5 ms·

I can not be the only one thinking there is an antitrust issue here? I would guess the book thing means Apple is under quite a bit of scrutiny. While I'm not i

by AJ007 15y ago

I can not be the only one thinking there is an antitrust issue here? I would guess the book thing means Apple is under quite a bit of scrutiny. While I'm not involved in mobile, I've had similar experiences for over half a decade dealing with the banal, highly questionable, and non-uniformly enforced rules Google imposes on its own advertisers. Some of the stuff is bad enough it makes you think it would fall under RICO if this wasn't a large company but rather an Italian owned waste disposal company.

chc 15y ago
AFAIK, it would only be an antitrust issue if it were shown to be anticompetitive. If Apple is a monopoly or acting as part of an illegal trust, yeah, they're going to get smacked down. But I think the general consensus is that Android is a credible competitor to iOS and Windows is a more-than-credible competitor to Mac OS X, so Apple is not a monopoly.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
juxta 15y ago
i'm not too sure on the exact details of antitrust but this seems more ethical then antitrust. They are not disallowing the users from NOT being able to purchase more dropbox storage - as long as it goes their stream to purchase it (which results in them getting 30%). Wouldn't antitrust be that they are not allowing it all together on their platform? Wouldn't the same idea of you going to a movie theater and not allowing you to bring in your own food/candy - you must purchase it through them since they make more money from a transaction you would have done elsewhere?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- collision 15y ago
  Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    An example of an antitrust case for someone with market share similar to Apple's in phones would be helpful. To head you off at one unproductive pass: it is unlawful to collude with other companies to fix prices even if you have a minority market share.
    - caf 15y ago
      Note though that it is an open question whether the relevant market is "phones" or "smartphones".
      - tptacek 15y ago
        That's true, but obviously Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either market (obviously, they are dwarfed by the total phone market).
  - taligent 15y ago
    Apple doesn't have anything close to a significant market share. There is LOTS of competition in the market place.
    - khuey 15y ago
      Apple has significant market share. They just don't have anything close to a monopoly.
- cooldeal 15y ago
  So if Apple and Samsung independently do this, there can be norecourse since both of them aren't monopolies even if they have around 90% marketshare together. Even though the harmful effects on the market is the same. I guess that explains why the US wireless and cable franchies suck and have the lowest consumer ratings.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    That's a weird example to use, since US cable franchises are in fact usually monopolies.
    - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
      Err, in the age of directv, dish network, dsl, vdsl, fiber, u-verse, 4g, etc I don't think ye olde cable monopoly is an excuse anymore.
      - Anechoic 15y ago
        dsl, vdsl, fiber, u-verse, 4g are extremely location dependent (I live in a top 100 MSA and don't have access to video over any of those modes at home), and even directv/dish have certain requirements (namely clear LOS to the satellite). For me it's Comcast or nothing, and I suspect that's the case (substituting "your local cableco" for "Comcast") for a majority of the USA.
  - jerf 15y ago
    "So if Apple and Samsung independently do this, there can be norecourse since both of them aren't monopolies even if they have around 90% marketshare together. Even though the harmful effects on the market is the same." No, abuse of oligarchies and cartels are illegal too. It is generally understood that small numbers of entities can form oligarchies with no explicit coordination, so independence isn't necessarily a defense either.
- unreal37 15y ago
  Apple has a near-monopoly in Tablets right? Doesn't have to be about phones.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Anti-trust is based on behavior, not strictly market size. If you're going to pull in market size, you've got to play to the relevant market as well. One of the difficulties of anti-trust law is that it's fundamentally about power, which is not something economists have a particularly good measure for, nor are they particularly equipped to find (or be interested in finding) measurements for. Even in a monopoly/monopsony or oligopoly/oligopsony cannot dictate both price and quantity (supply/demand curve), though in the traditional economic efficiency argument of the Chicago (free market) School, the concentration of buying/selling power means that (for sell-side concentration) prices are higher and quantities are lower, or (for buy-side concentration) prices are lower and quantities are higher, and more net value accrues to the side with greater concentration. The Chicago School cries tears over lost market efficiency. But that's a far smaller problem than that monopoly allows the monopolist to choose winners. Maybe not for all time, but it's the same argument that's been used against command economies, bailouts, and even just plain government regulation. Generally wrongly in the last case, and mostly in the second. Free markets are based on the principle that buyers, sellers, and ideas meet on equal footing. Where an entity or cabal can select winners, what you've got is no longer a free market. Which is a pity, as free markets are generally powerful forces for good.
taligent 15y ago
1) Research antitrust. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) Apple has done nothing different than has been done before. It is an existing in app purchasing rule.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  "Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies."[1] One could argue that rejecting apps that make use of (or in this case encourage signup to) Dropbox is anti-competitive conduct since Dropbox is a competitor of iCloud (isn't it?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
  - tptacek 15y ago
    It is hard to name any proprietary product platform, from cars to KitchenAid mixers, which would not run afoul of this common nerdly definition of "antitrust". In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here. To go further with this argument, you will need to venture beyond Wikipedia summaries.
    - olalonde 15y ago
      Your argument would be more effective without the unnecessary ad hominem. i.e.: > In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        I swear, it's like a few months ago somebody somewhere introduced tptacek to the concept of using "nerdy" as an insult (and to the debating tactic of attaching an insult to a position with the goal of forcing people to distance themselves from that position).
rtrunck 15y ago
Can most hn participants abstain from commenting on the law unless they actually have real knowledge of it, please? It is so complex. I'm blown away daily with the knowledge of the hn community, it runs so deep. And everyone seems like a genius because they only comment seemingly on what they know. Yet everyone seems to think they know the law. On the surface programming and the law seem so similar, yet they are so disparate. So, so far apart. Ask an attorney what determinalistic is, and you'll probablly find a blank. Ask a programmer, and they think what is the law is the law if it maybe sort of fits part of what they heard about the law.

