4 ms·

> That’s like saying Folgers has a monopoly on Folgers coffee Not quite. We should apply a bit more nuance, yes iPhones and Android phones more or less can do

by qwytw 3y ago

> That’s like saying Folgers has a monopoly on Folgers coffee Not quite. We should apply a bit more nuance, yes iPhones and Android phones more or less can do the same things but they aren't entirely replaceable and not a commodity like coffee.

Retric 3y ago
Each coffee brand offers their own unique flavors, just as each tire manufacturer has their own trade offs, and each car … However, subtle flavor profile or minor product features isn’t enough to be considered a distinct market. The simple fact that people swap between Android phones and Apple phones without buying both means they are in completion. Making cellphone (edit: operating systems) a duopoly not a monopoly. Markets aren’t quite arbitrary but they are subject to debate. Someone considering buying a new 911 likely isn’t going to consider buying a base model Honda Civic as an equivalent good but a Lotus Emira might qualify.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  You could say mobile operating systems may be a duopoly, but cellphones themselves are made by a dozen or more manufacturers. And the company that makes the most widely used mobile operating system is not Apple.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Sorry, yes cellphone operating systems is the market I was thinking of. But my point is you can slice and dice markets in multiple ways, however brands themselves don’t qualify as a market otherwise every brand would be a monopoly and the word stops being meaningful. It’s the expensive watch market not the Rolex watch market.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      I guess the thing is that there is much more to it to it than just a brand. If you're heavily invested into Apple's environment (spend a lot of money on apps, maybe media on iTunes etc. and/or you rely on their cloud services etc.) the cost for switching to Android is significant enough that you might be willing to tolerate some abuse from Apple's before you do that.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Lock in doesn’t qualify as a monopoly. Camera lenses etc aren’t necessarily portable from camera to camera. However, if Company A went bankrupt, then someone would eventually by X, Y, or Z. Whatever those things are defines the market.
      - seec 3y ago
        Yep, pretty much. I am in the process of doing that and it is a rather long and annoying. I had the argument with my cousin a week ago, he was pissed off about how bad his iMac is for the price he paid. But when everything was said, he just defaulted to : yeah but I have all my stuff here, it would take so much effort to switch I would rather pay up. I believe this is exactly what Apple knows and precisely why their behavior is so despicable even toward their most long term customers. It makes a good reason to never actually rely on Apple software for anything. I used to be an advocate for their nice and clean software, but nowadays I would rather take the "inferior" options than being locked in their extortionate pricing. The problem with Apple is clearly that they have no real competition, there are alternatives but it's not an easy quick switching like you could be doing with any other computer maker. In the end, Windows is what it is, but at least you will not be locked to a particular company and their pricing for the OS feels fair enough. Apple approach of locking their software to the hardware supposedly gives better result, but this has not been true for quite a while and doesn't actually give many benefits to the end user (cue the refrain for ecosystem gimmicks).
- qwytw 3y ago
  > subtle flavor profile or minor product features Don't agree they are subtle or minor (it's of course a scale and coffee is objectively, based on consumer behavior and preferences, way lower on it than smartphones or PCs). > fact that people swap between Android phones and Apple phones Some do. Some don't, of course not's not an entirely distinct market, only partially (just like tablets vs smartphones or laptops vs tablets just too a much smaller extent).
  - Retric 3y ago
    The definition is generally based around substitutable goods. If you’re buying coffee on a vacation in another country and the brand you like is unavailable most people would buy a different brand. The degree to which something acts as a substitute generally defines the market. If Apple discontinued the iPhone without any substitute some people might replace it with laptops, but the vast majority are going to buy an Android phone.
    - LeonB 3y ago
      Apple’s ability to wield its market power to force buyers or sellers to use its platform is firm evidence of the sort of power that anti trust laws (if they retained any teeth) are designed to prevent. For example they were able to force banks to agree to support Apple Pay. And it’s the wielding itself that is sufficient proof of the trust violation.
      - Retric 3y ago
        I think you’re confusing monopoly power with the free market. Apple Pay exists in South Africa for example which has a 16% iOS market share, Mexico at 20% etc and only a fraction of that is going to use Apple Pay. Apple didn’t force anyone to participate in Apple Pay anymore than Samsung did to get banks to Support Samsung Pay. Mobile payments also started well before Apple got in on them. Banks got onboard because customers like the convenience, so if customers had a non mobile card and a mobile card many of them would prefer the mobile card. That’s not monopolistic power, that’s the free market at work. Merchants don’t need to do anything it’s the 3rd parties making payment machines which needed to support Apple/Samsung/Android etc and they are competing in a market where Apple Pay is just another feature they can use to differentiate themselves. So again free market forces.

