5 ms·

Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small internatio

Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small international market. Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer. The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model. Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model. It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market. I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.

blattimwind 6y ago
I think that's exactly the point and it even applies to Macbooks: Apple just makes some pretty average laptops with poor price-performance ratio (even in the allegedly-high-end segment) and they clearly don't have a monopoly or even significant market share [1] in that category. Apple is just somewhat unique in that there is a very vocal minority of people who have decided that they only ever want to use Apple laptops (some Thinkpad users are similar), and of course Apple has a 100 % monopoly on Apple laptops, obviously. Viewed through this lens a lot of the coverage of Mac hardware makes a lot more sense; it never was about rational decision making. [1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.
- thebruce87m 6y ago
  I don’t buy Apple laptops or any laptops Any more but it’s interesting that you cite poor price-performance. 15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    Yes. For one, the keyboards fail.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      On some models made in some years and the manufacturer has admitting the fault and extended an extra warranty to cover the fault and made adjustments to the process to avoid that fault in the future. Surely indicative of the shoddy quality Apple is known for...
chrisco255 6y ago
I'm not saying the answer is to break them up, but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices, like Microsoft had to allow for different search engines on their browsers and different default browsers. Apple could be forced to allow alternative app stores or to stop dragging their feet on PWA features or any other number of reasonable regulations like that.
- objclxt 6y ago
  > but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices But as the parent comment you're replying to said, the situations aren't comparable. Microsoft had over 90% of the market in the 90s. You could not stop using Windows, because there was simply no credible alternative for most consumers. That's not true for iOS. If Microsoft at the time had, say, 50% of the market the outcome would likely have been extremely different.
  - YayamiOmate 6y ago
    It depends how you define market. Apple has control over 100% of ios apps. I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.
    - evilduck 6y ago
      Walmart has 100% monopoly over their store space. Verizon has 100% monopoly over what can connect to their network. Google has a monopoly over the Play Store. Cows have a monopoly over milk production. At which point does this argument stop working? > I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os. You should probably look that up then, instead of "doubting": https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
      - sepiatone 6y ago
        Yes, but Walmart cannot stop another supermarket from opening in the same area, Verizon cannot stop you from bringing another phone to their network. Android allows other stores. Cows? Oh wait, you've got me there.
endymi0n 6y ago
I‘m more and more of the opinion that oligolipolies (multi-monopolies) should be treated the same as monopolies. Just because there is more than a single provider still does not mean there is a free market and consumers have actual choice. Google and Apple both pull extremely anticompetitive behavior lately and the excuse of „just switch to the other side“ bypasses reality. There are quite a lot of studies that free markets start working only if there are more than 4 parties left to compete with significant market share. Citations missing since I‘m on mobile.
- scarface74 6y ago
  So what do you propose the government do?
Androider 6y ago
You don't need to be a monopoly to have antitrust action taken against you, you just need to have sufficient market power and engage in behavior which is anti-competitive. House Antitrust Committee chairman David Cicilline yesterday: “Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” said Rep. Cicilline. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-hey-email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020 https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-... Oh it is possible to get Apple to change. Not by asking nicely, but perhaps by carrying a big stick. The arrogance Apple displays today is much the same as Microsoft back in the day. Let's hope for a similar outcome as back then, which fundamentally changed Microsoft for the better. It's possible, but not if we don't try.
- Despegar 6y ago
  Nothing David Cicilline said amounts to anything more than talk. He frequently refers to them as a monopolist in that podcast, but that means a very specific thing in antitrust law. DoJ or FTC would have to prove in court that Apple has "monopoly power" in a relevant market. Since a court will toss it out when Apple moves for a summary judgement if their antitrust theory is that Apple's 45% of the smartphone market gives them monopoly power (based on precedent), they will try to define the market more narrowly to something like "iOS applications". But again a court is unlikely to accept that reasoning. And if you think about it for 3 seconds it's obvious why: Apple's "monopoly" was established when the App Store was launched in 2008 when the iPhone was an insignificant share of the market. That would also mean that any future product (like the AR glasses, or from any other company) would have "monopoly power" in their platform as soon as they ship 1 unit. This is obviously an absurd outcome.
