5 ms·

The was quite literally no alternative to Microsoft in many scenarios, and windows enjoyed a >95% marketshare. You simply couldn't run a business if you weren't

The was quite literally no alternative to Microsoft in many scenarios, and windows enjoyed a >95% marketshare. You simply couldn't run a business if you weren't running Windows. iOS has <15% marketshare, and millions of people transition back and forth across platforms regularly. I was on Android, now I'm on iOS, and tomorrow I could be on Android if there was a compelling case. Apple is abusive, and needs to be reigned in, but comparing iOS to the late-90s Windows situation betrays a misunderstanding of the situation in the 90s.

zakki 6y ago
I don’t think it is fair to count iOS market share by comparing it to all androids devices. Should be between iOS and total android flagship devices. Also, last I read 2-3 years ago, Apple profit crushed all android makers profit. Maybe we should use this for market share?
- scarface74 6y ago
  So now we are going to make a carve out for “all devices over $x”. Users have a choice between Androids “open ecosystem” and Apple’s “walled garden”. The consumers made a choice to spend more on Apple’s devices using their own free will. Do we really need the government to tell them that they made the wrong choice?
  - brmgb 6y ago
    You don't need to carve anything. The market under consideration is not phones. It's phone application publishing and distribution and it is mostly a duopoly. Abuse on this market will most likely affect content producers more than users. It's not about consumers'choices. It's about the impact the current situation has on the rest of the market.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      There was a podcast about how US monopoly law has always been focused on consumers and not producers, but this is the best summary I could find. Notice the focus is on consumer harm. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.as... Antitrust laws also referred to as competition laws, are statutes developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers from predatory business practices. If these laws didn't exist, consumers would not benefit from different options or competition in the marketplace. Furthermore, consumers would be forced to pay higher prices and would have access to a limited supply of products and services.
      - brmgb 6y ago
        The goal of antitrust law was initially to promote competition. That benefits the consumer because competition leads to either lower prices or improved differentiation. One of the most famous early use of the antitrust is United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. in 1948 which ended the studio system. It was about vertical integration and how the studios used their power to both bully small cinemas and prevent competition on the production side. As you can see, there is no consumer in sight. The Chicago School of economics pushed very hard for narrowing the scope of the law (obviously) but that's a fairly modern take.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
IOS is probably closer to 50% marketshare in the US and perhaps near 90% in younger demographics. Anti-trust doesn't require a perfect monopoly, only consumer harm.
- namrog84 6y ago
  I think you might be surprised.
- scarface74 6y ago
  How is the consumer harmed? If Apple’s “walled garden” was harming consumers we should see lower prices for Android apps.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Right, I buy an Apple device for myself and my whole family exactly because the ecosystem is a tightly integrated walled garden. There’s nothing anti-competitive or anti-consumer about walled gardens per say. Walled gardens are consistently chosen by consumers because they make devices easier to use and maintain and the user experience more predictable through actual enforcement of consistent UI standards.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      There is a consumer harm when Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% cut to App Store while Spotify and the likes have to. That's a huge competitive advantage to Apple. Not to mention Apple can simply advertise their own Apple Music Subscription inside the default Music app and gain market share just like Internet Explorer did.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years. It doesn’t pay a 30% cut.
        6y ago
gfxgirl 6y ago
iOS has a 60-65% market share in the USA. Monopolies are not world wide. They are per country. There is no world government https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/tablet/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/tablet/united...
- hn_check 6y ago
  Browsing marketshare is not equivalent to marketshare. StatCounter captures browsing, and iOS users measurably browse more (for a variety of reasons - more powerful devices, more integral usage, a better experience, etc). In the US, iOS marketshare is around 45% and trails Android (which is around 50%). Both platforms have enormous support across virtually every service. It is demonstrably easy to transition between platforms.
  - gfxgirl 6y ago
    Android is not a phone vendor. Samsumg, LG, Sony, Motorola are phone vendors. Wrong comparison. Apple has the largest market by far of any phone vendor.
abiogenesis 6y ago
I don't know what that 15% figure means (the number of devices?) but that's probably irrelevant. As of 2019 App Store's total revenue is $14.2 billion vs Google Play Store's $7.7 billion. It looks more like 65% vs 35%, if we exclude other app stores.
- scarface74 6y ago
  So now we need the government to get involved because poor little Google can’t create a compelling ecosystem?
  - imafish 6y ago
    No. We need government involved because Apple are using mafia methods to extract 15-30% revenue out of app developers who do not even want to use the App Store but are forced to do so if they want to cater to smartphone users. If Apple is sitting on 65% of the app revenue worldwide they must surely be viewed as a monopoly.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      How is this different than what console makers have been doing since the 80s? Nintendo not only charges a fee for each third party game sold, it also forced third party game makers to use its manufacturing facilities. If Google can’t make a competitive ecosystem, it only has itself to blame. Also revenue has never been the deciding factor on what a “monopoly” is.

