3 ms·

Because at that point you've redefined the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes tautological.

twicetwice 6y ago
How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the argument for that position?
- nodamage 6y ago
  Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market. If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a bit further and find another gas station.
  - twicetwice 6y ago
    Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my front lawn". Is that a meaningful distinction? > Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market. No one would consider moving to another country a realistic alternative. So in that situation, yes, there is a monopoly because the consumer does not have a realistic alternative. If a gas station is the only gas station in the city, then it too would have a monopoly in that city, because driving to the next city every time you needed gas is not realistic.
slavak 6y ago
Well there are US Supreme Court justices who seem to agree with that definition, so it might be tautological, but it's legally significant regardless. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monopoly-20181126-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monop...

How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the argument for that position?

nodamage 6y ago
Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market. If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a bit further and find another gas station.
- twicetwice 6y ago
  Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    > Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my front lawn". Is that a meaningful distinction? > Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market. No one would consider moving to another country a realistic alternative. So in that situation, yes, there is a monopoly because the consumer does not have a realistic alternative. If a gas station is the only gas station in the city, then it too would have a monopoly in that city, because driving to the next city every time you needed gas is not realistic.

slavak 6y ago

Well there are US Supreme Court justices who seem to agree with that definition, so it might be tautological, but it's legally significant regardless. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monopoly-20181126-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monop...