5 ms·

That is flatly incorrect. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold

That is flatly incorrect. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions. The jurisprudence varies regionally on what "enough market power" means, before you may be accused of having abused it, but (for example) in Europe this starts at around 40%.

st1x7 6y ago
Again, it depends on how you define the market. They have fewer devices, fewer apps, fewer app downloads, and more revenue. You just picked the one that they have the biggest share in. And even 60% of revenue isn't enough to determine a monopoly depending on other market dynamics.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue. The market in question is the mobile applications market. It is one that is separately analyzed, well reported, clearly delineated, demonstrably an arena of choice, and significant to the consumer. This makes it difficult to ignore on any taxonomic basis of irrelevance. No threshold is itself enough, since there's no strict liability; generally speaking, it's not unlawful to have market power, it's unlawful to abuse it. Any regulatory or private action has to make a qualified case. But as far as thresholds go: that 60%, plus Apple's contractual requirement for market participants to actively mislead the consumer, is pretty terminal.
  - st1x7 6y ago
    > There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue. It's specifically about the goalposts, that's my entire point. It's not as straightforward and clear-cut as you're suggesting. Even saying something like "mobile applications market" doesn't make it clear whether we're talking about number of users, revenue, number of apps, number of app downloads, which mobile devices and so on.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      Marketplaces are quantified by economic value, there being no other universal unit. There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. I guess it's related to the fallacy that the law is some kind of programming language.
      - st1x7 6y ago
        > Marketplaces are quantified by economic value So if Apple had 100% of all phone users and 100% of all apps but the apps were entirely free, that wouldn't be a monopoly? > there being no other universal unit. I suggested a number of other units above. > There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. The question of defining the market is the basis of how the decision is made in court and the biggest point of argument between the legal teams. This isn't about tech arrogance. I also feel like this back-and-forth isn't constructuve so I'll stop here.
    - mdoms 6y ago
      Just take the L and move on, dude. This is getting embarrassing.
  - jbverschoor 6y ago
    Well only if it’s not good for the consumer. Amazon is bad for suppliers, but good for consumers.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Perhaps in the short term. But having fewer, less profitable suppliers can hamper innovation, and lead to less consumer choice in the long term.
jbverschoor 6y ago
But the apps are not just mobile anymore. They are macOS apps, which happen to run on iOS
deeeeplearning 6y ago
So If I sell 1 app for $101 Billion do I now have a Monopoly on the mobile app market since I will have >40% of the revenue?
- inopinatus 6y ago
  I think the considered response to that must be, "Good luck with your startup".
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    It's a legitimate question highlighting the absurdity of defining a monopoly by revenue.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      Since you cannot sell an app for that much money, it is not a legitimate question, and there is no reductio ad absurdum. Therefore it is a joke question. If you could sell one app for that much money, and real money or genuinely equivalent value is actually exchanged, then other apps would be worth similar amounts, and the entire segment would simply rescale to be quintillions of dollars; alternatively, if you or others were unable to repeat the sale, then the market has a weird transient spike one quarter, then goes back to normal, and everyone discounts the outlier as a Spiders Georg. Notwithstanding which, sure, monopolies are indeed not defined by revenue, they are defined by market control, which is enabled by market share, which is quantified by value (there being no other universal measure), i.e. by sales i.e. revenue, which is why it's part of the consideration but you still need some qualification to support the quantification. Such as, by way of painfully topical example, Apple successfully forcing other market participants to actively mislead the consumer or withdraw products, which is not merely a naked display of market power but also an egregious misuse thereof.
      - deeeeplearning 6y ago
        >and there is no reductio ad absurdum Hate to break it to you but there is and I showed it which is why you made this salty reply. Certainly in the US there is no major Anti-Trust case which revolved around revenue as a measure of monopoly. Not Microsoft, not ATT and not Standard Oil.

st1x7 6y ago

Again, it depends on how you define the market. They have fewer devices, fewer apps, fewer app downloads, and more revenue. You just picked the one that they have the biggest share in. And even 60% of revenue isn't enough to determine a monopoly depending on other market dynamics.

inopinatus 6y ago
There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue. The market in question is the mobile applications market. It is one that is separately analyzed, well reported, clearly delineated, demonstrably an arena of choice, and significant to the consumer. This makes it difficult to ignore on any taxonomic basis of irrelevance. No threshold is itself enough, since there's no strict liability; generally speaking, it's not unlawful to have market power, it's unlawful to abuse it. Any regulatory or private action has to make a qualified case. But as far as thresholds go: that 60%, plus Apple's contractual requirement for market participants to actively mislead the consumer, is pretty terminal.
- st1x7 6y ago
  > There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue. It's specifically about the goalposts, that's my entire point. It's not as straightforward and clear-cut as you're suggesting. Even saying something like "mobile applications market" doesn't make it clear whether we're talking about number of users, revenue, number of apps, number of app downloads, which mobile devices and so on.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Marketplaces are quantified by economic value, there being no other universal unit. There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. I guess it's related to the fallacy that the law is some kind of programming language.
    - st1x7 6y ago
      > Marketplaces are quantified by economic value So if Apple had 100% of all phone users and 100% of all apps but the apps were entirely free, that wouldn't be a monopoly? > there being no other universal unit. I suggested a number of other units above. > There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. The question of defining the market is the basis of how the decision is made in court and the biggest point of argument between the legal teams. This isn't about tech arrogance. I also feel like this back-and-forth isn't constructuve so I'll stop here.
  - mdoms 6y ago
    Just take the L and move on, dude. This is getting embarrassing.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  Well only if it’s not good for the consumer. Amazon is bad for suppliers, but good for consumers.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Perhaps in the short term. But having fewer, less profitable suppliers can hamper innovation, and lead to less consumer choice in the long term.

jbverschoor 6y ago

But the apps are not just mobile anymore. They are macOS apps, which happen to run on iOS

deeeeplearning 6y ago

So If I sell 1 app for $101 Billion do I now have a Monopoly on the mobile app market since I will have >40% of the revenue?

inopinatus 6y ago
I think the considered response to that must be, "Good luck with your startup".
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  It's a legitimate question highlighting the absurdity of defining a monopoly by revenue.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Since you cannot sell an app for that much money, it is not a legitimate question, and there is no reductio ad absurdum. Therefore it is a joke question. If you could sell one app for that much money, and real money or genuinely equivalent value is actually exchanged, then other apps would be worth similar amounts, and the entire segment would simply rescale to be quintillions of dollars; alternatively, if you or others were unable to repeat the sale, then the market has a weird transient spike one quarter, then goes back to normal, and everyone discounts the outlier as a Spiders Georg. Notwithstanding which, sure, monopolies are indeed not defined by revenue, they are defined by market control, which is enabled by market share, which is quantified by value (there being no other universal measure), i.e. by sales i.e. revenue, which is why it's part of the consideration but you still need some qualification to support the quantification. Such as, by way of painfully topical example, Apple successfully forcing other market participants to actively mislead the consumer or withdraw products, which is not merely a naked display of market power but also an egregious misuse thereof.
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      >and there is no reductio ad absurdum Hate to break it to you but there is and I showed it which is why you made this salty reply. Certainly in the US there is no major Anti-Trust case which revolved around revenue as a measure of monopoly. Not Microsoft, not ATT and not Standard Oil.