3 ms·

You can always use other software as well. The only reason HN believe Apple to be a monopoly is because the product they purchased does what it was advertised t

You can always use other software as well. The only reason HN believe Apple to be a monopoly is because the product they purchased does what it was advertised to do - security through chain of trust via an good-but-imperfect organization. It's only a legal monopoly if the courts say so, and the judge in Epic v Apple defined the market in a way that actually made sense - they aren't a monopoly on mobile game purchases, but they did took anticompetitive actions in that market to stifle competition. > I'd argue where there isn't a thriving marketplace of choice monopolies should have to have the same rules with all their partners. They can't have a monopoly on iPhones because the iPhone isn't a market - it's a device where the App Store is the killer feature. There are other products you can buy that compete with the iPhone and its app store.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
djyaz1200 5y ago
Apple as of years ago was capturing over 90% of all the margin in smartphones (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures-record-91-percent-of-global-smartphone-profits-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures-record-91-per...). I'd argue that represents a monopoly in paid smartphones. Our option as users is either buy a phone from Apple or accept what is essentially a free service from Google (you have to buy the hardware)... who are giving that away to solidify their search monopoly. This to me doesn't represent a thriving marketplace of user choice.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  90% of global smartphone profits does not mean 90% of devices in the market. It's been demonstrated for years that iPhone users are much more likely to pay for apps. It's possible to be extremely profitable and not have a monopoly on the market because the iPhone isn't just an appliance but a Veblen good as well.
  - zopa 5y ago
    It does however mean Apple has significant market power. Almost by definition: in a very counterfactual perfectly competitive smartphone market, everyone sells at cost and there aren't any profits. Reducing it to monopoly vs. not-a-monopoly is drawing too bright a line. And I don't really think iPhones are a Veblen good exactly. Targeted at higher-income buyers? Yes. Valued as much for design as aesthetics? Absolutely. But pretty sure a $500 iPhone would outsell an otherwise-identical $800 iPhone, nevertheless.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

djyaz1200 5y ago

Apple as of years ago was capturing over 90% of all the margin in smartphones (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures-record-91-percent-of-global-smartphone-profits-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures-record-91-per...). I'd argue that represents a monopoly in paid smartphones. Our option as users is either buy a phone from Apple or accept what is essentially a free service from Google (you have to buy the hardware)... who are giving that away to solidify their search monopoly. This to me doesn't represent a thriving marketplace of user choice.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
90% of global smartphone profits does not mean 90% of devices in the market. It's been demonstrated for years that iPhone users are much more likely to pay for apps. It's possible to be extremely profitable and not have a monopoly on the market because the iPhone isn't just an appliance but a Veblen good as well.
- zopa 5y ago
  It does however mean Apple has significant market power. Almost by definition: in a very counterfactual perfectly competitive smartphone market, everyone sells at cost and there aren't any profits. Reducing it to monopoly vs. not-a-monopoly is drawing too bright a line. And I don't really think iPhones are a Veblen good exactly. Targeted at higher-income buyers? Yes. Valued as much for design as aesthetics? Absolutely. But pretty sure a $500 iPhone would outsell an otherwise-identical $800 iPhone, nevertheless.