3 ms·

> monopoly on iOS What you're doing is assuming "the relevant market" is very narrow. In antitrust law, they say the case is won or lost on how broadly the rel

> monopoly on iOS What you're doing is assuming "the relevant market" is very narrow. In antitrust law, they say the case is won or lost on how broadly the relevant market is defined. Does Amazon compete against every brick and mortar store, or just other online merchants? The subsequent legal analysis looks very different depending on the answer to that question.

garbagecoder 4y ago
Right. If every plaintiff could just define a market a certain way, they would never lose a single anti-trust case. It isn't sustainable that way. Most people who dislike Apple have already found themselves a nice Android phone on it for less money with several app stores.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > every plaintiff could just define a market a certain way, they would never lose a single anti-trust case This goes both ways. My corner bodega has a monopoly over its intersection. In practice, we need legislation defining anti-competitive behavior for platforms and Thompsonian aggregators [1]. I haven't seen anyone propose a sensible, predictable framework. [1] https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    I like the chokepoint concept popularized by Cory Doctorow.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > the chokepoint concept popularized by Cory Doctorow Skimmed an interview Doctorow gave for Time [1]. I get the gripe. But I’m failing to find a unique, actionable definition. Better concise source? [1] https://time.com/6219423/chokepoint-capitalism-doctorow-giblin/ https://time.com/6219423/chokepoint-capitalism-doctorow-gibl...
      - wizzwizz4 4y ago
        https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/ https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/ > You've probably heard about the pathetic sums that creators earn from Spotify streaming, often blamed on the tech industry's unwillingness to pay creators what they're worth. Maybe you've also heard the rebuttal – that Spotify pays plenty to entertainment companies, but they intercept this money before it can get into creators' pockets. > That right there is the false binary – either Spotify is cheap, or the Big Three record labels are greedy. But what if – and hear me out here – Spotify is cheap and the Big Three are greedy? What if Spotify and the labels are actually colluding to rip off the "talent"? What if neither kind of monopolist is good for artists, and no matter how much we love them, they'll never truly love us back? The search results are filled with adverts for Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow's book, but Cory Doctorow hasn't tagged many of those adverts "chokepoint capitalism": his website lists examples, instead. https://pluralistic.net/tag/chokepoint-capitalism/ https://pluralistic.net/tag/chokepoint-capitalism/ Summarising https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/ https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/, I'd define it something like: > Chokepoint capitalism is where one party becomes both a monopoly and a monopsony: a gatekeeper, or "chokepoint". This gives it more leverage than any single other party, which it uses to extract and exploit with impunity. ⸻ While it may once have added value, once an entity becomes a chokepoint, it can cease to add value, and even start making people's lives actively worse ("enshittification"), without losing its position of power.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > What if neither kind of monopolist is good for artists, and no matter how much we love them, they'll never truly love us back? I agree with all the examples. I just struggle to see a framework. How has he defined the monopoly? That’s what we are looking for. A new definition for antitrust, ideally separate from the definition of monopoly and its market-definition magic variable.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        If argue it's when one has "more leverage than any single other party", either on the buying or selling side. And it could be based on a raw percentage of units or market revenue, whichever portion is bigger. Say one buyer/seller with 51+% of a market by unit or revenue would be subject to anti-trust scrutiny. Perhaps another tier requiring more drastic measures, such as breaking them up.
nomel 4y ago
> What you're doing is assuming "the relevant market" is very narrow. Within the last few years, I've noticed a trend where questions are now interpreted as statements. I can't say I understand it. I don't think it's fair to say they were assuming anything. They were asking for help in understanding.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Some questions are rhetorical
- gnicholas 4y ago
  There is a question, but the part about the monopoly was in the setup, not the part being inquired about. It asked "how can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS?" The second part of the question is assumed. To question that part, one would ask "how can the app store promote competition if it is a monopoly on iOS?"
  - nomel 4y ago
    Maybe it's my locale (California, USA), but where I'm from, "What you're doing is assuming" is a very condescending response to someone asking a genuine question, and can only be found on the internet. But, perhaps my locale is why I perceive this as odd, rather than it being odd.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      I'm a CA native myself, and I don't talk the same way I write. In person, I probably would have said something like "but you're assuming away the key legal test, which is 'what is the "relevant market?"'". I tend to not go back and edit my comments for style, just for clarity. Could it be more polite? I guess, but it also seems pretty consistent with the logical/syllogistic style that is common on HN. I thought the question was not entirely in good faith, since it would be pretty obvious that there's no such thing as "monopoly on X" — otherwise it would make Sony a monopolist on Playstation, Microsoft a monopolist on XBox, etc.

