7 ms·

You don't have to have a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior, a monopoly simply means it's easier to be anticompetitive. Apple in the US has a rou

by Salgat 3y ago

You don't have to have a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior, a monopoly simply means it's easier to be anticompetitive. Apple in the US has a roughly 50% market share.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I mean, every business is anti-competitive. The only time the authorities step in is when they dominate markets to a degree where competition no longer functions. iOS market share is strongest in the states I believe at 57%, which is certainly high but not even remotely approaching a monopoly.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >iOS market share is strongest in the states I believe at 57%, which is certainly high but not even remotely approaching a monopoly. Ackchyually you don't need to be a monopoly to warp the whole market in your favor. Windows was a monopoly back in the day with ~95% market share, but users could easily install any other apps and any other browser besides IE. The issue was many users stuck with IE because it was the default, but Microsoft wasn't blocking them from installing other browsers than IE or other apps not sold through their channels. Meanwhile, Apple might have only 57%-60% market share instead of ~95%, but unlike Microsoft, it's actively blocking users form installing any other browser that's not Safari based and any app that's not on the AppStore, therefore doing even more damage than Microsoft was doing back in the days. And speaking of iPhone market share, despite being it 57%-60% of the US right now, it's also the most wealthy and influential of the market, and looking at the demographics, it's at 87% amongst US teens, so it's safe to assume those teens will stick to iPhone when they grow up due to inertia and network effects, and then iOS market share will be close to 90%, therefore a guaranteed monopoly.
  - TimPC 3y ago
    The fact that the most popular option in a demographic where someone else pays for the phone is the most expensive option says almost nothing about what those users will do when they have to spend their own money on an option. I highly doubt 87% of the population will be buying a luxury brand with their own money. Convincing mommy and daddy it’s socially isolating to be on Android sure. But their own money in their 20s I doubt it.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      > I highly doubt 87% of the population will be buying a luxury brand with their own money. You're making it sound like they're Lamborghinis or Patek watches. Maybe in developing countries iPhone is a luxury brand, but in no way is it in any western developed countries, especially the US, the wealthiest of them all. Yes they're expensive as in that's a lot of money compared to a 600 Euro Pixel 8 or a 350 Euro Samsung A54 which do more or less the same shit as an iPhone does, but they're not unaffordably expensive in order to be a luxury good. >But their own money in their 20s I doubt it. Credit, installments and carrier plans, make it that anyone can afford an iPhone. I live in a central EU country where average income is less than the US, and even the pizza delivery courier here can get an iPhone. Let's do some napkin math: The iPhone 15 Pro is ~1200 Euros with tax here. A full time supermarket "wagie" with no education takes home nearly 1800 Euros per month after taxes. Subtract 600 Euros rent, 400 for eating, 200 for utilities and bills, and you're left with about 600 a month to spend as you please. So you can buy the latest iPhone after saving for 2 months, or instantly by walking in to any carrier shop and signing a 3 year contract for a plan which you need anyway. How is that "luxury"? Yes I know, this lifestyle is probably luxury compared to how average people live in some nations from Africa, Asia, LATAM and Middle East, but definitely not in the developed west. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be selling them by the boatlaod.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > Meanwhile, Apple might have only 57%-60% market share instead of ~95%, but unlike Microsoft, it's actively blocking users form installing any other browser that's not Safari based and any app that's not on the AppStore, therefore doing even more damage than Microsoft was doing back in the days. Okay so like: humor me. What is the damage incurred by the user's inability to install, for example, a true Firefox on iOS that uses their Quantum engine? I'll fully cosign that iOS' Safari has quirks that make it kind of annoying, very occasionally, like once every few months I'll find something that it does in a bizarre way that others don't. But I swear every time the topic of iOS' dominance comes up, there is a detachment of users out there who are simply furious that they can't install a web browser that doesn't use Apple's WebKit on an iOS device and I just... I do not get it. At the absolute worst I have never given even 10% of the shit required to where I would upend all my stored passwords and whatnot for the ability to even use a different WebKit based browser. Now, granted, if this was the situation on the Mac, oh hell yes, I would absolutely be right there with everyone else and grabbing my own pitchfork. But on my phone? On my tablet? I dunno, am I weird for just not really caring?
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      It's not directly affecting you the user, it's affecting the market of app and web developer which have no choice but to dance to Apple's tune as they control a large chuck of a very lucrative market. Why should you, the user, care? For the same reason users care when Micros ft was a monopoly on desktop.
