I’m sure we’ll hear more about that this fall. Google certainly has a monopoly on web search and I would argue used that to unfairly compete in several other ma

I’m sure we’ll hear more about that this fall. Google certainly has a monopoly on web search and I would argue used that to unfairly compete in several other markets where they could lose money for extended periods (indefinitely?). Is profit in a market a measure that’s ever been used to identify a monopoly? Apple has no method of controlling prices in the mobile market, so what difference does it make if they are one of the few profitable companies? That’s why I mentioned buying out fab processes, but that might be anti-competitive, but still not monopolistic. By definition monopolies dominate a market so thoroughly that they can prevent equivalent products from being offered at lower prices. Apple does not have the power to keep mobile device prices high, despite their fab dominance (and there are other fabs that offer substitute processes). There are dozens of cheap mobile devices that, despite low profitability, still dominate the market. Despite Jobs’ claim that the iPhone was guarded by patents, competitors with essentially the same features were available within a year of the iPhone’s release. Does Apple have some anti-competitive practices? They’ve been found to in the past (employee recruiting between companies), and may or may not now, but that is separate from being a monopoly.