5 ms·

No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win

No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.

stale2002 6y ago
> No business is forced to deal with anyone else. Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies. To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. > ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.
- viscanti 6y ago
  > To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works. It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry. The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power. 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... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands. Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required. 50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal and very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only. More than eighty years ago, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental principle that still guides consideration of cases involving refusals to deal in the United States. As the Court stated in United States v. Colgate, ìin the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in any entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Accordingly, refusals to deal are actionable only when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/usrefdeal.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
  - stale2002 6y ago
    https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations. > very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly. The FTC defines that here: 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... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" > nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power. Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.

stale2002 6y ago

> No business is forced to deal with anyone else. Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies. To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. > ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.

viscanti 6y ago
> To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive. The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works. It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry. The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power. 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... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands. Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required. 50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
nodamage 6y ago
> Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal and very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only. More than eighty years ago, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental principle that still guides consideration of cases involving refusals to deal in the United States. As the Court stated in United States v. Colgate, ìin the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in any entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Accordingly, refusals to deal are actionable only when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/usrefdeal.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
- stale2002 6y ago
  https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations. > very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly. The FTC defines that here: 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... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" > nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power. Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    > So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.