3 ms·

> But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Does 20.1 percent market share constitute a monopoly?(2023 Forbes) Seems like p

> But you and I aren't entitled to a sustained monopoly because it benefits us. Does 20.1 percent market share constitute a monopoly?(2023 Forbes) Seems like people have plenty of choices of what kind of cell phone to purchase. >treat their every action with scrutiny Is that not what the free market does? When companies make poor choices customers punish them. (Budweiser 2023)

kmeisthax 3y ago
The issue isn't the size of Apple's market share, it's the tying between their hardware, the OS software, and app store, such that if you choose to buy their phone, you also are locked into their app store. Apple is not subject to market forces because Apple is not a capitalist entity, it is a feudalist one. It is not a merchant buying metal and glass to turn into phones, it is a feudal lord that has put a gate on the river that anyone passing buy has to pay 30% in order to open.
- simondotau 3y ago
  > if you choose to buy their [device], you also are locked into their [software ecosystem]. Other than desktop computing, this describes nearly everything sold to consumers. For people in the Hacker News audience, desktop computing would feel like a gargantuan exception, but for most other people it isn't. Android is a partial exception, but one gets the sense from Google's recent behaviour that openness is an unwelcome vestige of its open source beginnings.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    It's not an exception. Binary distribution is the norm - Apple founded their business on that norm, found success in it, fostered it and continues to support it on MacOS. The App Store style of distribution is not a replacement for it, especially when the escape hatches for developers cost an annual fee and still has limitations. If it takes legislation to change that, so be it. This is not the future for computing that anyone wanted. If there's a good reason iOS can't run third-party software, now's the time to fix it. Otherwise, Apple might have to find a new economic zone to invest in.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      If your life revolves around desktop computers, I can see why you would think it’s the norm.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Apple themselves distributed software as a binary before they had an App Store. If there was some other "norm" to speak of, it didn't exist when the Apple IIc hit shelves.
        simondotau 3y ago
        Correct, it didn't exist back then, because just about the only software a consumer would ever be exposed to was some kind of desktop computer. The closed model got its early start in the nineties when it became increasingly common for consumer devices to include software in their design. Among the earliest examples of this emerging new normal in its gestational phase would be game consoles from the 16-bit era onwards. It also included just about all pre-smart cellular phones (but for occasional a rather pointless Java support), nearly all printers, nearly all camcorders, and so on. There are probably between 5 and 50 internet connected "computers" in the typical home and the typical consumer has some semblance of software control on maybe three of them.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Game consoles defend their software ecosystem because they don't have hardware margins (unlike Apple). Apple could try to use the console manufacturer defense, but they'd have to abandon their biggest cash cow to make it work. > nearly all printers, nearly all camcorders, and so on. I'm really starting to think nobody here read the Digital Service Act. Unless your toaster or smart-refrigerator is a gatekeeper platform with the required number of users, it doesn't matter. Apple is rightfully being called out for anticompetitive conduct, regardless of how you feel about the morality of an App Store. If App Stores are the future, we'll have to Think Different and implement them in better way. Apple has their work cut out for them, the preemptive apologism falls on deaf ears.
smoldesu 3y ago
> Does 20.1 percent market share constitute a monopoly? Depends how it's used. Wabash v. Illinois set the precedent that a far-minority can be a monopoly if they block a government-designated common carrier. Europe's DMA doesn't even mention monopolies at all, and instead sets a new compliance bar for large tech-related companies. Japan's legislation is headed in the same direction. Seems entirely feasible to me that the App Store or Safari policies could be seen as obstruction of a common service. Apple's de-facto tax hasn't been explicitly blocked in the US yet, but it also has never been explicitly sanctioned. Without guidelines like the DMA in place, Apple is flying blind against US regulators. Microsoft got trapped deep in that hall of mirrors, and nearly paid the ultimate price. > Is that not what the free market does? The free market is supplanted by a government that ensures that only a non-lethal portion of rat feces is processed into your container of SPAM or McDonalds meal. They prevent you from exposure to what businesses call, "profit maximization". If you have a good government, they treat you a little better. They punish the companies that violate consumer rights and scrutinize anticompetitive behavior when it shows up. The free market chooses between regulated competitors; if you think that's unfair, you can move to a country without the rat-feces regulators and see how your breakfast tastes over there. Then we can all be happy. > When companies make poor choices customers punish them. (Budweiser 2023) Your evidence is proof to the contrary of your claim. Budweiser wasn't "punished" for making an anticompetitive move, they were boycott because insecure Budweiser customers had a slow news cycle. If Apple had customers protesting for the same reasons, they'd never even know. "Poor choices" notwithstanding, Apple customers couldn't be assed if they were angry. Suicide nets go up at Foxconn and the harshest words HN or MacRumors can muster is 'poor choice of manufacturing partner'. Conscientious startups and their Macbooks, nary separated any easier than protesting trailer parks and Budweiser.

