7 ms·

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly. There are many non-apple phon

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly. There are many non-apple phone options that many consumers easily avail themselves of. And at least one other OS choice as well. All of these are fully supported by the entire ecosystem of telcos. Seems like bullying to score political points to me.

jqpabc123 3y ago
Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. This case is about the US marketplace, globally is irrelevant. And it is about more than just marketshare. Apple's tactics restrict the entire marketplace --- not just Apple captives. Whole classes of apps are simply not practically possible on Android without paying monetary tribute to Apple. For example, universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper. Few people will use a messaging app if it can't communicate with 60% of their friends. And the only to make this happen is to pay Apple.
- Someone 3y ago
  Huh? Don’t WhatsApp, Signal, etc. work in the USA? Or does anybody pay for them?
  - s17n 3y ago
    In the US you can actually lose relationships if you don't have imessage. None of the other apps matter.
    - crop_rotation 3y ago
      The fact that people are shallow is not a reason to break up companies. Some social circles will kick you out if you don't wear luxury clothes, but you don't see the government forcing those companies to lower prices.
      - jobs_throwaway 3y ago
        No one is suggesting breaking up apple over this, merely forcing them to allow interoperability
      - _cenw 3y ago
        This is very much not an isolated thing. People are very lazy and don't want to change their usual patterns unless something goes really wrong. I would love to not use Discord, but I'd lose messaging with about half my social circle.
      - s17n 3y ago
        https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/calif-residents-sue-hermes-birkin-scheme-19361023.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/calif-residents-sue-h...
    - misnome 3y ago
      *Teenagers, who are of course known for being perfectly rational in such things. Next you can sue designer clothing companies for not handing their products out for free to poor teens.
      - s17n 3y ago
        I'm not talking about teenagers. If you think that your social life is the same with and without imessage you're wrong, regardless of how old you are. Using any other app just adds friction - obviously your best friend isn't going to stop talking to you because of it but weaker relationships might not survive.
        tatrajim 3y ago
        And in my circle, my home address, the kind of car I drive, the universities I attended, and the places I vacation all affect -- subtly and sometimes more blatantly -- my relationships. Are you arguing for absolute uniformity across all choices in life?
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    Or does anybody pay for them? Yes --- unless they've been anointed with a special "friends and family" exemption offered in select cases. WhatsApp Business is a subscription product. The fruit deity demands 30% tribute for this from any ordinary developer.
- roamerz 3y ago
  >>universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper There is in fact universal messaging - it's called SMS. You don't need to pay Apple to use it. If you would have added secure to your example then yes that would be correct.
AlotOfReading 3y ago
Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. Absolute market share isn't the only factor that goes into determining monopoly. You also get different numbers from different definitions. Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, or ~80% of the mobile subscription market, etc.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Apple controls 100% of the iOS market… This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Perhaps the more sensical version is "Apple controls 100% of the iOS app store market". Because no other app stores are allowed.
  - jonwinstanley 3y ago
    Of course it's non-sensical, right up until that thing grows to be a large part of the US economy. I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.
    - misnome 3y ago
      You are agreeing with the parent poster, who is saying that the 80% matters, and it's nonsensical to call the 80% 100%.
  - throw_a_grenade 3y ago
    On the contrary, it's exactly on the spot. EU used the term "gatekeeper" for such a market position, where you can dictate the terms of the market (and have oversized influence over other participant's behviour), while dodging classification of "monopolist" on technicality. It's exactly the point.
bogwog 3y ago
> That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly The word "monopoly" needs to be banned from these types of discussions because it always derails the conversation into pointless semantic bickering. There is no definition of that word that will make everyone happy. Even if Apple had 99.999% marketshare, as long as there's some hacker selling DIY linux phones under a bridge somehwere, someone's going to say Apple CAN'T be a monopoly because they have a competitor. There are many reasons why antitrust laws exist, and these lawsuits tend to be really complex. There's not a simple `if(company.is_monopoly()) sue(company);` program that the FTC and DOJ use to decide when to sue.
toast0 3y ago
The FTC is perhaps a biased source, but they say [1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. The US doesn't have antitrust authority for the world, only for the US. iPhone has had 60% market share (or similar) for a long time now, so it's fair to consider that Apple has significant and durable market power in mobile phones. Is it a complete monopoly? No, but it doesn't need to be. From a very brief skim of the claims, the clearest one that stands out to me is the one about smartwatches. If Apple does provide better integrations to Apple Watches than 3rd party watches, that's pretty clearly 'tying' which is prohibited when using a market dominant product to create market dominance in a new market (smartwatches). OTOH, it wouldn't have been a big deal if the Microsoft Band had better integrations than other watches on Windows Phone, because tying is allowed without market dominance. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- graeme 3y ago
  >that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Apple doesn't have this power though. If they raised prices they'd lose sales. And they haven't been able to exclude competitors, there is a robust ecosytem of Android manufacturers. There's a reason the FTC has been losing almost all of their cases recently. They internalized the idea that a large successful company is inherently bad and focus on that rather than any objective legal standard.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
nottorp 3y ago
> There are many non-apple phone options One non-apple phone option. Or you're somehow deluded into thinking the hardware matters any more?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nox101 3y ago
You realize the world market is irrelevant. If some company has a monopoly in France, they don't care whether or not that company has less market in other countries. Apple has a monopoly in the USA and so the USA is going to try to break that monopoly. Google has already been sued and lost on it's app store market share. Apple's is larger.
pquki4 3y ago
60% sounds good enough for DoJ to sue, as a US government agency. Why do you even bother to quote "25% globally", it's meaningless here.
InsomniacL 3y ago
The smartphone market is irrelevant. If my water provider said "We're the only water provider so we're raising rates 1000%, take it or leave it", you would still say that's a monopoly even though i could move house to an area with another water provider. Apple has a 100% monopoly though it's AppStore on 2 billion devices though which $90,000,000,000 in trade is conducted. If that's not a market big enough to be considered for Anti-Competitive practices and illegally maintaining a monopoly then i don't know what is. That's more trade than the entire GDP of Luxembourg!

