5 ms·

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 broug

by 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.
    - chc 6y ago
      I think you're saying that no competitors in the mobile platform market are being excluded. But the point is that Apple (and Google to a slightly lesser degree) are using their dominance in the mobile platform market to exclude competitors in other markets. For example, Epic have tried to make competing services in both stores and payments, and Apple prevented one and banned them from its platform for doing the other. That's what provoked their lawsuit.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Sure - but what we’re really talking about is Epic wanting to take part of the profit without doing the work to build the platform. There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them. My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to. Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform. That isn’t actually going to result in more platform competition.
        chc 6y ago
        > Sure - but what we’re really talking about is Epic wanting to take part of the profit without doing the work to build the platform. Apple did nothing to create Fortnite, but they want about a third of the revenue from Fortnite. Epic did not create the iOS platform, and they are not asking for any of Apple's profits from the iOS platform. So your characterization of who's wanting profit without doing the work seems completely backwards to me. Apple's demands here are essentially rent-seeking. > There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them. As far as I know, Epic did not prevent people from paying through Apple's integrated payment platform. They simply offered an alternative. > My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to. > Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform. Your suggestion is that if somebody wants to sell things to users who happen to be on smartphones without paying into the duopoly's protection racket, they should simply develop their own hardware supply chain and manufacturing capabilities, phone operating system, mapping and GPS software, email software, ditto for every other piece of software that is table stakes for a phone — and do all of this to a level of quality sufficient to compete with companies whose primary businesses are doing these things — and then finally develop whatever it was they wanted to sell in the first place. This is not a reasonable position, and even if Epic is in a position to do it (which I'm not sure if they are), most companies aren't, and it is not reasonable to demand every company develop its own phone. It's also bad for users, because then they'd have to buy a phone for every app. It is much more reasonable to just not allow smartphones to be the 21st century equivalent of a company town where employees are paid in scrip.
- xxs 6y ago
  >Apple doesn’t control the market. They don’t have anything like a monopoly. This part is entirely irrelevant in the EU
snowwrestler 6y ago
Microsoft was a supplier accused of abusing its market share to disadvantage other suppliers. They did not get prosecuted for being popular. Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers. They don’t even try to make their app store available on competing phones, even if it is technically possible.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers Nitpick: Apple Music competing with Spotify is remarkably similar to the Microsoft case. (Epic's case is weaker.)
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Apple sells the computer. There is a reason Microsoft got prosecuted for those 90s contracts and not Gateway. OEMs have the right to decide what software they install at the factory. Apple Music is available in the Google Play Store but I don’t know of any credible accusation that Apple has tried to get Google to kick Spotify out.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      PC market share.
  - FrojoS 6y ago
    But Apple doesn’t take a cut on my Spotify subscription, afaik.
- chc 6y ago
  Me: 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. You: Microsoft did not get prosecuted for being popular. How does that response follow at all?

by chc 6y ago

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.
  - chc 6y ago
    I think you're saying that no competitors in the mobile platform market are being excluded. But the point is that Apple (and Google to a slightly lesser degree) are using their dominance in the mobile platform market to exclude competitors in other markets. For example, Epic have tried to make competing services in both stores and payments, and Apple prevented one and banned them from its platform for doing the other. That's what provoked their lawsuit.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Sure - but what we’re really talking about is Epic wanting to take part of the profit without doing the work to build the platform. There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them. My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to. Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform. That isn’t actually going to result in more platform competition.
      - chc 6y ago
        > Sure - but what we’re really talking about is Epic wanting to take part of the profit without doing the work to build the platform. Apple did nothing to create Fortnite, but they want about a third of the revenue from Fortnite. Epic did not create the iOS platform, and they are not asking for any of Apple's profits from the iOS platform. So your characterization of who's wanting profit without doing the work seems completely backwards to me. Apple's demands here are essentially rent-seeking. > There are reasons why people trust Apple’s platform, and integrated payments are one of them. As far as I know, Epic did not prevent people from paying through Apple's integrated payment platform. They simply offered an alternative. > My point is that Epic actually is a company that has the resources to compete directly if they wanted to. > Apple just isn’t the leader in games, and it would be great if Epic leveraged its position to build a real alternative platform, rather than just attempting to force its way into being a middleman in Apple’s platform. Your suggestion is that if somebody wants to sell things to users who happen to be on smartphones without paying into the duopoly's protection racket, they should simply develop their own hardware supply chain and manufacturing capabilities, phone operating system, mapping and GPS software, email software, ditto for every other piece of software that is table stakes for a phone — and do all of this to a level of quality sufficient to compete with companies whose primary businesses are doing these things — and then finally develop whatever it was they wanted to sell in the first place. This is not a reasonable position, and even if Epic is in a position to do it (which I'm not sure if they are), most companies aren't, and it is not reasonable to demand every company develop its own phone. It's also bad for users, because then they'd have to buy a phone for every app. It is much more reasonable to just not allow smartphones to be the 21st century equivalent of a company town where employees are paid in scrip.
xxs 6y ago
>Apple doesn’t control the market. They don’t have anything like a monopoly. This part is entirely irrelevant in the EU

snowwrestler 6y ago

Microsoft was a supplier accused of abusing its market share to disadvantage other suppliers. They did not get prosecuted for being popular. Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers. They don’t even try to make their app store available on competing phones, even if it is technically possible.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers Nitpick: Apple Music competing with Spotify is remarkably similar to the Microsoft case. (Epic's case is weaker.)
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Apple sells the computer. There is a reason Microsoft got prosecuted for those 90s contracts and not Gateway. OEMs have the right to decide what software they install at the factory. Apple Music is available in the Google Play Store but I don’t know of any credible accusation that Apple has tried to get Google to kick Spotify out.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    PC market share.
- FrojoS 6y ago
  But Apple doesn’t take a cut on my Spotify subscription, afaik.
chc 6y ago
Me: 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. You: Microsoft did not get prosecuted for being popular. How does that response follow at all?