kmeisthax 3y ago

The issue isn't the size of Apple's market share, it's the tying between their hardware, the OS software, and app store, such that if you choose to buy their phone, you also are locked into their app store. Apple is not subject to market forces because Apple is not a capitalist entity, it is a feudalist one. It is not a merchant buying metal and glass to turn into phones, it is a feudal lord that has put a gate on the river that anyone passing buy has to pay 30% in order to open.

simondotau 3y ago
> if you choose to buy their [device], you also are locked into their [software ecosystem]. Other than desktop computing, this describes nearly everything sold to consumers. For people in the Hacker News audience, desktop computing would feel like a gargantuan exception, but for most other people it isn't. Android is a partial exception, but one gets the sense from Google's recent behaviour that openness is an unwelcome vestige of its open source beginnings.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  It's not an exception. Binary distribution is the norm - Apple founded their business on that norm, found success in it, fostered it and continues to support it on MacOS. The App Store style of distribution is not a replacement for it, especially when the escape hatches for developers cost an annual fee and still has limitations. If it takes legislation to change that, so be it. This is not the future for computing that anyone wanted. If there's a good reason iOS can't run third-party software, now's the time to fix it. Otherwise, Apple might have to find a new economic zone to invest in.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    If your life revolves around desktop computers, I can see why you would think it’s the norm.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Apple themselves distributed software as a binary before they had an App Store. If there was some other "norm" to speak of, it didn't exist when the Apple IIc hit shelves.
      - simondotau 3y ago
        Correct, it didn't exist back then, because just about the only software a consumer would ever be exposed to was some kind of desktop computer. The closed model got its early start in the nineties when it became increasingly common for consumer devices to include software in their design. Among the earliest examples of this emerging new normal in its gestational phase would be game consoles from the 16-bit era onwards. It also included just about all pre-smart cellular phones (but for occasional a rather pointless Java support), nearly all printers, nearly all camcorders, and so on. There are probably between 5 and 50 internet connected "computers" in the typical home and the typical consumer has some semblance of software control on maybe three of them.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Game consoles defend their software ecosystem because they don't have hardware margins (unlike Apple). Apple could try to use the console manufacturer defense, but they'd have to abandon their biggest cash cow to make it work. > nearly all printers, nearly all camcorders, and so on. I'm really starting to think nobody here read the Digital Service Act. Unless your toaster or smart-refrigerator is a gatekeeper platform with the required number of users, it doesn't matter. Apple is rightfully being called out for anticompetitive conduct, regardless of how you feel about the morality of an App Store. If App Stores are the future, we'll have to Think Different and implement them in better way. Apple has their work cut out for them, the preemptive apologism falls on deaf ears.

smoldesu 3y ago

> Does 20.1 percent market share constitute a monopoly? Depends how it's used. Wabash v. Illinois set the precedent that a far-minority can be a monopoly if they block a government-designated common carrier. Europe's DMA doesn't even mention monopolies at all, and instead sets a new compliance bar for large tech-related companies. Japan's legislation is headed in the same direction. Seems entirely feasible to me that the App Store or Safari policies could be seen as obstruction of a common service. Apple's de-facto tax hasn't been explicitly blocked in the US yet, but it also has never been explicitly sanctioned. Without guidelines like the DMA in place, Apple is flying blind against US regulators. Microsoft got trapped deep in that hall of mirrors, and nearly paid the ultimate price. > Is that not what the free market does? The free market is supplanted by a government that ensures that only a non-lethal portion of rat feces is processed into your container of SPAM or McDonalds meal. They prevent you from exposure to what businesses call, "profit maximization". If you have a good government, they treat you a little better. They punish the companies that violate consumer rights and scrutinize anticompetitive behavior when it shows up. The free market chooses between regulated competitors; if you think that's unfair, you can move to a country without the rat-feces regulators and see how your breakfast tastes over there. Then we can all be happy. > When companies make poor choices customers punish them. (Budweiser 2023) Your evidence is proof to the contrary of your claim. Budweiser wasn't "punished" for making an anticompetitive move, they were boycott because insecure Budweiser customers had a slow news cycle. If Apple had customers protesting for the same reasons, they'd never even know. "Poor choices" notwithstanding, Apple customers couldn't be assed if they were angry. Suicide nets go up at Foxconn and the harshest words HN or MacRumors can muster is 'poor choice of manufacturing partner'. Conscientious startups and their Macbooks, nary separated any easier than protesting trailer parks and Budweiser.