5 ms·

To ask you the same question, restated, that the judge asked Epic, which they had no answer for: if Apple wasn't a monopoly before, but they're a monopoly now,

To ask you the same question, restated, that the judge asked Epic, which they had no answer for: if Apple wasn't a monopoly before, but they're a monopoly now, when did they become a monopoly?

jclardy 6y ago
While it is an interesting question, what does it matter? When did standard oil become a monopoly? Is there some specific date where they changed from competitive to anti-competitive? More likely they grew over time and the ability for competition to exist was diminished over the entire period.
- wil421 6y ago
  Apple doesn’t even have 60% market share in the US. Android has 86% worldwide. They are no where near a monopoly like Standard Oil or Bell.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Apple doesn’t even have 60% market share in the US. They have over 50% market share though. They're by far the largest smartphone manufacturer in the US. And they also get the vast majority of app developer revenue, much more than the Google Play Store. > Android has 86% worldwide. Worldwide market share is not necessarily relevant to US law. > They are no where near a monopoly like Standard Oil or Bell. This isn't actually required by antitrust law.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Worldwide share could be made to matter during the trial (assuming it reaches that point). It demonstrates that Apple's position in the US is a consequence of consumer choice, as they do have real competition. It's just that their competitors have (for various reasons) failed to take (or in this case failed to hold) a larger share of the US market. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... Shows the marketshare of mobile OSes by year from 2012-2019. It's worth noting that Apple's > 50% market share is a recent (2019) phenomenon. It's not like they've held that position for the entire decade, and it's not at all clear that they got that position by any illegal or unethical methods [0]. So consumers have made a clear and (somewhat) informed decision by electing to by iPhones. [0] I'm sure someone will talk about green bubble/blue bubble, but seriously people: stop using SMS/MMS it's crap. Get your friends onto Signal or, hell, even WhatsApp so you can have real cross-platform, secure (less some metadata) communication.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Apple and Android together have a duopoly or an oligarchy over mobile phones. Apple also has a lock over it's own platform for which switching costs are very high. If people switched phones every few weeks, this would be less of an issue.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      What is the high switching cost? Hardly anyone buys apps. They either pay for services that work cross platform and the majority of sales are coming from in app consumables for games. Media? iTunes music you buy has been DRM free for a decade and Apple Music is available on Android. Movies? Blame that on the studios that don’t participate in Movies Anywhere. Apple is a member along with Amazon, Vudu, and Google. If you buy a movie from a participating studio, it syncs between all of the platforms. Books? No one buys books from Apple.
      - jariel 6y ago
        "What is the high switching cost?" People buy phones once every year or two, they're about $1K and data is controlled by the providers = High switching cost. Your favourite Marmalade ... were it to double in price next week at the grocery store, could be substituted without any friction.
        scarface74 6y ago
        The ASP of an iPhone is $675. An Android phone is less than $300. That doesn’t take into account the ability to sell your phone and/or give it to someone. What do you mean “data is controlled by your provider”? You just switch the SIM card.
        fomine3 6y ago
        ASP is meaningless because who had iPhone won't buy dirt cheap Android phone.
        6y ago
  - yxhuvud 6y ago
    Standard oil never had more than 20% marketshare.
- dkobran 6y ago
  This question assumes that Standard Oil didn’t engage in anti-competitive practices after they gained a monopoly position which they absolutely did. On the run / don’t have time to send links but this is common knowledge and easy to look up. It’s worth noting that a monopoly alone (a definition for % market share) does not meet the criteria for antitrust. Antitrust carries an extra burden of the company abusing its monopoly position eg what Standard Oil did and arguably, what Apple is not doing.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  You seem to be asking your second question rhetorically, but its actually an interesting question. The reason we call anti-monopolistic activity "anti-trust" is because Standard Oil organized itself as a series of companies related only through a common trust. That trust controlled 40 different companies, and was the original target of the government's ire. When the trust was ordered dissolved, it eventually was replaced by a holding company. The history is interesting and informative, and explains a lot about why the US government started to care about issues of corporate governance in the first place. When people talk today about the dangers of "monopoly," they often misunderstand the point entirely. Size alone is not the issue. It never has been.
