5 ms·

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.

throwaway2048 5y ago
In this very document you have Google and Apple claiming that they effectively do not compete in terms of app store pricing policies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
What is Apple's market share for tablets in the US?
realusername 5y ago
> * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. [source needed]. The only tariff change Apple ever made was ... due to a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. And Google followed straight away. I can't recall any competition between both companies, they just have their own distinct market.
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.
  - realusername 5y ago
    In theory I do agree, competition between both could exist. In practice though it does not happen. There's some pretty clear market collusion.
smokeymorning 5y ago
>Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. As I understand it, the law sees detrimental effects on consumers.
ren_engineer 5y ago
Google and Apple have been caught colluding before on trying to keep software engineer salaries low. They also conveniently had the exact same app store fee for years. Doesn't make much sense if they were actually competing with each other
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  > have been caught colluding before on trying to keep software engineer salaries low. Wow they are really bad at this then. 200-400k without even requiring a college degree is pretty wild. It’s about what my brother made as a doctor and he had an undergraduate degree, medical school, an internship, a residency program…
  - steelframe 5y ago
    Every former co-worker who I've talked to when they left Google did so for at least a 20% bump in total comp. The few Googlers I've talked to who left for Apple got equal or even a little less total comp. Anecdotal, but once you get some years of Big Tech experience under your belt, I do think you become comparatively more valuable to smaller companies.
  - ren_engineer 5y ago
    Without the price collusion engineers might make 600-800K. Not sure why you are defending a Trillion dollar company illegally working with another Trillion dollar company to lower worker wages. The reason software engineer salaries remain high despite big tech collusion is that startups not in on the deal were willing to pay higher, which forces big tech to continue paying for talent. not sure why doctor wages are brought up, supply and demand determines prices. Google and Apple tried to artificially distort the labor market
    - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
      I judge compensation based on what value people bring to society. I look around at the world created by software engineers and I'm not impressed. For every dystopian nightmare being foisted upon us, you have an "engineer" saying "Yes sir and what else would you like us to do to them?" to their higher ups at these trillion dollar companies. I'm sure hitman pays well also but I don't have to root for them to get higher wages.
White_Wolf 5y ago
They do indeed compete but doesn't Apple have a monopoly on IOS with it's app store and Google on Android with PlayStore? At least on Android you can install you own market if you're so inclined. I have yet to find an alternative app store for ios though(might be just me not knowing where to look though). Edit: Forgot to add that when you're talking about Apple vs G I don't see it as 1 big "smartphone" market. It's 2 different ones. Apple hardware running iOS vs generic hardware running Android.
- moogly 5y ago
  From the very Twitter thread: "Our vision is that we [Apple and Google] work as if we are one company."
mmcconnell1618 5y ago
The law is interpreted according to different standards over time. NPR has a really interesting 3 part podcast series that explains how antitrust laws have been applied over time. Marketshare was the significant metric at one time but more recent judges have used impact/harm to consumers based on price. Under recent case law, if the consumer is still able to get the good cheaply, you can basically own the entire market. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/antitrust-in-america https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/anti...
gunapologist99 5y ago
> Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. They effectively have a monopoly over their customers from other customers and can leverage that monopoly to control their vendors. And Google and Apple secretly working together as "one company" literally defines trust behavior: 'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'
IncRnd 5y ago
You should read the actual page before you comment! From the article: After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  I want to know how opulent the celebration at the plaintiff's lawyer's office was when they found that.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I can't even guess. That could be a huge factor.
dalbasal 5y ago
"The Law" is pretty patchy, inconsistent and self contradictory. A lot of them are old. A lot of definitions are sketchy. There aren't many precedents, and the normative precedent of what doesn't get prosecuted is vast and confusing. >> You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case. The realities of being a primary OS, App Store, or browser vendor today are both more significant, and more well known than in the 90s. They have financial consequences many times greater. I don't see how you can come to an intelligible concept of monopoly, market power and such with a general, legal-friendly theory of monopoly. The logic needs to be reversed. NEW UNDERPANTS PLAN: 0. Forget about proving a monopoly exists to strengthen your case that X is acting as a trust. 1. Use evidence that X is acting as a trust, as to make the case that monopoly exists instead. 2. ??? 3. Profit. The problem is that we don't have a step 2. What happens when markets mature into an monopoly dynamic? We need an answer, because some have.
TeeMassive 5y ago
I've once worked for a large corporation that got hit hard by antitrust. Think a few tens of billions of dollars. Why? A seller was caught giving freebies if they bought their products. That's it. That's all it took. I know because due to that incident we had to follow online formation every god damn month about antitrust. You don't have to have a "monopoly" to trigger antitrust legislation. The mere mention of "deals" or "cooperation" or "understanding" in the same conversation that involves competitor can be enough evidence to cause huge trouble.
- depressedpanda 5y ago
  What Apple and Google are doing is a lot worse than handing out freebies. Why aren't they getting hit hard by antitrust?
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    That was my point.
    - depressedpanda 5y ago
      I know, I was just adding an honest question to it. (I should probably have started the first paragraph with "Yes, and... :) ) I guess the reason that megacorps can get away with even worse behavior is that the system is corrupt.
Revenant-15 5y ago
What? Antitrust isn't solely about marketshare and having a monopoly. You can behave in anticompetitive ways that break antitrust laws without having a monopoly.

