16 ms·

If this isn't an abusive monopoly position, I don't know what is.

dangus 6y ago
Interesting, I didn’t know all it took was a 22.85% marketshare to become a monopoly. I wonder if Sony will let me put a picture of an Xbox One on my PS4 game.
- qmarchi 6y ago
  Market share in this case is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if they make up 22% of market share (globally, it's 60% in the US), iOS usually makes it up in number of paying users.
  - dangus 6y ago
    The fact that iOS users are willing to pay seems irrelevant to me. It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market: you’ve already sub-divided the market so many times that the idea is weakened. In reality, most people use Android, and even in the US about half of them still use Android. If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The dynamics of that market are quite similar. Microsoft had well over a 95% marketshare during their antitrust saga.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      The thing is, rather than absolute market share, the way you use your position is more important. If you have a powerful market position but just compete normally, you're usually ok. If you have a powerful market position and use it to corner other markets or stifle competition in other ways, you start having problems.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So what is “competing normally”?
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        Lowering prices or adding value, advertising. Doing stuff like blocking competitors from your platform, blacklisting people who do business with your competition would be examples of not competing normally. What Apple is doing is more subtle though - in general they are not using their position against Google, they are using it to force arbitrary conditions on companies seeking to do business on iOS and increase their own profits, to the detriment of end users. I believe the ultimate test for market abuse in the US is considered something like business practices that harm other companies without benefit to the end user. If the end user gets lower prices or better value Thanks to your practices, the free market is achieving its purpose. If they are not, but one company is getting better profits, than the market is being manipulated. As a side note, this is not the same test as in the EU for example, which makes price dumping (selling below cost of production) usually ok in the US, but not in the EU.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And once again HN lawyers don’t understand the law. The US unlike Europe has to show consumer harm. Not harm to other businesses. This has been the school of thought since Bork. Apple hasn’t blocked competitors. For every service that Apple charges money for, there is a competitor. Every platform owner and reseller forces conditions on third parties - console makers, set top box sellers, physical retail stores, etc. If what you said was any kind of reality, Apple or any other company could be accused of being a “monopoly” if they had any type of margins. Saying Apple is a monopoly because users choose to spend more is about like saying Nike is a monopoly when other shoes are cheaper. It is not anti competitive to have a differentiator where users choose to spend more on your product than competitors.
    - strbean 6y ago
      Consoles are a pretty terrible counter-example. An entire industry driven by "exclusive titles" is incredibly anti-consumer.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Are you saying that developers should be forced to support all of the platforms?
        MelliaTran 6y ago
        https://pages.shopbase.com/shopbase-vs-shopify?utm_source=seo&utm_medium=shopifyalternative https://pages.shopbase.com/shopbase-vs-shopify?utm_source=se...
        strbean 6y ago
        I'm saying in a competitive market, the incentive would be to support as many platforms as you reasonably can. Without being outright paid by platform creators not to do that, most developers choose to do that. Paying third parties not to support your competition is... I'll let the reader fill in the blank :)
        scarface74 6y ago
        So instead of paying third parties they could just outright acquire them - like MS did with Bungie? At least independent game makers have the option of creating some games that are cross platform. On the other hand, if the game maker needs funding and the platform owner is willing to fund them, shouldn’t the platform owner get something? Another example, Apple funding independent game makers for Apple Arcade means that games can come to iOS that don’t depend on loot boxes, selling consumables or ads. That also means Apple takes on the risk.
    - moooo99 6y ago
      > The fact that iOS users are willing to pay seems irrelevant to me. The main point is not that Apple is a monopoly on the smartphone market, the issue is the monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform. When building an app access to all users is key to success. Apple artificially limits access to the users of their platform by having you jump through a dozen of hoops and an intransparent review process. Although iOS only has a market share of around 20% (globally? more in the US), the iOS platform has a large enough audience and market size to be very relevant for investigations. > It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market It's really not. I can't think of a general comparison off the top of my head, but lets use Spotify and the Apple dispute as an example. To keep the Tesla example, the situation would be more comparable if, let's say Volkswagen, would have to sell their EVs through Tesla for the north american market.