4 ms·

Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amiga_500 6y ago
They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.
- asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
  This happens often without direct collusion. You see it commonly in retail. Not sure anyone can outlaw unspoken pricing standoffs like this.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    They can do it indirectly by breaking them up.
    - asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
      There are already alternative app stores on Android (perhaps most notably, Amazon) and that hasn't impacted their 30%... so what exactly are you expecting?
      - RealStickman_ 6y ago
        These alternative App Stores are heavily restricted when it comes to updating or even just installing apps, unless they were installed into the system and the system was patched by the OEM.
not2b 6y ago
They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store is not required, but there's a risk to side-loading because ideally there would be competing stores that also do quality control and security audits, and there aren't. So it isn't a duopoly, it's one absolute monopoly and one near-monopoly.
- nradov 6y ago
  The legal definition of a "market" is always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. I doubt whether a US federal court would define the market the same way you did.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    The predominant test is market or pricing power, whether the people you are selling the good or service move to putative competitors in response to pricing/conditions changes you make. If Apple makes their terms more onerous, does it drive purchasers of their app distribution service to the Play Store? If not, they aren't competing in the same market.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Epic Games hasn't purchased any app distribution services from Apple or Google. Epic is the vendor here, not the customer. The money flows from Apple to Epic. What Apple is doing feels unfair, but making an antitrust case against them is going to be a stretch with current laws.
  - not2b 6y ago
    If I want to buy a game to play on my phone, and there is only one seller, it's a monopoly. Yes, I could buy a new phone, and then buy the game from a different store. But then I'd be buying a different product (Fortnite for Android instead of Fortnite for iPhone).
    - 6y ago
grandmczeb 6y ago
Monopolies aren’t illegal per se in the US if they were acquired lawfully. What’s illegal is using monopoly power in a prohibited way. However, collusion (even tacit collusion) can be illegal even if there’s no monopoly by a single company, e.g., market sharing[1]. Note: Not a legal expert, this is just my understanding. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

amiga_500 6y ago

They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.

asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
This happens often without direct collusion. You see it commonly in retail. Not sure anyone can outlaw unspoken pricing standoffs like this.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  They can do it indirectly by breaking them up.
  - asldkjaslkdj 6y ago
    There are already alternative app stores on Android (perhaps most notably, Amazon) and that hasn't impacted their 30%... so what exactly are you expecting?
    - RealStickman_ 6y ago
      These alternative App Stores are heavily restricted when it comes to updating or even just installing apps, unless they were installed into the system and the system was patched by the OEM.

not2b 6y ago

They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store is not required, but there's a risk to side-loading because ideally there would be competing stores that also do quality control and security audits, and there aren't. So it isn't a duopoly, it's one absolute monopoly and one near-monopoly.

nradov 6y ago
The legal definition of a "market" is always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. I doubt whether a US federal court would define the market the same way you did.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The predominant test is market or pricing power, whether the people you are selling the good or service move to putative competitors in response to pricing/conditions changes you make. If Apple makes their terms more onerous, does it drive purchasers of their app distribution service to the Play Store? If not, they aren't competing in the same market.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Epic Games hasn't purchased any app distribution services from Apple or Google. Epic is the vendor here, not the customer. The money flows from Apple to Epic. What Apple is doing feels unfair, but making an antitrust case against them is going to be a stretch with current laws.
- not2b 6y ago
  If I want to buy a game to play on my phone, and there is only one seller, it's a monopoly. Yes, I could buy a new phone, and then buy the game from a different store. But then I'd be buying a different product (Fortnite for Android instead of Fortnite for iPhone).
  - 6y ago

grandmczeb 6y ago

Monopolies aren’t illegal per se in the US if they were acquired lawfully. What’s illegal is using monopoly power in a prohibited way. However, collusion (even tacit collusion) can be illegal even if there’s no monopoly by a single company, e.g., market sharing[1]. Note: Not a legal expert, this is just my understanding. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]