3 ms·
>You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means. You don't seem to understand that gatekeeping doesn't mean your myopic understanding of it. In the examp
by ProfessorLayton 2y ago
>You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means.
You don't seem to understand that gatekeeping doesn't mean your myopic understanding of it.
In the examples given the businesses restrict access to (i.e. "Gatekeep") "their" customers to those that want access to them. In the Costco example, if Coke wants to sell to their customers, they'll have to come to terms with Costco before doing so. No agreement with Costco means no access to Costco customers, which is a lot of customers. That's all it takes to meet the definition gatekeeping, because that's what it is.
If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions.
Which then leads to market power. It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se, but abusing their market position to amass undue control over the market they operate in. That's when antitrust laws come into effect, and why we're seeing Apple in the crosshairs of the DOJ and not Nintendo.
It has everything to do with market power.
- lapcat 2y ago> No agreement with Costco means no access to Costco customers, which is a lot of customers. Specifically, it means no access to Costco customers inside Costco. But again, Costco customers are not forced to shop in Costco. They can shop anywhere they please, including but not limited to Costco. That's the essential difference. iPhone customers are forced to shop for apps inside the App Store. They have no access to alternative stores, unlike Costco customers. Costco cannot prevent their customers from shopping for the same goods in other stores. > If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions. Agreed. > It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se I think it should be. In my opinion, it's one and the same with the right to repair. Once I pay for my computer and walk out the door, it ought to be mine to do with as I please. I don't want to get into a debate about what "is" legal or illegal in the United States. As I see it, the law is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is on any given day, precedents and principles be damned. And antitrust enforcement has been practically nonexistent since Microsoft got a slap on the wrist a couple decades ago. I don't expect Apple to have much trouble here in the near future. Of course Europe is another matter.