5 ms·

Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to who controlled the market for applications that

by not2b 5y ago

Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to who controlled the market for applications that ran on Windows at the peak of Microsoft's dominance? For the former, the only distribution method is via Apple's store and Apple gets a cut of every sale. For the latter, developers could sell directly to the public; Microsoft did not control this. Apple's monopoly is much stronger. Apple apologists will blur this by taking about the smart phone market as a whole. But once someone has bought a device, they are no longer in that larger market. They need apps, and there's only one place to get them. That only leaves the question of whether they are abusing the monopoly. Google has a similar monopoly over Android applications, but it's not as tight, because of side-loading and fragmentation by Amazon and others. Still, it's a near-monopoly because few people bypass the Play Store.

macintux 5y ago
> Apple apologists will blur this by taking about the smart phone market as a whole. Until you can find a judge willing to endorse your definition of "market", it's not just "Apple apologists" but "legal precedent".
- not2b 5y ago
  You'd have no problem finding economists to endorse my definition. As for judges, they only get to rule on cases that are brought to them, and that depends on the regulators.
  - macintux 5y ago
    So, again, legal precedent is that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
    - angus-prune 5y ago
      The legal precedent isn't that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. There is no legal precedent on whether Apple has a monopoly. The law is entirely agnostic on whether Apple has a monopoly until it is put to a judge.
      - macintux 5y ago
        There is no legal precedent I’m aware of that you can carve out one company’s products and claim that constitutes a market over which it holds a monopoly, in the presence of an alternative with comparable market share.
      - catgary 5y ago
        Consoles have existed for decades applying similar rules to software distribution, no?
    - lenkite 5y ago
      The Second Circuit has defined monopoly power as "the ability ' (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2) to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new entry or expansion.' Apple's iOS platform matches both these conditions.
      - macintux 5y ago
        Except iPhones aren’t generally more expensive than phones of similar caliber hardware. Samsung offers phones even more expensive. Apple just doesn’t offer cheap hardware. Does Porsche have monopoly power just because they don’t offer low-end models?
        lenkite 5y ago
        Porsche doesn't provide an app platform.
shkkmo 5y ago
I think we need two rules for the modern information economy to ensure competition. I think it should be illegal to deliberately interfer with a devices owner's ability to run the software of their choice. This means that owners of iPhones, PlayStations, Switches, Tractors, Cars, etc should not have to treat the manufacturer as an adversary in their ownership of the devices. I also think that content exclusivity contracts should be illegal and that all content creators that license content to a service should be required to offer reasonably similar licensing terms to that service's competitors.
toast0 5y ago
> Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to who controlled the market for applications that ran on Windows at the peak of Microsoft's dominance? Apple for iOs and software distributors and computer store retailers for the windows application market. Microsoft dominated the market for operating systems for home computers, and they did a bunch of nasty stuff, including using their dominance to effectively restrict and/or prevent bundling of other operating systems with new computers, and there were shenanigans done against a handful specific products made by others, but AFAIK Microsoft did not make any attempt to dictate what applications computer stores sold. If you could convince distributors and retailers, your software could be on shelves. There were made for windows labeling programs, and those are now compulsory for drivers, but that's outside the Microsoft abuses time frame and there's not the same kind of pushback. Google's control of Android is similar, but not nearly the same. Developers can make apks available for users and users can pretty easily install them; the experience seems to be getting consistently better, my newest phones will show a warning on opening that links to the checkbox and when you tick the box you can install the apk directly, without having to find it again. It's not quite as easy as running a setup program on windows, but it's darn close. Sure, most developers don't provide apks, and most users don't use direct apk links when they're provided, but it's an available option vs jailbreaking an iOS device which requires a lot of fiddly steps. There's also a concern about Google enforcing some terms on downloaded apks that are also distibuted through the Play store, at least a few years ago, they didn't like non-google in app payment, even if it was only in the direct apk; and Google Play's security scanning apparatus runs against downloaded apks and sometimes shows scary messages which may be anti-competitive. I think there's certainly a legal question about if Apple's captive market can be considered a market for anti-trust purposes. If so, there's a clear case of anti-competitiveness, IMHO. If the relevant market is applications on smartphones or tablets, I don't think Apple has enough marketshare that the anti-competitive things they do are prohibited, because IMHO, they only do things that are prohibited in combination with strong market power. Google, on the other hand, probably has enough market power, regardless of segmentation, but they also are signficantly less restrictive.

