4 ms·

I understand that, but your original argument was disingenuous. The central question at hand is the App Store monopoly, and your argument was: > There are tho

by bhupy 6y ago

I understand that, but your original argument was disingenuous. The central question at hand is the App Store monopoly, and your argument was: > There are thousands of powerful smartphones on the market, from many different companies and even countries. But that number willfully misrepresents the current state of the market as it pertains to the current discussion because all but one of those powerful smartphones only operate on one other OS, and by extension, one other App Store regime. Whether this OS duopoly is acceptable is the whole debate.

scarface74 6y ago
You know what the “mono” in “monopoly” means right?
- bhupy 6y ago
  No, I'm an idiot, please explain it to me. Of course I know what it means — the argument is way more nuanced than "hurr durr there are 2 and 2 > 1".
  - scarface74 6y ago
    It actually isn’t. When you have a choice between paying a premium and paying half as much like 85% of the world. It isn’t a monopoly.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      I encourage you to read the original article. Couple things: 1. The argument isn't that it's a monopoly, it's that it's arguably monopsony. The issue is less that users don't have the choice to buy the phone they want with the OS they want, it's that developers/suppliers are unable to access a huge chunk of the market without being forced to pay 30% of earnings. 2. While it's closer to a "duopsony" than a "monopsony", it gets a little more complicated when you look at the level of each regional market. In the US, Apple's market share is closer to 50%. Maybe it's not anti-competitive for there to be only 2 app buyers on the market, but maybe it is. That's the debate, and it's by no means clear cut.
    - echelon 6y ago
      The duopoly controls distribution. That's the classic definition of a cartel. Google and Apple are a cartel. They made the world worse than it was for software distribution. It used to be open in the 90's and 00's.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        The definition of cartel requires collusion. This is reason 101 that HN posters make horrible lawyers.

by bhupy 6y ago

scarface74 6y ago

You know what the “mono” in “monopoly” means right?

bhupy 6y ago
No, I'm an idiot, please explain it to me. Of course I know what it means — the argument is way more nuanced than "hurr durr there are 2 and 2 > 1".
- scarface74 6y ago
  It actually isn’t. When you have a choice between paying a premium and paying half as much like 85% of the world. It isn’t a monopoly.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    I encourage you to read the original article. Couple things: 1. The argument isn't that it's a monopoly, it's that it's arguably monopsony. The issue is less that users don't have the choice to buy the phone they want with the OS they want, it's that developers/suppliers are unable to access a huge chunk of the market without being forced to pay 30% of earnings. 2. While it's closer to a "duopsony" than a "monopsony", it gets a little more complicated when you look at the level of each regional market. In the US, Apple's market share is closer to 50%. Maybe it's not anti-competitive for there to be only 2 app buyers on the market, but maybe it is. That's the debate, and it's by no means clear cut.
  - echelon 6y ago
    The duopoly controls distribution. That's the classic definition of a cartel. Google and Apple are a cartel. They made the world worse than it was for software distribution. It used to be open in the 90's and 00's.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The definition of cartel requires collusion. This is reason 101 that HN posters make horrible lawyers.