by AJ007 15y ago

chc 15y ago

AFAIK, it would only be an antitrust issue if it were shown to be anticompetitive. If Apple is a monopoly or acting as part of an illegal trust, yeah, they're going to get smacked down. But I think the general consensus is that Android is a credible competitor to iOS and Windows is a more-than-credible competitor to Mac OS X, so Apple is not a monopoly.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

juxta 15y ago

i'm not too sure on the exact details of antitrust but this seems more ethical then antitrust. They are not disallowing the users from NOT being able to purchase more dropbox storage - as long as it goes their stream to purchase it (which results in them getting 30%). Wouldn't antitrust be that they are not allowing it all together on their platform? Wouldn't the same idea of you going to a movie theater and not allowing you to bring in your own food/candy - you must purchase it through them since they make more money from a transaction you would have done elsewhere?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

collision 15y ago
Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.
- tptacek 15y ago
  An example of an antitrust case for someone with market share similar to Apple's in phones would be helpful. To head you off at one unproductive pass: it is unlawful to collude with other companies to fix prices even if you have a minority market share.
  - caf 15y ago
    Note though that it is an open question whether the relevant market is "phones" or "smartphones".
    - tptacek 15y ago
      That's true, but obviously Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either market (obviously, they are dwarfed by the total phone market).
- taligent 15y ago
  Apple doesn't have anything close to a significant market share. There is LOTS of competition in the market place.
  - khuey 15y ago
    Apple has significant market share. They just don't have anything close to a monopoly.
cooldeal 15y ago
So if Apple and Samsung independently do this, there can be norecourse since both of them aren't monopolies even if they have around 90% marketshare together. Even though the harmful effects on the market is the same. I guess that explains why the US wireless and cable franchies suck and have the lowest consumer ratings.
- tptacek 15y ago
  That's a weird example to use, since US cable franchises are in fact usually monopolies.
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    Err, in the age of directv, dish network, dsl, vdsl, fiber, u-verse, 4g, etc I don't think ye olde cable monopoly is an excuse anymore.
    - Anechoic 15y ago
      dsl, vdsl, fiber, u-verse, 4g are extremely location dependent (I live in a top 100 MSA and don't have access to video over any of those modes at home), and even directv/dish have certain requirements (namely clear LOS to the satellite). For me it's Comcast or nothing, and I suspect that's the case (substituting "your local cableco" for "Comcast") for a majority of the USA.
- jerf 15y ago
  "So if Apple and Samsung independently do this, there can be norecourse since both of them aren't monopolies even if they have around 90% marketshare together. Even though the harmful effects on the market is the same." No, abuse of oligarchies and cartels are illegal too. It is generally understood that small numbers of entities can form oligarchies with no explicit coordination, so independence isn't necessarily a defense either.
unreal37 15y ago
Apple has a near-monopoly in Tablets right? Doesn't have to be about phones.
dredmorbius 15y ago
Anti-trust is based on behavior, not strictly market size. If you're going to pull in market size, you've got to play to the relevant market as well. One of the difficulties of anti-trust law is that it's fundamentally about power, which is not something economists have a particularly good measure for, nor are they particularly equipped to find (or be interested in finding) measurements for. Even in a monopoly/monopsony or oligopoly/oligopsony cannot dictate both price and quantity (supply/demand curve), though in the traditional economic efficiency argument of the Chicago (free market) School, the concentration of buying/selling power means that (for sell-side concentration) prices are higher and quantities are lower, or (for buy-side concentration) prices are lower and quantities are higher, and more net value accrues to the side with greater concentration. The Chicago School cries tears over lost market efficiency. But that's a far smaller problem than that monopoly allows the monopolist to choose winners. Maybe not for all time, but it's the same argument that's been used against command economies, bailouts, and even just plain government regulation. Generally wrongly in the last case, and mostly in the second. Free markets are based on the principle that buyers, sellers, and ideas meet on equal footing. Where an entity or cabal can select winners, what you've got is no longer a free market. Which is a pity, as free markets are generally powerful forces for good.

taligent 15y ago

1) Research antitrust. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) Apple has done nothing different than has been done before. It is an existing in app purchasing rule.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago
"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies."[1] One could argue that rejecting apps that make use of (or in this case encourage signup to) Dropbox is anti-competitive conduct since Dropbox is a competitor of iCloud (isn't it?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
- tptacek 15y ago
  It is hard to name any proprietary product platform, from cars to KitchenAid mixers, which would not run afoul of this common nerdly definition of "antitrust". In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here. To go further with this argument, you will need to venture beyond Wikipedia summaries.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Your argument would be more effective without the unnecessary ad hominem. i.e.: > In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I swear, it's like a few months ago somebody somewhere introduced tptacek to the concept of using "nerdy" as an insult (and to the debating tactic of attaching an insult to a position with the goal of forcing people to distance themselves from that position).

rtrunck 15y ago

Can most hn participants abstain from commenting on the law unless they actually have real knowledge of it, please? It is so complex. I'm blown away daily with the knowledge of the hn community, it runs so deep. And everyone seems like a genius because they only comment seemingly on what they know. Yet everyone seems to think they know the law. On the surface programming and the law seem so similar, yet they are so disparate. So, so far apart. Ask an attorney what determinalistic is, and you'll probablly find a blank. Ask a programmer, and they think what is the law is the law if it maybe sort of fits part of what they heard about the law.