11 ms·

> Hopefully the result will be that Apple gets broken up into smaller companies Unlikely to happen. Even Microsoft wasn't broken up in the 90's and they were e

> Hopefully the result will be that Apple gets broken up into smaller companies Unlikely to happen. Even Microsoft wasn't broken up in the 90's and they were even more obnoxious in their anti-competitive practices. It's also going to be really hard to go with the monopoly argument seeing as how Apple doesn't have majority market share (not even close) in most market segments - smart watches might be the sole exception.

heavyset_go 6y ago
Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]: > 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. The truth is that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile OS market[2], and they're leveraging that duopoly in an anti-competitive manner to prevent competition in the mobile app distribution market. [1] 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... [2] 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...
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  From the perspective of the law, their duopoly implies competition. They do not have the durable market power of, say, American Sugar. Google very craftily, allows anyone to manufacture hardware for their Android OS. Not only that, they allow anyone to change their OS in anyway they see fit. The fact that most people don't is immaterial to the courts. Apple has an even more unassailable defense against the durability of their power. ie - their year over year market share graphs. The downward trend in market share would fly in the face of any assertion that they have durable market power. The only real way forward is to forget the old legal facilities of "monopoly" and "trust", and to make new laws. The old laws simply don't fit the time. How is any attorney to be expected to argue durability of a company with declining market share in any legally sensible fashion? If we're serious about going after companies like Apple, we need new tools.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > From the perspective of the law, their duopoly implies competition. From the perspective of the law, a duopoly can imply a cartel[1], especially given the price fixing[2] Apple and Google engage in[3] in the mobile app distribution market. Also, a trust[4] can refer to a duopoly in antitrust[5] law: > A trust or corporate trust is a large grouping of business interests with significant market power, which may be embodied as a corporation or as a group of corporations that cooperate with one another in various ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Cartels_and_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ca... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business) [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - taylodl 6y ago
    > If we're serious about going after companies like Apple, we need new tools. If their market share is declining year-over-year then why do we need to go after them? It seems like the market is telling them they need to change their ways. Or maybe they're happy being a niche player catering to a niche user who's fine with the status quo. After all, those customers who are happy with the status quo in and of themselves comprise a market segment. Besides which Microsoft has the wherewithal to re-enter the market anytime they wish.
  - jsnell 6y ago
    > The downward trend in market share would fly in the face of any assertion that they have durable market power. The iPhone's market share has been trending up in the US, not down. It was around 60% in Q4 2020. Does that change your opinion?
    - 6y ago
- tmottabr 6y ago
  the key point i see is exclude competitor, something it does not look like they are actively doing.. The problem is that making something new in the mobile OS market at this points is borderline impossible for anyone that is not already huge with virtually unlimited money supply.. to start you will need to make an OS on par on UX, usability and resources with iOS and Android that had more then a decade of interactions to reach where they are.. After that if you do not want to face same the problem that everyone else that tried faced, no apps because no users and no users because no apps, you will also need make apps for the main third-parties that everyone want as well or convince them to do it for your new system.. All of that just to get started.. it is basically impossible at this point in time.. surely it could happen but it is more likely that someone that has the resources to go for an android-based device then to start something new..
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > the key point i see is exclude competitor, something it does not look like they are actively doing.. Apple is certainly excluding all mobile app distribution competitors on their OS by leveraging their dominance in the mobile OS market to prevent competition. Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
    - tmottabr 6y ago
      those are services, not mobile os that is was i was refering to.. so that is beside the point i was making.. sure they do not allow third-party stores, but they also do not exclude you to use their store to sell your apps.. for the people complaining about not being able to use their own apps without dev account.. not allowing people to hurt themselves is a design choice for apple, if you want flexibility go android.. also third-party stores is a two edge sword, it allow user more control but also allow you to harm yourself more.. this is why android is a shit show of malware while in ios this is much less of a problem, although to be far it does happen from time to time.. apple will just use the card that third party stores harm their users.. and that you can just use their app store.. that is why they do not allow third party stores and likely never will..
tmottabr 6y ago
and they only lead in smartwatches because theirs were better because they control the hardware.. they made better cpu and radios for wearables then what was available to competition at the time.. that on my opinion would work more on their favor for not breaking the company then the other way around..
bilbo0s 6y ago
I think this is the correct take. I also think most people on HN misapprehend the legal concept of "monopoly" and even the legal concept of a "trust". Not to mention the fact that Apple isn't even the main problem when you're dealing with FAANGs. Not by a long shot. All that said, I don't know why there has not been a concerted effort to change laws instead of going after FAANGs which, as you rightly point out, are in no danger of being found in violation of any laws that would trigger a breakup. Why are we relying on anti-monopoly or anti-trust laws to go after Apple? It's lunacy. Of course the supremes are going to laugh that out of court. We'd, at the very least have to go after the majority marketholders first. But if you change the laws, you can make what most FAANGs do illegal in a single stroke. Imagine a law that simply said no tracking for any commercial purposes at all under penalty of $50000 fine per violation. That would get Facebook, Google, and to a certain extent even Amazon off our backs instantly. Why not go that route?
- sebastien_bois 6y ago
  > That would get Facebook, Google, and to a certain extent even Amazon off our backs instantly. Why not go that route? They already have enough clout to be able to buy the votes to avoid that (it'd be pocket change to them).
wayneftw 6y ago
> [Microsoft] were even more obnoxious in their anti-competitive practices. I'd love to hear why you think that. Microsoft never stopped consumers from installing Linux on a PC. Microsoft never stopped anyone from installing software on Windows. You could always buy a PC and do whatever you wanted to with it. Meanwhile, Apple doesn't let you do anything on an iPhone if it isn't bought from their app store. The level of control that Apple has over iOS is ridiculous compared to what Microsoft had. Apple is 10 times worse towards consumers and developers than Microsoft ever was. I can't even install my own apps on my iPhone without paying Apple $100 per year. Without a developer account, having to re-install the app every 7 days (only from a Mac) is nearly useless. How could I ever take a 2 week vacation and still use my apps? > Apple doesn't have majority market share Yes they do. "Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet (iOS’s share of physical e-commerce transactions is likely somewhere in the middle of this range). And this dominance is also growing. Eighty percent of U.S. teenagers have iPhones and the device held 90% of smartphone activations in the week after Christmas 2020." [0] [1] [0] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores
- endisneigh 6y ago
  I’m curious - why don’t you just buy an Android phone and PC - then your issues are resolved no?
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    Simple: almost everybody I know uses an iPhone. Without an iPhone, I can't FaceTime with my family and friends. Without an iPhone, I'm discriminated against among young people because of green text in iMessage. Without an iPhone I can't do account sharing for all the digital things my family uses. And those sorts of reasons are just from me as a consumer. As a developer, more than half my customers (in the USA) have an iPhone. I literally cannot do business or provide apps to them without going through Apple.
varispeed 6y ago
Precisely because of that the capitalism we have is extremely flawed and easy to game for people with money and prevents small guy from making his or hers life better in a substantial way. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking if you have small or medium company good chunk of your profits will be eaten by all sort of taxes that big corporations don't pay, so it doesn't matter how hard you are going to work you won't go beyond certain point unless you start sharing your company with VC or risk taking bank loans. Probably that's why it has not happened because it would disrupt the cushy life ultra-rich have. At this point we really need a change and this has to stop!