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        How is that different than web developers being required to dance to the tune of basically every major browser? They all have little oddities that have to be taken into account, speaking as someone who has done quite a bit of web development, every major browser has it's deviations from the standard, intentional and often otherwise, that require little tweaks to one's code. And to be totally honest with you, a lot of Safari iOS's quirks are unambiguously good, pro-privacy practices that frustrate the shit out of surveillance marketing firms and I quite hope Apple keeps it up.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Surprisingly, iOS is a bit more popular in Japan than it is in the US, where it has ~68% marketshare. That market usually favors local manufacturers (Sony among other local companies still make Android phones), but that for some reason doesn’t apply in this case. Still not a monopoly though.
- ameister14 3y ago
  >every business is anti-competitive That's not actually true. Every business is competitive, but not every business engages in anti-competitive behavior.
floydnoel 3y ago
Being anticompetitive isn't illegal, basically it is encouraged/incentivized for companies. The snag is for companies with monopoly power- they are prohibited from abusing their monopoly via anticompetitive behavior.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  What’s an example of something that’s anti-competitive but legal?
  - ukuina 3y ago
    Loss leaders. See "Loss leading as an exploitative practice": http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2012/lossleading_rev_12-2011.pdf http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2012/lossle...
  - sudofox 3y ago
    Intentionally pushing competition out of the market. If you don't have monopolistic power, totally legal.
  - mardef 3y ago
    Everything about iOS Apple has excluded all other browsers on iOS, requires you to buy more apple hardware to produce software for iOS, and has all of their rules around IAP and not allowing you to even link to an alternate store in many cases. If iOS had a 90% market share in the US, I bet they'd have a lot more legal troubles
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Exclusivity deals are commonplace.
  - bhpm 3y ago
    Zero rating, like when wireless carriers don’t charge for certain bandwidth but do for others.
    - 3y ago
fnordpiglet 3y ago
The dissonant threshold is dominance not monopoly. But specifically willfully and intentionally conspiring to use that dominance to manipulate pricing, exclude competition, and otherwise distort cross market structure to their advantage. The MSFT vs DOJ did in fact use their monopoly power in operating systems to enter a new commercial market, price anticompetitively (price a competitors commercial product at zero), bundle with their new product with monopoly product in a mandatory and exclusionary way, etc. The actions were willful and planned, had no other commercial consideration other than harming competition. Even so the action came many years too late and Microsoft had successfully destroyed Netscape and it took until Chrome before any competition surfaced.
- xethos 3y ago
  You're right, in that Microsoft used their dominance in one market (operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (web browsers) Apple or Google would have to be doing something similar, like using their dominance in one market (operating systems) to gain an advantage in a seperate market - for example, music streaming services (Apple Music, Youtube Premium) or web browsers (Chrome, as pushed heavily by the world's most prominent OS, Android) To be clear: Android is not the entire reason Chrome is ubiquitous. My arugument is that Android is, pretty clearly IMO, a competitive advantage when pushing a web browser.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Apple is not only pushing their web browser, they're mandating it. Safari is the only browser allowed on iOS. How is that not anticompetitive?
    - cnlwsu 3y ago
      I’m viewing this from chrome on iOS. What are you talking about
      - gkbrk 3y ago
        Nope, you're viewing it from a Webkit wrapper made by Google that shares same name. Chrome is a web browser using the Blink engine, and it doesn't run on iOS devices.
DiabloD3 3y ago
That isn't true though. In the US, Apple is a minority player. I have no clue why Wall Street values them as a $1T company, when all they do anymore is make a bunch of phones that are under-competitive and over-expensive. The only time in the past few years that iPhones out sold Android phones in the US (the only market which Apple is a major player in; any of the global markets, they're virtually a nobody) was a glitch in 2021, most likely due to being pandemic-inspired. Never before nor since have they broken the 50% barrier. Although I 100% agree with what the EU is doing to Apple (and I hope they keep going), I don't understand why they're bothering with such a relative small fry, when Google doing the exact same thing on the Google Play Store is right there, and Google has far more capability of paying fines than Apple does.
- matthewmacleod 3y ago
  Apple is a $1T company—actually, $2.8T—because it brings in over $100bn a year in operating income, and was literally the world's single biggest seller of smartphones globally in 2023. The overall Google ecosystem is obviously more popular worldwide – but the idea that Apple only "makes a bunch of under-competitive phones", are "virtually a nobody" in the global market, or are a "small fry" is low-effort trolling.
- jakub_g 3y ago
  Apple has 61% mobile market share in US, and in 2023 it shipped worldwide more phones than Samsung. Having a hefty margin on each device, avg price being way bigger than average Android; on top of that, their % share of total revenue coming from services (app store, subscriptions etc) compared to hardware shipments keeps growing every year. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/apple-hits-all-time-high-smartphone-market-share-takes-1-spot-for-2023/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/apple-hits-all-time-... https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...
- capybara_2020 3y ago
  It looks like the iPhone has always had more than 50% market share and right now it is at 61% https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/#monthly-201511-202401 https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...

