4 ms·

That's an excellent argument for an apple anti trust case

by beeboobaa 3y ago

rootusrootus 3y ago
It would be if they had a dominant market position. Just controlling the endpoints doesn't mean that much by itself.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-habits https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha... Seems pretty dominant to me.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    American teens are not Americans are not the rest of the world
    - yesco 3y ago
      Apple is an American company accountable to American laws and critiques
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Also, the relevant market doesn't have to be "Americans." It's completely reasonable for it to be "teens in San Francisco" or the like, if that's the group of people you need a messaging app in order to interact with.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  you don't necessarily need a monopoly to have a "dominant marketing position". being one of the two major OS's and losing access to 30-50% of a nigh-universal market because the its not in the interest of the platform's profits would definitely count as an anti-competitor move utilizing the company's weight. AKA anti-trust.
collegeburner 3y ago
not as antitrust laws are written, no. not a sherman section ii monopolization of trade or commerce, not a section i restraint of trade, not a clayton tying. as with most antitrust cases, it comes down to market definition. the reasonable market is phone messaging or some such; the only way to win would be basically defining the market as imessage itself which no court would suffer since whatsapp and similar are free with equal or greater features. you can argue antitrust statute should be expanded or changed, but there's no reasonable case as things stand.
- int_19h 3y ago
  It's not just the way they are written, it's also the way they are interpreted. Antitrust used to have a lot more teeth pre-Bork, among other things, because it was much more proactive in terms of anticipating negative effects on the market even before the company would become a glaringly obvious monopoly. Here's a case from 1962: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/. Note in particular the basis under which it was determined that the company in question is in a market-dominant position.

That's an excellent argument for an apple anti trust case

rootusrootus 3y ago

It would be if they had a dominant market position. Just controlling the endpoints doesn't mean that much by itself.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-habits https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha... Seems pretty dominant to me.
- katbyte 3y ago
  American teens are not Americans are not the rest of the world
  - yesco 3y ago
    Apple is an American company accountable to American laws and critiques
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Also, the relevant market doesn't have to be "Americans." It's completely reasonable for it to be "teens in San Francisco" or the like, if that's the group of people you need a messaging app in order to interact with.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
you don't necessarily need a monopoly to have a "dominant marketing position". being one of the two major OS's and losing access to 30-50% of a nigh-universal market because the its not in the interest of the platform's profits would definitely count as an anti-competitor move utilizing the company's weight. AKA anti-trust.

collegeburner 3y ago

not as antitrust laws are written, no. not a sherman section ii monopolization of trade or commerce, not a section i restraint of trade, not a clayton tying. as with most antitrust cases, it comes down to market definition. the reasonable market is phone messaging or some such; the only way to win would be basically defining the market as imessage itself which no court would suffer since whatsapp and similar are free with equal or greater features. you can argue antitrust statute should be expanded or changed, but there's no reasonable case as things stand.

int_19h 3y ago
It's not just the way they are written, it's also the way they are interpreted. Antitrust used to have a lot more teeth pre-Bork, among other things, because it was much more proactive in terms of anticipating negative effects on the market even before the company would become a glaringly obvious monopoly. Here's a case from 1962: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/. Note in particular the basis under which it was determined that the company in question is in a market-dominant position.