9 ms·

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 s

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?
    - smabie 6y ago
      Okay, but what does that have to do with Apples supposed monopoly? The fact remains that it is extremely easy to ditch all Apple products. The same can't be said about Google or Amazon.
gamblor956 6y ago
It's a per se antitrust violation, which does not actually require monopoly status.
- nodamage 6y ago
  What, specifically, are you alleging is a per se antitrust violation?
kbenson 6y ago
We need to stop looking at whether they are a monopoly and start looking at what their anti-competitive behavior means and how it affects the market and consumers. Anti-competitive behavior is to assault as a monopoly is to murder. One often leads to the other, but they are both harmful. We don't generally let people run around assaulting people and say "well they aren't murdering people, so let's leave them alone". Apple is clearly exhibiting Anti-competitive behavior, and in a way that distorts the market. The whole reason we have laws about monopolies is because we identified the Anti-competitive behavior and labeled that specific type as a monopoly. A monopoly is only a problem in that it can easily affect the market as a whole through Anti-competitive actions. Apple can do so even though they aren't a monopoly as we've defined it. Why shouldn't we legislate to reduce the harms they are committing as well?
- mytherin 6y ago
  Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear - I completely agree that they should be regulated. I would even suggest going further than that. Neither Apple nor Google should gate-keep these market places in the first place. No private company should. I see this desire here to apply existing terms to the situation - but I feel they are not applicable. Apple and Google are not exhibiting anti-competitive behavior when they moderate the marketplace. They are not competing. What Apple product is competing with a random app they reject on the marketplace for a random reason? It is not a question of competition. The problem is that Apple and Google are in control and gatekeep the marketplace in the first place. They control the critical digital infrastructure that other companies build their products on, and if they decide that they don't like you you are out of luck and might as well give up your business. That is where the harm comes from. Private companies should not control critical digital infrastructure, just like private companies should not control critical physical infrastructure.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Apple and Google are not exhibiting anti-competitive behavior when they moderate the marketplace. It's not the moderation, it's the moderation combined with effectively gating the ability to run a competing marketplace. Apple does this through linking all the components of the stack, their store requires their OS which requires their hardware, and their hardware requires their OS which requires their store. You can't compete on any single level because the whole paltform is a monolith. Google does it slightly differently, but almost as effectively. They don't really care about the hardware, but they've moved portions of the OS to things that are distributed through their store. You can't completely remove the Play store without crippling a lot of OS features. > They are not competing. What Apple product is competing with a random app they reject on the marketplace for a random reason? Anti0copetitive behavior doesn't require they compete specifically, just that they prevent competition. But if you want a simple example, a web browser. You can't ship a competitive web browser because you're forced to use their core, for multiple reasons (can't JIT because of memory restrictions, but at a more fundamental level because you can't release an interpreter, which JavaScript engines are). > It is not a question of competition. ... if they decide that they don't like you you are out of luck and might as well give up your business. That is where the harm comes from. That's preventing others from competing. That's exactly the problem. Competition is a core attribute of our economic model, and preventing it causes that model to not work correctly. Monopolies aren't inherently bad, they're bad because they allow anti-competitive behavior to be exerted easily. Anti-trust laws exist not because we don't like companies making deals with each other, but because when those deals are anti-competitive, it goes against the economic model we have in place, and the public is harmed. > Private companies should not control critical digital infrastructure, just like private companies should not control critical physical infrastructure. That's true, and that doesn't require a monopoly to have happen. I think it's a weaker case though, since I don't think Apple or Android are really providing critical digital infrastructure, and if you do think of a mobile device (and software delivery on it) as critical infrastructure, then there is choice (that is, the complete failure of one allows a different systems to be used). I think of consumer harm a bit differently when considering critical paths, as that assumes a whole new platform/stack might be required depending on where the break is. That's not a strong conviction though, so maybe you're convince me otherwise.
rurp 6y ago
That's an awfully bold claim. Got a cite to back that up? Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phone apps but does have a monopoly on iPhone apps. From what I understand it's debatable which market should apply here. You seem awfully sure about your position so maybe there's a court or legislative decision you know of that makes this a settled point.
heavyset_go 6y ago
From the government itself[1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

