfully) to fix prices or exclude competitors. Granted, control or advantage of the market is a component, but what really makes a monopoly a monopoly is the intent behind the actions of the entity. If a memo, or meeting minutes were to come out showing that Apple was signing exclusivity agreements, or disabling payment apps on the iPhone (NFC) to specifically put competition out of business, well then that would be monopolistic. By the way, even when this sort of behavior can skirt the law, it's still unethical. I'm not saying businesses need to actively support their competition, but seeking to put them out of business through backroom deals and price fixing is wrong. It's the antithesis of a free market and unfortunately is rampant in the tech industry.

Despegar 7y ago
>If a memo, or meeting minutes were to come out showing that Apple was signing exclusivity agreements, or disabling payment apps on the iPhone (NFC) to specifically put competition out of business, well then that would be monopolistic. I think people get confused because the way APIs work on Apple's platforms, effectively open to all subject to you agreeing to their license, that people don't realize there's no obligation for Apple to create APIs for anything. Literally every app or feature could be the result of one-on-one business development agreements.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Exactly. For instance I don’t know of any other company that has access to Apple’s iTunes movie library to add movies that are considered as “purchased” when the movie is purchased from a competitor except for Movies Anywhere. Yet there is a setting for allowing access to your iTunes library for it.
- izacus 7y ago
  Germany just created that obligation for Apple.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    Not necessarily. The law will be challenged in the courts and they'll have a strong case that it infringes their intellectual property rights.
    - izacus 7y ago
      What court would this law be challenged at when its... a law built by lawmakers?
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        Lawmakers can make illegal laws. Not sure how it’d work in Germany, but in the US, for example, it’d be challenged on the basis of constitutionality.
scarface74 7y ago
So that still goes back to my other response and their is a reason that neither the US nor EU has ever defined “monopoly” as broadly as HN not-lawyers do. Every platform has certain technologies it doesn’t allow competitors to access and have exclusive deals. Should Apple be scrutinized because it harmed potential suppliers for its cameras and screens by making “exclusive deals” with Sony, LG, or Samsung for their respective components? Apple is not “price fixing”. Price fixing is when competitors get together to “fix prices” not when one company gives another company a good deal to be the “exclusive provider of X”.