3 ms·

> Phone has a market share of almost 70% in Japan, the location of the plaintiff. iPhone also has a market share of over 50% now in the United States, by the wa

> Phone has a market share of almost 70% in Japan, the location of the plaintiff. iPhone also has a market share of over 50% now in the United States, by the way. Neither one of those market shares are monopolies. > Historical revisionism. For more than 30 years prior to iOS, general-purpose computing platforms were mostly open with no vendor-controlled store. If you don't like the iOS platform then don't develop for it or buy iOS devices. There is an endless kaleidoscope of Android devices you can choose from.

bfdm 3y ago
Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control. Non-monopoly behavior would be users and developers having the choice to offer & install iOS apps outside of Apple's app store, but choosing the app store because the trade-off of fees is considered fair for the trust & platform convenience gained in exchange.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > What standard are you comparing to A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly… https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-victory-apple-claims-win-in-anti-trust-case-against-fortnite-maker-epic-games-378767-2023-04-25 https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...
  - anonymousab 3y ago
    > the judge cleared the Cupertino-based company of monopolistic malpractices That does not appear to be anything like affirming that they are not a monopoly. One can be a monopoly without being guilty of anticompetitive monopolistic behavior. Likewise, Epic failing to make their narrow case is not a statement of absolute fact about Apple's market or industry position; it is a statement that Epic's specific argument was not valid or sufficient to confirm their claims.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      So whose viewpoint should I believe in whether Apple did anything wrong, a real judge or a random commenter on HN?
      - contact9879 3y ago
        Neither? Judges are also just random people chosen to interpret "the law". That doesn't mean their interpretation can accurately determine what is or isn't monopolistic. Judges make historically "wrong" decisions all the time.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So we shouldn’t believe judges because after looking at the law, the case being argued by Epics high price lawyers and multiple appeals, all of the judges got it wrong. But only contact9879 knows the “truth”
        contact9879 3y ago
        No. My point is that case law and judges only operate within precedent and an interpretation of law. That doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn are "truth"-ful. I'd even argue that case law can not determine a "truth". What constitutes monopolistic behaviour is subjective and case law is reflective of that. In fact, decisions are called "judicial opinions". They are a best effort to determine a truth given the tools and environment within which courts operate. That doesn't mean that the verdict is "correct" (whatever that means in the context of deciding monopolies).
  - lapcat 3y ago
    1) The court did rule against Apple on the anti-steering provision. 2) The case is on appeal to the Supreme Court. 3) Apple paid out a settlement in another monopolist case: https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/ https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/
  - bfdm 3y ago
    I don't particularly care what the current case law says, antitrust has been eroded for four decades to the point of being a joke. We need to overhaul this around the world and tame megacorps everywhere. The behavior is plainly monopolistic and anticompetitive on its face. That it does not suffer judgement as violating any laws about such conduct is a sad reflection of our government corruption and unwillingness to regulate the corporations that provide most political funding.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      “I don’t care what the law or judges say. I know I’m right because Apple paid off a judge and the judge was corrupt”???
      - bfdm 3y ago
        Who said any of that? I mean our elected government (US and Canada alike) is evidently unwilling to enact & enforce toothsome antitrust. And that's a source of a huge portion of our bigger problems. Outsized influence by a small number of voices, and a toxic cycle of using the proceeds to buy more deregulation via political donation.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control No, but control of your own platform is not considered a monopoly if you don't have a monopoly on the overall market.
tadfisher 3y ago
One can like the iOS platform and still advocate for general-purpose computing. I don't understand why folks on Hacker News, of all places, defend walled gardens so vehemently.
- stalfosknight 3y ago
  What you call a "walled garden" someone else would call an openly opinionated, thoughtfully designed, and well managed platform with seamless integration and world-class support. Again, if that's not your thing you're perfectly free to spend your money elsewhere.
  - contact9879 3y ago
    You can be opinionated, thoughtfully designed, and well managed without being a walled garden. Maybe once Apple is a primarily services company, they'll care less about their "walled garden" and let their devices play nice.
    - stalfosknight 3y ago
      I honesty think that would be nice to see Apple loosen up in some ways. But I really appreciate some of the ways in which they are strict. Developers really need to restrained from their own worst behaviors like slurping up private data, abusive advertising practices, not providing simple one-click cancelation of subscriptions, and so on.
  - realusername 3y ago
    > Again, if that's not your thing you're perfectly free to spend your money elsewhere. You are in fact not, it's the whole problem. There's two actors colluding in the market, Apple & Google with very similar practices and rules ... and that's it.
    - stalfosknight 3y ago
      Do you have citations to back up your claim of collusion?
lapcat 3y ago
> If you don't like the iOS platform then don't develop for it or buy iOS devices. There is an endless kaleidoscope of Android devices you can choose from. I didn't say I don't like the iOS platform. I said there's one thing about it that I don't like. Smartphones are very complex devices with countless features, both software and hardware. It's absolutely absurd to say to people, "If you don't like [specific thing] about this hugely complex device, then buy another brand." Moreover, there is no perfect device out there, otherwise I would buy it. Everything is a compromise, with pros and cons. And yes, there are cons. But there are also pros.
pauldenton 3y ago
Does Google have enough of the search engine market share to be considered a monopoly?
- stalfosknight 3y ago
  I think it's absurd to say something is a "monopoly" when clearly there are plenty of alternatives. I'm old enough to remember the pre-Google internet and how the search engine crown passed between Altavista, Hotbot, Lycos, Yahoo! and probably others. Google did not come down from the heavens heralded by angels a fully formed tech hegemony all at once. The free market made it dominant over time because free people continue to freely choose Google. Google is not blessed with some form of immortality or invincibility either. It's dominance will only come to an end if people stop whining about it and try to outdo it instead. For the record, I don't use Google services or products nor do I ever feel forced to as it is implied whenever someone whines about Google being a "monopoly."

