4 ms·

I hate Apple and monopolies as much as anyone. But, no - what was described is not anti-competitive at all. If - in addition to what was described - part of th

I hate Apple and monopolies as much as anyone. But, no - what was described is not anti-competitive at all. If - in addition to what was described - part of the deal is that Apple would only make the deal if TSMC would not add any more capacity for 2 years NO MATTER WHAT - that is blatantly anti-competitive and monopolistic. If no one else is willing to pay for TSMC to build another facility to produce more chips - then that's a free market. Apple was the highest bidder and won.

adam_arthur 4y ago
Monopolistic behavior is subjective. Shutting out all competitors from new technology for years by outspending them (arguably from profits largely made via other monopolistic like behaviors) could qualify for many. I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn. Use some critical thought instead of treating it like sports
- jlmorton 4y ago
  What you're describing is a monopsony, not a monopoly. And Apple is not by any contortion of the imagination a monopsony for chips. Apple and Samsung are the largest buyers, but they're barely cracking single digits market share.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    I'm not describing a monopsony. I'm describing a company that is able to pay far higher than competitors due to anticompetitive practices which drive their margins far above what would be realized in a truly competitive environment. I'd gladly like to see the alternative timeline where Microsoft charged 30% for all software on windows and where you and others shamed them for it. Because I know for a fact all of those defending Apple here would have at the time
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - anonuser123456 4y ago
      Name a product Apple sells that Apple has a monopoly on.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        They have a monopoly on providing services within iOS. When an ecosystem becomes large enough, societally impactful enough, and is controlled exclusively by one entity, that qualifies as a monopoly within that ecosystem. You remove any capacity for competition to drive down margins. Apple can ban Spotify tomorrow to promote apple music on their devices, for example. Not anti-competitive in your mind? You have two gated monopolistic ecosystems, choose the one you want to be gouged by. In a competitive environment, margins get compressed close to cost to deliver. If a company can achieve huge margins on items that could otherwise be much cheaper to deliver in a competitive environment, that qualifies as anti competitive. How much does it cost the supplier to host apps via CDN? Or to process a single payment? Apple can take as much margin as they want on these because nobody else is allowed to provide those services within their ecosystem The law will adapt to this, it's quite obvious to those that are unbiased.
        codehalo 4y ago
        > You have two gated monopolistic ecosystems, choose the one you want to be gouged by. Is there some number of gated ecosystems that we get gouged by that would be considered acceptable and non-monopolistic? Three, ten?
        adam_arthur 4y ago
        It has nothing to do with competition between platforms, but competition within those platforms. When a platform reaches a sufficient size (subjective), it must be opened to competition for services provided within that platform. We're talking about the base operating system for global computing here, not a car's dashboard system
- rblatz 4y ago
  Samsung owns their own chip fabs, if they can’t keep up then that’s on them for not putting enough into R&D.
- ksec 4y ago
  >by outspending them >I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn. May be because people are not defending Apple but actually giving the correct account of the story? I dislike modern Apple, or Tim Cook's Apple. But doesn't mean I would agree what they are doing ( in the context of TSMC ) are monopolistic. Without Apple, there would be no N3 by 2023. It is as simple as that. Apple in this case is not a customer, but more like a partner who are willing to invest ( and take the associated risk ) and spend to get and push for the latest technology.
scratcheee 4y ago
It would be a lot simpler if anti-competitive behaviour only encompassed clearly immoral and unfair behaviour, but it tends to be more nuanced than that. There's no simple rule and a court would probably have to spend a long time concidering such a case. The essential facilities doctrine might apply (the question isn't whether competitors are literally forbidden from the latest chips, it's whether they're "practically or reasonably" unable to access the latest chips, and all evidence suggests that's currently the case). Possibly it's the competitors own fault for refusing to pay the entirely reasonable price TSMC is insisting on, and perhaps Apple's contract with TSMC actually has carefully written clauses to ensure others could practically gain access without having to spend enormous amounts of money, but which nobody has been willing to use for their own reasons, but it certainly seems possible that the contracts effectively ensure Apple have sole access to the latest hardware, which would line up neatly with the apparent scenario we're in - that Apple currently has sole access to the latest hardware. That's not to say it's a slam dunk case either. I wouldn't care to guess either way.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
What if we found out they were shredding all extra silicon so that competitors cannot get them? Backing up though I think it's interesting that Apple has so much money that they can afford to buy up leading nodes for years. Why do they have that much money? I think it's obviously because of anti competitive behavior elsewhere such as their App Store which basically gives them a money printer.
- katbyte 4y ago
  Their hardware is the real money printer as apple only make ~20% of its revenue from “services” which includes things like Apple TV, music, and iCloud storage.
- scarface74 4y ago
  This is clearly false. They break down their revenue every quarter, hardware revenue dwarfs services revenue. Even within their services revenue there is Apple Music, subscriptions and the reported 14 billion a year that Google pays Apple to be the default search engine.