by qwytw 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

Each coffee brand offers their own unique flavors, just as each tire manufacturer has their own trade offs, and each car … However, subtle flavor profile or minor product features isn’t enough to be considered a distinct market. The simple fact that people swap between Android phones and Apple phones without buying both means they are in completion. Making cellphone (edit: operating systems) a duopoly not a monopoly. Markets aren’t quite arbitrary but they are subject to debate. Someone considering buying a new 911 likely isn’t going to consider buying a base model Honda Civic as an equivalent good but a Lotus Emira might qualify.

jonhohle 3y ago
You could say mobile operating systems may be a duopoly, but cellphones themselves are made by a dozen or more manufacturers. And the company that makes the most widely used mobile operating system is not Apple.
- Retric 3y ago
  Sorry, yes cellphone operating systems is the market I was thinking of. But my point is you can slice and dice markets in multiple ways, however brands themselves don’t qualify as a market otherwise every brand would be a monopoly and the word stops being meaningful. It’s the expensive watch market not the Rolex watch market.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    I guess the thing is that there is much more to it to it than just a brand. If you're heavily invested into Apple's environment (spend a lot of money on apps, maybe media on iTunes etc. and/or you rely on their cloud services etc.) the cost for switching to Android is significant enough that you might be willing to tolerate some abuse from Apple's before you do that.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Lock in doesn’t qualify as a monopoly. Camera lenses etc aren’t necessarily portable from camera to camera. However, if Company A went bankrupt, then someone would eventually by X, Y, or Z. Whatever those things are defines the market.
    - seec 3y ago
      Yep, pretty much. I am in the process of doing that and it is a rather long and annoying. I had the argument with my cousin a week ago, he was pissed off about how bad his iMac is for the price he paid. But when everything was said, he just defaulted to : yeah but I have all my stuff here, it would take so much effort to switch I would rather pay up. I believe this is exactly what Apple knows and precisely why their behavior is so despicable even toward their most long term customers. It makes a good reason to never actually rely on Apple software for anything. I used to be an advocate for their nice and clean software, but nowadays I would rather take the "inferior" options than being locked in their extortionate pricing. The problem with Apple is clearly that they have no real competition, there are alternatives but it's not an easy quick switching like you could be doing with any other computer maker. In the end, Windows is what it is, but at least you will not be locked to a particular company and their pricing for the OS feels fair enough. Apple approach of locking their software to the hardware supposedly gives better result, but this has not been true for quite a while and doesn't actually give many benefits to the end user (cue the refrain for ecosystem gimmicks).
qwytw 3y ago
> subtle flavor profile or minor product features Don't agree they are subtle or minor (it's of course a scale and coffee is objectively, based on consumer behavior and preferences, way lower on it than smartphones or PCs). > fact that people swap between Android phones and Apple phones Some do. Some don't, of course not's not an entirely distinct market, only partially (just like tablets vs smartphones or laptops vs tablets just too a much smaller extent).
- Retric 3y ago
  The definition is generally based around substitutable goods. If you’re buying coffee on a vacation in another country and the brand you like is unavailable most people would buy a different brand. The degree to which something acts as a substitute generally defines the market. If Apple discontinued the iPhone without any substitute some people might replace it with laptops, but the vast majority are going to buy an Android phone.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    Apple’s ability to wield its market power to force buyers or sellers to use its platform is firm evidence of the sort of power that anti trust laws (if they retained any teeth) are designed to prevent. For example they were able to force banks to agree to support Apple Pay. And it’s the wielding itself that is sufficient proof of the trust violation.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I think you’re confusing monopoly power with the free market. Apple Pay exists in South Africa for example which has a 16% iOS market share, Mexico at 20% etc and only a fraction of that is going to use Apple Pay. Apple didn’t force anyone to participate in Apple Pay anymore than Samsung did to get banks to Support Samsung Pay. Mobile payments also started well before Apple got in on them. Banks got onboard because customers like the convenience, so if customers had a non mobile card and a mobile card many of them would prefer the mobile card. That’s not monopolistic power, that’s the free market at work. Merchants don’t need to do anything it’s the 3rd parties making payment machines which needed to support Apple/Samsung/Android etc and they are competing in a market where Apple Pay is just another feature they can use to differentiate themselves. So again free market forces.