4 ms·

How come some people still don't consider Apple a monopoly is beyond me.

prepend 5y ago
Because they have tons of competition and don’t dominate the market. By revenue, android is way higher. Monopolies have a few characteristics like barriers to entry and competition. Apple doesn’t command this because the market is mostly not Apple.
- partiallypro 5y ago
  In the US, it is in fact mostly Apple.
  - mjhagen 5y ago
    The market isn't only the US though.
    - partiallypro 5y ago
      Each country gets to say what monopolistic behavior is in their own country. They don't have to consider global market share.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Because they have tons of competition and don’t dominate the market. By revenue, android is way higher. Apple has 60% of the mobile market in the US[1], and the App Store is responsible for more than 100% more revenue than the Play Store, too[2]. Regulatory bodies aren't concerned with layman definitions of monopoly[3]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-android-dominates-in-china-and-india https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-... [2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ [3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
  - labcomputer 5y ago
    You forgot the rest of the quote from your 3rd source: "Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages." Most anti-trust cases have historically been against companies with 90+% market share: Standard Oil, Bell Telephone, Microsoft. I'd love to see an example of a company that was found to have a monopoly with only 60% market share.
    - simplestats 5y ago
      In fact I think Standard Oil wasn't far above that by the time action was taken. They were also cutting prices and modernizing heavily. To get much beyond that I think you need some special advantage like govt protection. I suspect the patent system, which literally guarantees monopolies to companies in return for a fixed fee, creates a big advantage for the leaders in tech markets. Hence modern leaders last a lot longer with more market share (and way higher margins) than they should.
  - prepend 5y ago
    They have a strong position, but I don’t think 60% is proof of any type of monopoly. I think people in this thread don’t 1) understand what monopoly means and 2) understand what US antitrust considers monopolies that damage consumers.
- wvenable 5y ago
  They absolutely dominate the market. If you wanted to create a successful service today and don't support iOS you have no chance. If that's not domination, what is?
  - supreme_berry 5y ago
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  In fairness, they're a monopoly in a market they invented--the iOS "ecosystem." This includes: * the app store * subscription management * payments * any sort of digital media (music, movies, tv shows) * browser engines...there literally is no way to release a different browser on iOS, even iOS "Firefox" and "Chrome" have to use Apple's WebKit binary From myself in a lower thread
  - jabbany 5y ago
    Except there are alternatives for all of these, you just have to use a different operating system. Interoperability has never been legally mandated in the past, but for most of history it has just "happened" because people could get around hostile designs (IBM PC clones anyone?). The problem with the complexity of today's technology is that, it's no longer feasible for an upstart to make a "compatible" device. You can't engineer an "iOS capable" non Apple device or an Apple-compatible non-Apple OS, not because it is not legal but because it is not feasible technologically. There are ways to do legally clean reverse engineering (ReactOS anyone?) but you cannot get around chip level signature checks nor can you fab your own state-of-the-art chips.
    - righttoolforjob 5y ago
      Yep, regulation is way behind. None of this lockdown is for the public good and thus it should not exist. The demand side of the market doesn't seem to be able to balance this out (i.e. vote with your wallet, stop buying the products, they hurt all of us long term). You would need another global level actor building the replacement, in the fair, for public good manner. However due to these global corporations essentially being close to global states in power, there is very little any one nation state can do comparatively. The level of investment would be worth it, for the world, but not for any single state.
    - appletrotter 5y ago
      > Interoperability has never been legally mandated in the past This is pretty similar domain where it's happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  They absolutely dominate the market of iOS apps. Imagine the uproar you would be able to install windows apps only via MicrosoftStore? The uproar would be deafening, and yet the impact on users would be far less severe than Apple's tyranny, because you can install other OS on PCs, but you can't install other OSs on iPhones.
atty 5y ago
I’m as concerned as anyone about apples behavior with services in general, and the App Store in particular. But it’s also true that the market is not iPhones, it’s smart phones. And Apple is most certainly not a monopoly in smart phones or smart phone apps. They’ve very carefully built up an ecosystem that attracts the best app dev talent and the most lucrative app customers, but that does not make them a monopoly.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > But it’s also true that the market is not iPhones, it’s smart phones. And Apple is most certainly not a monopoly in smart phones or smart phone apps. Apple certainly has a duopoly with Google in the mobile device market, mobile operating systems market, mobile app distribution market and the mobile app payments market.