- scarface74 6y ago
  A house member can say anything they want. It means absolutely nothing legally. If small developers can’t live off of 70%. They need to raise their prices by 43% to account for the 30% cut.
harikb 6y ago
They are indeed a monopoly in a certain market segment - aka, those who are more than willing to pay for apps. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps-vs-android-charts-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps... Their existing monopolistic actions like “preventing interoperability at any cost” feeds this viscous cycle where high school kids are embarrassed to send text message to iPhone from an Android device. I own Apple stock, would love then to crush competition, but let us not twist facts.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Perhaps the apps are higher quality in iOS due to the App Store policy, and consumers are more likely to invest in that quality. Remove the gate, the quality dips. I'd imagine the amount willing to pay goes down too.
chacham15 6y ago
> Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market In the video "Competition is for Losers with Peter Thiel", Peter Thiel discusses this. The problem here is in how you define "monopoly". If you're a large company, you want to say that the market is a lot larger than what you are operating in. To take this to an extreme, you could say that you're a technology company and if people dont like cell phones, they can use tablets/laptops/desktops. Conversly, if you narrow the definition of monopoly, there are tons of them. E.g. how many supermarkets are there within a 4 block radius of my house? Because of this, instead of simply looking at scope, a common method is to look at what sort of behavior is the company taking. Is the supermarket lowering its prices below profitable to not allow another supermarket to survive in my neighborhood? In the case of Apple, I think people see the behavior of controlling the App Market as a monopolistic behavior which prevents others from competing.
- scarface74 6y ago
  That’s “common” based on what judicial precedent. What makes Peter Thiel’s opinion more relevant than any random HN poster who doesn’t know what a monopoly is?
YayamiOmate 6y ago
Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service. So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game. Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further. By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further. This only became an issue when their market share was far greater than the competition, which is simply not the case. This is just developer sour grapes. You want more money. Just say it.
- willyt 6y ago
  But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    >maybe 20% of phones Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, the metric that actually matters, they account for well over two thirds of the market.
    - Terretta 6y ago
      because people care about the ecosystem and that has real monetary value to all three (consumer, seller, marketplace)
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  The fact that Microsoft was a subject to the anti-trust investigation for giving away their browser for free is not an indicator of a just law and its correct application. The law is flawed and that case was simply a hint to MS that they should've lobbied proper people in the government. "Pay us or else" - a typical practice of any government with unreasonably wide powers over country's economy.
Joeri 6y ago
In fairness to Hey, they didn't plan to be in this situation. They thought they did everything apple wanted them to, and they spent years building this service, only to then find out apple won't allow it. If you're going to exclude all potential products where you have to go through apple to be a major player (given the competition), you're excluding most of the software market. Maybe developers don't really have a choice? And yeah, apple is not a monopoly, but apple/google for sure is a duopoly, and google is only incrementally better than apple.
- ariwilson 6y ago
  Google tolerates exactly the behavior Hey wants for its app.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
The monopoly in this case is the distribution of iOS applications and payment within them. Breaking that up means allowing other payment options within apps and potentially allowing side loaded applications.
- scarface74 6y ago
  And Amazon has a monopoly on Kindle apps and Spotify has a monopoly on music that can be played on its platform. That’s not how monopolies work.
moz14015 6y ago
Apple absolutely has a monopoly on phone apps. You can either get an app on the Apple App Store or the Google Play store in practice. Both charge 30% fees for every dollar spent on digital products, that they did nothing to provide. They have absolute authority on what apps can and cannot be used on phones. Not sure why everyone has rose colored glasses for Apple's hardware enforced software monopoly.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  Most of the apps on those stores don't have to be OS Apps, they can be Web Apps, accessbile from any device connected to the Internet.

