4 ms·

You use the term Android like it is a corporation or a brand. Are you comparing iOS to Android OS or Apple to Samsung, Google etc.? I agree that Apple commands

You use the term Android like it is a corporation or a brand. Are you comparing iOS to Android OS or Apple to Samsung, Google etc.? I agree that Apple commands a relatively small share of the US mobile ecosystem, but where do the competitors stand?

cow_boat 3y ago
Apple sells over 60% of new smart phones in the US.
metabagel 3y ago
Android is a brand. It's trademarked by Google.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Linux is trademarked as well. Is Linux a competitor to the iphone?
  - samatman 3y ago
    Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Imagine you're an Apple lawyer, and you're explaining to the regulators that you are facing serious competition. You gonna send them that link?
      - samatman 3y ago
        I didn't say Linux was especially good competition for iOS. But unless you can demonstrate that it sucks because Apple is doing something which qualifies as restraint-of-trade, which I would suggest is obviously not the case, that doesn't matter.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        It actually does matter if it has no practical bearing on Apple’s market (most easily seen in pricing) power. Theoretical competition is not sufficient to demonstrate absence of a monopoly.
        samatman 3y ago
        It's not theoretical competition. It's actual competition, which is bad. These are not the same thing. The doctrine that it's your fault if your competitors suck makes no sense. It's weaponized tall-poppy syndrome.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        That's not the doctrine. The doctrine is that you can't exercise monopoly power in certain ways. Monopoly power is an empirical question, and does not turn on merely whether it is possible to describe a market in which another product exists, but whether that is a real market in which the products are in fact competitive. But even if you have monopoly power, if you aren't illegally exercising it, you aren't in trouble. So you aren't punished for being an empirical monopoly.
- screamingninja 3y ago
  You're correct, it is a brand. The point stands though. Comparing "Apple" to "Android" does not work. Perhaps a comparison between iOS App Store and Google Play Store would be more apt, but that is another discussion.
bruce511 3y ago
iPhone is not a monopoly since z lot of companies sell phones, and with significant market share. iOS is not a monopoly since at least one other major operating system exists, with significant market share. (Whether Linux is or isn't a competitor is irrelevant.) A monopoly by itself is not a problem. Only behavior ancillary to that monopoly is. But to get there you have you have a monopoly. I don't see how you make the case. Clearly consumers have choice. Now, there's a case to be made for bad behavior, but its weak. Apple will argue that consumers have choices. But I am not a lawyer, so I'll leave it up to the lawyers on both sides to earn some fees discussing it.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Apple is competing against multiple companies, all of which are minorities relative to the iPhone's market share. These companies use derivatives of Android, but still compete against one another and Apple all the same. Android and Linux aren't competing companies, they're operating systems that are forked by OEMs and manufacturers to provide an OS. So, now let's introduce iOS into the equation. Apple can differentiate their product, but how much is considered acceptable before regulators complain? The DOJ was quite straightforward today, accusing Apple of using iMessage to degrade user experiences through exclusion. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a...?

cow_boat 3y ago

Apple sells over 60% of new smart phones in the US.

metabagel 3y ago

Android is a brand. It's trademarked by Google.

freedomben 3y ago
Linux is trademarked as well. Is Linux a competitor to the iphone?
- samatman 3y ago
  Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Imagine you're an Apple lawyer, and you're explaining to the regulators that you are facing serious competition. You gonna send them that link?
    - samatman 3y ago
      I didn't say Linux was especially good competition for iOS. But unless you can demonstrate that it sucks because Apple is doing something which qualifies as restraint-of-trade, which I would suggest is obviously not the case, that doesn't matter.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        It actually does matter if it has no practical bearing on Apple’s market (most easily seen in pricing) power. Theoretical competition is not sufficient to demonstrate absence of a monopoly.
        samatman 3y ago
        It's not theoretical competition. It's actual competition, which is bad. These are not the same thing. The doctrine that it's your fault if your competitors suck makes no sense. It's weaponized tall-poppy syndrome.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        That's not the doctrine. The doctrine is that you can't exercise monopoly power in certain ways. Monopoly power is an empirical question, and does not turn on merely whether it is possible to describe a market in which another product exists, but whether that is a real market in which the products are in fact competitive. But even if you have monopoly power, if you aren't illegally exercising it, you aren't in trouble. So you aren't punished for being an empirical monopoly.
screamingninja 3y ago
You're correct, it is a brand. The point stands though. Comparing "Apple" to "Android" does not work. Perhaps a comparison between iOS App Store and Google Play Store would be more apt, but that is another discussion.

bruce511 3y ago

iPhone is not a monopoly since z lot of companies sell phones, and with significant market share. iOS is not a monopoly since at least one other major operating system exists, with significant market share. (Whether Linux is or isn't a competitor is irrelevant.) A monopoly by itself is not a problem. Only behavior ancillary to that monopoly is. But to get there you have you have a monopoly. I don't see how you make the case. Clearly consumers have choice. Now, there's a case to be made for bad behavior, but its weak. Apple will argue that consumers have choices. But I am not a lawyer, so I'll leave it up to the lawyers on both sides to earn some fees discussing it.

smoldesu 3y ago
Apple is competing against multiple companies, all of which are minorities relative to the iPhone's market share. These companies use derivatives of Android, but still compete against one another and Apple all the same. Android and Linux aren't competing companies, they're operating systems that are forked by OEMs and manufacturers to provide an OS. So, now let's introduce iOS into the equation. Apple can differentiate their product, but how much is considered acceptable before regulators complain? The DOJ was quite straightforward today, accusing Apple of using iMessage to degrade user experiences through exclusion. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a...?