Because they have tons of competition and don’t dominate the market. By revenue, android is way higher. Monopolies have a few characteristics like barriers to entry and competition. Apple doesn’t command this because the market is mostly not Apple.

partiallypro 5y ago
In the US, it is in fact mostly Apple.
- mjhagen 5y ago
  The market isn't only the US though.
  - partiallypro 5y ago
    Each country gets to say what monopolistic behavior is in their own country. They don't have to consider global market share.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Because they have tons of competition and don’t dominate the market. By revenue, android is way higher. Apple has 60% of the mobile market in the US[1], and the App Store is responsible for more than 100% more revenue than the Play Store, too[2]. Regulatory bodies aren't concerned with layman definitions of monopoly[3]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-android-dominates-in-china-and-india https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-... [2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ [3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- labcomputer 5y ago
  You forgot the rest of the quote from your 3rd source: "Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages." Most anti-trust cases have historically been against companies with 90+% market share: Standard Oil, Bell Telephone, Microsoft. I'd love to see an example of a company that was found to have a monopoly with only 60% market share.
  - simplestats 5y ago
    In fact I think Standard Oil wasn't far above that by the time action was taken. They were also cutting prices and modernizing heavily. To get much beyond that I think you need some special advantage like govt protection. I suspect the patent system, which literally guarantees monopolies to companies in return for a fixed fee, creates a big advantage for the leaders in tech markets. Hence modern leaders last a lot longer with more market share (and way higher margins) than they should.
- prepend 5y ago
  They have a strong position, but I don’t think 60% is proof of any type of monopoly. I think people in this thread don’t 1) understand what monopoly means and 2) understand what US antitrust considers monopolies that damage consumers.
wvenable 5y ago
They absolutely dominate the market. If you wanted to create a successful service today and don't support iOS you have no chance. If that's not domination, what is?
- supreme_berry 5y ago
DrBenCarson 5y ago
In fairness, they're a monopoly in a market they invented--the iOS "ecosystem." This includes: * the app store * subscription management * payments * any sort of digital media (music, movies, tv shows) * browser engines...there literally is no way to release a different browser on iOS, even iOS "Firefox" and "Chrome" have to use Apple's WebKit binary From myself in a lower thread
- jabbany 5y ago
  Except there are alternatives for all of these, you just have to use a different operating system. Interoperability has never been legally mandated in the past, but for most of history it has just "happened" because people could get around hostile designs (IBM PC clones anyone?). The problem with the complexity of today's technology is that, it's no longer feasible for an upstart to make a "compatible" device. You can't engineer an "iOS capable" non Apple device or an Apple-compatible non-Apple OS, not because it is not legal but because it is not feasible technologically. There are ways to do legally clean reverse engineering (ReactOS anyone?) but you cannot get around chip level signature checks nor can you fab your own state-of-the-art chips.
  - righttoolforjob 5y ago
    Yep, regulation is way behind. None of this lockdown is for the public good and thus it should not exist. The demand side of the market doesn't seem to be able to balance this out (i.e. vote with your wallet, stop buying the products, they hurt all of us long term). You would need another global level actor building the replacement, in the fair, for public good manner. However due to these global corporations essentially being close to global states in power, there is very little any one nation state can do comparatively. The level of investment would be worth it, for the world, but not for any single state.
  - appletrotter 5y ago
    > Interoperability has never been legally mandated in the past This is pretty similar domain where it's happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
They absolutely dominate the market of iOS apps. Imagine the uproar you would be able to install windows apps only via MicrosoftStore? The uproar would be deafening, and yet the impact on users would be far less severe than Apple's tyranny, because you can install other OS on PCs, but you can't install other OSs on iPhones.

atty 5y ago

I’m as concerned as anyone about apples behavior with services in general, and the App Store in particular. But it’s also true that the market is not iPhones, it’s smart phones. And Apple is most certainly not a monopoly in smart phones or smart phone apps. They’ve very carefully built up an ecosystem that attracts the best app dev talent and the most lucrative app customers, but that does not make them a monopoly.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> But it’s also true that the market is not iPhones, it’s smart phones. And Apple is most certainly not a monopoly in smart phones or smart phone apps. Apple certainly has a duopoly with Google in the mobile device market, mobile operating systems market, mobile app distribution market and the mobile app payments market.