blattimwind 6y ago

I think that's exactly the point and it even applies to Macbooks: Apple just makes some pretty average laptops with poor price-performance ratio (even in the allegedly-high-end segment) and they clearly don't have a monopoly or even significant market share [1] in that category. Apple is just somewhat unique in that there is a very vocal minority of people who have decided that they only ever want to use Apple laptops (some Thinkpad users are similar), and of course Apple has a 100 % monopoly on Apple laptops, obviously. Viewed through this lens a lot of the coverage of Mac hardware makes a lot more sense; it never was about rational decision making. [1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.

thebruce87m 6y ago
I don’t buy Apple laptops or any laptops Any more but it’s interesting that you cite poor price-performance. 15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?
- WalterSear 6y ago
  Yes. For one, the keyboards fail.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    On some models made in some years and the manufacturer has admitting the fault and extended an extra warranty to cover the fault and made adjustments to the process to avoid that fault in the future. Surely indicative of the shoddy quality Apple is known for...

chrisco255 6y ago

I'm not saying the answer is to break them up, but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices, like Microsoft had to allow for different search engines on their browsers and different default browsers. Apple could be forced to allow alternative app stores or to stop dragging their feet on PWA features or any other number of reasonable regulations like that.

objclxt 6y ago
> but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices But as the parent comment you're replying to said, the situations aren't comparable. Microsoft had over 90% of the market in the 90s. You could not stop using Windows, because there was simply no credible alternative for most consumers. That's not true for iOS. If Microsoft at the time had, say, 50% of the market the outcome would likely have been extremely different.
- YayamiOmate 6y ago
  It depends how you define market. Apple has control over 100% of ios apps. I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.
  - evilduck 6y ago
    Walmart has 100% monopoly over their store space. Verizon has 100% monopoly over what can connect to their network. Google has a monopoly over the Play Store. Cows have a monopoly over milk production. At which point does this argument stop working? > I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os. You should probably look that up then, instead of "doubting": https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
    - sepiatone 6y ago
      Yes, but Walmart cannot stop another supermarket from opening in the same area, Verizon cannot stop you from bringing another phone to their network. Android allows other stores. Cows? Oh wait, you've got me there.

endymi0n 6y ago

I‘m more and more of the opinion that oligolipolies (multi-monopolies) should be treated the same as monopolies. Just because there is more than a single provider still does not mean there is a free market and consumers have actual choice. Google and Apple both pull extremely anticompetitive behavior lately and the excuse of „just switch to the other side“ bypasses reality. There are quite a lot of studies that free markets start working only if there are more than 4 parties left to compete with significant market share. Citations missing since I‘m on mobile.

scarface74 6y ago
So what do you propose the government do?

Androider 6y ago

You don't need to be a monopoly to have antitrust action taken against you, you just need to have sufficient market power and engage in behavior which is anti-competitive. House Antitrust Committee chairman David Cicilline yesterday: “Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” said Rep. Cicilline. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-hey-email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020 https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-... Oh it is possible to get Apple to change. Not by asking nicely, but perhaps by carrying a big stick. The arrogance Apple displays today is much the same as Microsoft back in the day. Let's hope for a similar outcome as back then, which fundamentally changed Microsoft for the better. It's possible, but not if we don't try.

Despegar 6y ago
Nothing David Cicilline said amounts to anything more than talk. He frequently refers to them as a monopolist in that podcast, but that means a very specific thing in antitrust law. DoJ or FTC would have to prove in court that Apple has "monopoly power" in a relevant market. Since a court will toss it out when Apple moves for a summary judgement if their antitrust theory is that Apple's 45% of the smartphone market gives them monopoly power (based on precedent), they will try to define the market more narrowly to something like "iOS applications". But again a court is unlikely to accept that reasoning. And if you think about it for 3 seconds it's obvious why: Apple's "monopoly" was established when the App Store was launched in 2008 when the iPhone was an insignificant share of the market. That would also mean that any future product (like the AR glasses, or from any other company) would have "monopoly power" in their platform as soon as they ship 1 unit. This is obviously an absurd outcome.
scarface74 6y ago
A house member can say anything they want. It means absolutely nothing legally. If small developers can’t live off of 70%. They need to raise their prices by 43% to account for the 30% cut.

