4 ms·

> 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 beh

by 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.
    - LeonB 3y ago
      > Apple didn’t force anyone to participate in Apple Pay We’re on different planets. > Banks got onboard because customers like the convenience … Banks in Australia fought it for years. Your point about 20% market share being enough demonstrates the point. There’s no set percentage of customers. The wielding of power alone demonstrates the issue.
      - Retric 3y ago
        It’s not 20% market share it’s a fraction of that 20% that would potentially use Apple Pay. We’re talking low single digit percentages of total customers which is worlds apart from monopoly power.
        LeonB 3y ago
        You’re missing the point. There’s no magic percent of a market that proves or disproves the sort of behaviour that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
        Retric 3y ago
        Anti trust laws aren’t designed to prevent behavior abstractly. If you have a 5% market share you’re allowed to do things that companies with a 95% market share are prohibited from doing. Similarly it’s not illegal to be a monopoly. The only thing monopoly laws are there to prevent is specific behaviors by monopolies. This is why companies argue they aren’t monopoles, because if they aren’t then the behavior is legal. This is why your car insurance company can offer discounts if you get a life insurance policy through them. The government supports insurance bundling etc because it’s actually economically beneficial as long as it’s not a monopoly trying to get into a new market.
        LeonB 3y ago
        Without getting into nda territory — the minority of Australians who used iPhones in 2017 represented a figure that far exceeded 50% of wealth held in Australian banks. Thus apple had tremendous market power in “fact”, even if the raw numbers looked much smaller. So long.

by qwytw 3y ago

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.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    > Apple didn’t force anyone to participate in Apple Pay We’re on different planets. > Banks got onboard because customers like the convenience … Banks in Australia fought it for years. Your point about 20% market share being enough demonstrates the point. There’s no set percentage of customers. The wielding of power alone demonstrates the issue.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s not 20% market share it’s a fraction of that 20% that would potentially use Apple Pay. We’re talking low single digit percentages of total customers which is worlds apart from monopoly power.
      - LeonB 3y ago
        You’re missing the point. There’s no magic percent of a market that proves or disproves the sort of behaviour that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
        Retric 3y ago
        Anti trust laws aren’t designed to prevent behavior abstractly. If you have a 5% market share you’re allowed to do things that companies with a 95% market share are prohibited from doing. Similarly it’s not illegal to be a monopoly. The only thing monopoly laws are there to prevent is specific behaviors by monopolies. This is why companies argue they aren’t monopoles, because if they aren’t then the behavior is legal. This is why your car insurance company can offer discounts if you get a life insurance policy through them. The government supports insurance bundling etc because it’s actually economically beneficial as long as it’s not a monopoly trying to get into a new market.
        LeonB 3y ago
        Without getting into nda territory — the minority of Australians who used iPhones in 2017 represented a figure that far exceeded 50% of wealth held in Australian banks. Thus apple had tremendous market power in “fact”, even if the raw numbers looked much smaller. So long.