4 ms·

> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, sayi

> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.” The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?

jjtheblunt 2y ago
> We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning. I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Agreed about the App Store mess.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Apple could sell 1 phone a year and still have a monopoly if that single user can only install apps by using Apple services. You could argue the harms are irrelevant in that situation, but they certainly aren't with millions of users in the equation.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. No, they're not, inside the US. In the US, iPhone has a majority of the marketshare now. Outside the US isn't all that relevant since this is a US case in US courts and concerning the US market.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  > still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Not in the US.
thfuran 2y ago
You're suggesting that we ought to pass laws to reflect colloquial usage of all words that are also used in a technical sense in a legal context?
- lxgr 2y ago
  The words are irrelevant; outcomes matter. And yes, why on Earth should laws not have the outcomes that the citizens electing the government that passes them expect? If people don't want a thing they call monopoly or any other word (and wanting that does not violate or contradict other norms or constitutional principles they want even more) isn't that what they should get in a democracy?
braiamp 2y ago
The concept you are looking for is market power or monopoly power. But in reality it should be anti-competitive behavior and market domination. There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo. A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  > There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo. There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
  - runevault 2y ago
    I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics. In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold. In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Their arguments are more against anti-trust. Consider these cases. They will be concluded by Trump’s AG. Which means a DoJ under Gaetz or whomever will have the power to put the country’s largest companies under consent decrees that can contain almost anything. (My guess is something about free speech and DEI.)
slibhb 2y ago
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable? Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid. The biggest irony in all of this is that AI is shaking things up in a major way. New entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic may very well end up beating Apple and Google in various markets over the next few years. The government is picking a time of intense competition and uncertainty to go after these companies.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable? Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all. >Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    > Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.
_heimdall 2y ago
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. Where should the new line be drawn though? And should we expect to move the line again when common opinion on the term adjusts and we again find that the legal definition is out if touch? I'd feel a bit uncomfortable having laws and terms redefined to match what the average person thinks a word means. Its one thing to change a law that people actually disagree with, it feels off to me to change a law because people use words differently in everyday life compared to a court room.
- Glyptodon 2y ago
  I think the classic definitions are fine: - Monopoly: 50%+ of a market - Oligopoly: Just a few companies control most of the market. Apple has more than 50% of mobile device market share. That means they're a monopoly. Apple has 100% control of the app market for their device. This is also a classic form of Monopoly, kind of like a company store, but on a national scale. Meanwhile, the legal definition has shifted because of activist judging by conservative judges, which created the "consumer harm" standard, which is nebulous, and much easier to turn into a wishy-washy judgment call than the actual, original definition. And conveniently lets corporate crony judges make judgments like "look how much consumer benefit there is from iPhones! we could care less how unfair Apple is to app developers," even though the idea that whatever features are in Apple devices that consumers get such benefits from won't still be available to consumers even if there's some anti-monopoly ruling. Like many things in modern America, there's been extensive intentional erosion of things that shouldn't be controversial by what the founders would have referred to as "factions," IE special interests.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    > I think the classic definitions are fine: - Monopoly: 50%+ of a market Classic definition according to whom?
  - 2y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> immune to competition and pressure Correct. They abuse their customers without losing business. Why is that?
- Auracle 2y ago
  Maybe because their customers don’t feel abused in the slightest.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Customers aren't just phone buyers, it's app developers, advertisers, etc.
    - r00fus 2y ago
      Technically those are suppliers, not customers.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        How? They give Apple money.
        r00fus 2y ago
        That pales in comparison to the payouts Apple does to its software suppliers. Just making payments to a company doesn't make you a "customer" in any real sense.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        It's the definition: > a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business. Is the money a donation? WTF are you talking about?
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    More like the general population doesn't understand how technological dark patterns are used against them. Blissful ignorance, while the rest of us, who know whats going on, suffer.

jjtheblunt 2y ago

> We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning. I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Agreed about the App Store mess.

talldayo 2y ago
> and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Apple could sell 1 phone a year and still have a monopoly if that single user can only install apps by using Apple services. You could argue the harms are irrelevant in that situation, but they certainly aren't with millions of users in the equation.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. No, they're not, inside the US. In the US, iPhone has a majority of the marketshare now. Outside the US isn't all that relevant since this is a US case in US courts and concerning the US market.
dismalaf 2y ago
> still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw. Not in the US.

thfuran 2y ago

You're suggesting that we ought to pass laws to reflect colloquial usage of all words that are also used in a technical sense in a legal context?

lxgr 2y ago
The words are irrelevant; outcomes matter. And yes, why on Earth should laws not have the outcomes that the citizens electing the government that passes them expect? If people don't want a thing they call monopoly or any other word (and wanting that does not violate or contradict other norms or constitutional principles they want even more) isn't that what they should get in a democracy?

braiamp 2y ago

The concept you are looking for is market power or monopoly power. But in reality it should be anti-competitive behavior and market domination. There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo. A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
> There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo. There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
- runevault 2y ago
  I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics. In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold. In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Their arguments are more against anti-trust. Consider these cases. They will be concluded by Trump’s AG. Which means a DoJ under Gaetz or whomever will have the power to put the country’s largest companies under consent decrees that can contain almost anything. (My guess is something about free speech and DEI.)

slibhb 2y ago

> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable? Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid. The biggest irony in all of this is that AI is shaking things up in a major way. New entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic may very well end up beating Apple and Google in various markets over the next few years. The government is picking a time of intense competition and uncertainty to go after these companies.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable? Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all. >Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  > Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.

_heimdall 2y ago

> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too. Where should the new line be drawn though? And should we expect to move the line again when common opinion on the term adjusts and we again find that the legal definition is out if touch? I'd feel a bit uncomfortable having laws and terms redefined to match what the average person thinks a word means. Its one thing to change a law that people actually disagree with, it feels off to me to change a law because people use words differently in everyday life compared to a court room.

Glyptodon 2y ago
I think the classic definitions are fine: - Monopoly: 50%+ of a market - Oligopoly: Just a few companies control most of the market. Apple has more than 50% of mobile device market share. That means they're a monopoly. Apple has 100% control of the app market for their device. This is also a classic form of Monopoly, kind of like a company store, but on a national scale. Meanwhile, the legal definition has shifted because of activist judging by conservative judges, which created the "consumer harm" standard, which is nebulous, and much easier to turn into a wishy-washy judgment call than the actual, original definition. And conveniently lets corporate crony judges make judgments like "look how much consumer benefit there is from iPhones! we could care less how unfair Apple is to app developers," even though the idea that whatever features are in Apple devices that consumers get such benefits from won't still be available to consumers even if there's some anti-monopoly ruling. Like many things in modern America, there's been extensive intentional erosion of things that shouldn't be controversial by what the founders would have referred to as "factions," IE special interests.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > I think the classic definitions are fine: - Monopoly: 50%+ of a market Classic definition according to whom?
- 2y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> immune to competition and pressure Correct. They abuse their customers without losing business. Why is that?

Auracle 2y ago
Maybe because their customers don’t feel abused in the slightest.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Customers aren't just phone buyers, it's app developers, advertisers, etc.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Technically those are suppliers, not customers.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      How? They give Apple money.
      - r00fus 2y ago
        That pales in comparison to the payouts Apple does to its software suppliers. Just making payments to a company doesn't make you a "customer" in any real sense.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        It's the definition: > a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business. Is the money a donation? WTF are you talking about?
- trinsic2 2y ago
  More like the general population doesn't understand how technological dark patterns are used against them. Blissful ignorance, while the rest of us, who know whats going on, suffer.