10 ms·

The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25% of the ma

by DenisM 6y ago

The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25% of the market and thus does not qualify for the Sherman Act definition of "monopoly". Punters, however, believe that once they enter the establishment they are now in the clutches of the monopoly, and so demand competing popcorn stands and reject the suggestion of walking over to the competing theater. Sorry folks, that's not how Sherman Act works. So long as there are enough movie theaters in town it's not a "monopoly", and a non-existent monopoly cannot be abused. The US congress could, of course, rewrite the law (as they did to pass the Sherman Act in the first place), but until such day Apple is not a monopoly in the US.

habitue 6y ago
This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize are happening (if ever). Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are really disincentivized to switch. - For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people, and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as well). People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies, and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and you literally can’t leave at will. While you’re aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from the cruise company. I don’t think a cruise ship would ever allow competing companies to provide those services. I’m personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don’t a have fundamental issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it’s limitations as an advantage. However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don’t know how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    How is Spotify and especially Netflix being harmed? If I search for a movie on either my iPhone, iPad, or AppleTV and the movie is available on Netflix, I’m told that I can watch it for free instead of being guided toward Apple’s movie store. Spotify whined for years that they couldn’t stream music to the Apple Watch or download music to the Watch. Apple allowed third party integration over a year ago. Pandora added the feature - Spotify didn’t. Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      > Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut. This is how Spotify and Netflix are harmed. They have to pick between funding their competitor, or not providing simple signups and subscriptions on one of the worlds largest computing platforms. This directly harms either their revenue stream or cost-of-acquisition. Both to the advantage of one of one of their largest competitors who has artificially introduced this barrier.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So can we also regulate Spotify for taking a much larger cut from artists? Spotify has a much larger share in streaming music than Apple has in phones. Also. I can’t sign up for a Netflix subscription on my Roku either.
        avianlyric 6y ago
        Spotify isn’t using their market dominance in another industry to squeeze either artists or competitors. Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this). If Spotify started pushing artist contracts that prevented artists from getting a better deal else where, then they should be regulated. But they don’t, and there’s plenty of artists that don’t sell on Spotify because they don’t like the deal they offer.
- solvorn 6y ago
  Imperfect competition is an economic concept. The legal concept of monopoly is not the same thing.
- DenisM 6y ago
  All kinds of things could be wrong with this AppStore business, but antitrust law / monopoly violation isn’t one of them.
- scarface74 6y ago
  For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple How many people are buying apps for the iPhone and not subscriptions that work cross platform or spending money on play to win games?
- Someone 6y ago
  I think most people agree with it not completely being an apt comparison, but any judgment on this would have to draw a line between ‘allowed’ and ‘not allowed’ (without saying “Apple and a Google can’t do X”, either explicitly or implicitly, because that, rightfully, would not hold up in court), and doing that is hard. For example, taking your “If you spend a significant amount on a phone, you're stuck there for a while” as a requirement for ‘not allowed’, Apple could start renting out phones instead of selling them. They also could stop selling third-party apps, instead opting to buy them from third parties and selling them on to consumers or renting them out, as they already do with Apple Arcade. I think any solution would have to keep that in the ‘not allowed’ category, but it would result in a situation similar to that of IBM, which used to (possibly still does) sell CPU upgrades ‘over the air’, disallowing others to do so, or Tesla, which sells software for their cars that way (and, likely, many other companies). Should those be disallowed, too? If not, why not? And yes, you don’t need monopolies or cartels to get an imperfect market, but if you don’t have monopolies or cartels, you can’t use existing laws on monopolies or cartels to correct that, so what should you use?
627467 6y ago
How is any of this relevant to "EU" as seen in title?
- DenisM 6y ago
  Discussing Sherman act is a good starting point as it illuminates the spirit of the antitrust law and illustrates the letter. Do you think the EU definition of monopoly is different enough to allow Apple be classified as a monopoly? Please, make your case!
  - 627467 6y ago
    I don't need to make my case, we'll have months (years?) Of that when the case goes ahead. What I know is: Sherman act jurisdiction does not extend into the EU

by DenisM 6y ago

habitue 6y ago

This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize are happening (if ever). Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are really disincentivized to switch. - For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people, and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as well). People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies, and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition

avianlyric 6y ago
Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and you literally can’t leave at will. While you’re aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from the cruise company. I don’t think a cruise ship would ever allow competing companies to provide those services. I’m personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don’t a have fundamental issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it’s limitations as an advantage. However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don’t know how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.
- scarface74 6y ago
  How is Spotify and especially Netflix being harmed? If I search for a movie on either my iPhone, iPad, or AppleTV and the movie is available on Netflix, I’m told that I can watch it for free instead of being guided toward Apple’s movie store. Spotify whined for years that they couldn’t stream music to the Apple Watch or download music to the Watch. Apple allowed third party integration over a year ago. Pandora added the feature - Spotify didn’t. Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut. This is how Spotify and Netflix are harmed. They have to pick between funding their competitor, or not providing simple signups and subscriptions on one of the worlds largest computing platforms. This directly harms either their revenue stream or cost-of-acquisition. Both to the advantage of one of one of their largest competitors who has artificially introduced this barrier.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So can we also regulate Spotify for taking a much larger cut from artists? Spotify has a much larger share in streaming music than Apple has in phones. Also. I can’t sign up for a Netflix subscription on my Roku either.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        Spotify isn’t using their market dominance in another industry to squeeze either artists or competitors. Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this). If Spotify started pushing artist contracts that prevented artists from getting a better deal else where, then they should be regulated. But they don’t, and there’s plenty of artists that don’t sell on Spotify because they don’t like the deal they offer.
solvorn 6y ago
Imperfect competition is an economic concept. The legal concept of monopoly is not the same thing.
DenisM 6y ago
All kinds of things could be wrong with this AppStore business, but antitrust law / monopoly violation isn’t one of them.
scarface74 6y ago
For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple How many people are buying apps for the iPhone and not subscriptions that work cross platform or spending money on play to win games?
Someone 6y ago
I think most people agree with it not completely being an apt comparison, but any judgment on this would have to draw a line between ‘allowed’ and ‘not allowed’ (without saying “Apple and a Google can’t do X”, either explicitly or implicitly, because that, rightfully, would not hold up in court), and doing that is hard. For example, taking your “If you spend a significant amount on a phone, you're stuck there for a while” as a requirement for ‘not allowed’, Apple could start renting out phones instead of selling them. They also could stop selling third-party apps, instead opting to buy them from third parties and selling them on to consumers or renting them out, as they already do with Apple Arcade. I think any solution would have to keep that in the ‘not allowed’ category, but it would result in a situation similar to that of IBM, which used to (possibly still does) sell CPU upgrades ‘over the air’, disallowing others to do so, or Tesla, which sells software for their cars that way (and, likely, many other companies). Should those be disallowed, too? If not, why not? And yes, you don’t need monopolies or cartels to get an imperfect market, but if you don’t have monopolies or cartels, you can’t use existing laws on monopolies or cartels to correct that, so what should you use?

627467 6y ago

How is any of this relevant to "EU" as seen in title?

DenisM 6y ago
Discussing Sherman act is a good starting point as it illuminates the spirit of the antitrust law and illustrates the letter. Do you think the EU definition of monopoly is different enough to allow Apple be classified as a monopoly? Please, make your case!
- 627467 6y ago
  I don't need to make my case, we'll have months (years?) Of that when the case goes ahead. What I know is: Sherman act jurisdiction does not extend into the EU