heavyset_go 6y ago

Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]: > 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. The truth is that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile OS market[2], and they're leveraging that duopoly in an anti-competitive manner to prevent competition in the mobile app distribution market. [1] 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... [2] 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...

bilbo0s 6y ago
From the perspective of the law, their duopoly implies competition. They do not have the durable market power of, say, American Sugar. Google very craftily, allows anyone to manufacture hardware for their Android OS. Not only that, they allow anyone to change their OS in anyway they see fit. The fact that most people don't is immaterial to the courts. Apple has an even more unassailable defense against the durability of their power. ie - their year over year market share graphs. The downward trend in market share would fly in the face of any assertion that they have durable market power. The only real way forward is to forget the old legal facilities of "monopoly" and "trust", and to make new laws. The old laws simply don't fit the time. How is any attorney to be expected to argue durability of a company with declining market share in any legally sensible fashion? If we're serious about going after companies like Apple, we need new tools.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > From the perspective of the law, their duopoly implies competition. From the perspective of the law, a duopoly can imply a cartel[1], especially given the price fixing[2] Apple and Google engage in[3] in the mobile app distribution market. Also, a trust[4] can refer to a duopoly in antitrust[5] law: > A trust or corporate trust is a large grouping of business interests with significant market power, which may be embodied as a corporation or as a group of corporations that cooperate with one another in various ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Cartels_and_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ca... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business) [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- taylodl 6y ago
  > If we're serious about going after companies like Apple, we need new tools. If their market share is declining year-over-year then why do we need to go after them? It seems like the market is telling them they need to change their ways. Or maybe they're happy being a niche player catering to a niche user who's fine with the status quo. After all, those customers who are happy with the status quo in and of themselves comprise a market segment. Besides which Microsoft has the wherewithal to re-enter the market anytime they wish.
- jsnell 6y ago
  > The downward trend in market share would fly in the face of any assertion that they have durable market power. The iPhone's market share has been trending up in the US, not down. It was around 60% in Q4 2020. Does that change your opinion?
  - 6y ago
tmottabr 6y ago
the key point i see is exclude competitor, something it does not look like they are actively doing.. The problem is that making something new in the mobile OS market at this points is borderline impossible for anyone that is not already huge with virtually unlimited money supply.. to start you will need to make an OS on par on UX, usability and resources with iOS and Android that had more then a decade of interactions to reach where they are.. After that if you do not want to face same the problem that everyone else that tried faced, no apps because no users and no users because no apps, you will also need make apps for the main third-parties that everyone want as well or convince them to do it for your new system.. All of that just to get started.. it is basically impossible at this point in time.. surely it could happen but it is more likely that someone that has the resources to go for an android-based device then to start something new..
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > the key point i see is exclude competitor, something it does not look like they are actively doing.. Apple is certainly excluding all mobile app distribution competitors on their OS by leveraging their dominance in the mobile OS market to prevent competition. Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
  - tmottabr 6y ago
    those are services, not mobile os that is was i was refering to.. so that is beside the point i was making.. sure they do not allow third-party stores, but they also do not exclude you to use their store to sell your apps.. for the people complaining about not being able to use their own apps without dev account.. not allowing people to hurt themselves is a design choice for apple, if you want flexibility go android.. also third-party stores is a two edge sword, it allow user more control but also allow you to harm yourself more.. this is why android is a shit show of malware while in ios this is much less of a problem, although to be far it does happen from time to time.. apple will just use the card that third party stores harm their users.. and that you can just use their app store.. that is why they do not allow third party stores and likely never will..

