4 ms·

> their iMessage shenanigans is classic monopolistic bully behavior. These "monopoly" accusations are pure nonsense. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smar

by p-e-w 3y ago

> their iMessage shenanigans is classic monopolistic bully behavior. These "monopoly" accusations are pure nonsense. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone market, they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact). And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones. Saying that Apple's behavior here has anything to do with a monopoly is like claiming WhatsApp has a "monopoly" on sending WhatsApp messages, or Facebook has a monopoly on publishing Facebook posts.

gnicholas 3y ago
> And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones. From an antitrust perspective, this is the whole point. The antitrust argument would be that Apple is leveraging its dominant position in smartphones/smartphone OSes to gain market power in the messaging market.
- sethherr 3y ago
  And from a semantic perspective: one of the key definitions of Monopolies (from Wikipedia) is they are characterized by a lack of viable substitute goods. It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute.
  - firecall 3y ago
    But iMessage does have a viable substitute. And not just one, many of them. The iMessage substitutes often offer more features, work on more platforms and are widely adopted across the globe. At the risk of making a sweeping statement, and with no data to support it, I’d guess that no one outside of the USA seems to care about Blue Bubble vs Green Bubbles. Being on iMessage vs SMS isn’t a conversation in my world. Teenagers that I know all have iPhones, but use Discord or SnapChat for messaging.
    - sethherr 3y ago
      It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me. So… seems like they’re successfully exerting monopoly pressure on some people. I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. iMessage isn’t the only reason I use Apple products, but it is a reason. They don’t need to have 100% market share to be behaving monopolistically. And whether you feel the impact of the monopoly is also irrelevant.
      - stephenr 3y ago
        > It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me. > I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. I thought you said there isn’t a viable substitute? Who knew Schrödinger’s messenger is a thing?
  - gabeio 3y ago
    > It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute. That's not really how that works. That's a company blocking unauthorized access to a service they provide. BBM used to be only available on blackberry devices as well, they never got sued over blocking attempts from others to use BBM outside of their devices (that I'm aware of). I am aware BBM is no longer platform locked. Didn't know they shutdown BBM...
sethherr 3y ago
Disclosure: I love Apple products and all my devices are Apple. This is absolutely monopolistic shenanigans. Complaints about monopolistic behavior in the smartphone market from Apple are always met on HN with “Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the global market” - who cares? Apple is from California, the Bay Area is famously self involved, Apple has a majority stake in the US and certainly in California. But regardless - trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. Debate why it doesn’t seem like monopolistic behavior, the debate about whether Apple is a monopoly is whataboutism.
- theshackleford 3y ago
  > trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. It’s a great argument because a monopoly is a very clearly defined thing, not whatever you want it to be.
jorvi 3y ago
So, a few iOS versions back, Apple changed “Music.app” into “Apple Music.app”, and everyone that opened it got a pop-up to try their new fancy pants streaming service. That instantly unlocked a big previously-unaddressed portion of the US music streaming market, likely apprehensive or lay-people. It’s what made Apple Music viable and rocketed up its market share. The pop-up did not include an option to try Spotify (or Tidal or Deezer) instead. With a couple hundred million iOS users out there in the US.. yeah. Not okay. The only reason Apple was able to do this because they own half of an extremely quintessential market. Monopoly (well, duopoly) behavior pur sang.
- junofan 3y ago
  I don’t really see what’s not okay? My credit card company doesn’t send me offers from other companies alongside theirs, even though the networks are a duopoly. When I pull up to McDonald’s they don’t ask me if I’d like to order sides from Burger King instead. Not seeing how consumers were harmed.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    Umm... please review the Microsoft anti-trust cases from late 1990s & early 2000s with US and EU. At the height of MS Windows, Microsoft could crush any competitor by including a poor substitute for any software with their OS. Eventually, this was ruled multiple times as anti-competitive.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      You’re missing the primary reason: they controlled pricing. What price could other operating systems makers charge in the late 90s, early 2000s? It didn’t matter, Microsoft had forced OEMs to only sell PCs with Windows or not be able to sell Windows per-installs at all. If Apple said to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile that they could only sell iPhones if they only sold iPhones and _then_ used that position to bundle other services they would look like Microsoft. I could see potentially on the supply side (buying all of TMSCs most cutting edge capacity) Apple has that power, but on the consumer side they have no price control in any market (Apple products are not a market).
acidhue 3y ago
Even if it's a duopoly that counts for something. In the USA, which is where this case matters; Apple has a monopoly on messages. iMessage is the most popular chat platform there.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US, how can iMessage be the most popular chat platform? What’s App handles an order of magnitude more messages per day than iMessage. Telegram handles double. Facebook Messenger, WeChat, and SMS all handle more messages. What happens when you try to write a client for What’s App? https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html
  - _gabe_ 3y ago
    > Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US A 54% market share, compared to Google’s 46% market share doesn’t seem like a minority to me. It’s not a large majority, but it’s definitely not a minority market share in the US. And just for context, the Justice department filed an Antitrust suit against Google in 2020 for controlling 80% of the market share in search[1]. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file-antitrust-suit-against-google-5083194 https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file...
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      I stand corrected. I hadn’t realized iPhones had made that much in roads. iMessage still is dwarfed by several other messaging services. I find it odd to argue that the 4ᵀᴴ most popular (likely less) messaging platform should be forced to open (primarily due to a huge misunderstanding of what monopolistic and anti-competitive practices actually are).
      - 3y ago
throwaway2037 3y ago
they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact) This is a spurious argument. The article wrote: <<They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market>> It only mentions US market. Even if it was 40% (less than half), most highly advanced nations with strong competition regulation would consider this sufficient for strong regulation. And, regarding market share from the perspective of competition regulation: Who cares about global. It's all about local (state/nation level). The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation: It is free on all platforms, including the desktop web browser. Time and time again, we have seen that free and non-free products and services are treated differently by competition regulators. For example: "Free" mobile games that are stuffed with adverts and use deceptive advertising techniques to attract more downloads.
- junofan 3y ago
  > The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation I mean we’re talking about text messaging. Practically everyone on the planet has myriad options. It’s really hard for me to see any consumer harm. If you just want to lobby the government to make Apple do stuff, that’s fine.