zakki 6y ago

I don’t think it is fair to count iOS market share by comparing it to all androids devices. Should be between iOS and total android flagship devices. Also, last I read 2-3 years ago, Apple profit crushed all android makers profit. Maybe we should use this for market share?

scarface74 6y ago
So now we are going to make a carve out for “all devices over $x”. Users have a choice between Androids “open ecosystem” and Apple’s “walled garden”. The consumers made a choice to spend more on Apple’s devices using their own free will. Do we really need the government to tell them that they made the wrong choice?
- brmgb 6y ago
  You don't need to carve anything. The market under consideration is not phones. It's phone application publishing and distribution and it is mostly a duopoly. Abuse on this market will most likely affect content producers more than users. It's not about consumers'choices. It's about the impact the current situation has on the rest of the market.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    There was a podcast about how US monopoly law has always been focused on consumers and not producers, but this is the best summary I could find. Notice the focus is on consumer harm. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/antitrust-law.as... Antitrust laws also referred to as competition laws, are statutes developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers from predatory business practices. If these laws didn't exist, consumers would not benefit from different options or competition in the marketplace. Furthermore, consumers would be forced to pay higher prices and would have access to a limited supply of products and services.
    - brmgb 6y ago
      The goal of antitrust law was initially to promote competition. That benefits the consumer because competition leads to either lower prices or improved differentiation. One of the most famous early use of the antitrust is United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. in 1948 which ended the studio system. It was about vertical integration and how the studios used their power to both bully small cinemas and prevent competition on the production side. As you can see, there is no consumer in sight. The Chicago School of economics pushed very hard for narrowing the scope of the law (obviously) but that's a fairly modern take.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

IOS is probably closer to 50% marketshare in the US and perhaps near 90% in younger demographics. Anti-trust doesn't require a perfect monopoly, only consumer harm.

namrog84 6y ago
I think you might be surprised.
scarface74 6y ago
How is the consumer harmed? If Apple’s “walled garden” was harming consumers we should see lower prices for Android apps.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Right, I buy an Apple device for myself and my whole family exactly because the ecosystem is a tightly integrated walled garden. There’s nothing anti-competitive or anti-consumer about walled gardens per say. Walled gardens are consistently chosen by consumers because they make devices easier to use and maintain and the user experience more predictable through actual enforcement of consistent UI standards.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    There is a consumer harm when Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% cut to App Store while Spotify and the likes have to. That's a huge competitive advantage to Apple. Not to mention Apple can simply advertise their own Apple Music Subscription inside the default Music app and gain market share just like Internet Explorer did.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years. It doesn’t pay a 30% cut.
      - 6y ago

gfxgirl 6y ago

iOS has a 60-65% market share in the USA. Monopolies are not world wide. They are per country. There is no world government https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/tablet/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/tablet/united...

hn_check 6y ago
Browsing marketshare is not equivalent to marketshare. StatCounter captures browsing, and iOS users measurably browse more (for a variety of reasons - more powerful devices, more integral usage, a better experience, etc). In the US, iOS marketshare is around 45% and trails Android (which is around 50%). Both platforms have enormous support across virtually every service. It is demonstrably easy to transition between platforms.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  Android is not a phone vendor. Samsumg, LG, Sony, Motorola are phone vendors. Wrong comparison. Apple has the largest market by far of any phone vendor.

abiogenesis 6y ago

I don't know what that 15% figure means (the number of devices?) but that's probably irrelevant. As of 2019 App Store's total revenue is $14.2 billion vs Google Play Store's $7.7 billion. It looks more like 65% vs 35%, if we exclude other app stores.

scarface74 6y ago
So now we need the government to get involved because poor little Google can’t create a compelling ecosystem?
- imafish 6y ago
  No. We need government involved because Apple are using mafia methods to extract 15-30% revenue out of app developers who do not even want to use the App Store but are forced to do so if they want to cater to smartphone users. If Apple is sitting on 65% of the app revenue worldwide they must surely be viewed as a monopoly.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    How is this different than what console makers have been doing since the 80s? Nintendo not only charges a fee for each third party game sold, it also forced third party game makers to use its manufacturing facilities. If Google can’t make a competitive ecosystem, it only has itself to blame. Also revenue has never been the deciding factor on what a “monopoly” is.