4 ms·
It can be argued that it is not monopolistic, because it dies not have 50% of market share. At the same time, it is a clever technique. Create a walled garden,
by falserum 3y ago
It can be argued that it is not monopolistic, because it dies not have 50% of market share.
At the same time, it is a clever technique. Create a walled garden, and subvert free market (act anticompetitively) only there.
As long as your garden does not exeed 50% of the land, your golden.
- InsomniacL 3y ago> It can be argued that it is not monopolistic Depends where you draw the line. The AppStore has 100% market share of the iPhone platform. Can Microsoft Windows block all web browsers except for Microsoft Edge because it only has a 29% share of device Operating System's?
- qarl 3y ago> The AppStore has 100% market share of the iPhone platform. Well, sure. But my local H&M has a monopoly inside the H&M. For example, they don't allow any competitor's products inside their store. Would you call that a monopoly?
- fsflover 3y agoYes, if there are only two stores in the world.
- InsomniacL 3y agoIf H&M was the only store that 2.2 billion people could use for anything, I would absolutely call that a monopoly. You can choose to shop anywhere without incurring significant detriment, you can event get H&M products at other stores.
- qarl 3y agoOk - so you're arguing that the threshold for monopoly should be well below 50%? And that should apply to any company that passed that threshold? For example, Tesla has a monopoly on electric cars? Do I have that right?
- InsomniacL 3y agoObviously not. In the descending hirarchy, you could have.. - Electronic Devices (Computers, Laptops) - Portable Devices (Laptops, Phones) - Mobile Phones (Samsung, Google, Apple) - Mobile Phone OS (Android, IOS) - Mobile Phone App Stores (Google Play, Apple AppStore, Aamazon App Store) You're drawing the line at where a monopoly is applicable at Mobile Phones. I'm saying since IOS has 2.2 billion devices, you can consider that it's own market large enough to be applicable for monopoly purses.
- qarl 3y agoI'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying it's a matter of absolute numbers (2.2 billion devices) and not percentage of market capture? As I understand it, McDonalds has sold over 99 billion Big Macs.
- piva00 3y agoIt's a matter of both and that's where nuance gets into play... Is McDonald's the only place people can eat a burger because they purchased a McDonald's product and are now tied to their ecosystem? No. Is Apple's App Store the only place people can purchase apps for their products that they also purchased from Apple? That smells a bit fishier. Context, nuance, etc. are important, that's where analogies fail because almost every analogy is broken at some level, it's an abstraction and not reality.
- InsomniacL 3y ago> For example, Tesla has a monopoly on electric cars? Tesla has sold 5.5 million cars, If Tesla decided tomorrow that I can only charge at a Tesla charger I would consider that applicable for Monopoly purposes. Tesla is a platform provider, and when they are competing with a separate product for that platform, with enough scale that should be applicable for Monopoly/Anti-Trust. > I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying it's a matter of absolute numbers (2.2 billion devices) and not percentage of market capture? My point is, with 2.2 billion devices, that's large enough to be considered it's own market that can be subjected to a monopoly. > As I understand it, McDonalds has sold over 99 billion Big Macs. I think you're just being facetious now. Big Macs do not have their own market below them.
- InsomniacL 3y agolike it or not; Europe has drawn the line. Apple is doing it's best to only put one foot over and leave one foot on the other side.
- falserum 3y agoYes, I agree, the line is blury, because it’s hard (impossible) to define objectively what market it operates in.