3 ms·

Antitrust applies only to companies in a monopoly position. Microsoft is/was a monopoly at the time. Apple is not a monopoly, even today.

by orev 4y ago

robgibbons 4y ago
Being anti-competitive does not require a monopoly. That said, iOS accounts for 57% of the US market. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, and is a market leader by any measure
- orev 4y ago
  dahfizz is comparing Apple’s (allegedly) anti-competitive behavior to Microsoft’s anti-trust violations, drawing a false equivalency between to two (possibly by misunderstanding the difference). I’m clarifying the difference. Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly. It doesn’t matter if Apple is a “rich market leader”. 57% does not make them a monopoly, and therefor the legal level of criminal anti-competitive behavior doesn’t apply.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly But as the person you are replying to was trying to explain this is not true. Being anticompetitive is always a crime. Regulators don’t go after small players because it’s hard to show they significantly harm the market but it is illegal at any size.
dahfizz 4y ago
Apple has monopoly power, and engages in anticompetitive behavior. Being a monopoly in the US is not illegal. Abusing your market power and being anti-competitive in a way that harms consumers is illegal. Apple is one of the world's largest companies. They shouldn't get a pass to be anti-consumer just because they don't own 51% of a certain market. I would argue that "iphone users" instead of broadly "cellphone users" is its own market, but that is really besides the point. A monopoly in the academic sense is not needed for monopoly power to exist.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Fortunately, we have real judges and real lawyers who have argued the case in a real court of law during the Epic trial. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly according to the judge. It definitely doesn’t have a monopoly in the phone market with 60% share. Epic lawyers tried your argument that Apple had a monopoly on their own hardware and she immediately threw the argument out as nonsensical. Every manufacturer has a “monopoly” on their own product. No one would argue that Spotify is monopolistic because they own their own platform.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
The bar to cross to be liable to being sued for anticompetitive behaviour is far lower than being a monopoly. The EU has charged Apple with anticompetitive behaviours multiple times regarding IAP and Apple Pay.

Antitrust applies only to companies in a monopoly position. Microsoft is/was a monopoly at the time. Apple is not a monopoly, even today.

by orev 4y ago

Antitrust applies only to companies in a monopoly position. Microsoft is/was a monopoly at the time. Apple is not a monopoly, even today.

robgibbons 4y ago

Being anti-competitive does not require a monopoly. That said, iOS accounts for 57% of the US market. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, and is a market leader by any measure

orev 4y ago
dahfizz is comparing Apple’s (allegedly) anti-competitive behavior to Microsoft’s anti-trust violations, drawing a false equivalency between to two (possibly by misunderstanding the difference). I’m clarifying the difference. Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly. It doesn’t matter if Apple is a “rich market leader”. 57% does not make them a monopoly, and therefor the legal level of criminal anti-competitive behavior doesn’t apply.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly But as the person you are replying to was trying to explain this is not true. Being anticompetitive is always a crime. Regulators don’t go after small players because it’s hard to show they significantly harm the market but it is illegal at any size.

dahfizz 4y ago

Apple has monopoly power, and engages in anticompetitive behavior. Being a monopoly in the US is not illegal. Abusing your market power and being anti-competitive in a way that harms consumers is illegal. Apple is one of the world's largest companies. They shouldn't get a pass to be anti-consumer just because they don't own 51% of a certain market. I would argue that "iphone users" instead of broadly "cellphone users" is its own market, but that is really besides the point. A monopoly in the academic sense is not needed for monopoly power to exist.

scarface74 4y ago
Fortunately, we have real judges and real lawyers who have argued the case in a real court of law during the Epic trial. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly according to the judge. It definitely doesn’t have a monopoly in the phone market with 60% share. Epic lawyers tried your argument that Apple had a monopoly on their own hardware and she immediately threw the argument out as nonsensical. Every manufacturer has a “monopoly” on their own product. No one would argue that Spotify is monopolistic because they own their own platform.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

The bar to cross to be liable to being sued for anticompetitive behaviour is far lower than being a monopoly. The EU has charged Apple with anticompetitive behaviours multiple times regarding IAP and Apple Pay.