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        > The main point is not that Apple is a monopoly on the smartphone market, the issue is the monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform. The question of whether the iOS app distribution market is, in fact, separate and valid antitrust market is not something that can simply be assumed. This is known as a "wholly derivative aftermarket" (as the market for iOS apps would not exist independently of the market for iPhones), and US courts generally disallow antitrust aftermarkets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific criteria are met. [1] One of the key criteria is whether or not the consumer knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the aftermarket restriction when they made their initial purchase. If they knew about the aftermarket restriction and could have bought an alternate product without such restrictions, but went ahead and bought the restricted product anyway, then the market power deriving from that restriction is not considered a valid basis for an antitrust claim. In other words, if when consumers bought an iPhone, they knew they would be limited to installing apps from the App Store, and they went ahead and bought the iPhone anyway, it is rather unlikely that a US court would consider the "monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform" to be a valid antitrust market. [1] The criteria are explained in Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution (https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-solution https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-so...). Most of the cases where single-brand aftermarkets were permitted by the court involve situations where the consumer did not know about the restriction at the time of purchase, because the company changed a policy or modified existing agreements after the purchase.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market: you’ve already sub-divided the market so many times that the idea is weakened. The thing to notice about this is that you're talking about the wrong market. Suppose I want to use an unnecessarily specific product, like the 2015 Ford Focus SE Flex Fuel with 5-Speed manual transmission, and talk about the market for fuel for that vehicle. Well actually it can take regular 87 octane gasoline, which you can get at any gas station anywhere, so nobody has a monopoly on fuel for that vehicle, no matter how specific we get about the vehicle. It's totally irrelevant whether it has power windows or cruise control because they don't affect what kind of fuel you can put in it. We can specify any of those things and it doesn't help anybody to show a fuel monopoly unless the thing being specified is relevant, which most of those kind of details aren't. Now we want to talk about apps and phones. If you have a "phone" -- the broad product definition you want to use -- then do you have competition for app stores? Now you've got a problem. You can't actually answer the question, because the answer actually does depend on what kind of phone you have. The details are relevant. That's how you know "phones" is too broad of a product definition -- it doesn't actually allow you to answer the question about app stores without being more specific about what kind of phone it is, because different phones use different app stores. When we're talking about app stores, the relevant market is the set of customers that can use the same set of app stores as one another. And then you know it's a monopoly if the set has only one entry. > If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The dynamics of that market are quite similar. The strongest argument that this isn't the case is that it's common for people to buy multiple different consoles at once, so if the customer can't get a game on one console, they could still get the same game on another one because they actually own multiple consoles at the same time. I'm not sure if I actually buy this, because a lot of people don't actually own multiple consoles, and to that extent they do have a monopoly. But for sure hardly anybody carries multiple brands of phone in their pocket.
      - danudey 6y ago
        > Now we want to talk about apps and phones. If you have a "phone" -- the broad product definition you want to use -- then do you have competition for app stores? Apple's argument, which I tend to agree with, is that the user does have a choice of app store, which they make by buying an iPhone instead of an Android phone (or a Xiaomi phone, or a Kindle, or whatever). The reason I agree with this is that, for me, the App Store and how it's handled is one of the big draws of the iPhone; I've heard a lot fewer stories about malicious software, re-uploaded software with malware installed, software that walks you through the process of enabling sideloading or enabling adb connections so that you can install this one thing one time, all of which users might have to deal with without necessarily understanding the repercussions of what they're doing. So once you've purchased an iPhone you don't have a choice of App Store, but you do make that choice, arguably, when you purchase your phone. The biggest argument against this is that if you've already invested a lot into apps on the App Store, then there's not a lot of option to switch app stores, but there is still a choice that users can make. > The strongest argument that this isn't the case is that it's common for people to buy multiple different consoles at once, so if the customer can't get a game on one console, they could still get the same game on another one because they actually own multiple consoles at the same time. I'm not sure this is actually the case for most people. I don't think the typical person is going to spend, for example, $600 on a Playstation 5, and then decide that they don't like how Sony handles their store so they go and buy an XBox Series X for another $600 so that they can get the best of both worlds, or get access to a different store with different policies.
