5 ms·

Calling a company that has ~13% of the market share in mobile devices is quite the take. It will never hold up in court.

tempsy 6y ago
It's a duopoly between Android and iOS. Better? And the current lawsuits are arguing that Apple has a monopoly on payments on their own devices, not that they have a monopoly on the smartphone market. Big difference.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
supercanuck 6y ago
They control 100% of the apps on an iPhone
- zepto 6y ago
  Everyone controls 100% of what happens on their own platform. Epic is a monopolist.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Epic has a share of the PC games software market.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Yes - and they control their own platform. Therefore they are a monopolist. /s I clearly don’t actually believe this, but the point is that if Apple is a Monopolist, then so is Epic.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Apple is a vertical monopolist across a large-market-share hardware platform it manufactures and an exclusive system for putting software onto that platform. Epic has a store, but doesn't have a large-market-share hardware platform they control exclusively to go with it. Any machine I can install the Epic app store on, I can also install Steam on.
        zepto 6y ago
        Apple’s market share isn’t large enough for this argument to work. If people are pushing for a change in framework where no hardware manufacturer is allowed to control what software is installed on their platform, I actually think that might be a good change across the board. The groups targeting Apple don’t care about any such freedom. They simply want more money for themselves without having to invest.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Not all vertical monopolies are trusts in need of breaking up. Apple's market share may not be enough for the monopoly to require anti-trust intervention, but definitionally, Apple has structured its hardware and software system on mobile as a vertical monopoly.
      - onion2k 6y ago
        On Epic's game store the product is PC software. Epic don't control how all PC software is sold. On Apple's app store the product is iOS software. Apple do control how all iOS software is sold. Seriously, this isn't complicated...
        zepto 6y ago
        Sure but it ‘iOS software’ is an arbitrary category. It’s all just software.
        supercanuck 6y ago
  - gsich 6y ago
    In which way? Not on PC, that's for sure.
HideousKojima 6y ago
Within the US (which is where it matters for this case), Apple has ~40% of the market and a bigger share of the market than any other phone maker.
IncRnd 6y ago
Nobody said the monopoly is in mobile devices. The reference was to the controlled ecosystem. That is what Epic's case is about. Their developer account was revoked when they wanted to use a different merchant processor. Apple is practically engaging in RICO activities.
bilbo0s 6y ago
That's the problem. I think people keep using the term "monopoly" maybe because that's what they are familiar with, but you are correct in pointing out that courts of law have a very specific legal interpretation of that word. Probably one solution is to place the bet on anti-trust instead. It's still not quite right, but if you bend the current legal understanding of "trust" a little bit, you can get there. Whereas, there's no amount of bending the interpretation of "monopoly" that will make Apple fit.
izacus 6y ago
Just a few months ago Apple was happy to explain to everyone that they secured more than 80% of mobile markets profits. Hiding that by citinng some nebolous market share of questionable market definition is perhaps not a good idea.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is a bizarre definition of monopoly that, if it were applied to any other industry, would turn common sense on its head. If Amazon runs its retail operations at a small loss, is it now less of a monopoly than a boutique retailer with big margins but < 1% of the market share?
emptysongglass 6y ago
At least in the US, this figure is closer to half. The point is not the market share they control but that they also control and set the rates to the marketplace within. To quote Senator Warren: >If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you don’t get to sell your own items on the platform because you have two comparative advantages. One, you’ve sucked up information about every buyer and every seller before you’ve made a decision about what you’re going to sell. And second, you have the capacity — because you run the platform — to prefer your product over anyone else’s product. It gives an enormous comparative advantage to the platform.
- sempron64 6y ago
  I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated against: Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.
  - emptysongglass 6y ago
    >If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer wishing to opt for an alternative. > If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a spade and say it's impossible. Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle, which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you? All of these corporations need to be broken up. The problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it). This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you communicate, to how you read, to how you play.
danShumway 6y ago
Apple holds ~40% of the US smartphone market[0], and >50% of mobile revenue from app store purchases[1]. Apple is one half of a duopoly. The citations of global mobile device market share are deceptive. It is not necessary for US regulators to prove that Apple has a monopoly in India to prove that they are engaged in anticompetitive behaviors in the US. If you want to make money as a mobile app developer, deciding not to support iOS can be a crippling decision. You don't really have a choice[2]. ---- [0]: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-app-store-revenue-leads-google-pla.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-ap... [2]: That ends up being the much more interesting argument anyway, because Apple advocates mostly want Apple to be able to force developers to jump through hoops. I've seen a lot of arguments on this topic that say that 3rd-party app stores would be a disaster because companies wouldn't be de-facto forced to distribute through the primary app store. For those people, the duopoly and monopolistic power structures are the point -- they're not debating whether or not Apple is so powerful that it's taking away developer choice. They want Apple to take away developer choice. I disagree with those people, but I find their position to be much more compelling than, "India uses Android, so the US can't regulate its own market."
- sempron64 6y ago
  > You don’t really have a choice Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not monopoly make.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    It's not a question of whether you can "make plenty of money". It's whether we want to allow private regulation of markets. Right now Google and Apple are the regulators of the mobile app market - the public has no say in how those marketplaces are run, and both companies use their ownership of the OS platforms to enforce this market control. Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight over public markets. Two companies should not have the ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app market.