by not2b 5y ago

macintux 5y ago

> Apple apologists will blur this by taking about the smart phone market as a whole. Until you can find a judge willing to endorse your definition of "market", it's not just "Apple apologists" but "legal precedent".

not2b 5y ago
You'd have no problem finding economists to endorse my definition. As for judges, they only get to rule on cases that are brought to them, and that depends on the regulators.
- macintux 5y ago
  So, again, legal precedent is that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
  - angus-prune 5y ago
    The legal precedent isn't that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. There is no legal precedent on whether Apple has a monopoly. The law is entirely agnostic on whether Apple has a monopoly until it is put to a judge.
    - macintux 5y ago
      There is no legal precedent I’m aware of that you can carve out one company’s products and claim that constitutes a market over which it holds a monopoly, in the presence of an alternative with comparable market share.
    - catgary 5y ago
      Consoles have existed for decades applying similar rules to software distribution, no?
  - lenkite 5y ago
    The Second Circuit has defined monopoly power as "the ability ' (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2) to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new entry or expansion.' Apple's iOS platform matches both these conditions.
    - macintux 5y ago
      Except iPhones aren’t generally more expensive than phones of similar caliber hardware. Samsung offers phones even more expensive. Apple just doesn’t offer cheap hardware. Does Porsche have monopoly power just because they don’t offer low-end models?
      - lenkite 5y ago
        Porsche doesn't provide an app platform.

shkkmo 5y ago

I think we need two rules for the modern information economy to ensure competition. I think it should be illegal to deliberately interfer with a devices owner's ability to run the software of their choice. This means that owners of iPhones, PlayStations, Switches, Tractors, Cars, etc should not have to treat the manufacturer as an adversary in their ownership of the devices. I also think that content exclusivity contracts should be illegal and that all content creators that license content to a service should be required to offer reasonably similar licensing terms to that service's competitors.

toast0 5y ago

> Here's a reasonable metric: who controls the market for iPad or iPhone applications, and how did that compare to who controlled the market for applications that ran on Windows at the peak of Microsoft's dominance? Apple for iOs and software distributors and computer store retailers for the windows application market. Microsoft dominated the market for operating systems for home computers, and they did a bunch of nasty stuff, including using their dominance to effectively restrict and/or prevent bundling of other operating systems with new computers, and there were shenanigans done against a handful specific products made by others, but AFAIK Microsoft did not make any attempt to dictate what applications computer stores sold. If you could convince distributors and retailers, your software could be on shelves. There were made for windows labeling programs, and those are now compulsory for drivers, but that's outside the Microsoft abuses time frame and there's not the same kind of pushback. Google's control of Android is similar, but not nearly the same. Developers can make apks available for users and users can pretty easily install them; the experience seems to be getting consistently better, my newest phones will show a warning on opening that links to the checkbox and when you tick the box you can install the apk directly, without having to find it again. It's not quite as easy as running a setup program on windows, but it's darn close. Sure, most developers don't provide apks, and most users don't use direct apk links when they're provided, but it's an available option vs jailbreaking an iOS device which requires a lot of fiddly steps. There's also a concern about Google enforcing some terms on downloaded apks that are also distibuted through the Play store, at least a few years ago, they didn't like non-google in app payment, even if it was only in the direct apk; and Google Play's security scanning apparatus runs against downloaded apks and sometimes shows scary messages which may be anti-competitive. I think there's certainly a legal question about if Apple's captive market can be considered a market for anti-trust purposes. If so, there's a clear case of anti-competitiveness, IMHO. If the relevant market is applications on smartphones or tablets, I don't think Apple has enough marketshare that the anti-competitive things they do are prohibited, because IMHO, they only do things that are prohibited in combination with strong market power. Google, on the other hand, probably has enough market power, regardless of segmentation, but they also are signficantly less restrictive.