    - Dahoon 6y ago
      >If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo I see this excuse all the time. So what if X, Y and Z are a monopoly? The problem isn't monopolies. You are stuck on a word that makes no difference. It is abusing your market position that is the problem. That is what got Microsoft punished and it is what Apple is doing now.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The App Store pays developers 50% more than the Google Play Store, despite Androids 6-1 lead in device sales. Apparently the walled garden is hugely attractive to the best customers.
- liability 6y ago
  You know Apple has fallen far when 'Apple isn't worse than Sony or Microsoft' becomes a popular refrain.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Antitrust laws are about anticompetitive behavior, not just monopolies. Companies with a combined <50% of the marketplace have been found to violate antitrust laws as a result of price fixing (including Apple itself). And yes, you are allowed to put pictures of competing consoles in your game and even refer to the fact that they exist. They just don't want them in the digital listing. (In contrast: Apple forbids this, and in the past has rejected apps for even mentioning that Android versions exist.)
- viridian 6y ago
  You realize when standard oil was ruled a monopoly and trust busted, it only had 19% of the US oil market share, right?
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Huh? In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Because of competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
    - viridian 6y ago
      When the government (congress) first sought to prosecute Standard oil among other companies in the late 1880s for noncompetitive behavior, the monopoly label was applied. This was a part of the actual formation of the Sherman antitrust act which passed in 1890, at which time standard oil refined about 19% of the oil in the US. I had my facts wrong though, I didn't realize that it took another 21 years after that for Standard oil to actually be broken up. That said, my point is largely more about the label of monopoly by the government than whether or not the company was broken up, so I think the argument still stands.
- newbie578 6y ago
  I wonder if people will stop spreading missinformation while defending Apple. Apple's marketshare in U.S. is around 52%, and no, worldwide marketshare does not matter to U.S. courts.
benologist 6y ago
The congresspeople who investigated them for a year and a half also think they are abusive. > the investigation has confirmed that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook are all abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation-apple-disturbing-behavior/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  But not Microsoft who still own 95% of the desktop market. I guess the others need to start funding more politicians.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Common misconception. A monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly/market power to keep out competitors. Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.
    - danudey 6y ago
      > Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact. > If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal. Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?
      - xmprt 6y ago
        Could be the case for Windows RT but I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case because RT has a small market share.
breakfastduck 6y ago
How on earth can it be a monopoly when it has the market share it does? I wish people would stop conflating Apple as a monopoly - their have their own platform (one of many widely available) and many people choose to use it. Do I agree with all their App Store behaviours? Obviously not, but it doesn't make them a monopoly. They're not 'abusing' their power - the App Store has always been this way. It's a way of delivering sand boxed apps that fit guidelines. Apple aren't going to stop you downloading an app off the internet and running it on your mac anytime soon.
- benrbray 6y ago
  In terms of market share, I'd say it's akin to a regional monopoly. But that's not entirely what I meant. In my view, phones are general purpose computers. Apple also takes this view, which is the reason they have opened up a software marketplace on their devices. Just like with Amazon, there are thousands of companies whose revenue depends almost exclusively on their ability to compete in the marketplace set up by Apple. In this scenario, both Apple and Amazon are notorious for abusing their control of the marketplace to disadvantage third-party sellers in favor of first-party products / hardware / software. If a phone is NOT a general purpose computer, then Apple should disband the app store and only allow first-party apps to run. If a phone IS a general purpose computer, then Apple has an obligation to treat participants in the marketplace fairly, either by relaxing the app review process, or by allowing third-party marketplaces. They cannot have it both ways. Legally speaking, Apple may not need to change anything. However, I'm talking about how things SHOULD be, not how they ARE.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Opening up the platform ruins it. The walled garden is exactly why iPhones are so popular and iOS developers so successful.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      iOS developers are not successful in general. The top 1% of App Store developers make the vast majority of the App Store revenue. Apple doesn't seem to care, because they get their 30% regardless of how the other 70% of the revenue is distributed.
