5 ms·

That isn’t the definition of monopoly as stated by Wikipedia[1]: “a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or en

That isn’t the definition of monopoly as stated by Wikipedia[1]: “a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.” I think calling them a monopoly is a real stretch. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Apocryphon 4y ago
That is how the FTC defines one. > 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. 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. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  ok but you quote >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. which seems to lend real credence to the argument that Apple would (most likely) not be understood as a monopoly in the courts. Sure it could happen, but lots of unlikely things can happen that still say won't happen because of how humans communicate.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    If there's anything that's an industry outlier, it's a FAANG, not to mention the most profitable company in the history of the world since the Dutch East India Company.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Apple has 60% of the mobile OS market share in the US, and even more when it comes to mobile app distribution. Google has 40%, both in effect are a duopoly.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > which seems to lend real credence to the argument that Apple would (most likely) not be understood as a monopoly in the courts The issue isn't marketshare, the issue is defining the market within which marketshare is looked at. If you don't use some consistent objective defenition of market boundaries, you can pick or choose any result you want by how you describe the market applicable to any given case. While it isn’t perfect, “the space within which consumer substitution in response to changes like pricing occurs from the given good or service” is a rough description of what market boundary determination in US antitrust/competition law aims at. It's also, for obvious reasons, often the most contentious issue in antitrust cases, with a whole lot of market data thrown up by every interested party aimed at proving what the right market boundary is. If you just assume the boundary is some popular market description without interrogating whether consumer substitution for the given product really occurs across that whole descriptive market space (and, on the other side, only within that space), you are really just skipping over the most important question in antitrust.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      If you're stretching "market power" and "consumer substitution" this far it seems like a whole lot of fashion brands would be "monopolies". Tesla. The BMW/Mercedes/Audi luxury German auto bands in the US. Google Search. Macs. Thinkpads. There are SO MANY market sub-slices where some brands have pricing power over others. Where do you draw the "how often do people have to switch" line? Some of use have switched multiple times between Android and iOS in the last decade, after all.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> That isn’t the definition of monopoly as stated by Wikipedia[1]: “a market with the "absence of competition", It exactly is, if you further define “market” empirically by consumer behavior demonstrating products actually compete with each other rather than analytically based on some abstract comparison of features that make you think they should.
xphos 4y ago
I mean they are the only person who can legally provide adds and payment services on iPhones. Apple exhibits a huge amount of control over there platform in name of defending there customers but give little choice to the customer in how that's delivered
- scarface74 4y ago
  There are plenty of third party ads in apps
- dwaite 4y ago
  There are plenty of third party payment services.

Apocryphon 4y ago

That is how the FTC defines one. > 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. 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. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
ok but you quote >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. which seems to lend real credence to the argument that Apple would (most likely) not be understood as a monopoly in the courts. Sure it could happen, but lots of unlikely things can happen that still say won't happen because of how humans communicate.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  If there's anything that's an industry outlier, it's a FAANG, not to mention the most profitable company in the history of the world since the Dutch East India Company.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Apple has 60% of the mobile OS market share in the US, and even more when it comes to mobile app distribution. Google has 40%, both in effect are a duopoly.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > which seems to lend real credence to the argument that Apple would (most likely) not be understood as a monopoly in the courts The issue isn't marketshare, the issue is defining the market within which marketshare is looked at. If you don't use some consistent objective defenition of market boundaries, you can pick or choose any result you want by how you describe the market applicable to any given case. While it isn’t perfect, “the space within which consumer substitution in response to changes like pricing occurs from the given good or service” is a rough description of what market boundary determination in US antitrust/competition law aims at. It's also, for obvious reasons, often the most contentious issue in antitrust cases, with a whole lot of market data thrown up by every interested party aimed at proving what the right market boundary is. If you just assume the boundary is some popular market description without interrogating whether consumer substitution for the given product really occurs across that whole descriptive market space (and, on the other side, only within that space), you are really just skipping over the most important question in antitrust.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    If you're stretching "market power" and "consumer substitution" this far it seems like a whole lot of fashion brands would be "monopolies". Tesla. The BMW/Mercedes/Audi luxury German auto bands in the US. Google Search. Macs. Thinkpads. There are SO MANY market sub-slices where some brands have pricing power over others. Where do you draw the "how often do people have to switch" line? Some of use have switched multiple times between Android and iOS in the last decade, after all.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> That isn’t the definition of monopoly as stated by Wikipedia[1]: “a market with the "absence of competition", It exactly is, if you further define “market” empirically by consumer behavior demonstrating products actually compete with each other rather than analytically based on some abstract comparison of features that make you think they should.

xphos 4y ago

I mean they are the only person who can legally provide adds and payment services on iPhones. Apple exhibits a huge amount of control over there platform in name of defending there customers but give little choice to the customer in how that's delivered

scarface74 4y ago
There are plenty of third party ads in apps
dwaite 4y ago
There are plenty of third party payment services.