3 ms·

>trillion dollar app monopolies that Google and Apple have setup. How does Apple have a monopoly? They only own 25% mobile market share globally.[1] [1] https

>trillion dollar app monopolies that Google and Apple have setup. How does Apple have a monopoly? They only own 25% mobile market share globally.[1] [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

koheripbal 6y ago
First of all, the jurisdiction of the US justice department means you need to look at the percentage market of smart phones in the US - not globally and not on non-smart phones. But more importantly - It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. To break the law, you simply need to use your position to put anti-competitive pressure on your competitors, exactly by pressuring and tying products together like Apple has done. The only reason phone manufacturers have forced users to their app store is exactly to create a little monopoly on their platform.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >But more importantly - It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. They did. Windows had > 98% of the desktop market.
  - plerpin 6y ago
    What more proof could you need? In what universe would Windows' market penetration NOT be considered a monopoly?
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  > They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. Not quite true - there are many examples of a monopolistic market where smaller players will leverage anti-competitive tactics that are only legal because of their small market share; if the monopolist used those same tactics, then it would be illegal. To be precise though, you're right that you don't need a full-on monopoly - just dominant market ownership and actual leverage of that dominance, which can be evaluated in multiple ways. One ex:price-elasticity analysis arguments that compare changing prices to responses in the market demand. If I raise prices 100x, or charge a super high premium above what an efficient market would dictate, but demand doesn't change, then you can make a reasonable case for my market dominance. As another analogy: if I make an phone operating system "HackerNewsOS" and charge a 80% premium to apps wanting to be in my app store, my market share of "one person" would not run roul of anti-trust laws. (However, if I conspire with Apple to set the same premium on both of our platforms, then we're talking a different ballgame haha...) >It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. Yes and no - I would argue that Microsoft's dominance of the PC market in the 90's is >> Apple's dominance of the mobile phone market share. I'm really interested to see how the courts eventually settle on some of the definitions of the markets in question, as that would dictate how much leverage Apple really does have.
apatters 6y ago
To attract antitrust scrutiny in the US you don't need to be a monopoly. You need something economists call "market power." A firm has market power when they are able to raise their prices with impunity because consumers are unable to switch to alternatives. If Apple decides to raise the price of all the apps on its store tomorrow, what can you do? Those apps have no other way to get to you, all you can do is take the pain. That smells like market power. I guess you have the option of switching to Android, but that comes with a high cost. So figuring out whether that matters is the type of thing that would be examined in an investigation.
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  > If Apple decides to raise the price of all the apps on its store tomorrow, what can you do? Funny enough, I was going to argue that you don't _have_ to use Apple, but you're absolutely right on the switching costs, and is a compelling argument. (If this was r/ChangeMyView, I'd give you a delta.) Yet, from a customer experience standpoint I'm a tad worried about the implications: one solution would be to allow multiple app stores on a given platform. I know this group would support that, but it's already hard enough to teach my family how to use one app store, and to be careful about downloading shady apps - never mind MULTIPLE. Ex: if my 60 year old uncle wants to play a game, I can imagine him asking "why do I have to download a separate app just to download the app I want?"

koheripbal 6y ago

First of all, the jurisdiction of the US justice department means you need to look at the percentage market of smart phones in the US - not globally and not on non-smart phones. But more importantly - It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. To break the law, you simply need to use your position to put anti-competitive pressure on your competitors, exactly by pressuring and tying products together like Apple has done. The only reason phone manufacturers have forced users to their app store is exactly to create a little monopoly on their platform.

coldtea 6y ago
>But more importantly - It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. They did. Windows had > 98% of the desktop market.
- plerpin 6y ago
  What more proof could you need? In what universe would Windows' market penetration NOT be considered a monopoly?
s3r3nity 6y ago
> They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. Not quite true - there are many examples of a monopolistic market where smaller players will leverage anti-competitive tactics that are only legal because of their small market share; if the monopolist used those same tactics, then it would be illegal. To be precise though, you're right that you don't need a full-on monopoly - just dominant market ownership and actual leverage of that dominance, which can be evaluated in multiple ways. One ex:price-elasticity analysis arguments that compare changing prices to responses in the market demand. If I raise prices 100x, or charge a super high premium above what an efficient market would dictate, but demand doesn't change, then you can make a reasonable case for my market dominance. As another analogy: if I make an phone operating system "HackerNewsOS" and charge a 80% premium to apps wanting to be in my app store, my market share of "one person" would not run roul of anti-trust laws. (However, if I conspire with Apple to set the same premium on both of our platforms, then we're talking a different ballgame haha...) >It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. Yes and no - I would argue that Microsoft's dominance of the PC market in the 90's is >> Apple's dominance of the mobile phone market share. I'm really interested to see how the courts eventually settle on some of the definitions of the markets in question, as that would dictate how much leverage Apple really does have.

apatters 6y ago

To attract antitrust scrutiny in the US you don't need to be a monopoly. You need something economists call "market power." A firm has market power when they are able to raise their prices with impunity because consumers are unable to switch to alternatives. If Apple decides to raise the price of all the apps on its store tomorrow, what can you do? Those apps have no other way to get to you, all you can do is take the pain. That smells like market power. I guess you have the option of switching to Android, but that comes with a high cost. So figuring out whether that matters is the type of thing that would be examined in an investigation.

s3r3nity 6y ago
> If Apple decides to raise the price of all the apps on its store tomorrow, what can you do? Funny enough, I was going to argue that you don't _have_ to use Apple, but you're absolutely right on the switching costs, and is a compelling argument. (If this was r/ChangeMyView, I'd give you a delta.) Yet, from a customer experience standpoint I'm a tad worried about the implications: one solution would be to allow multiple app stores on a given platform. I know this group would support that, but it's already hard enough to teach my family how to use one app store, and to be careful about downloading shady apps - never mind MULTIPLE. Ex: if my 60 year old uncle wants to play a game, I can imagine him asking "why do I have to download a separate app just to download the app I want?"