3 ms·

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, las

by 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.

by zakki 6y ago

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.