Axsuul 6y ago
I can see where you're coming from but I don't see how this is monopolistic. Apple wants a consistent brand and doesn't want to confuse the consumer. Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots?
- pier25 6y ago
  > Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots? Why not? An app might be crossplatform and the screenshot might be featuring these capabilities with Android or Windows.
- framecowbird 6y ago
  Of course it's what Apple wants, that's not the question. The question is whether they are suppressing competition in such a way that it eventually becomes detrimental to the whole market.
mytherin 6y ago
It isn't an abusive monopoly position basically by definition: Apple is not a monopoly in any market that they participate in. There is tons of competition in smartphones, laptops, etc. The problem is not one of monopolies - the problem is that a set of private companies - including Apple - control critical digital infrastructure. This digital infrastructure is required by almost all other companies and people to function, yet it is in private hands, and they can do with it as they please. Imagine if all roads were owned by a small number of private companies, and you would need their permission to use the roads. That is what is happening in the digital world right now.
- damnyou 6y ago
  It is not a monopoly, sure, but it is an abuse of market power. Apple and Google form an oligopoly and both firms abuse their market power as part of it. A firm being a "monopoly" is not a requirement under US antitrust law. A concentration of market power is, and Apple + Google absolutely have it.
- manigandham 6y ago
  The marketshare definition of a monopoly is poor and obsolete. How much control they have over your devices and your life is much more descriptive, and in that case Apple has significant power with control over roughly half of the mobile ecosystem.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - babypuncher 6y ago
    But it's not very hard for me to just go buy a different phone if I'm unhappy with what Apple is doing with the iPhone.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      You only have 2 choices, iOS or Android. How about we have more accountability for the 2 trillion dollar company instead of telling consumers to just deal with it?
cwhiz 6y ago
Why would Apple want screenshots in the iOS or Mac App Store that show devices that cannot run iOS or macOS? Would Sony or Microsoft allow PS4 or Xbox devices in their respective digital store listings? No way. You should either provide screenshots without a device or show a device that the application will actually run on. Honestly I would say it's pretty lazy to provide screenshots depicting a device where the app can't even run.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  You misunderstand, they were selling a PHYSICAL Microsoft device in their e-commerce store that sells physical items. Nonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app that is not Apple branded was not allowed.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Nonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app That would be extremely bad, but that's not the scenario the original poster described. They had a Microsoft product in their App Store screenshots. There are countless e-commerce apps (Amazon, eBay etc) available for iOS that will happily let you purchase competitors' products. Also worth noting that you can get Microsoft apps in the iOS App Store and that some of these apps compete with Apple's own apps.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    So how does that work for Amazon, Rakuten, Alibaba, Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, et al. ?
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      Presumably if any of them used a screenshot that showed a product competing with Apple they would not be approved.
    - erklik 6y ago
      Once you are big enough, you do not follow the same rules.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tinus_hn 6y ago
How is it a monopoly if you can afford to leave the Mac App Store?
- moooo99 6y ago
  Its not for the Mac, but the issue is mainly focused around the iOS platform and the App Store which features a similarly if not more broken app review process. And the AppStore is the only store for iOS
- afroboy 6y ago
  Didn't know ios offer app side loading.
matwood 6y ago
This is common in any store, and has been this way on the Apple's app store since the beginning. No store is going to carry product marketing which actively advertises a competitor. It's best just to make device free screenshots to avoid this issue, and not have them become dated by showing a device. Out of all the issues with the app stores, this is not one IMO.
- smolder 6y ago
  I don't think this is accurate. We have another poster here saying they see Apple devices in marketing for Android apps, and my experience publishing to the play store says this is likely only something apple cares to police.
  - matwood 6y ago
    I was saying stores in general. Not just app stores. I don't see Amazon letting you link out to Walmart (or show Walmart ads) and vice versa. Maybe there are ones that slip through, but it's the exception.

