6 ms·
Probably because Microsoft controlled 97% market share, but Apple controls about 20%.
by barelysapient 3y ago
Probably because Microsoft controlled 97% market share, but Apple controls about 20%.
- graemep 3y agoDepends how you define the market. The relevant definition here is users of Apple devices.
- Aaargh20318 3y agoBy that logic you can always make up a group in which a company controls 100% of the market. Walmart should be forced to sell competitors products because they control the whole market for Walmart customers.
- withinboredom 3y agoIf your only choice is to shop at Walmart, this sounds like a reasonable definition of a market.
- Aaargh20318 3y agoBut it’s not your only choice to shop in the App Store. Having an iPhone does not prevent my from buying an app from the Play Store on my Android phone, from buying a game from PSN on my PS5 or from buying a book from Amazon on my Kindle.
- withinboredom 3y agoWoah, I can install a game from PSN on my iPhone!? I must have missed that feature... /s We already know the players in the market will conspire to increase prices artificially if given the chance (United States v. Apple Inc., 952 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). So, no, I don't believe these are actually one market because not even the players think it is one marketplace. They argue this exact illusion to keep anti-trust from applying to them, but behave as if it isn't a single market. All we need is for lawmakers to change what the definition of a market is, in order to deal with this loophole.
- mrmanner 3y agoMoving to an area with more grocery stores is orders of magnitude more demanding than selecting another operating system next time you upgrade your phone or computer, though.
- withinboredom 3y ago> orders of magnitude more demanding than selecting another operating system Having switched from Apple to Microsoft Phone to Android and back to Apple ... I disagree. In that time, I've moved states and even countries. Moving is far less demanding than switching operating systems. Moving is pretty simple: you pack, move, then unpack; and you even get to keep all your stuff! Switching operating systems requires researching for similar apps, purchasing them again, potentially copying music/photo libraries using sketchy tools, hunting down tutorials for how to do things you don't know how to do, etc.
- mrmanner 3y agoI don’t agree: Specifically if you live somewhere with only a single food store, there’s a decent likelihood that you’re either heavily invested in the area (farming, forestry, …) or that you can’t afford to live anywhere else. More generally, moving means leaving friends, forcing kids to change schools, and if moving far, learning new laws and customs. Not to mention that packing and moving all that stuff takes days and/or costs thousands of moneys. Extracting files from Google Drive and iCloud is a pain, but is it _that_ bad?
- withinboredom 3y ago> More generally, moving means leaving friends, forcing kids to change schools, and if moving far, learning new laws and customs. Moving the goalpost are we? Sure, if you keep moving it far enough, long enough, then yeah, you'll find a set of conditions where this is no longer true (such as having a family, friends, changing schools, etc). > Extracting files from Google Drive and iCloud is a pain, but is it _that_ bad? I take it you haven't done it. Put your money where your mouth is and just switch. It's that easy, right?
- graemep 3y agoIf Walmart owned all the shops in a particular city, then yes, that should happen In fact regulators do not allow this to happen. For example, I know the UK competition regulators would not allow the same company to buy more than a quarter (IIRC) of the pubs in an area. Source: I heard the CEO of what was the biggest pub company in the UK at the time say it.
- prepend 3y agoThat’s not how DoJ defines market. The relevant market isn’t the specific Apple device users, but all users and all their competing devices. This is typically how US antitrust law works as it is based on consumer harm. And that’s broad, not the specific consumers who choose to use a particular tool or be in a particular system.
- nox101 3y agoThat is how the DoJ defines the market. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253... > The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating systems in violation Change "Intel compatible" to "A series compatible" and it's Apple. Change it to "ARM compatible" and it's still Apple given they have 60% market share in the USA. Only countries enforce anti-trust, there is no world government to look at market share it the world.
- KerrAvon 3y agoYour point is addressed elsewhere in the document; cherry-picking individual sentences from complex legal documents isn’t a great idea.
- nox101 3y agofeel free to point out that part of the document. AFAICT the entire document is in the context of the first paragraph which sets the scope for everything under it
- nodamage 3y agoThis case does not prove what you think it does because the market for "Intel compatible PC operating systems" does not consist of a single competitor (there are much stricter legal requirements when alleging a single-competitor market).
- xtracto 3y agoJust stop buying apple products... it's like people buying Lego toys and whining because they are expensive and cannot plug with Playmobile toys. So people are so enamored with apple devices that they cannot stop using them, but don't want to pay the rent the company charges them... just go play somewhere else. Or create your own park. That's what Hawuei did, that's what Android did.
- ben_w 3y agoI don't accept the value of that definition, because it would also mean Nintendo isn't allowed to be a monopoly over their own games consoles, with Android being analogous to Xbox.
- barelysapient 3y agoBy that logic, everything is a monopoly.