4 ms·

If one company (let's say, Tesla) owned half the electric car charging stations in town, and another company (let's say, Nissan) owned the other half, and Tesla

If one company (let's say, Tesla) owned half the electric car charging stations in town, and another company (let's say, Nissan) owned the other half, and Tesla's charging stations could only be used on Tesla vehicles and Nissan's charging stations could only be used on Nissan vehicles, would you conclude that both companies have monopolies?

username90 6y ago
It doesn't matter if Apple has a monopoly or not, they can bully other companies all day long anyway since they got the most lucrative users and you can only reach them via Apple phones. If there is no law to handle this case then we need to create one since the current situation is obviously bad. It is kinda like how workers can get bullied by companies since the worker is so much smaller, Apple is way less dependent on app creators than the app creators are on Apple creating an unhealthy power imbalance. Such power imbalances needs to be regulated.
- nodamage 6y ago
  It does matter if your goal is to sue Apple on anti-trust grounds, as Epic has done.
realusername 6y ago
> would you conclude that both companies have monopolies? Personally yes, that's the textbook of unfair competition.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If one company (let's say, Tesla) owned half the electric car charging stations in town, and another company (let's say, Nissan) owned the other half, and Tesla's charging stations could only be used on Tesla vehicles and Nissan's charging stations could only be used on Nissan vehicles, would you conclude that both companies have monopolies? Yes, of course. The fact that you can't use the other company's chargers means that there are then two markets there, one for Tesla-vehicle charging stations and one for Nissan-vehicle charging stations. You can't substitute one for the other in that case, you need one compatible with your car. It's the same reason that gas pumps aren't the same market as electric car chargers, or that gas pumps aren't the same market as diesel pumps. If there is only one diesel pump in the state then it has a monopoly no matter how many gas pumps there are because you can't use gasoline in a diesel vehicle. If you could use either type of charger with either type of car then they would be in the same market, because a customer who wants to charge their car could substitute either one for the other, so they would each actually be in competition with the other and neither would have a monopoly. I think the fact that the "chargers" and the "cars" are hypothesized to be operated by the same company is what's messing people up. Suppose you have two companies that each operate half the charging stations in the same region. One is Tesla, and you can only use them to charge a Tesla vehicle. The other is Exxon, which has started installing electric car chargers at their gas stations, and where you can charge any car including a Tesla. Well then Tesla hasn't got a monopoly on anything, because any Tesla owner can go charge their car at Exxon, and Exxon doesn't have a monopoly for Tesla vehicles, because they can also go charge their car at Tesla. But Exxon does have a monopoly for charging non-Tesla vehicles, because if you have a Nissan or a Chevy, you can't use the Tesla chargers, leaving Exxon as your only option.
- nodamage 6y ago
  So, under current US case law, the courts have generally found companies to be not liable for "aftermarket" antitrust claims if: 1) The manufacturer lacks sufficient market power in the "foremarket". (In the case of Apple, this would be the sale of the phone. In your example, it would be the sale of the car.) 2) The consumer was aware of the "aftermarket" restrictions when buying the original product. (In the case of Apple this would be the App Store pricing and rules. In the car example it would be the location and cost of the charging stations.) 3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.) The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. If they went ahead and bought anyway, they knew what they were signing up for. It's like buying a razor and then being stuck with expensive replacement razor blades. Or buying a movie ticket and then being stuck buying expensive popcorn from that theater. Yes, once you buy the movie ticket and enter the theater they have a "monopoly" on your snack purchases. No, you're not likely to win an antitrust claim against the theater.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > 3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.) The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is any other app you need which is only available on one platform, or if you make use of Google or Apple services that are only well supported or supported at all on one platform and would incur substantial switching costs to move to the other. You also have a different problem here: > The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there. Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.

username90 6y ago

It doesn't matter if Apple has a monopoly or not, they can bully other companies all day long anyway since they got the most lucrative users and you can only reach them via Apple phones. If there is no law to handle this case then we need to create one since the current situation is obviously bad. It is kinda like how workers can get bullied by companies since the worker is so much smaller, Apple is way less dependent on app creators than the app creators are on Apple creating an unhealthy power imbalance. Such power imbalances needs to be regulated.

nodamage 6y ago
It does matter if your goal is to sue Apple on anti-trust grounds, as Epic has done.

realusername 6y ago

> would you conclude that both companies have monopolies? Personally yes, that's the textbook of unfair competition.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If one company (let's say, Tesla) owned half the electric car charging stations in town, and another company (let's say, Nissan) owned the other half, and Tesla's charging stations could only be used on Tesla vehicles and Nissan's charging stations could only be used on Nissan vehicles, would you conclude that both companies have monopolies? Yes, of course. The fact that you can't use the other company's chargers means that there are then two markets there, one for Tesla-vehicle charging stations and one for Nissan-vehicle charging stations. You can't substitute one for the other in that case, you need one compatible with your car. It's the same reason that gas pumps aren't the same market as electric car chargers, or that gas pumps aren't the same market as diesel pumps. If there is only one diesel pump in the state then it has a monopoly no matter how many gas pumps there are because you can't use gasoline in a diesel vehicle. If you could use either type of charger with either type of car then they would be in the same market, because a customer who wants to charge their car could substitute either one for the other, so they would each actually be in competition with the other and neither would have a monopoly. I think the fact that the "chargers" and the "cars" are hypothesized to be operated by the same company is what's messing people up. Suppose you have two companies that each operate half the charging stations in the same region. One is Tesla, and you can only use them to charge a Tesla vehicle. The other is Exxon, which has started installing electric car chargers at their gas stations, and where you can charge any car including a Tesla. Well then Tesla hasn't got a monopoly on anything, because any Tesla owner can go charge their car at Exxon, and Exxon doesn't have a monopoly for Tesla vehicles, because they can also go charge their car at Tesla. But Exxon does have a monopoly for charging non-Tesla vehicles, because if you have a Nissan or a Chevy, you can't use the Tesla chargers, leaving Exxon as your only option.

nodamage 6y ago
So, under current US case law, the courts have generally found companies to be not liable for "aftermarket" antitrust claims if: 1) The manufacturer lacks sufficient market power in the "foremarket". (In the case of Apple, this would be the sale of the phone. In your example, it would be the sale of the car.) 2) The consumer was aware of the "aftermarket" restrictions when buying the original product. (In the case of Apple this would be the App Store pricing and rules. In the car example it would be the location and cost of the charging stations.) 3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.) The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. If they went ahead and bought anyway, they knew what they were signing up for. It's like buying a razor and then being stuck with expensive replacement razor blades. Or buying a movie ticket and then being stuck buying expensive popcorn from that theater. Yes, once you buy the movie ticket and enter the theater they have a "monopoly" on your snack purchases. No, you're not likely to win an antitrust claim against the theater.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > 3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.) The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is any other app you need which is only available on one platform, or if you make use of Google or Apple services that are only well supported or supported at all on one platform and would incur substantial switching costs to move to the other. You also have a different problem here: > The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there. Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.