Interesting, I didn’t know all it took was a 22.85% marketshare to become a monopoly. I wonder if Sony will let me put a picture of an Xbox One on my PS4 game.

qmarchi 6y ago
Market share in this case is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if they make up 22% of market share (globally, it's 60% in the US), iOS usually makes it up in number of paying users.
- dangus 6y ago
  The fact that iOS users are willing to pay seems irrelevant to me. It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market: you’ve already sub-divided the market so many times that the idea is weakened. In reality, most people use Android, and even in the US about half of them still use Android. If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The dynamics of that market are quite similar. Microsoft had well over a 95% marketshare during their antitrust saga.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The thing is, rather than absolute market share, the way you use your position is more important. If you have a powerful market position but just compete normally, you're usually ok. If you have a powerful market position and use it to corner other markets or stifle competition in other ways, you start having problems.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So what is “competing normally”?
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        Lowering prices or adding value, advertising. Doing stuff like blocking competitors from your platform, blacklisting people who do business with your competition would be examples of not competing normally. What Apple is doing is more subtle though - in general they are not using their position against Google, they are using it to force arbitrary conditions on companies seeking to do business on iOS and increase their own profits, to the detriment of end users. I believe the ultimate test for market abuse in the US is considered something like business practices that harm other companies without benefit to the end user. If the end user gets lower prices or better value Thanks to your practices, the free market is achieving its purpose. If they are not, but one company is getting better profits, than the market is being manipulated. As a side note, this is not the same test as in the EU for example, which makes price dumping (selling below cost of production) usually ok in the US, but not in the EU.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And once again HN lawyers don’t understand the law. The US unlike Europe has to show consumer harm. Not harm to other businesses. This has been the school of thought since Bork. Apple hasn’t blocked competitors. For every service that Apple charges money for, there is a competitor. Every platform owner and reseller forces conditions on third parties - console makers, set top box sellers, physical retail stores, etc. If what you said was any kind of reality, Apple or any other company could be accused of being a “monopoly” if they had any type of margins. Saying Apple is a monopoly because users choose to spend more is about like saying Nike is a monopoly when other shoes are cheaper. It is not anti competitive to have a differentiator where users choose to spend more on your product than competitors.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Consoles are a pretty terrible counter-example. An entire industry driven by "exclusive titles" is incredibly anti-consumer.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Are you saying that developers should be forced to support all of the platforms?
      - MelliaTran 6y ago
        https://pages.shopbase.com/shopbase-vs-shopify?utm_source=seo&utm_medium=shopifyalternative https://pages.shopbase.com/shopbase-vs-shopify?utm_source=se...
      - strbean 6y ago
        I'm saying in a competitive market, the incentive would be to support as many platforms as you reasonably can. Without being outright paid by platform creators not to do that, most developers choose to do that. Paying third parties not to support your competition is... I'll let the reader fill in the blank :)
        scarface74 6y ago
        So instead of paying third parties they could just outright acquire them - like MS did with Bungie? At least independent game makers have the option of creating some games that are cross platform. On the other hand, if the game maker needs funding and the platform owner is willing to fund them, shouldn’t the platform owner get something? Another example, Apple funding independent game makers for Apple Arcade means that games can come to iOS that don’t depend on loot boxes, selling consumables or ads. That also means Apple takes on the risk.
  - moooo99 6y ago
    > The fact that iOS users are willing to pay seems irrelevant to me. The main point is not that Apple is a monopoly on the smartphone market, the issue is the monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform. When building an app access to all users is key to success. Apple artificially limits access to the users of their platform by having you jump through a dozen of hoops and an intransparent review process. Although iOS only has a market share of around 20% (globally? more in the US), the iOS platform has a large enough audience and market size to be very relevant for investigations. > It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market It's really not. I can't think of a general comparison off the top of my head, but lets use Spotify and the Apple dispute as an example. To keep the Tesla example, the situation would be more comparable if, let's say Volkswagen, would have to sell their EVs through Tesla for the north american market.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > The main point is not that Apple is a monopoly on the smartphone market, the issue is the monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform. The question of whether the iOS app distribution market is, in fact, separate and valid antitrust market is not something that can simply be assumed. This is known as a "wholly derivative aftermarket" (as the market for iOS apps would not exist independently of the market for iPhones), and US courts generally disallow antitrust aftermarkets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific criteria are met. [1] One of the key criteria is whether or not the consumer knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the aftermarket restriction when they made their initial purchase. If they knew about the aftermarket restriction and could have bought an alternate product without such restrictions, but went ahead and bought the restricted product anyway, then the market power deriving from that restriction is not considered a valid basis for an antitrust claim. In other words, if when consumers bought an iPhone, they knew they would be limited to installing apps from the App Store, and they went ahead and bought the iPhone anyway, it is rather unlikely that a US court would consider the "monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform" to be a valid antitrust market. [1] The criteria are explained in Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution (https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-solution https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-so...). Most of the cases where single-brand aftermarkets were permitted by the court involve situations where the consumer did not know about the restriction at the time of purchase, because the company changed a policy or modified existing agreements after the purchase.