by Salgat 3y ago

You don't have to have a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior, a monopoly simply means it's easier to be anticompetitive. Apple in the US has a roughly 50% market share.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I mean, every business is anti-competitive. The only time the authorities step in is when they dominate markets to a degree where competition no longer functions. iOS market share is strongest in the states I believe at 57%, which is certainly high but not even remotely approaching a monopoly.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>iOS market share is strongest in the states I believe at 57%, which is certainly high but not even remotely approaching a monopoly. Ackchyually you don't need to be a monopoly to warp the whole market in your favor. Windows was a monopoly back in the day with ~95% market share, but users could easily install any other apps and any other browser besides IE. The issue was many users stuck with IE because it was the default, but Microsoft wasn't blocking them from installing other browsers than IE or other apps not sold through their channels. Meanwhile, Apple might have only 57%-60% market share instead of ~95%, but unlike Microsoft, it's actively blocking users form installing any other browser that's not Safari based and any app that's not on the AppStore, therefore doing even more damage than Microsoft was doing back in the days. And speaking of iPhone market share, despite being it 57%-60% of the US right now, it's also the most wealthy and influential of the market, and looking at the demographics, it's at 87% amongst US teens, so it's safe to assume those teens will stick to iPhone when they grow up due to inertia and network effects, and then iOS market share will be close to 90%, therefore a guaranteed monopoly.
- TimPC 3y ago
  The fact that the most popular option in a demographic where someone else pays for the phone is the most expensive option says almost nothing about what those users will do when they have to spend their own money on an option. I highly doubt 87% of the population will be buying a luxury brand with their own money. Convincing mommy and daddy it’s socially isolating to be on Android sure. But their own money in their 20s I doubt it.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    > I highly doubt 87% of the population will be buying a luxury brand with their own money. You're making it sound like they're Lamborghinis or Patek watches. Maybe in developing countries iPhone is a luxury brand, but in no way is it in any western developed countries, especially the US, the wealthiest of them all. Yes they're expensive as in that's a lot of money compared to a 600 Euro Pixel 8 or a 350 Euro Samsung A54 which do more or less the same shit as an iPhone does, but they're not unaffordably expensive in order to be a luxury good. >But their own money in their 20s I doubt it. Credit, installments and carrier plans, make it that anyone can afford an iPhone. I live in a central EU country where average income is less than the US, and even the pizza delivery courier here can get an iPhone. Let's do some napkin math: The iPhone 15 Pro is ~1200 Euros with tax here. A full time supermarket "wagie" with no education takes home nearly 1800 Euros per month after taxes. Subtract 600 Euros rent, 400 for eating, 200 for utilities and bills, and you're left with about 600 a month to spend as you please. So you can buy the latest iPhone after saving for 2 months, or instantly by walking in to any carrier shop and signing a 3 year contract for a plan which you need anyway. How is that "luxury"? Yes I know, this lifestyle is probably luxury compared to how average people live in some nations from Africa, Asia, LATAM and Middle East, but definitely not in the developed west. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be selling them by the boatlaod.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > Meanwhile, Apple might have only 57%-60% market share instead of ~95%, but unlike Microsoft, it's actively blocking users form installing any other browser that's not Safari based and any app that's not on the AppStore, therefore doing even more damage than Microsoft was doing back in the days. Okay so like: humor me. What is the damage incurred by the user's inability to install, for example, a true Firefox on iOS that uses their Quantum engine? I'll fully cosign that iOS' Safari has quirks that make it kind of annoying, very occasionally, like once every few months I'll find something that it does in a bizarre way that others don't. But I swear every time the topic of iOS' dominance comes up, there is a detachment of users out there who are simply furious that they can't install a web browser that doesn't use Apple's WebKit on an iOS device and I just... I do not get it. At the absolute worst I have never given even 10% of the shit required to where I would upend all my stored passwords and whatnot for the ability to even use a different WebKit based browser. Now, granted, if this was the situation on the Mac, oh hell yes, I would absolutely be right there with everyone else and grabbing my own pitchfork. But on my phone? On my tablet? I dunno, am I weird for just not really caring?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    It's not directly affecting you the user, it's affecting the market of app and web developer which have no choice but to dance to Apple's tune as they control a large chuck of a very lucrative market. Why should you, the user, care? For the same reason users care when Micros ft was a monopoly on desktop.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      How is that different than web developers being required to dance to the tune of basically every major browser? They all have little oddities that have to be taken into account, speaking as someone who has done quite a bit of web development, every major browser has it's deviations from the standard, intentional and often otherwise, that require little tweaks to one's code. And to be totally honest with you, a lot of Safari iOS's quirks are unambiguously good, pro-privacy practices that frustrate the shit out of surveillance marketing firms and I quite hope Apple keeps it up.
jwells89 3y ago
Surprisingly, iOS is a bit more popular in Japan than it is in the US, where it has ~68% marketshare. That market usually favors local manufacturers (Sony among other local companies still make Android phones), but that for some reason doesn’t apply in this case. Still not a monopoly though.
ameister14 3y ago
>every business is anti-competitive That's not actually true. Every business is competitive, but not every business engages in anti-competitive behavior.

