3 ms·

Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone market, but it does have a dominant position there and a monopoly in the tablet segment where it does the same

Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone market, but it does have a dominant position there and a monopoly in the tablet segment where it does the same thing.

Despegar 6y ago
"Monopoly power" and "dominance" mean the same thing. One is used in the US, the other in the EU. You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU. No you're not. The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Overwhelming market share isn't required, and there are several cases that have found companies to be "dominant" where they had less than 50% market share in the EU. (As a good demonstration of this Google's own competition law settlement on Android apps pre-installation in the EU. Google do not approach anything like having a monopoly market share in the EU either, but they still settled because they were going to lose.)
  - JimDabell 6y ago
    > The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Is it? App Store prices have been a race to the bottom for years, yet it's clearly in Apple’s interests to keep the prices high, both to keep their revenue from the service as high as possible and to stimulate the app economy. If they had control over the market pricing, why did the race to the bottom happen and why haven't Apple stopped it? If the argument is that they don't care about the revenue and they actually prefer the prices as low as possible to add value to their hardware devices, then why are Apple charging 30% and not 0%?
    - Mindwipe 6y ago
      I don't really agree that's relevant to be honest. The affect on pricing can be quite wide. For example, the EU will not have an issue finding developers who will say they priced their product 30% higher on all platforms than they otherwise might have because they knew the had to pay the Apple surcharge and Apple do not permit you to charge extra to cover their cut (except then they sometimes arbitrarily do! But that's not what the terms say).
      - dwaite 6y ago
        Apple had those clauses (I believe they are referred to as ‘Most Favored Nation’ clauses) but I believe removed them after the US E-Book settlement. They still may be attached to marketing and partnership opportunities I believe, though - you might not be featured in the store if you charge iOS users more than android or web users, just like they will probably not advertise a new movie or album if Amazon is allowed to sell it for a lower price.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  A monopoly means you're pretty much the only viable supplier/provider for a particular segment of the market. A dominant player is someone who isn't an outright monopoly, but nonetheless has a sizable market share and can influence pricing, competition, (i.e. by its patent licensing terms and deals with key component OEMs), the ability to set or influence standards etc.

Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone market, but it does have a dominant position there and a monopoly in the tablet segment where it does the same thing.

Despegar 6y ago

"Monopoly power" and "dominance" mean the same thing. One is used in the US, the other in the EU. You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU.

Mindwipe 6y ago
> You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU. No you're not. The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Overwhelming market share isn't required, and there are several cases that have found companies to be "dominant" where they had less than 50% market share in the EU. (As a good demonstration of this Google's own competition law settlement on Android apps pre-installation in the EU. Google do not approach anything like having a monopoly market share in the EU either, but they still settled because they were going to lose.)
- JimDabell 6y ago
  > The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Is it? App Store prices have been a race to the bottom for years, yet it's clearly in Apple’s interests to keep the prices high, both to keep their revenue from the service as high as possible and to stimulate the app economy. If they had control over the market pricing, why did the race to the bottom happen and why haven't Apple stopped it? If the argument is that they don't care about the revenue and they actually prefer the prices as low as possible to add value to their hardware devices, then why are Apple charging 30% and not 0%?
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    I don't really agree that's relevant to be honest. The affect on pricing can be quite wide. For example, the EU will not have an issue finding developers who will say they priced their product 30% higher on all platforms than they otherwise might have because they knew the had to pay the Apple surcharge and Apple do not permit you to charge extra to cover their cut (except then they sometimes arbitrarily do! But that's not what the terms say).
    - dwaite 6y ago
      Apple had those clauses (I believe they are referred to as ‘Most Favored Nation’ clauses) but I believe removed them after the US E-Book settlement. They still may be attached to marketing and partnership opportunities I believe, though - you might not be featured in the store if you charge iOS users more than android or web users, just like they will probably not advertise a new movie or album if Amazon is allowed to sell it for a lower price.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
A monopoly means you're pretty much the only viable supplier/provider for a particular segment of the market. A dominant player is someone who isn't an outright monopoly, but nonetheless has a sizable market share and can influence pricing, competition, (i.e. by its patent licensing terms and deals with key component OEMs), the ability to set or influence standards etc.