4 ms·

The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense. Consider this, if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones and sold them to 100 p

The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense. Consider this, if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones and sold them to 100 people and had 0.00001% share of the smartphone market, no one in their right mind would consider them a monopoly or ever consider bringing an anti-trust case against them for the restrictions they impose on their own App Store. But everything you said would still hold true: "They have a monopoly on iOS app stores." "This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different." So clearly this definition cannot be the correct way to define what is and isn't a monopoly.

Dahoon 6y ago
>The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense Maybe not to you but it is how the anti-monopoly law work in lots of countries. Funny that you can just say "Doesn't work, NEXT!" as if you know better than Telegram's lawyers. Apple will be fined or settle.
- nodamage 6y ago
  I can't speak for every country, but in the EU I think it's likely the case will be thrown out due to the inability to prove that Apple has "substantial market power" with 25% market share. The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009XC0224%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You keep using their share of the phone market when we're talking about the app market. Whether the iOS app market and the Android app market are the same market has nothing to do with what percentage of the market for phone hardware each platform has.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      The two are inextricably linked. Which apps are available on a phone are part of the decision of which phone you might prefer to buy.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> But everything you said would still hold true That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents. In practice if the market was that small then nobody would care. It takes a certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or not. Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice. Apple, of course, is not that small.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents. That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions. These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product. The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a gaming console might influence which console you buy.
  - acituan 6y ago
    > These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product. A better analogy would be having a person with you all the time and told you what products you can buy or not buy from any of these stores and took a 30% either from you or the producers everytime you did. Walmart is only a monopoly on walmart branded products sold on Walmart, for everything else you have the option to buy them somewhere else. Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.
acituan 6y ago
> The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense... if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones ... That is precisely the point. iPhone has a market share of 45% in the US. Therefore Apple has absolute control on 45% of the US population's app provision, they are precisely a monopoly (etymology: single - provider) for that market. If 45% of the roads in the US was built by Apple and they had absolute control what cars run on it, they would still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes of why a monopoly is harmful and extractive. Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Even if they were, at best it would mean we had a duopoly instead.
- nodamage 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you here. iOS and Android definitely constitute a duopoly worldwide, and Apple's market share in the US may be high enough for anti-trust concerns to apply. The key point is the percentage market share is an important consideration in determining whether a company has a monopoly or not. I'm only taking exception with claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores" based on reasoning that ignores market share, because that reasoning is tautological. Also, Telegram's complaint was filed in the EU where Apple only has 25% market share and likely would not be considered to have a monopoly. > Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Competitors do not need to be 100% identical to be considered alternative products to each other. Xboxes, Playstations, and Nintendos have different hardware and software but they are all competing in the gaming console market.

Dahoon 6y ago

>The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense Maybe not to you but it is how the anti-monopoly law work in lots of countries. Funny that you can just say "Doesn't work, NEXT!" as if you know better than Telegram's lawyers. Apple will be fined or settle.

nodamage 6y ago
I can't speak for every country, but in the EU I think it's likely the case will be thrown out due to the inability to prove that Apple has "substantial market power" with 25% market share. The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009XC0224%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You keep using their share of the phone market when we're talking about the app market. Whether the iOS app market and the Android app market are the same market has nothing to do with what percentage of the market for phone hardware each platform has.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    The two are inextricably linked. Which apps are available on a phone are part of the decision of which phone you might prefer to buy.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> But everything you said would still hold true That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents. In practice if the market was that small then nobody would care. It takes a certain market size before it's worth the effort of bringing a case against the monopolist. But that's a different question than whether there is one or not. Your argument is essentially that if a small town with a population of 100 has only a single retail store within two hours drive, that store doesn't have a local monopoly because not enough people live there. But they still do. Even if they're too small for anybody to do anything about it in practice. Apple, of course, is not that small.

nodamage 6y ago
> That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents. That's incredibly tautological. Walmart has a monopoly on the distribution of products sold in Walmarts. Nintendo has a monopoly on the distribution of games on Nintendo products. Visa has a monopoly on Visa transactions. These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product. The types of apps available on a particular phone are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available for a gaming console might influence which console you buy.
- acituan 6y ago
  > These are not meaningful distinctions: the consumer has a choice not to shop at Walmart, not to buy a Nintendo product, and not to use a Visa card. Similarly, the consumer has a choice not to buy an Apple product. A better analogy would be having a person with you all the time and told you what products you can buy or not buy from any of these stores and took a 30% either from you or the producers everytime you did. Walmart is only a monopoly on walmart branded products sold on Walmart, for everything else you have the option to buy them somewhere else. Apple has monopoly on every single app sold on their app store, you can't buy them somewhere else without depending on the developer making a different version and forgoing the iPhone you had already bought.

acituan 6y ago

> The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense... if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones ... That is precisely the point. iPhone has a market share of 45% in the US. Therefore Apple has absolute control on 45% of the US population's app provision, they are precisely a monopoly (etymology: single - provider) for that market. If 45% of the roads in the US was built by Apple and they had absolute control what cars run on it, they would still be a monopoly for all intents and purposes of why a monopoly is harmful and extractive. Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Even if they were, at best it would mean we had a duopoly instead.

nodamage 6y ago
I don't disagree with you here. iOS and Android definitely constitute a duopoly worldwide, and Apple's market share in the US may be high enough for anti-trust concerns to apply. The key point is the percentage market share is an important consideration in determining whether a company has a monopoly or not. I'm only taking exception with claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores" based on reasoning that ignores market share, because that reasoning is tautological. Also, Telegram's complaint was filed in the EU where Apple only has 25% market share and likely would not be considered to have a monopoly. > Before we think "but users can buy Android too", iOS and Android are not completely fungible operating systems nor the hardware they come with. Competitors do not need to be 100% identical to be considered alternative products to each other. Xboxes, Playstations, and Nintendos have different hardware and software but they are all competing in the gaming console market.