3 ms·

What is the “town” supposed to be here? People? People with smartphones? Nah, can’t be those, because you’re ignoring Android and the open web as alternatives t

What is the “town” supposed to be here? People? People with smartphones? Nah, can’t be those, because you’re ignoring Android and the open web as alternatives to Apple. So I assume you mean “people with iPhones”. I always find it amusing when the boundaries for monopoly are drawn around the set of the customers of a company. By that logic, every company is a monopoly! United Airlines has a monopoly on every customers that flies in one of their airplanes. How dare they only offer a certain brand of snack! They’re extorting their customers who have no choice!

wayneftw 6y ago
Teens in the US are a market unto themselves. The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them. Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly. Next.
- ryanwaggoner 6y ago
  None of that is how anti-trust works.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    Yes, it is. You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement
    - ryanwaggoner 6y ago
      U.S. courts almost never consider a firm to possess market power if it has a market share of less than 50 percent. And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly. Next.
      - wayneftw 6y ago
        Incorrect. They’ve already lost a preliminary antitrust suit. They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up. Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court-antitrust-apple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
        ryanwaggoner 6y ago
        Apple Inc. v. Pepper did not cover what you think it did. The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations with regard to how Apple regulates the App Store because they pay fees for apps in that store. It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"? I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        > The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations... Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made? > It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ... I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second. How bizarre is that?? > I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple... Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out. But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.

wayneftw 6y ago

Teens in the US are a market unto themselves. The iPhone has somewhere between 80-90% market share with them. Even outside of teens, they're at close to 50% and you don't need a strict majority in order to have control over the market. That's why, legally, you don't need a strict majority to be considered a monopoly. Next.

ryanwaggoner 6y ago
None of that is how anti-trust works.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Yes, it is. You can read about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power#Measurement
  - ryanwaggoner 6y ago
    U.S. courts almost never consider a firm to possess market power if it has a market share of less than 50 percent. And as much as you might wish it to be so, anti-trust courts are not going to take seriously an argument that Apple is a monopoly because you find a demographic (teens) that they have a larger market share in. Again, you can easily slice and dice markets by customer demographics to make any company a monopoly. Next.
    - wayneftw 6y ago
      Incorrect. They’ve already lost a preliminary antitrust suit. They can absolutely be sued for this. Look it up. Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court-antitrust-apple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
      - ryanwaggoner 6y ago
        Apple Inc. v. Pepper did not cover what you think it did. The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations with regard to how Apple regulates the App Store because they pay fees for apps in that store. It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument that because Apple has greater than 50% market share in the demographic of "teens", they're a monopoly and the government must step in. Does that also apply for a company who has a monopoly on "27-year-old web designers in Brooklyn who own a dog"? I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple, and it's leading you to avoid arguing in good faith.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        > The Supreme Court ruled that consumers had standing to sue for antitrust violations... Thank you for acknowledging the exact point that I just made? > It has nothing to do with your bizarre argument ... I didn't say that it was because of my argument. My demographic argument was simply a point of interest. And actually, you can disregard it and still know that Apple is the largest single manufacturer of smartphones in the US and they’ll soon surpass the 50% mark based on their trajectory and the new $399 iPhone. Samsung is a distant second. How bizarre is that?? > I'm done with this conversation. You clearly have an axe to grind against Apple... Pffft. Okay. Why shouldn't I have an axe to grind? And while we're at it - you're clearly apologizing for Apple where they deserve none. Defending a company that is basically the fucking China of tech with their Great Wall of bullshit isn't a real good look. You're going to be on the wrong side of history when this bears out. But please, do stop arguing because nothing you say will make what Apple is doing right. Even if the law were on their side, which it's not, we'd have reason enough here to make new laws that target these essential devices with new regulations. So, change your attitude, get on the correct side and stop defending your favorite corporation.