3 ms·

Words have meanings. It's a monopoly if a single entity has complete (or almost-complete) control of a market. "Apple/Google" isn't a single entity, neither ha

• ghusto 3y ago
  They do indeed: monopoly | məˈnɒpəli | noun (plural monopolies) 1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting. • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies | France's electricity monopoly, EDF. In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies". Your definition is both wrong, and I suspect made in bad faith anyway.
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies". The example is, presumably, referring to a single entity that provided “passenger services” between two destinations, and no other entity provided passenger services between those destinations. But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which does not contradict kemayo’s post. There is no reason to use monopoly (in this context) when more accurate vocabulary exists, such as duopoly or oligopoly.
    • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies. Which is precisely the point. Take as "destinations" the two parties to any given transaction, i.e. a particular software developer and a particular user. If the user has an iPhone, they can't use the Play Store, or Samsung or Amazon or anyone but Apple. The developer has no choice in this, even though they're the one paying the fee and being subjected to opaque and arbitrary rules.
      • lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Yes, I was referring to the smartphone market itself. Within each smartphone operating system, Apple has a monopoly on software sold for their devices. But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly.
        • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
          > But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly. It's possible but not trivial. In particular, the stores have a network effect where users won't install them if they've never heard of them (remember you have to give your payment info to a store), and developers have no use for a store without users. Google also makes a lot of features dependent on Google Play, which makes it hard for OEMs not to include it with their phone, which might otherwise have allowed the store they did include to reach a critical mass. So Google Play still has >90% market share on Android, even if the alternatives aren't explicitly prohibited.
    • ghusto 3y ago
      I should have been explicit with the pluralisation I was referring to (emphasis mine): > passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned _monopolies_
• shortcake27 3y ago
  I think my use of the word “monopoly” is causing people to miss the forest for the trees. My clients have employees who essentially have two ecosystem options when buying a smartphone - Apple or Google. I, as a developer, then have to bend to the will of both of these corporations which, no matter how they compete on other things, are just as bad as each other when it comes to developer treatment. Monopoly, duopoly, whatever - it’s crazy. Why am I uploading my fucking ID to Google, giving them my phone number, which they say “they may contact periodically to ensure the account is still active”, because I distribute private software to a private organisation?
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Because the barrier to entry for this specific product (smartphone) is incredibly high. Kind of like, if you want to buy a passenger plane, you have to go to Boeing or Airbus.
    • shortcake27 3y ago
      Does Boeing/Airbus force contractors employed by the airlines who own their planes to jump through crazy hoops and provide all their PII? If I had an airline as a client and I wanted to change the upholstery on a plane, I don’t think I’d need to have the changes approved by Boeing/Airbus in addition to having my personal data (home address, phone, and ID) sold and used to target me with advertising.
      • lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Maybe it is only because Boeing/Airbus cannot figure out how to do that for upholstery. But for software, it is easier to control the changes and hence charge for them.
  • kemayo 3y ago
    I'll grant that it's a bit of a pedantic response, though I do genuinely think that it's better not to misuse terms. It also affects what you appear to be calling for as a response -- just because Apple-and-Google are the two major players in a market doesn't mean that antitrust/monopoly laws are the right things to use. Re: Google, given that you're privately distributing software to a private organization, couldn't you just sideload it onto the Android devices in question? It seems reasonable enough to for them to want you to have a developer account if you're using their infrastructure to distribute these things. But my (minimally informed) understanding is that, unlike Apple, Google doesn't force you to have a signing certificate from them or anything for the software to even run on a device.