3 ms·

I teach antitrust and competition to undergrads and grad students. None of what you have described in this paragraph is an antitrust violation, not by a mile:

I teach antitrust and competition to undergrads and grad students. None of what you have described in this paragraph is an antitrust violation, not by a mile: "While look at Apple. They have more than 50% share of mobile devices in US and their devices are actual platforms. They own it from bare silicon to device to OS to apps to services to accessories. Their own products get first class support while others can't integrate as well. Their web browser has no real competition on mobile, so mobile web for more than 50% of users is at their mercy." To the extent that the following sentence relates to the fees they set on their app store, it might allege an antitrust violation: "They get unfair advantage for their music streaming services etc." But the optimal regulation of platforms is very much an unsettled area of thinking. The reason regulators have not focused on the behavior of Apple which you complain about is really simple: none of it is an antitrust violation.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The case against Apple starts with recognizing that vertical markets aren't all the same. The market for phones isn't the same as the market for apps. In particular, there are two separate app markets. A phone customer can choose Android or iOS. An app developer can't choose which store to use to distribute their apps. They have to use the one their customer uses. If they have customers on both, they have to use both, and have no choice. The analogy would be two huge landlords that together own all the real estate in a city and also own the only two shipping companies in the city. A "real estate customer" has a choice in where to live. An online retailer doesn't get to choose where their customers live. The two shipping companies each only ship to the customers who live in that company's apartments. The online retailer, who is the customer of the shipping company, has no choice in what shipping company to use. If their own customer lives in one company's apartments, they must use that shipping company. It's a shipping monopoly. There is a significant identifiable set of destinations for which no other provider of shipping services exists, and none can exist because the same company prohibits anyone else from delivering to them. Either that's an antitrust violation or we need new antitrust laws. > But the optimal regulation of platforms is very much an unsettled area of thinking. Isn't this the thing that gets settled in court by prosecuting a case against them?

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

The case against Apple starts with recognizing that vertical markets aren't all the same. The market for phones isn't the same as the market for apps. In particular, there are two separate app markets. A phone customer can choose Android or iOS. An app developer can't choose which store to use to distribute their apps. They have to use the one their customer uses. If they have customers on both, they have to use both, and have no choice. The analogy would be two huge landlords that together own all the real estate in a city and also own the only two shipping companies in the city. A "real estate customer" has a choice in where to live. An online retailer doesn't get to choose where their customers live. The two shipping companies each only ship to the customers who live in that company's apartments. The online retailer, who is the customer of the shipping company, has no choice in what shipping company to use. If their own customer lives in one company's apartments, they must use that shipping company. It's a shipping monopoly. There is a significant identifiable set of destinations for which no other provider of shipping services exists, and none can exist because the same company prohibits anyone else from delivering to them. Either that's an antitrust violation or we need new antitrust laws. > But the optimal regulation of platforms is very much an unsettled area of thinking. Isn't this the thing that gets settled in court by prosecuting a case against them?