tmottabr 6y ago

and they only lead in smartwatches because theirs were better because they control the hardware.. they made better cpu and radios for wearables then what was available to competition at the time.. that on my opinion would work more on their favor for not breaking the company then the other way around..

bilbo0s 6y ago

I think this is the correct take. I also think most people on HN misapprehend the legal concept of "monopoly" and even the legal concept of a "trust". Not to mention the fact that Apple isn't even the main problem when you're dealing with FAANGs. Not by a long shot. All that said, I don't know why there has not been a concerted effort to change laws instead of going after FAANGs which, as you rightly point out, are in no danger of being found in violation of any laws that would trigger a breakup. Why are we relying on anti-monopoly or anti-trust laws to go after Apple? It's lunacy. Of course the supremes are going to laugh that out of court. We'd, at the very least have to go after the majority marketholders first. But if you change the laws, you can make what most FAANGs do illegal in a single stroke. Imagine a law that simply said no tracking for any commercial purposes at all under penalty of $50000 fine per violation. That would get Facebook, Google, and to a certain extent even Amazon off our backs instantly. Why not go that route?

sebastien_bois 6y ago
> That would get Facebook, Google, and to a certain extent even Amazon off our backs instantly. Why not go that route? They already have enough clout to be able to buy the votes to avoid that (it'd be pocket change to them).

wayneftw 6y ago

> [Microsoft] were even more obnoxious in their anti-competitive practices. I'd love to hear why you think that. Microsoft never stopped consumers from installing Linux on a PC. Microsoft never stopped anyone from installing software on Windows. You could always buy a PC and do whatever you wanted to with it. Meanwhile, Apple doesn't let you do anything on an iPhone if it isn't bought from their app store. The level of control that Apple has over iOS is ridiculous compared to what Microsoft had. Apple is 10 times worse towards consumers and developers than Microsoft ever was. I can't even install my own apps on my iPhone without paying Apple $100 per year. Without a developer account, having to re-install the app every 7 days (only from a Mac) is nearly useless. How could I ever take a 2 week vacation and still use my apps? > Apple doesn't have majority market share Yes they do. "Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet (iOS’s share of physical e-commerce transactions is likely somewhere in the middle of this range). And this dominance is also growing. Eighty percent of U.S. teenagers have iPhones and the device held 90% of smartphone activations in the week after Christmas 2020." [0] [1] [0] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse https://www.matthewball.vc/all/applemetaverse [1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2020/8/18/app-stores

endisneigh 6y ago
I’m curious - why don’t you just buy an Android phone and PC - then your issues are resolved no?
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Simple: almost everybody I know uses an iPhone. Without an iPhone, I can't FaceTime with my family and friends. Without an iPhone, I'm discriminated against among young people because of green text in iMessage. Without an iPhone I can't do account sharing for all the digital things my family uses. And those sorts of reasons are just from me as a consumer. As a developer, more than half my customers (in the USA) have an iPhone. I literally cannot do business or provide apps to them without going through Apple.

varispeed 6y ago

Precisely because of that the capitalism we have is extremely flawed and easy to game for people with money and prevents small guy from making his or hers life better in a substantial way. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking if you have small or medium company good chunk of your profits will be eaten by all sort of taxes that big corporations don't pay, so it doesn't matter how hard you are going to work you won't go beyond certain point unless you start sharing your company with VC or risk taking bank loans. Probably that's why it has not happened because it would disrupt the cushy life ultra-rich have. At this point we really need a change and this has to stop!