garbagecoder 4y ago

Right. If every plaintiff could just define a market a certain way, they would never lose a single anti-trust case. It isn't sustainable that way. Most people who dislike Apple have already found themselves a nice Android phone on it for less money with several app stores.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> every plaintiff could just define a market a certain way, they would never lose a single anti-trust case This goes both ways. My corner bodega has a monopoly over its intersection. In practice, we need legislation defining anti-competitive behavior for platforms and Thompsonian aggregators [1]. I haven't seen anyone propose a sensible, predictable framework. [1] https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  I like the chokepoint concept popularized by Cory Doctorow.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > the chokepoint concept popularized by Cory Doctorow Skimmed an interview Doctorow gave for Time [1]. I get the gripe. But I’m failing to find a unique, actionable definition. Better concise source? [1] https://time.com/6219423/chokepoint-capitalism-doctorow-giblin/ https://time.com/6219423/chokepoint-capitalism-doctorow-gibl...
    - wizzwizz4 4y ago
      https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/ https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/ > You've probably heard about the pathetic sums that creators earn from Spotify streaming, often blamed on the tech industry's unwillingness to pay creators what they're worth. Maybe you've also heard the rebuttal – that Spotify pays plenty to entertainment companies, but they intercept this money before it can get into creators' pockets. > That right there is the false binary – either Spotify is cheap, or the Big Three record labels are greedy. But what if – and hear me out here – Spotify is cheap and the Big Three are greedy? What if Spotify and the labels are actually colluding to rip off the "talent"? What if neither kind of monopolist is good for artists, and no matter how much we love them, they'll never truly love us back? The search results are filled with adverts for Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow's book, but Cory Doctorow hasn't tagged many of those adverts "chokepoint capitalism": his website lists examples, instead. https://pluralistic.net/tag/chokepoint-capitalism/ https://pluralistic.net/tag/chokepoint-capitalism/ Summarising https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/ https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/, I'd define it something like: > Chokepoint capitalism is where one party becomes both a monopoly and a monopsony: a gatekeeper, or "chokepoint". This gives it more leverage than any single other party, which it uses to extract and exploit with impunity. ⸻ While it may once have added value, once an entity becomes a chokepoint, it can cease to add value, and even start making people's lives actively worse ("enshittification"), without losing its position of power.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > What if neither kind of monopolist is good for artists, and no matter how much we love them, they'll never truly love us back? I agree with all the examples. I just struggle to see a framework. How has he defined the monopoly? That’s what we are looking for. A new definition for antitrust, ideally separate from the definition of monopoly and its market-definition magic variable.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        If argue it's when one has "more leverage than any single other party", either on the buying or selling side. And it could be based on a raw percentage of units or market revenue, whichever portion is bigger. Say one buyer/seller with 51+% of a market by unit or revenue would be subject to anti-trust scrutiny. Perhaps another tier requiring more drastic measures, such as breaking them up.

nomel 4y ago

> What you're doing is assuming "the relevant market" is very narrow. Within the last few years, I've noticed a trend where questions are now interpreted as statements. I can't say I understand it. I don't think it's fair to say they were assuming anything. They were asking for help in understanding.

chaostheory 4y ago
Some questions are rhetorical
gnicholas 4y ago
There is a question, but the part about the monopoly was in the setup, not the part being inquired about. It asked "how can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS?" The second part of the question is assumed. To question that part, one would ask "how can the app store promote competition if it is a monopoly on iOS?"
- nomel 4y ago
  Maybe it's my locale (California, USA), but where I'm from, "What you're doing is assuming" is a very condescending response to someone asking a genuine question, and can only be found on the internet. But, perhaps my locale is why I perceive this as odd, rather than it being odd.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    I'm a CA native myself, and I don't talk the same way I write. In person, I probably would have said something like "but you're assuming away the key legal test, which is 'what is the "relevant market?"'". I tend to not go back and edit my comments for style, just for clarity. Could it be more polite? I guess, but it also seems pretty consistent with the logical/syllogistic style that is common on HN. I thought the question was not entirely in good faith, since it would be pretty obvious that there's no such thing as "monopoly on X" — otherwise it would make Sony a monopolist on Playstation, Microsoft a monopolist on XBox, etc.