tempsy 6y ago

It's a duopoly between Android and iOS. Better? And the current lawsuits are arguing that Apple has a monopoly on payments on their own devices, not that they have a monopoly on the smartphone market. Big difference.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

supercanuck 6y ago

They control 100% of the apps on an iPhone

zepto 6y ago
Everyone controls 100% of what happens on their own platform. Epic is a monopolist.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Epic has a share of the PC games software market.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Yes - and they control their own platform. Therefore they are a monopolist. /s I clearly don’t actually believe this, but the point is that if Apple is a Monopolist, then so is Epic.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Apple is a vertical monopolist across a large-market-share hardware platform it manufactures and an exclusive system for putting software onto that platform. Epic has a store, but doesn't have a large-market-share hardware platform they control exclusively to go with it. Any machine I can install the Epic app store on, I can also install Steam on.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Apple’s market share isn’t large enough for this argument to work. If people are pushing for a change in framework where no hardware manufacturer is allowed to control what software is installed on their platform, I actually think that might be a good change across the board. The groups targeting Apple don’t care about any such freedom. They simply want more money for themselves without having to invest.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Not all vertical monopolies are trusts in need of breaking up. Apple's market share may not be enough for the monopoly to require anti-trust intervention, but definitionally, Apple has structured its hardware and software system on mobile as a vertical monopoly.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      On Epic's game store the product is PC software. Epic don't control how all PC software is sold. On Apple's app store the product is iOS software. Apple do control how all iOS software is sold. Seriously, this isn't complicated...
      - zepto 6y ago
        Sure but it ‘iOS software’ is an arbitrary category. It’s all just software.
        supercanuck 6y ago
- gsich 6y ago
  In which way? Not on PC, that's for sure.

HideousKojima 6y ago

Within the US (which is where it matters for this case), Apple has ~40% of the market and a bigger share of the market than any other phone maker.

IncRnd 6y ago

Nobody said the monopoly is in mobile devices. The reference was to the controlled ecosystem. That is what Epic's case is about. Their developer account was revoked when they wanted to use a different merchant processor. Apple is practically engaging in RICO activities.

bilbo0s 6y ago

That's the problem. I think people keep using the term "monopoly" maybe because that's what they are familiar with, but you are correct in pointing out that courts of law have a very specific legal interpretation of that word. Probably one solution is to place the bet on anti-trust instead. It's still not quite right, but if you bend the current legal understanding of "trust" a little bit, you can get there. Whereas, there's no amount of bending the interpretation of "monopoly" that will make Apple fit.

izacus 6y ago

Just a few months ago Apple was happy to explain to everyone that they secured more than 80% of mobile markets profits. Hiding that by citinng some nebolous market share of questionable market definition is perhaps not a good idea.

AlexandrB 6y ago
This is a bizarre definition of monopoly that, if it were applied to any other industry, would turn common sense on its head. If Amazon runs its retail operations at a small loss, is it now less of a monopoly than a boutique retailer with big margins but < 1% of the market share?

emptysongglass 6y ago

At least in the US, this figure is closer to half. The point is not the market share they control but that they also control and set the rates to the marketplace within. To quote Senator Warren: >If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you don’t get to sell your own items on the platform because you have two comparative advantages. One, you’ve sucked up information about every buyer and every seller before you’ve made a decision about what you’re going to sell. And second, you have the capacity — because you run the platform — to prefer your product over anyone else’s product. It gives an enormous comparative advantage to the platform.

sempron64 6y ago
I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated against: Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.
- emptysongglass 6y ago
  >If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer wishing to opt for an alternative. > If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a spade and say it's impossible. Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle, which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you? All of these corporations need to be broken up. The problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it). This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you communicate, to how you read, to how you play.

danShumway 6y ago

Apple holds ~40% of the US smartphone market[0], and >50% of mobile revenue from app store purchases[1]. Apple is one half of a duopoly. The citations of global mobile device market share are deceptive. It is not necessary for US regulators to prove that Apple has a monopoly in India to prove that they are engaged in anticompetitive behaviors in the US. If you want to make money as a mobile app developer, deciding not to support iOS can be a crippling decision. You don't really have a choice[2]. ---- [0]: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-app-store-revenue-leads-google-pla.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-ap... [2]: That ends up being the much more interesting argument anyway, because Apple advocates mostly want Apple to be able to force developers to jump through hoops. I've seen a lot of arguments on this topic that say that 3rd-party app stores would be a disaster because companies wouldn't be de-facto forced to distribute through the primary app store. For those people, the duopoly and monopolistic power structures are the point -- they're not debating whether or not Apple is so powerful that it's taking away developer choice. They want Apple to take away developer choice. I disagree with those people, but I find their position to be much more compelling than, "India uses Android, so the US can't regulate its own market."

sempron64 6y ago
> You don’t really have a choice Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not monopoly make.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's not a question of whether you can "make plenty of money". It's whether we want to allow private regulation of markets. Right now Google and Apple are the regulators of the mobile app market - the public has no say in how those marketplaces are run, and both companies use their ownership of the OS platforms to enforce this market control. Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight over public markets. Two companies should not have the ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app market.