3 ms·

pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying. No, it doesn't. First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly,

pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying. No, it doesn't. First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly, which by the way, isn’t illegal. With their 20% global market share [1], they clearly aren't a monopoly. Do they have a monopoly in the iOS app market? Absolutely, but that's to be expected. It’s their platform that developers have agreed to their terms of service. Nobody is being forced to develop on their platform, especially since they aren't the market leader. This is nothing like the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, after a federal decent decree forbidding Microsoft from using their 95% market share that was obviously a monopoly from tying Internet Explorer to Windows. Of course, they went ahead anyway, declaring that Internet Explorer was so integrated into Windows that it could not be removed, which proved to be false. Microsoft threatened to cancel the Windows licenses of various PC manufacturers if they continued to ship Netscape Navigator instead of IE, clearly abusing their monopoly power. Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly; there hasn't been any ruling to the contrary. They are only requiring Sign in with Apple if a developer already provides social logins. Apple gives developers 2FA, verification of the login being a real person and not a bot. Users get to be anonymous by using a proxy email address if they choose. And there's no tracking by companies who make the vast majority of their revenue by monetizing user information. And it works on macOS, iOS, watchOS, the web, and Android devices. It would be hard to argue users don't benefit from this. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...

gojomo 7y ago
There's no requirement that there be a "ruling that Apple is a monopoly" before we observe, based on the facts, that they are doing things that run afoul of antitrust law, or what antitrust law "should" be to maximize welfare. Rulings are a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.

gojomo 7y ago

There's no requirement that there be a "ruling that Apple is a monopoly" before we observe, based on the facts, that they are doing things that run afoul of antitrust law, or what antitrust law "should" be to maximize welfare. Rulings are a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.