3 ms·

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.