by p-e-w 3y ago

gnicholas 3y ago

> And Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the (secure/rich/whatever) messaging market. In most countries, WhatsApp is vastly more popular than iMessage, even on iPhones. From an antitrust perspective, this is the whole point. The antitrust argument would be that Apple is leveraging its dominant position in smartphones/smartphone OSes to gain market power in the messaging market.

sethherr 3y ago
And from a semantic perspective: one of the key definitions of Monopolies (from Wikipedia) is they are characterized by a lack of viable substitute goods. It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute.
- firecall 3y ago
  But iMessage does have a viable substitute. And not just one, many of them. The iMessage substitutes often offer more features, work on more platforms and are widely adopted across the globe. At the risk of making a sweeping statement, and with no data to support it, I’d guess that no one outside of the USA seems to care about Blue Bubble vs Green Bubbles. Being on iMessage vs SMS isn’t a conversation in my world. Teenagers that I know all have iPhones, but use Discord or SnapChat for messaging.
  - sethherr 3y ago
    It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me. So… seems like they’re successfully exerting monopoly pressure on some people. I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. iMessage isn’t the only reason I use Apple products, but it is a reason. They don’t need to have 100% market share to be behaving monopolistically. And whether you feel the impact of the monopoly is also irrelevant.
    - stephenr 3y ago
      > It doesn’t have a viable substitute for me. > I use iMessage for conversations where everyone is on iPhones and Signal for mixed groups. I thought you said there isn’t a viable substitute? Who knew Schrödinger’s messenger is a thing?
- gabeio 3y ago
  > It's pretty clear to me that blocking Beeper is an attempt to ensure that iMessage doesn't have a viable substitute. That's not really how that works. That's a company blocking unauthorized access to a service they provide. BBM used to be only available on blackberry devices as well, they never got sued over blocking attempts from others to use BBM outside of their devices (that I'm aware of). I am aware BBM is no longer platform locked. Didn't know they shutdown BBM...

sethherr 3y ago

Disclosure: I love Apple products and all my devices are Apple. This is absolutely monopolistic shenanigans. Complaints about monopolistic behavior in the smartphone market from Apple are always met on HN with “Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the global market” - who cares? Apple is from California, the Bay Area is famously self involved, Apple has a majority stake in the US and certainly in California. But regardless - trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. Debate why it doesn’t seem like monopolistic behavior, the debate about whether Apple is a monopoly is whataboutism.