throwaway2048 5y ago

In this very document you have Google and Apple claiming that they effectively do not compete in terms of app store pricing policies.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zarzavat 5y ago

What is Apple's market share for tablets in the US?

realusername 5y ago

> * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. [source needed]. The only tariff change Apple ever made was ... due to a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. And Google followed straight away. I can't recall any competition between both companies, they just have their own distinct market.

dividedbyzero 5y ago
They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.
- realusername 5y ago
  In theory I do agree, competition between both could exist. In practice though it does not happen. There's some pretty clear market collusion.

smokeymorning 5y ago

>Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. As I understand it, the law sees detrimental effects on consumers.

ren_engineer 5y ago

Google and Apple have been caught colluding before on trying to keep software engineer salaries low. They also conveniently had the exact same app store fee for years. Doesn't make much sense if they were actually competing with each other

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
> have been caught colluding before on trying to keep software engineer salaries low. Wow they are really bad at this then. 200-400k without even requiring a college degree is pretty wild. It’s about what my brother made as a doctor and he had an undergraduate degree, medical school, an internship, a residency program…
- steelframe 5y ago
  Every former co-worker who I've talked to when they left Google did so for at least a 20% bump in total comp. The few Googlers I've talked to who left for Apple got equal or even a little less total comp. Anecdotal, but once you get some years of Big Tech experience under your belt, I do think you become comparatively more valuable to smaller companies.
- ren_engineer 5y ago
  Without the price collusion engineers might make 600-800K. Not sure why you are defending a Trillion dollar company illegally working with another Trillion dollar company to lower worker wages. The reason software engineer salaries remain high despite big tech collusion is that startups not in on the deal were willing to pay higher, which forces big tech to continue paying for talent. not sure why doctor wages are brought up, supply and demand determines prices. Google and Apple tried to artificially distort the labor market
  - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    I judge compensation based on what value people bring to society. I look around at the world created by software engineers and I'm not impressed. For every dystopian nightmare being foisted upon us, you have an "engineer" saying "Yes sir and what else would you like us to do to them?" to their higher ups at these trillion dollar companies. I'm sure hitman pays well also but I don't have to root for them to get higher wages.

White_Wolf 5y ago

They do indeed compete but doesn't Apple have a monopoly on IOS with it's app store and Google on Android with PlayStore? At least on Android you can install you own market if you're so inclined. I have yet to find an alternative app store for ios though(might be just me not knowing where to look though). Edit: Forgot to add that when you're talking about Apple vs G I don't see it as 1 big "smartphone" market. It's 2 different ones. Apple hardware running iOS vs generic hardware running Android.

moogly 5y ago
From the very Twitter thread: "Our vision is that we [Apple and Google] work as if we are one company."

mmcconnell1618 5y ago

The law is interpreted according to different standards over time. NPR has a really interesting 3 part podcast series that explains how antitrust laws have been applied over time. Marketshare was the significant metric at one time but more recent judges have used impact/harm to consumers based on price. Under recent case law, if the consumer is still able to get the good cheaply, you can basically own the entire market. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/antitrust-in-america https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/anti...

gunapologist99 5y ago

> Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. They effectively have a monopoly over their customers from other customers and can leverage that monopoly to control their vendors. And Google and Apple secretly working together as "one company" literally defines trust behavior: 'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'

IncRnd 5y ago

You should read the actual page before you comment! From the article: After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
I want to know how opulent the celebration at the plaintiff's lawyer's office was when they found that.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I can't even guess. That could be a huge factor.

dalbasal 5y ago

"The Law" is pretty patchy, inconsistent and self contradictory. A lot of them are old. A lot of definitions are sketchy. There aren't many precedents, and the normative precedent of what doesn't get prosecuted is vast and confusing. >> You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case. The realities of being a primary OS, App Store, or browser vendor today are both more significant, and more well known than in the 90s. They have financial consequences many times greater. I don't see how you can come to an intelligible concept of monopoly, market power and such with a general, legal-friendly theory of monopoly. The logic needs to be reversed. NEW UNDERPANTS PLAN: 0. Forget about proving a monopoly exists to strengthen your case that X is acting as a trust. 1. Use evidence that X is acting as a trust, as to make the case that monopoly exists instead. 2. ??? 3. Profit. The problem is that we don't have a step 2. What happens when markets mature into an monopoly dynamic? We need an answer, because some have.

TeeMassive 5y ago

I've once worked for a large corporation that got hit hard by antitrust. Think a few tens of billions of dollars. Why? A seller was caught giving freebies if they bought their products. That's it. That's all it took. I know because due to that incident we had to follow online formation every god damn month about antitrust. You don't have to have a "monopoly" to trigger antitrust legislation. The mere mention of "deals" or "cooperation" or "understanding" in the same conversation that involves competitor can be enough evidence to cause huge trouble.

depressedpanda 5y ago
What Apple and Google are doing is a lot worse than handing out freebies. Why aren't they getting hit hard by antitrust?
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  That was my point.
  - depressedpanda 5y ago
    I know, I was just adding an honest question to it. (I should probably have started the first paragraph with "Yes, and... :) ) I guess the reason that megacorps can get away with even worse behavior is that the system is corrupt.

Revenant-15 5y ago

What? Antitrust isn't solely about marketshare and having a monopoly. You can behave in anticompetitive ways that break antitrust laws without having a monopoly.