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?
  - smabie 6y ago
    Okay, but what does that have to do with Apples supposed monopoly? The fact remains that it is extremely easy to ditch all Apple products. The same can't be said about Google or Amazon.

gamblor956 6y ago

It's a per se antitrust violation, which does not actually require monopoly status.

nodamage 6y ago
What, specifically, are you alleging is a per se antitrust violation?

kbenson 6y ago

We need to stop looking at whether they are a monopoly and start looking at what their anti-competitive behavior means and how it affects the market and consumers. Anti-competitive behavior is to assault as a monopoly is to murder. One often leads to the other, but they are both harmful. We don't generally let people run around assaulting people and say "well they aren't murdering people, so let's leave them alone". Apple is clearly exhibiting Anti-competitive behavior, and in a way that distorts the market. The whole reason we have laws about monopolies is because we identified the Anti-competitive behavior and labeled that specific type as a monopoly. A monopoly is only a problem in that it can easily affect the market as a whole through Anti-competitive actions. Apple can do so even though they aren't a monopoly as we've defined it. Why shouldn't we legislate to reduce the harms they are committing as well?

mytherin 6y ago
Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear - I completely agree that they should be regulated. I would even suggest going further than that. Neither Apple nor Google should gate-keep these market places in the first place. No private company should. I see this desire here to apply existing terms to the situation - but I feel they are not applicable. Apple and Google are not exhibiting anti-competitive behavior when they moderate the marketplace. They are not competing. What Apple product is competing with a random app they reject on the marketplace for a random reason? It is not a question of competition. The problem is that Apple and Google are in control and gatekeep the marketplace in the first place. They control the critical digital infrastructure that other companies build their products on, and if they decide that they don't like you you are out of luck and might as well give up your business. That is where the harm comes from. Private companies should not control critical digital infrastructure, just like private companies should not control critical physical infrastructure.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Apple and Google are not exhibiting anti-competitive behavior when they moderate the marketplace. It's not the moderation, it's the moderation combined with effectively gating the ability to run a competing marketplace. Apple does this through linking all the components of the stack, their store requires their OS which requires their hardware, and their hardware requires their OS which requires their store. You can't compete on any single level because the whole paltform is a monolith. Google does it slightly differently, but almost as effectively. They don't really care about the hardware, but they've moved portions of the OS to things that are distributed through their store. You can't completely remove the Play store without crippling a lot of OS features. > They are not competing. What Apple product is competing with a random app they reject on the marketplace for a random reason? Anti0copetitive behavior doesn't require they compete specifically, just that they prevent competition. But if you want a simple example, a web browser. You can't ship a competitive web browser because you're forced to use their core, for multiple reasons (can't JIT because of memory restrictions, but at a more fundamental level because you can't release an interpreter, which JavaScript engines are). > It is not a question of competition. ... if they decide that they don't like you you are out of luck and might as well give up your business. That is where the harm comes from. That's preventing others from competing. That's exactly the problem. Competition is a core attribute of our economic model, and preventing it causes that model to not work correctly. Monopolies aren't inherently bad, they're bad because they allow anti-competitive behavior to be exerted easily. Anti-trust laws exist not because we don't like companies making deals with each other, but because when those deals are anti-competitive, it goes against the economic model we have in place, and the public is harmed. > Private companies should not control critical digital infrastructure, just like private companies should not control critical physical infrastructure. That's true, and that doesn't require a monopoly to have happen. I think it's a weaker case though, since I don't think Apple or Android are really providing critical digital infrastructure, and if you do think of a mobile device (and software delivery on it) as critical infrastructure, then there is choice (that is, the complete failure of one allows a different systems to be used). I think of consumer harm a bit differently when considering critical paths, as that assumes a whole new platform/stack might be required depending on where the break is. That's not a strong conviction though, so maybe you're convince me otherwise.

rurp 6y ago

That's an awfully bold claim. Got a cite to back that up? Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phone apps but does have a monopoly on iPhone apps. From what I understand it's debatable which market should apply here. You seem awfully sure about your position so maybe there's a court or legislative decision you know of that makes this a settled point.

heavyset_go 6y ago

From the government itself[1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...