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market: you’ve already sub-divided the market so many times that the idea is weakened. The thing to notice about this is that you're talking about the wrong market. Suppose I want to use an unnecessarily specific product, like the 2015 Ford Focus SE Flex Fuel with 5-Speed manual transmission, and talk about the market for fuel for that vehicle. Well actually it can take regular 87 octane gasoline, which you can get at any gas station anywhere, so nobody has a monopoly on fuel for that vehicle, no matter how specific we get about the vehicle. It's totally irrelevant whether it has power windows or cruise control because they don't affect what kind of fuel you can put in it. We can specify any of those things and it doesn't help anybody to show a fuel monopoly unless the thing being specified is relevant, which most of those kind of details aren't. Now we want to talk about apps and phones. If you have a "phone" -- the broad product definition you want to use -- then do you have competition for app stores? Now you've got a problem. You can't actually answer the question, because the answer actually does depend on what kind of phone you have. The details are relevant. That's how you know "phones" is too broad of a product definition -- it doesn't actually allow you to answer the question about app stores without being more specific about what kind of phone it is, because different phones use different app stores. When we're talking about app stores, the relevant market is the set of customers that can use the same set of app stores as one another. And then you know it's a monopoly if the set has only one entry. > If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The dynamics of that market are quite similar. The strongest argument that this isn't the case is that it's common for people to buy multiple different consoles at once, so if the customer can't get a game on one console, they could still get the same game on another one because they actually own multiple consoles at the same time. I'm not sure if I actually buy this, because a lot of people don't actually own multiple consoles, and to that extent they do have a monopoly. But for sure hardly anybody carries multiple brands of phone in their pocket.
    - danudey 6y ago
      > Now we want to talk about apps and phones. If you have a "phone" -- the broad product definition you want to use -- then do you have competition for app stores? Apple's argument, which I tend to agree with, is that the user does have a choice of app store, which they make by buying an iPhone instead of an Android phone (or a Xiaomi phone, or a Kindle, or whatever). The reason I agree with this is that, for me, the App Store and how it's handled is one of the big draws of the iPhone; I've heard a lot fewer stories about malicious software, re-uploaded software with malware installed, software that walks you through the process of enabling sideloading or enabling adb connections so that you can install this one thing one time, all of which users might have to deal with without necessarily understanding the repercussions of what they're doing. So once you've purchased an iPhone you don't have a choice of App Store, but you do make that choice, arguably, when you purchase your phone. The biggest argument against this is that if you've already invested a lot into apps on the App Store, then there's not a lot of option to switch app stores, but there is still a choice that users can make. > The strongest argument that this isn't the case is that it's common for people to buy multiple different consoles at once, so if the customer can't get a game on one console, they could still get the same game on another one because they actually own multiple consoles at the same time. I'm not sure this is actually the case for most people. I don't think the typical person is going to spend, for example, $600 on a Playstation 5, and then decide that they don't like how Sony handles their store so they go and buy an XBox Series X for another $600 so that they can get the best of both worlds, or get access to a different store with different policies.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    >If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo I see this excuse all the time. So what if X, Y and Z are a monopoly? The problem isn't monopolies. You are stuck on a word that makes no difference. It is abusing your market position that is the problem. That is what got Microsoft punished and it is what Apple is doing now.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The App Store pays developers 50% more than the Google Play Store, despite Androids 6-1 lead in device sales. Apparently the walled garden is hugely attractive to the best customers.
liability 6y ago
You know Apple has fallen far when 'Apple isn't worse than Sony or Microsoft' becomes a popular refrain.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
gamblor956 6y ago
Antitrust laws are about anticompetitive behavior, not just monopolies. Companies with a combined <50% of the marketplace have been found to violate antitrust laws as a result of price fixing (including Apple itself). And yes, you are allowed to put pictures of competing consoles in your game and even refer to the fact that they exist. They just don't want them in the digital listing. (In contrast: Apple forbids this, and in the past has rejected apps for even mentioning that Android versions exist.)
viridian 6y ago
You realize when standard oil was ruled a monopoly and trust busted, it only had 19% of the US oil market share, right?
- nodamage 6y ago
  Huh? In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Because of competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
  - viridian 6y ago
    When the government (congress) first sought to prosecute Standard oil among other companies in the late 1880s for noncompetitive behavior, the monopoly label was applied. This was a part of the actual formation of the Sherman antitrust act which passed in 1890, at which time standard oil refined about 19% of the oil in the US. I had my facts wrong though, I didn't realize that it took another 21 years after that for Standard oil to actually be broken up. That said, my point is largely more about the label of monopoly by the government than whether or not the company was broken up, so I think the argument still stands.
newbie578 6y ago
I wonder if people will stop spreading missinformation while defending Apple. Apple's marketshare in U.S. is around 52%, and no, worldwide marketshare does not matter to U.S. courts.