jqpabc123 3y ago

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. This case is about the US marketplace, globally is irrelevant. And it is about more than just marketshare. Apple's tactics restrict the entire marketplace --- not just Apple captives. Whole classes of apps are simply not practically possible on Android without paying monetary tribute to Apple. For example, universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper. Few people will use a messaging app if it can't communicate with 60% of their friends. And the only to make this happen is to pay Apple.

Someone 3y ago
Huh? Don’t WhatsApp, Signal, etc. work in the USA? Or does anybody pay for them?
- s17n 3y ago
  In the US you can actually lose relationships if you don't have imessage. None of the other apps matter.
  - crop_rotation 3y ago
    The fact that people are shallow is not a reason to break up companies. Some social circles will kick you out if you don't wear luxury clothes, but you don't see the government forcing those companies to lower prices.
    - jobs_throwaway 3y ago
      No one is suggesting breaking up apple over this, merely forcing them to allow interoperability
    - _cenw 3y ago
      This is very much not an isolated thing. People are very lazy and don't want to change their usual patterns unless something goes really wrong. I would love to not use Discord, but I'd lose messaging with about half my social circle.
    - s17n 3y ago
      https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/calif-residents-sue-hermes-birkin-scheme-19361023.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/calif-residents-sue-h...
  - misnome 3y ago
    *Teenagers, who are of course known for being perfectly rational in such things. Next you can sue designer clothing companies for not handing their products out for free to poor teens.
    - s17n 3y ago
      I'm not talking about teenagers. If you think that your social life is the same with and without imessage you're wrong, regardless of how old you are. Using any other app just adds friction - obviously your best friend isn't going to stop talking to you because of it but weaker relationships might not survive.
      - tatrajim 3y ago
        And in my circle, my home address, the kind of car I drive, the universities I attended, and the places I vacation all affect -- subtly and sometimes more blatantly -- my relationships. Are you arguing for absolute uniformity across all choices in life?
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Or does anybody pay for them? Yes --- unless they've been anointed with a special "friends and family" exemption offered in select cases. WhatsApp Business is a subscription product. The fruit deity demands 30% tribute for this from any ordinary developer.
roamerz 3y ago
>>universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper There is in fact universal messaging - it's called SMS. You don't need to pay Apple to use it. If you would have added secure to your example then yes that would be correct.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. Absolute market share isn't the only factor that goes into determining monopoly. You also get different numbers from different definitions. Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, or ~80% of the mobile subscription market, etc.