bfdm 3y ago

Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control. Non-monopoly behavior would be users and developers having the choice to offer & install iOS apps outside of Apple's app store, but choosing the app store because the trade-off of fees is considered fair for the trust & platform convenience gained in exchange.

scarface_74 3y ago
> What standard are you comparing to A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly… https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-victory-apple-claims-win-in-anti-trust-case-against-fortnite-maker-epic-games-378767-2023-04-25 https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...
- anonymousab 3y ago
  > the judge cleared the Cupertino-based company of monopolistic malpractices That does not appear to be anything like affirming that they are not a monopoly. One can be a monopoly without being guilty of anticompetitive monopolistic behavior. Likewise, Epic failing to make their narrow case is not a statement of absolute fact about Apple's market or industry position; it is a statement that Epic's specific argument was not valid or sufficient to confirm their claims.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So whose viewpoint should I believe in whether Apple did anything wrong, a real judge or a random commenter on HN?
    - contact9879 3y ago
      Neither? Judges are also just random people chosen to interpret "the law". That doesn't mean their interpretation can accurately determine what is or isn't monopolistic. Judges make historically "wrong" decisions all the time.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So we shouldn’t believe judges because after looking at the law, the case being argued by Epics high price lawyers and multiple appeals, all of the judges got it wrong. But only contact9879 knows the “truth”
        contact9879 3y ago
        No. My point is that case law and judges only operate within precedent and an interpretation of law. That doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn are "truth"-ful. I'd even argue that case law can not determine a "truth". What constitutes monopolistic behaviour is subjective and case law is reflective of that. In fact, decisions are called "judicial opinions". They are a best effort to determine a truth given the tools and environment within which courts operate. That doesn't mean that the verdict is "correct" (whatever that means in the context of deciding monopolies).
- lapcat 3y ago
  1) The court did rule against Apple on the anti-steering provision. 2) The case is on appeal to the Supreme Court. 3) Apple paid out a settlement in another monopolist case: https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/ https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/
- bfdm 3y ago
  I don't particularly care what the current case law says, antitrust has been eroded for four decades to the point of being a joke. We need to overhaul this around the world and tame megacorps everywhere. The behavior is plainly monopolistic and anticompetitive on its face. That it does not suffer judgement as violating any laws about such conduct is a sad reflection of our government corruption and unwillingness to regulate the corporations that provide most political funding.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    “I don’t care what the law or judges say. I know I’m right because Apple paid off a judge and the judge was corrupt”???
    - bfdm 3y ago
      Who said any of that? I mean our elected government (US and Canada alike) is evidently unwilling to enact & enforce toothsome antitrust. And that's a source of a huge portion of our bigger problems. Outsized influence by a small number of voices, and a toxic cycle of using the proceeds to buy more deregulation via political donation.
coldtea 3y ago
>Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control No, but control of your own platform is not considered a monopoly if you don't have a monopoly on the overall market.

tadfisher 3y ago

One can like the iOS platform and still advocate for general-purpose computing. I don't understand why folks on Hacker News, of all places, defend walled gardens so vehemently.

stalfosknight 3y ago
What you call a "walled garden" someone else would call an openly opinionated, thoughtfully designed, and well managed platform with seamless integration and world-class support. Again, if that's not your thing you're perfectly free to spend your money elsewhere.
- contact9879 3y ago
  You can be opinionated, thoughtfully designed, and well managed without being a walled garden. Maybe once Apple is a primarily services company, they'll care less about their "walled garden" and let their devices play nice.
  - stalfosknight 3y ago
    I honesty think that would be nice to see Apple loosen up in some ways. But I really appreciate some of the ways in which they are strict. Developers really need to restrained from their own worst behaviors like slurping up private data, abusive advertising practices, not providing simple one-click cancelation of subscriptions, and so on.
- realusername 3y ago
  > Again, if that's not your thing you're perfectly free to spend your money elsewhere. You are in fact not, it's the whole problem. There's two actors colluding in the market, Apple & Google with very similar practices and rules ... and that's it.
  - stalfosknight 3y ago
    Do you have citations to back up your claim of collusion?

lapcat 3y ago

> If you don't like the iOS platform then don't develop for it or buy iOS devices. There is an endless kaleidoscope of Android devices you can choose from. I didn't say I don't like the iOS platform. I said there's one thing about it that I don't like. Smartphones are very complex devices with countless features, both software and hardware. It's absolutely absurd to say to people, "If you don't like [specific thing] about this hugely complex device, then buy another brand." Moreover, there is no perfect device out there, otherwise I would buy it. Everything is a compromise, with pros and cons. And yes, there are cons. But there are also pros.

pauldenton 3y ago

Does Google have enough of the search engine market share to be considered a monopoly?

stalfosknight 3y ago
I think it's absurd to say something is a "monopoly" when clearly there are plenty of alternatives. I'm old enough to remember the pre-Google internet and how the search engine crown passed between Altavista, Hotbot, Lycos, Yahoo! and probably others. Google did not come down from the heavens heralded by angels a fully formed tech hegemony all at once. The free market made it dominant over time because free people continue to freely choose Google. Google is not blessed with some form of immortality or invincibility either. It's dominance will only come to an end if people stop whining about it and try to outdo it instead. For the record, I don't use Google services or products nor do I ever feel forced to as it is implied whenever someone whines about Google being a "monopoly."