6 ms·

It's true that nobody has to buy an iPhone, in that they can choose any of the one competing platform. "There's literally a single competitor" isn't a very stro

by chc 6y ago

It's true that nobody has to buy an iPhone, in that they can choose any of the one competing platform. "There's literally a single competitor" isn't a very strong argument against regulation, though.

JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
I don't know that it's entirely fair to say there is literally a single competitor. While Android is a single platform, you're free to get it from a range of vendors that all add their own flavor to Android. Some are really locked down, some are root by default. So you actually have a range of competing platforms even if they are powered by only 2 OSes. And in the case of both devices (Apple and Android) you can still flash your own "competing" OS on the hardware. It's far easier to do this on an Android device than an Apple one, but the hardware is separate from the software you're running. But there are multiple mobile OSes not named Android or iOS. What qualifies as a competitor, and what responsibility does Apple or Android have at creating new competitors? What actions are Google or Apple taking to actively stomp out mobile based OSes? Didn't Mozilla give it a shot? Didn't Ubunutu put out a mobile version of their OS? The lack of competitor for OSes seems like an odd argument to make. They exist even if they don't have marketshare, and there is no requisite business structure behind an OS in order for it to be a competing software. There are options. They may not be the single most accessible, and they may not meet your needs, but they exist.
- chc 6y ago
  This argument doesn't pass the "Would it work just as well as a defense of late-'90s Microsoft?" test. I would be willing to concede most of the facts you brought up, but none of that in any way mitigates the amount of control Apple holds. Nobody's saying it's Apple's fault that they're in a duopoly position in the phone space, but that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that position holds either. What is Apple's fault is that they're using their position in one market to force out potential competitors in other markets (e.g. in-app payments, and app distribution in general).
  - zepto 6y ago
    > This argument doesn't pass the "Would it work just as well as a defense of late-'90s Microsoft?" test. What does this mean? Late 90’s Microsoft had more than 85% of the desktop PC market. Early 2020’s Microsoft still has more than 85% of the Desktop PC market. There is simply no comparison. Apple doesn’t control the market. They don’t have anything like a monopoly. They do have products that a lot of people think are category leading, but that isn’t the same thing as having ‘control’. They also make a lot of profit, because people are willing to pay more for those products. But this is true of companies who focus on quality, regardless of scale.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      It's not about percentages, it's about anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the PC operating systems market to prevent competition in the web browser market. Similarly, Apple and Google have leveraged their duopoly in the mobile operating systems market to prevent competition in the mobile application distribution market Apple (52.4%) and Google (47%) control 99.4% of the mobile operating system market[1]. That's certainly much more than the 85% of the market that Microsoft had. > They don’t have anything like a monopoly. Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[2]: > 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. [1] 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... [2] 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...
      - zepto 6y ago
        It’s not really obvious that any competitors are actually being excluded. For the most part they aren’t trying. Building a new mobile platform is expensive - probably billions of dollars of investment - and takes years. There are actually quite a few companies who could do so if they wanted - e.g. Facebook, and yes, Epic. But there is no reason to suppose they would be successful in any less time than it took Apple or Google.

by chc 6y ago

It's true that nobody has to buy an iPhone, in that they can choose any of the one competing platform. "There's literally a single competitor" isn't a very strong argument against regulation, though.

JakeTheAndroid 6y ago

I don't know that it's entirely fair to say there is literally a single competitor. While Android is a single platform, you're free to get it from a range of vendors that all add their own flavor to Android. Some are really locked down, some are root by default. So you actually have a range of competing platforms even if they are powered by only 2 OSes. And in the case of both devices (Apple and Android) you can still flash your own "competing" OS on the hardware. It's far easier to do this on an Android device than an Apple one, but the hardware is separate from the software you're running. But there are multiple mobile OSes not named Android or iOS. What qualifies as a competitor, and what responsibility does Apple or Android have at creating new competitors? What actions are Google or Apple taking to actively stomp out mobile based OSes? Didn't Mozilla give it a shot? Didn't Ubunutu put out a mobile version of their OS? The lack of competitor for OSes seems like an odd argument to make. They exist even if they don't have marketshare, and there is no requisite business structure behind an OS in order for it to be a competing software. There are options. They may not be the single most accessible, and they may not meet your needs, but they exist.

chc 6y ago
This argument doesn't pass the "Would it work just as well as a defense of late-'90s Microsoft?" test. I would be willing to concede most of the facts you brought up, but none of that in any way mitigates the amount of control Apple holds. Nobody's saying it's Apple's fault that they're in a duopoly position in the phone space, but that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that position holds either. What is Apple's fault is that they're using their position in one market to force out potential competitors in other markets (e.g. in-app payments, and app distribution in general).
- zepto 6y ago
  > This argument doesn't pass the "Would it work just as well as a defense of late-'90s Microsoft?" test. What does this mean? Late 90’s Microsoft had more than 85% of the desktop PC market. Early 2020’s Microsoft still has more than 85% of the Desktop PC market. There is simply no comparison. Apple doesn’t control the market. They don’t have anything like a monopoly. They do have products that a lot of people think are category leading, but that isn’t the same thing as having ‘control’. They also make a lot of profit, because people are willing to pay more for those products. But this is true of companies who focus on quality, regardless of scale.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    It's not about percentages, it's about anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the PC operating systems market to prevent competition in the web browser market. Similarly, Apple and Google have leveraged their duopoly in the mobile operating systems market to prevent competition in the mobile application distribution market Apple (52.4%) and Google (47%) control 99.4% of the mobile operating system market[1]. That's certainly much more than the 85% of the market that Microsoft had. > They don’t have anything like a monopoly. Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[2]: > 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. [1] 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... [2] 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...
    - zepto 6y ago
      It’s not really obvious that any competitors are actually being excluded. For the most part they aren’t trying. Building a new mobile platform is expensive - probably billions of dollars of investment - and takes years. There are actually quite a few companies who could do so if they wanted - e.g. Facebook, and yes, Epic. But there is no reason to suppose they would be successful in any less time than it took Apple or Google.