floydnoel 3y ago

Being anticompetitive isn't illegal, basically it is encouraged/incentivized for companies. The snag is for companies with monopoly power- they are prohibited from abusing their monopoly via anticompetitive behavior.

madeofpalk 3y ago
What’s an example of something that’s anti-competitive but legal?
- ukuina 3y ago
  Loss leaders. See "Loss leading as an exploitative practice": http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2012/lossleading_rev_12-2011.pdf http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/wp/2012/lossle...
- sudofox 3y ago
  Intentionally pushing competition out of the market. If you don't have monopolistic power, totally legal.
- mardef 3y ago
  Everything about iOS Apple has excluded all other browsers on iOS, requires you to buy more apple hardware to produce software for iOS, and has all of their rules around IAP and not allowing you to even link to an alternate store in many cases. If iOS had a 90% market share in the US, I bet they'd have a lot more legal troubles
- thfuran 3y ago
  Exclusivity deals are commonplace.
- bhpm 3y ago
  Zero rating, like when wireless carriers don’t charge for certain bandwidth but do for others.
  - 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

The dissonant threshold is dominance not monopoly. But specifically willfully and intentionally conspiring to use that dominance to manipulate pricing, exclude competition, and otherwise distort cross market structure to their advantage. The MSFT vs DOJ did in fact use their monopoly power in operating systems to enter a new commercial market, price anticompetitively (price a competitors commercial product at zero), bundle with their new product with monopoly product in a mandatory and exclusionary way, etc. The actions were willful and planned, had no other commercial consideration other than harming competition. Even so the action came many years too late and Microsoft had successfully destroyed Netscape and it took until Chrome before any competition surfaced.

xethos 3y ago
You're right, in that Microsoft used their dominance in one market (operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (web browsers) Apple or Google would have to be doing something similar, like using their dominance in one market (operating systems) to gain an advantage in a seperate market - for example, music streaming services (Apple Music, Youtube Premium) or web browsers (Chrome, as pushed heavily by the world's most prominent OS, Android) To be clear: Android is not the entire reason Chrome is ubiquitous. My arugument is that Android is, pretty clearly IMO, a competitive advantage when pushing a web browser.
- leereeves 3y ago
  Apple is not only pushing their web browser, they're mandating it. Safari is the only browser allowed on iOS. How is that not anticompetitive?
  - cnlwsu 3y ago
    I’m viewing this from chrome on iOS. What are you talking about
    - gkbrk 3y ago
      Nope, you're viewing it from a Webkit wrapper made by Google that shares same name. Chrome is a web browser using the Blink engine, and it doesn't run on iOS devices.

DiabloD3 3y ago

That isn't true though. In the US, Apple is a minority player. I have no clue why Wall Street values them as a $1T company, when all they do anymore is make a bunch of phones that are under-competitive and over-expensive. The only time in the past few years that iPhones out sold Android phones in the US (the only market which Apple is a major player in; any of the global markets, they're virtually a nobody) was a glitch in 2021, most likely due to being pandemic-inspired. Never before nor since have they broken the 50% barrier. Although I 100% agree with what the EU is doing to Apple (and I hope they keep going), I don't understand why they're bothering with such a relative small fry, when Google doing the exact same thing on the Google Play Store is right there, and Google has far more capability of paying fines than Apple does.

matthewmacleod 3y ago
Apple is a $1T company—actually, $2.8T—because it brings in over $100bn a year in operating income, and was literally the world's single biggest seller of smartphones globally in 2023. The overall Google ecosystem is obviously more popular worldwide – but the idea that Apple only "makes a bunch of under-competitive phones", are "virtually a nobody" in the global market, or are a "small fry" is low-effort trolling.
jakub_g 3y ago
Apple has 61% mobile market share in US, and in 2023 it shipped worldwide more phones than Samsung. Having a hefty margin on each device, avg price being way bigger than average Android; on top of that, their % share of total revenue coming from services (app store, subscriptions etc) compared to hardware shipments keeps growing every year. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/apple-hits-all-time-high-smartphone-market-share-takes-1-spot-for-2023/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/apple-hits-all-time-... https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...
capybara_2020 3y ago
It looks like the iPhone has always had more than 50% market share and right now it is at 61% https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/#monthly-201511-202401 https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...