benologist 6y ago

The congresspeople who investigated them for a year and a half also think they are abusive. > the investigation has confirmed that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook are all abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation-apple-disturbing-behavior/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
But not Microsoft who still own 95% of the desktop market. I guess the others need to start funding more politicians.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Common misconception. A monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly/market power to keep out competitors. Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.
  - danudey 6y ago
    > Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact. > If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal. Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?
    - xmprt 6y ago
      Could be the case for Windows RT but I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case because RT has a small market share.

breakfastduck 6y ago

How on earth can it be a monopoly when it has the market share it does? I wish people would stop conflating Apple as a monopoly - their have their own platform (one of many widely available) and many people choose to use it. Do I agree with all their App Store behaviours? Obviously not, but it doesn't make them a monopoly. They're not 'abusing' their power - the App Store has always been this way. It's a way of delivering sand boxed apps that fit guidelines. Apple aren't going to stop you downloading an app off the internet and running it on your mac anytime soon.

benrbray 6y ago
In terms of market share, I'd say it's akin to a regional monopoly. But that's not entirely what I meant. In my view, phones are general purpose computers. Apple also takes this view, which is the reason they have opened up a software marketplace on their devices. Just like with Amazon, there are thousands of companies whose revenue depends almost exclusively on their ability to compete in the marketplace set up by Apple. In this scenario, both Apple and Amazon are notorious for abusing their control of the marketplace to disadvantage third-party sellers in favor of first-party products / hardware / software. If a phone is NOT a general purpose computer, then Apple should disband the app store and only allow first-party apps to run. If a phone IS a general purpose computer, then Apple has an obligation to treat participants in the marketplace fairly, either by relaxing the app review process, or by allowing third-party marketplaces. They cannot have it both ways. Legally speaking, Apple may not need to change anything. However, I'm talking about how things SHOULD be, not how they ARE.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Opening up the platform ruins it. The walled garden is exactly why iPhones are so popular and iOS developers so successful.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    iOS developers are not successful in general. The top 1% of App Store developers make the vast majority of the App Store revenue. Apple doesn't seem to care, because they get their 30% regardless of how the other 70% of the revenue is distributed.