theshackleford 3y ago
> trying to rebut the argument “this looks like monopolistic bullying” with “but they aren’t a monopoly” isn’t a good argument. It’s a great argument because a monopoly is a very clearly defined thing, not whatever you want it to be.

jorvi 3y ago

So, a few iOS versions back, Apple changed “Music.app” into “Apple Music.app”, and everyone that opened it got a pop-up to try their new fancy pants streaming service. That instantly unlocked a big previously-unaddressed portion of the US music streaming market, likely apprehensive or lay-people. It’s what made Apple Music viable and rocketed up its market share. The pop-up did not include an option to try Spotify (or Tidal or Deezer) instead. With a couple hundred million iOS users out there in the US.. yeah. Not okay. The only reason Apple was able to do this because they own half of an extremely quintessential market. Monopoly (well, duopoly) behavior pur sang.

junofan 3y ago
I don’t really see what’s not okay? My credit card company doesn’t send me offers from other companies alongside theirs, even though the networks are a duopoly. When I pull up to McDonald’s they don’t ask me if I’d like to order sides from Burger King instead. Not seeing how consumers were harmed.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Umm... please review the Microsoft anti-trust cases from late 1990s & early 2000s with US and EU. At the height of MS Windows, Microsoft could crush any competitor by including a poor substitute for any software with their OS. Eventually, this was ruled multiple times as anti-competitive.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    You’re missing the primary reason: they controlled pricing. What price could other operating systems makers charge in the late 90s, early 2000s? It didn’t matter, Microsoft had forced OEMs to only sell PCs with Windows or not be able to sell Windows per-installs at all. If Apple said to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile that they could only sell iPhones if they only sold iPhones and _then_ used that position to bundle other services they would look like Microsoft. I could see potentially on the supply side (buying all of TMSCs most cutting edge capacity) Apple has that power, but on the consumer side they have no price control in any market (Apple products are not a market).

acidhue 3y ago

Even if it's a duopoly that counts for something. In the USA, which is where this case matters; Apple has a monopoly on messages. iMessage is the most popular chat platform there.

jonhohle 3y ago
Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US, how can iMessage be the most popular chat platform? What’s App handles an order of magnitude more messages per day than iMessage. Telegram handles double. Facebook Messenger, WeChat, and SMS all handle more messages. What happens when you try to write a client for What’s App? https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html https://austinhuang.me/barinsta.html
- _gabe_ 3y ago
  > Considering both iPhones and Macs represent minority positions in their respective markets in the US A 54% market share, compared to Google’s 46% market share doesn’t seem like a minority to me. It’s not a large majority, but it’s definitely not a minority market share in the US. And just for context, the Justice department filed an Antitrust suit against Google in 2020 for controlling 80% of the market share in search[1]. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file-antitrust-suit-against-google-5083194 https://www.investopedia.com/the-u-s-dept-of-justice-to-file...
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    I stand corrected. I hadn’t realized iPhones had made that much in roads. iMessage still is dwarfed by several other messaging services. I find it odd to argue that the 4ᵀᴴ most popular (likely less) messaging platform should be forced to open (primarily due to a huge misunderstanding of what monopolistic and anti-competitive practices actually are).
    - 3y ago

throwaway2037 3y ago

they don't even have a majority market share (less than 30% globally, in fact) This is a spurious argument. The article wrote: <<They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market>> It only mentions US market. Even if it was 40% (less than half), most highly advanced nations with strong competition regulation would consider this sufficient for strong regulation. And, regarding market share from the perspective of competition regulation: Who cares about global. It's all about local (state/nation level). The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation: It is free on all platforms, including the desktop web browser. Time and time again, we have seen that free and non-free products and services are treated differently by competition regulators. For example: "Free" mobile games that are stuffed with adverts and use deceptive advertising techniques to attract more downloads.

junofan 3y ago
> The reason why WhatsApp does not face any regulatory scrutiny in any highly developed countries with strong competition regulation I mean we’re talking about text messaging. Practically everyone on the planet has myriad options. It’s really hard for me to see any consumer harm. If you just want to lobby the government to make Apple do stuff, that’s fine.