4 ms·

While i agree with you that playstore is not a 100% monopoly, if anything it is a duopoly (Apple/google). But on the Marketing/AD's side it is definitely a mono

by nix23 5y ago

While i agree with you that playstore is not a 100% monopoly, if anything it is a duopoly (Apple/google). But on the Marketing/AD's side it is definitely a monopoly, that should be addressed first i believe.

roenxi 5y ago
I'm not quite finding the angle here to state my thoughts clearly, but there seems to be a definition of monopoly at play in some of these threads that means something close to "I would make more money if Apple/Google made less, plus they already make lots of money so it isn't fair!". Google/Apple having gained the trust of the market and acting as middlemen to sell access simply isn't monopoly activity. In the same way that renting out space in a commercial complex isn't. There is no question they are running these stores to make an outrageous profit. But the monopoly would be expressed by how the gates are closed to alternate App Stores, or in Google is unfairly pushing competitors to their own Apps off the store to make a profit - which given that they generally provide their Apps for free is a hard argument to make. Nobody seems to be making either of those arguments. Particularly the first one would involve more references to Samsung being made.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Suppose google's chrome started charging websites 30% of their revenue to be accessible in their browser. Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. The issue is HNer's are still living in the "website era" of the internet -- that's ending. We're now in the app era. And devices are the browsers. Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. That android devices compete with ios devices is irrelevant, in as much as comcast/et al. can say, "go to a different state". The app store is an iOS monopoly -- the hardware apple provides is a road/telephone/browser device for access apps -- the new predominant mode of social/economic communication & infrastructure.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. It isn't though. That is my point, monopoly doesn't just mean big market share + you don't like it. Half the web would go dark to Chrome and everyone would dump the browser in a couple of months if they pulled a stunt like that. Because they don't have monopoly. They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. If the best-browser part stops being true there is not reason for the highest market share part to stay true.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      Well I take 'monopoly' to be a pretheoretical concept tied to the moral concequentialist justification of markets: aggregate social benefits. Ie., a monopoly is whatever situation gives rise to a situation where a company can set prices without regards to legitimate competitive market processes. Where 'legitimate' is effectively a concequentialist constraint concerning aggregate consumer benefit. There are many theories of /when/ a company is a monopoly; including very narrow case law definitions around pricing. The pretheoretical use of the term however is taken to permit a broader scope. And lets be clear: a 30pc surcharge on all our economic activity (whether that be a mastercard or an apple) given no market justification has no justification. Let there be many app stores on the iphone-- and we shall see what the market price on an app store. If it ends up being 30% then theres no objection.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      > They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. This is very much a matter of opinion, not something you can reasonably state with a straight face. A large part of Chrome's large market share is the fact that it comes installed as a default on more than half the world's phones and that it's heavily marketed by the world's largest search engine and video hosting website (owned by the same entity!). It also good enough, for now. It has nothing to do with it being the best, though.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    > Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. Not when there are other roads to be taken, regardless of how many pot holes they have on them. So buy another device, a feature phone, give money to Jolla, FairPhone, whatever.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
Is it? I mean, if you think the u. s., it's one thing, but worldwide google has something like 90% marketshare on phones. That being said, if Google started charging monthly for play store, you can easily change. The same is not true for Apple

by nix23 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

I'm not quite finding the angle here to state my thoughts clearly, but there seems to be a definition of monopoly at play in some of these threads that means something close to "I would make more money if Apple/Google made less, plus they already make lots of money so it isn't fair!". Google/Apple having gained the trust of the market and acting as middlemen to sell access simply isn't monopoly activity. In the same way that renting out space in a commercial complex isn't. There is no question they are running these stores to make an outrageous profit. But the monopoly would be expressed by how the gates are closed to alternate App Stores, or in Google is unfairly pushing competitors to their own Apps off the store to make a profit - which given that they generally provide their Apps for free is a hard argument to make. Nobody seems to be making either of those arguments. Particularly the first one would involve more references to Samsung being made.

mjburgess 5y ago
Suppose google's chrome started charging websites 30% of their revenue to be accessible in their browser. Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. The issue is HNer's are still living in the "website era" of the internet -- that's ending. We're now in the app era. And devices are the browsers. Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. That android devices compete with ios devices is irrelevant, in as much as comcast/et al. can say, "go to a different state". The app store is an iOS monopoly -- the hardware apple provides is a road/telephone/browser device for access apps -- the new predominant mode of social/economic communication & infrastructure.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. It isn't though. That is my point, monopoly doesn't just mean big market share + you don't like it. Half the web would go dark to Chrome and everyone would dump the browser in a couple of months if they pulled a stunt like that. Because they don't have monopoly. They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. If the best-browser part stops being true there is not reason for the highest market share part to stay true.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    Well I take 'monopoly' to be a pretheoretical concept tied to the moral concequentialist justification of markets: aggregate social benefits. Ie., a monopoly is whatever situation gives rise to a situation where a company can set prices without regards to legitimate competitive market processes. Where 'legitimate' is effectively a concequentialist constraint concerning aggregate consumer benefit. There are many theories of /when/ a company is a monopoly; including very narrow case law definitions around pricing. The pretheoretical use of the term however is taken to permit a broader scope. And lets be clear: a 30pc surcharge on all our economic activity (whether that be a mastercard or an apple) given no market justification has no justification. Let there be many app stores on the iphone-- and we shall see what the market price on an app store. If it ends up being 30% then theres no objection.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    > They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. This is very much a matter of opinion, not something you can reasonably state with a straight face. A large part of Chrome's large market share is the fact that it comes installed as a default on more than half the world's phones and that it's heavily marketed by the world's largest search engine and video hosting website (owned by the same entity!). It also good enough, for now. It has nothing to do with it being the best, though.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  > Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. Not when there are other roads to be taken, regardless of how many pot holes they have on them. So buy another device, a feature phone, give money to Jolla, FairPhone, whatever.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago

Is it? I mean, if you think the u. s., it's one thing, but worldwide google has something like 90% marketshare on phones. That being said, if Google started charging monthly for play store, you can easily change. The same is not true for Apple