adam_arthur 4y ago

Monopolistic behavior is subjective. Shutting out all competitors from new technology for years by outspending them (arguably from profits largely made via other monopolistic like behaviors) could qualify for many. I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn. Use some critical thought instead of treating it like sports

jlmorton 4y ago
What you're describing is a monopsony, not a monopoly. And Apple is not by any contortion of the imagination a monopsony for chips. Apple and Samsung are the largest buyers, but they're barely cracking single digits market share.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  I'm not describing a monopsony. I'm describing a company that is able to pay far higher than competitors due to anticompetitive practices which drive their margins far above what would be realized in a truly competitive environment. I'd gladly like to see the alternative timeline where Microsoft charged 30% for all software on windows and where you and others shamed them for it. Because I know for a fact all of those defending Apple here would have at the time
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    Name a product Apple sells that Apple has a monopoly on.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      They have a monopoly on providing services within iOS. When an ecosystem becomes large enough, societally impactful enough, and is controlled exclusively by one entity, that qualifies as a monopoly within that ecosystem. You remove any capacity for competition to drive down margins. Apple can ban Spotify tomorrow to promote apple music on their devices, for example. Not anti-competitive in your mind? You have two gated monopolistic ecosystems, choose the one you want to be gouged by. In a competitive environment, margins get compressed close to cost to deliver. If a company can achieve huge margins on items that could otherwise be much cheaper to deliver in a competitive environment, that qualifies as anti competitive. How much does it cost the supplier to host apps via CDN? Or to process a single payment? Apple can take as much margin as they want on these because nobody else is allowed to provide those services within their ecosystem The law will adapt to this, it's quite obvious to those that are unbiased.
      - codehalo 4y ago
        > You have two gated monopolistic ecosystems, choose the one you want to be gouged by. Is there some number of gated ecosystems that we get gouged by that would be considered acceptable and non-monopolistic? Three, ten?
        adam_arthur 4y ago
        It has nothing to do with competition between platforms, but competition within those platforms. When a platform reaches a sufficient size (subjective), it must be opened to competition for services provided within that platform. We're talking about the base operating system for global computing here, not a car's dashboard system
rblatz 4y ago
Samsung owns their own chip fabs, if they can’t keep up then that’s on them for not putting enough into R&D.
ksec 4y ago
>by outspending them >I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn. May be because people are not defending Apple but actually giving the correct account of the story? I dislike modern Apple, or Tim Cook's Apple. But doesn't mean I would agree what they are doing ( in the context of TSMC ) are monopolistic. Without Apple, there would be no N3 by 2023. It is as simple as that. Apple in this case is not a customer, but more like a partner who are willing to invest ( and take the associated risk ) and spend to get and push for the latest technology.

scratcheee 4y ago

It would be a lot simpler if anti-competitive behaviour only encompassed clearly immoral and unfair behaviour, but it tends to be more nuanced than that. There's no simple rule and a court would probably have to spend a long time concidering such a case. The essential facilities doctrine might apply (the question isn't whether competitors are literally forbidden from the latest chips, it's whether they're "practically or reasonably" unable to access the latest chips, and all evidence suggests that's currently the case). Possibly it's the competitors own fault for refusing to pay the entirely reasonable price TSMC is insisting on, and perhaps Apple's contract with TSMC actually has carefully written clauses to ensure others could practically gain access without having to spend enormous amounts of money, but which nobody has been willing to use for their own reasons, but it certainly seems possible that the contracts effectively ensure Apple have sole access to the latest hardware, which would line up neatly with the apparent scenario we're in - that Apple currently has sole access to the latest hardware. That's not to say it's a slam dunk case either. I wouldn't care to guess either way.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

What if we found out they were shredding all extra silicon so that competitors cannot get them? Backing up though I think it's interesting that Apple has so much money that they can afford to buy up leading nodes for years. Why do they have that much money? I think it's obviously because of anti competitive behavior elsewhere such as their App Store which basically gives them a money printer.

katbyte 4y ago
Their hardware is the real money printer as apple only make ~20% of its revenue from “services” which includes things like Apple TV, music, and iCloud storage.
scarface74 4y ago
This is clearly false. They break down their revenue every quarter, hardware revenue dwarfs services revenue. Even within their services revenue there is Apple Music, subscriptions and the reported 14 billion a year that Google pays Apple to be the default search engine.