harikb 6y ago

They are indeed a monopoly in a certain market segment - aka, those who are more than willing to pay for apps. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps-vs-android-charts-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps... Their existing monopolistic actions like “preventing interoperability at any cost” feeds this viscous cycle where high school kids are embarrassed to send text message to iPhone from an Android device. I own Apple stock, would love then to crush competition, but let us not twist facts.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Perhaps the apps are higher quality in iOS due to the App Store policy, and consumers are more likely to invest in that quality. Remove the gate, the quality dips. I'd imagine the amount willing to pay goes down too.

chacham15 6y ago

> Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market In the video "Competition is for Losers with Peter Thiel", Peter Thiel discusses this. The problem here is in how you define "monopoly". If you're a large company, you want to say that the market is a lot larger than what you are operating in. To take this to an extreme, you could say that you're a technology company and if people dont like cell phones, they can use tablets/laptops/desktops. Conversly, if you narrow the definition of monopoly, there are tons of them. E.g. how many supermarkets are there within a 4 block radius of my house? Because of this, instead of simply looking at scope, a common method is to look at what sort of behavior is the company taking. Is the supermarket lowering its prices below profitable to not allow another supermarket to survive in my neighborhood? In the case of Apple, I think people see the behavior of controlling the App Market as a monopolistic behavior which prevents others from competing.

scarface74 6y ago
That’s “common” based on what judicial precedent. What makes Peter Thiel’s opinion more relevant than any random HN poster who doesn’t know what a monopoly is?

YayamiOmate 6y ago

Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service. So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game. Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further. By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further. This only became an issue when their market share was far greater than the competition, which is simply not the case. This is just developer sour grapes. You want more money. Just say it.
willyt 6y ago
But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  >maybe 20% of phones Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, the metric that actually matters, they account for well over two thirds of the market.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    because people care about the ecosystem and that has real monetary value to all three (consumer, seller, marketplace)
ghostwriter 6y ago
The fact that Microsoft was a subject to the anti-trust investigation for giving away their browser for free is not an indicator of a just law and its correct application. The law is flawed and that case was simply a hint to MS that they should've lobbied proper people in the government. "Pay us or else" - a typical practice of any government with unreasonably wide powers over country's economy.

Joeri 6y ago

In fairness to Hey, they didn't plan to be in this situation. They thought they did everything apple wanted them to, and they spent years building this service, only to then find out apple won't allow it. If you're going to exclude all potential products where you have to go through apple to be a major player (given the competition), you're excluding most of the software market. Maybe developers don't really have a choice? And yeah, apple is not a monopoly, but apple/google for sure is a duopoly, and google is only incrementally better than apple.

ariwilson 6y ago
Google tolerates exactly the behavior Hey wants for its app.

ViViDboarder 6y ago

The monopoly in this case is the distribution of iOS applications and payment within them. Breaking that up means allowing other payment options within apps and potentially allowing side loaded applications.

scarface74 6y ago
And Amazon has a monopoly on Kindle apps and Spotify has a monopoly on music that can be played on its platform. That’s not how monopolies work.

moz14015 6y ago

Apple absolutely has a monopoly on phone apps. You can either get an app on the Apple App Store or the Google Play store in practice. Both charge 30% fees for every dollar spent on digital products, that they did nothing to provide. They have absolute authority on what apps can and cannot be used on phones. Not sure why everyone has rose colored glasses for Apple's hardware enforced software monopoly.

ghostwriter 6y ago
Most of the apps on those stores don't have to be OS Apps, they can be Web Apps, accessbile from any device connected to the Internet.