3 ms·
> 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",
by macintux 6y 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 6y agoYou'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 6y agoSo, again, legal precedent is that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
- angus-prune 6y agoThe 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 6y agoThere 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 6y agoConsoles have existed for decades applying similar rules to software distribution, no?
- lenkite 6y agoThe 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 6y agoExcept 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 6y agoPorsche doesn't provide an app platform.