- nodamage 6y ago
  The reason it matters is because Epic's entire theory of the case involves Apple having a "monopoly" over the specific sub-market of "iOS app distribution". They've intentionally defined this market very narrowly because they know Apple does not have an actual monopoly in the smartphone market. As the judge pointed out yesterday, Epic has "created a failsafe definition". Because they have defined a single product market, Apple by definition has a monopoly over their own product. But assuming Epic's theory is true, it would have been true from the very start of the App Store, back when Apple had barely any market share. Of course, it would have been absurd to complain in 2008 that Apple was unlawfully maintaining its monopoly over "iOS app distribution", which is why Epic's lawyer largely dodged the question during the hearing yesterday.
hellisothers 6y ago
Epic asserts they’re a Monopoly but that’s a contentious assertion so the easy answer is they aren’t.
afloatboat 6y ago
Not a direct answer to your question, but somewhat related. When the iPhone was first released (or a year later when the App Store was released) we did have more competition than we do today. Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, BlackBerry OS (and to some extent Maemo) all had the opportunity to compete with iOS and Android but were either too slow to transition to market demands or did not get a lot of traction to start with. While not officially a monopoly in my book, I think it's safe to state that we're now down to iOS and Android for 99% of the market with KaiOS Ubuntu Touch (Tizen?) picking up some of the more niche or cheap devices.
username90 6y ago
If lowering your price doesn't increase demand then you are in a way a monopoly. I don't see any scenario at all where Apple lower their cut from 30% except via government action, so it makes sense to legally force them to either get competition or to lower their cut below 30% to something more sensible.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Or maybe your addressable market is saturated....
  - username90 6y ago
    Either you are a monopoly for that market or lowering prices will let you gain more market share. More market share is an incentive so there is a reason to reduce prices. You could probably find some reasonable exceptions, but nevertheless I think if a company has no incentive to reduce prices then it probably should be regulated.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Why is “market share” an incentive to reduce prices? Companies don’t chase market share. They want profit. Market share doesn’t pay bills. There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1.
      - username90 6y ago
        Having incentives to do something doesn't mean that you will do it. Lowering prices reduces your income per sale, that is a disincentive. If it increases sales then that is an incentive. If there are no incentives then there is a problem since then there will never be a reason to reduce price. Healthy competition is when the different parts have incentives to reduce prices to steal customers from each other. Then unless they collude they will reduce prices until there is barely any profits left. However if reducing prices doesn't help you get the other persons customer then there isn't healthy competition. So tell me, what non government action would you say could cause Apple to reduce their 30% fee? I don't see any. Apple reducing their 30% fee wouldn't cause more people to choose Apple over Android and vice versa under current circumstances. Both of those fees are set with no care about competition. > There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1. Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free.
mike_ivanov 6y ago
If it was an alive frog before, but it is a boiled frog now, when did it become a boiled frog?
- notsuoh 6y ago
  I'm no expert on frogs or boiling, but I would say the moment the frog is 100c all the way through. There seems to be a defined thing that makes it a boiled frog, but that doesn't seem to be the situation in the Epic v Apple case.

