5 ms·

Well, the problem is that they aren't monopolies. They may be problematic but we don't have laws or regulations to deal with this specific situation. And when

by mulmen 6y ago

Well, the problem is that they aren't monopolies. They may be problematic but we don't have laws or regulations to deal with this specific situation. And when we call it a "monopoly" because that seems to be the closest thing then the defenders of these organizations can say "but it's not a monopoly!" and they are right. So if you think it is problematic to have two players in a market even when they are on equal footing then you need to promote legislation to make that illegal. Or if you think there's something specifically harmful about this pair of dominant players then those externalities need to be addressed through legislation. But shouting "monopoly" is, at this point, counter-productive IMHO.

clusterfish 6y ago
Our laws leave a lot to be desired, but being a monopoly is neither sufficient nor required to get hammered: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd2b38f1-9b66-448f-9bca-835c2fb9b94e https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd2b38f1-9b66... What's required, and lacking, is the political will to prosecute.
wjdp 6y ago
Oh go on then, a duopoly with fairly entrenched user bases and no real chance of additional players.
madeofpalk 6y ago
"Citation needed". Whether they’re a monopoly or not is an opinion, one which Epic is currently trying to assert in court.
paranoidrobot 6y ago
Whether something's a monopoly depends on context. If I live in a country with only one phone provider, is that a monopoly? To someone living in that country, yes. But, I could live in another country, and use another phone provider. See, I have choice, therefore it's not a monopoly, right? If you buy an Apple device, your only choice for where to get apps from is from Apple's store. Within that market, they are a monopoly. They control what stores run on that platform, and they choose not to permit competition. What rationale they use for not permitting alternative stores, what terms they set for apps to be on their platform, those are all different issues. I can choose not to use Apple's devices, sure, but that doesn't alter that Apple is a monopoly on their own platform.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Thinking about this as "App Stores" doesn't make sense for Apple. Forget App Stores. They tax more than half of the app revenue(!) just via iPhone alone. General purpose computing is something special and it needs to be defended, because it touches on almost all our civil rights discussions today. Global freedom of speech, privacy, etc... are all in the hands of less than a dozen companies. Which should start with forcing these devices open (everything from bootloader keys, basic information needed to get Linux running, etc...). I can tolerate Android like I tolerate Windows 10, but the iOS situation is just especially awful.
- hwbehrens 6y ago
  In technical terms, this situation is referred to as a monopsony [0]; the customer can, at any time, go out and purchase apps from other sources. However, app developers cannot choose to "sell" their apps to other retailers, since there are basically only 2. It's a distinction without a difference in terms of the power they exert, but legally speaking, the distinction is relevant because the types of behaviors that are proscribed (in the U.S., at least) are relatively narrowly defined. This is not the first time these laws would have to be modified to account for shifts in market exploitation practices, nor will it be last. For a recent discussion of the topic, see [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-economy-monopoly-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-eco...
- parasubvert 6y ago
  There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. The argument is about whether forcing open channel reseller participation is beneficial to consumers. This was done with the American car franchise dealership, which was legally enforced across most states to protect dealers from being competed with by direct sales, and also to prevent pricing and quality shenanigans with repairs in the old days when cars needed constant repairs and there were more car companies that might pull out of a market and leave consumers without a proper repair facility . But this model has been falling apart from a consumer POV who largely prefer direct sales and repairs these days (see Tesla), and direct sales largely save the customers money (the $ of vehicles is higher with a dealership model). I suspect folks need to be careful what they wish for. The 30% cut (or near it) will almost certainly be retained in an open store model if the store isn’t otherwise subsidized.
colinmhayes 6y ago
They're a duopoly that has effectively formed a cartel to abuse their market power. The market power abuse is the illegal part, doesn't matter how many competitors there are.
ThatPlayer 6y ago
EU has previously declared them a monopoly when they fined Google, because they don't compete : https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... >Google's app store dominance is not constrained by Apple's App Store, which is only available on iOS devices.
arvinsim 6y ago
I agree. Our current laws were not made in the time when these technologies were widespread. Legislation of a new law would be the better solution than trying to classify them as a monopoly.

by mulmen 6y ago

clusterfish 6y ago

Our laws leave a lot to be desired, but being a monopoly is neither sufficient nor required to get hammered: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd2b38f1-9b66-448f-9bca-835c2fb9b94e https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd2b38f1-9b66... What's required, and lacking, is the political will to prosecute.

wjdp 6y ago

Oh go on then, a duopoly with fairly entrenched user bases and no real chance of additional players.

madeofpalk 6y ago

"Citation needed". Whether they’re a monopoly or not is an opinion, one which Epic is currently trying to assert in court.

paranoidrobot 6y ago

Whether something's a monopoly depends on context. If I live in a country with only one phone provider, is that a monopoly? To someone living in that country, yes. But, I could live in another country, and use another phone provider. See, I have choice, therefore it's not a monopoly, right? If you buy an Apple device, your only choice for where to get apps from is from Apple's store. Within that market, they are a monopoly. They control what stores run on that platform, and they choose not to permit competition. What rationale they use for not permitting alternative stores, what terms they set for apps to be on their platform, those are all different issues. I can choose not to use Apple's devices, sure, but that doesn't alter that Apple is a monopoly on their own platform.

throwaway3699 6y ago
Thinking about this as "App Stores" doesn't make sense for Apple. Forget App Stores. They tax more than half of the app revenue(!) just via iPhone alone. General purpose computing is something special and it needs to be defended, because it touches on almost all our civil rights discussions today. Global freedom of speech, privacy, etc... are all in the hands of less than a dozen companies. Which should start with forcing these devices open (everything from bootloader keys, basic information needed to get Linux running, etc...). I can tolerate Android like I tolerate Windows 10, but the iOS situation is just especially awful.
hwbehrens 6y ago
In technical terms, this situation is referred to as a monopsony [0]; the customer can, at any time, go out and purchase apps from other sources. However, app developers cannot choose to "sell" their apps to other retailers, since there are basically only 2. It's a distinction without a difference in terms of the power they exert, but legally speaking, the distinction is relevant because the types of behaviors that are proscribed (in the U.S., at least) are relatively narrowly defined. This is not the first time these laws would have to be modified to account for shifts in market exploitation practices, nor will it be last. For a recent discussion of the topic, see [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-economy-monopoly-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-eco...
parasubvert 6y ago
There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. The argument is about whether forcing open channel reseller participation is beneficial to consumers. This was done with the American car franchise dealership, which was legally enforced across most states to protect dealers from being competed with by direct sales, and also to prevent pricing and quality shenanigans with repairs in the old days when cars needed constant repairs and there were more car companies that might pull out of a market and leave consumers without a proper repair facility . But this model has been falling apart from a consumer POV who largely prefer direct sales and repairs these days (see Tesla), and direct sales largely save the customers money (the $ of vehicles is higher with a dealership model). I suspect folks need to be careful what they wish for. The 30% cut (or near it) will almost certainly be retained in an open store model if the store isn’t otherwise subsidized.

colinmhayes 6y ago

They're a duopoly that has effectively formed a cartel to abuse their market power. The market power abuse is the illegal part, doesn't matter how many competitors there are.

ThatPlayer 6y ago

EU has previously declared them a monopoly when they fined Google, because they don't compete : https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... >Google's app store dominance is not constrained by Apple's App Store, which is only available on iOS devices.

arvinsim 6y ago

I agree. Our current laws were not made in the time when these technologies were widespread. Legislation of a new law would be the better solution than trying to classify them as a monopoly.