CharlesW 3y ago
> Apple controls 100% of the iOS market… This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.
- afavour 3y ago
  Perhaps the more sensical version is "Apple controls 100% of the iOS app store market". Because no other app stores are allowed.
- jonwinstanley 3y ago
  Of course it's non-sensical, right up until that thing grows to be a large part of the US economy. I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.
  - misnome 3y ago
    You are agreeing with the parent poster, who is saying that the 80% matters, and it's nonsensical to call the 80% 100%.
- throw_a_grenade 3y ago
  On the contrary, it's exactly on the spot. EU used the term "gatekeeper" for such a market position, where you can dictate the terms of the market (and have oversized influence over other participant's behviour), while dodging classification of "monopolist" on technicality. It's exactly the point.

bogwog 3y ago

> That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly The word "monopoly" needs to be banned from these types of discussions because it always derails the conversation into pointless semantic bickering. There is no definition of that word that will make everyone happy. Even if Apple had 99.999% marketshare, as long as there's some hacker selling DIY linux phones under a bridge somehwere, someone's going to say Apple CAN'T be a monopoly because they have a competitor. There are many reasons why antitrust laws exist, and these lawsuits tend to be really complex. There's not a simple `if(company.is_monopoly()) sue(company);` program that the FTC and DOJ use to decide when to sue.

toast0 3y ago

The FTC is perhaps a biased source, but they say [1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. The US doesn't have antitrust authority for the world, only for the US. iPhone has had 60% market share (or similar) for a long time now, so it's fair to consider that Apple has significant and durable market power in mobile phones. Is it a complete monopoly? No, but it doesn't need to be. From a very brief skim of the claims, the clearest one that stands out to me is the one about smartwatches. If Apple does provide better integrations to Apple Watches than 3rd party watches, that's pretty clearly 'tying' which is prohibited when using a market dominant product to create market dominance in a new market (smartwatches). OTOH, it wouldn't have been a big deal if the Microsoft Band had better integrations than other watches on Windows Phone, because tying is allowed without market dominance. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

graeme 3y ago
>that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Apple doesn't have this power though. If they raised prices they'd lose sales. And they haven't been able to exclude competitors, there is a robust ecosytem of Android manufacturers. There's a reason the FTC has been losing almost all of their cases recently. They internalized the idea that a large successful company is inherently bad and focus on that rather than any objective legal standard.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

> There are many non-apple phone options One non-apple phone option. Or you're somehow deluded into thinking the hardware matters any more?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nox101 3y ago

You realize the world market is irrelevant. If some company has a monopoly in France, they don't care whether or not that company has less market in other countries. Apple has a monopoly in the USA and so the USA is going to try to break that monopoly. Google has already been sued and lost on it's app store market share. Apple's is larger.

pquki4 3y ago

60% sounds good enough for DoJ to sue, as a US government agency. Why do you even bother to quote "25% globally", it's meaningless here.

InsomniacL 3y ago

The smartphone market is irrelevant. If my water provider said "We're the only water provider so we're raising rates 1000%, take it or leave it", you would still say that's a monopoly even though i could move house to an area with another water provider. Apple has a 100% monopoly though it's AppStore on 2 billion devices though which $90,000,000,000 in trade is conducted. If that's not a market big enough to be considered for Anti-Competitive practices and illegally maintaining a monopoly then i don't know what is. That's more trade than the entire GDP of Luxembourg!