Axsuul 6y ago

I can see where you're coming from but I don't see how this is monopolistic. Apple wants a consistent brand and doesn't want to confuse the consumer. Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots?

pier25 6y ago
> Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots? Why not? An app might be crossplatform and the screenshot might be featuring these capabilities with Android or Windows.
framecowbird 6y ago
Of course it's what Apple wants, that's not the question. The question is whether they are suppressing competition in such a way that it eventually becomes detrimental to the whole market.

mytherin 6y ago

It isn't an abusive monopoly position basically by definition: Apple is not a monopoly in any market that they participate in. There is tons of competition in smartphones, laptops, etc. The problem is not one of monopolies - the problem is that a set of private companies - including Apple - control critical digital infrastructure. This digital infrastructure is required by almost all other companies and people to function, yet it is in private hands, and they can do with it as they please. Imagine if all roads were owned by a small number of private companies, and you would need their permission to use the roads. That is what is happening in the digital world right now.

damnyou 6y ago
It is not a monopoly, sure, but it is an abuse of market power. Apple and Google form an oligopoly and both firms abuse their market power as part of it. A firm being a "monopoly" is not a requirement under US antitrust law. A concentration of market power is, and Apple + Google absolutely have it.
manigandham 6y ago
The marketshare definition of a monopoly is poor and obsolete. How much control they have over your devices and your life is much more descriptive, and in that case Apple has significant power with control over roughly half of the mobile ecosystem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- babypuncher 6y ago
  But it's not very hard for me to just go buy a different phone if I'm unhappy with what Apple is doing with the iPhone.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    You only have 2 choices, iOS or Android. How about we have more accountability for the 2 trillion dollar company instead of telling consumers to just deal with it?

cwhiz 6y ago

Why would Apple want screenshots in the iOS or Mac App Store that show devices that cannot run iOS or macOS? Would Sony or Microsoft allow PS4 or Xbox devices in their respective digital store listings? No way. You should either provide screenshots without a device or show a device that the application will actually run on. Honestly I would say it's pretty lazy to provide screenshots depicting a device where the app can't even run.

marcinzm 6y ago
You misunderstand, they were selling a PHYSICAL Microsoft device in their e-commerce store that sells physical items. Nonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app that is not Apple branded was not allowed.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Nonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app That would be extremely bad, but that's not the scenario the original poster described. They had a Microsoft product in their App Store screenshots. There are countless e-commerce apps (Amazon, eBay etc) available for iOS that will happily let you purchase competitors' products. Also worth noting that you can get Microsoft apps in the iOS App Store and that some of these apps compete with Apple's own apps.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  So how does that work for Amazon, Rakuten, Alibaba, Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, et al. ?
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Presumably if any of them used a screenshot that showed a product competing with Apple they would not be approved.
  - erklik 6y ago
    Once you are big enough, you do not follow the same rules.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tinus_hn 6y ago

How is it a monopoly if you can afford to leave the Mac App Store?

moooo99 6y ago
Its not for the Mac, but the issue is mainly focused around the iOS platform and the App Store which features a similarly if not more broken app review process. And the AppStore is the only store for iOS
afroboy 6y ago
Didn't know ios offer app side loading.

matwood 6y ago

This is common in any store, and has been this way on the Apple's app store since the beginning. No store is going to carry product marketing which actively advertises a competitor. It's best just to make device free screenshots to avoid this issue, and not have them become dated by showing a device. Out of all the issues with the app stores, this is not one IMO.

smolder 6y ago
I don't think this is accurate. We have another poster here saying they see Apple devices in marketing for Android apps, and my experience publishing to the play store says this is likely only something apple cares to police.
- matwood 6y ago
  I was saying stores in general. Not just app stores. I don't see Amazon letting you link out to Walmart (or show Walmart ads) and vice versa. Maybe there are ones that slip through, but it's the exception.