To ask you the same question, restated, that the judge asked Epic, which they had no answer for: if Apple wasn't a monopoly before, but they're a monopoly now, when did they become a monopoly?

jclardy 6y ago

While it is an interesting question, what does it matter? When did standard oil become a monopoly? Is there some specific date where they changed from competitive to anti-competitive? More likely they grew over time and the ability for competition to exist was diminished over the entire period.

wil421 6y ago
Apple doesn’t even have 60% market share in the US. Android has 86% worldwide. They are no where near a monopoly like Standard Oil or Bell.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Apple doesn’t even have 60% market share in the US. They have over 50% market share though. They're by far the largest smartphone manufacturer in the US. And they also get the vast majority of app developer revenue, much more than the Google Play Store. > Android has 86% worldwide. Worldwide market share is not necessarily relevant to US law. > They are no where near a monopoly like Standard Oil or Bell. This isn't actually required by antitrust law.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    Worldwide share could be made to matter during the trial (assuming it reaches that point). It demonstrates that Apple's position in the US is a consequence of consumer choice, as they do have real competition. It's just that their competitors have (for various reasons) failed to take (or in this case failed to hold) a larger share of the US market. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... Shows the marketshare of mobile OSes by year from 2012-2019. It's worth noting that Apple's > 50% market share is a recent (2019) phenomenon. It's not like they've held that position for the entire decade, and it's not at all clear that they got that position by any illegal or unethical methods [0]. So consumers have made a clear and (somewhat) informed decision by electing to by iPhones. [0] I'm sure someone will talk about green bubble/blue bubble, but seriously people: stop using SMS/MMS it's crap. Get your friends onto Signal or, hell, even WhatsApp so you can have real cross-platform, secure (less some metadata) communication.
- jariel 6y ago
  Apple and Android together have a duopoly or an oligarchy over mobile phones. Apple also has a lock over it's own platform for which switching costs are very high. If people switched phones every few weeks, this would be less of an issue.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What is the high switching cost? Hardly anyone buys apps. They either pay for services that work cross platform and the majority of sales are coming from in app consumables for games. Media? iTunes music you buy has been DRM free for a decade and Apple Music is available on Android. Movies? Blame that on the studios that don’t participate in Movies Anywhere. Apple is a member along with Amazon, Vudu, and Google. If you buy a movie from a participating studio, it syncs between all of the platforms. Books? No one buys books from Apple.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "What is the high switching cost?" People buy phones once every year or two, they're about $1K and data is controlled by the providers = High switching cost. Your favourite Marmalade ... were it to double in price next week at the grocery store, could be substituted without any friction.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        The ASP of an iPhone is $675. An Android phone is less than $300. That doesn’t take into account the ability to sell your phone and/or give it to someone. What do you mean “data is controlled by your provider”? You just switch the SIM card.
        fomine3 6y ago
        ASP is meaningless because who had iPhone won't buy dirt cheap Android phone.
        6y ago
- yxhuvud 6y ago
  Standard oil never had more than 20% marketshare.
dkobran 6y ago
This question assumes that Standard Oil didn’t engage in anti-competitive practices after they gained a monopoly position which they absolutely did. On the run / don’t have time to send links but this is common knowledge and easy to look up. It’s worth noting that a monopoly alone (a definition for % market share) does not meet the criteria for antitrust. Antitrust carries an extra burden of the company abusing its monopoly position eg what Standard Oil did and arguably, what Apple is not doing.
pwinnski 6y ago
You seem to be asking your second question rhetorically, but its actually an interesting question. The reason we call anti-monopolistic activity "anti-trust" is because Standard Oil organized itself as a series of companies related only through a common trust. That trust controlled 40 different companies, and was the original target of the government's ire. When the trust was ordered dissolved, it eventually was replaced by a holding company. The history is interesting and informative, and explains a lot about why the US government started to care about issues of corporate governance in the first place. When people talk today about the dangers of "monopoly," they often misunderstand the point entirely. Size alone is not the issue. It never has been.
nodamage 6y ago
The reason it matters is because Epic's entire theory of the case involves Apple having a "monopoly" over the specific sub-market of "iOS app distribution". They've intentionally defined this market very narrowly because they know Apple does not have an actual monopoly in the smartphone market. As the judge pointed out yesterday, Epic has "created a failsafe definition". Because they have defined a single product market, Apple by definition has a monopoly over their own product. But assuming Epic's theory is true, it would have been true from the very start of the App Store, back when Apple had barely any market share. Of course, it would have been absurd to complain in 2008 that Apple was unlawfully maintaining its monopoly over "iOS app distribution", which is why Epic's lawyer largely dodged the question during the hearing yesterday.

hellisothers 6y ago

Epic asserts they’re a Monopoly but that’s a contentious assertion so the easy answer is they aren’t.

afloatboat 6y ago

Not a direct answer to your question, but somewhat related. When the iPhone was first released (or a year later when the App Store was released) we did have more competition than we do today. Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, BlackBerry OS (and to some extent Maemo) all had the opportunity to compete with iOS and Android but were either too slow to transition to market demands or did not get a lot of traction to start with. While not officially a monopoly in my book, I think it's safe to state that we're now down to iOS and Android for 99% of the market with KaiOS Ubuntu Touch (Tizen?) picking up some of the more niche or cheap devices.

username90 6y ago

If lowering your price doesn't increase demand then you are in a way a monopoly. I don't see any scenario at all where Apple lower their cut from 30% except via government action, so it makes sense to legally force them to either get competition or to lower their cut below 30% to something more sensible.

scarface74 6y ago
Or maybe your addressable market is saturated....
- username90 6y ago
  Either you are a monopoly for that market or lowering prices will let you gain more market share. More market share is an incentive so there is a reason to reduce prices. You could probably find some reasonable exceptions, but nevertheless I think if a company has no incentive to reduce prices then it probably should be regulated.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Why is “market share” an incentive to reduce prices? Companies don’t chase market share. They want profit. Market share doesn’t pay bills. There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1.
    - username90 6y ago
      Having incentives to do something doesn't mean that you will do it. Lowering prices reduces your income per sale, that is a disincentive. If it increases sales then that is an incentive. If there are no incentives then there is a problem since then there will never be a reason to reduce price. Healthy competition is when the different parts have incentives to reduce prices to steal customers from each other. Then unless they collude they will reduce prices until there is barely any profits left. However if reducing prices doesn't help you get the other persons customer then there isn't healthy competition. So tell me, what non government action would you say could cause Apple to reduce their 30% fee? I don't see any. Apple reducing their 30% fee wouldn't cause more people to choose Apple over Android and vice versa under current circumstances. Both of those fees are set with no care about competition. > There is roughly 50% of the US population who wouldn’t buy an Android phone if it cost $1. Pretty sure many would switch if the highest end android phones were free.

mike_ivanov 6y ago

If it was an alive frog before, but it is a boiled frog now, when did it become a boiled frog?

notsuoh 6y ago
I'm no expert on frogs or boiling, but I would say the moment the frog is 100c all the way through. There seems to be a defined thing that makes it a boiled frog, but that doesn't seem to be the situation in the Epic v Apple case.