3 ms·

Lived through it and while it might be similar, Microsoft had monopoly at that point (90% and higher share in personal computers - depending on the market). App

by radimm 2y ago

Lived through it and while it might be similar, Microsoft had monopoly at that point (90% and higher share in personal computers - depending on the market). Apple is nowhere near that.

spogbiper 2y ago
it seems awfully similar.. MS using their dominance in the OS market to establish dominance in the application software market vs apple using their mobile phone to establish dominance in smart watches, etc.. the scale is a bit different since we have the duopoly in the mobile market, but it still doesn't seem like something we want.
threeseed 2y ago
It was around the time Apple was about to go bankrupt when Microsoft had about 95% share. Compare this to iPhone activations of new phones which is at 33% and declining [1]. Which means Android's market share of 70%+ is going to get larger over time. https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-android-dominates/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-a...
- gundmc 2y ago
  No, the article you linked specifically says this is because of increased quality and fewer new features reducing the rate at which users upgrade. Apple still has roughly 60% of the installed user base in the US.
thyristan 2y ago
Apple is a monopoly due to their closed ecosystem. They do have a monopoly on headphones that properly work with iphones, operating systems that properly work with apple computers, operating systems and application delivery mechanisms that work with iphones, etc. They could get rid of their legal problems by being more open and supporting open standards, but they don't want to. So as a monopoly, they have to be forced...
- averageRoyalty 2y ago
  You've moved the goalposts. A monopoly usually refers to market share or ownership over unique technology. Neither are true with Apple.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    From my perspective, the concept of monopoly has to change to include apple, but i can't put in words the problem I'm feeling
    - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
      I believe this comment[1] could be it. "They should add a simple new heuristic to determine an abusive monopoly. If a company is imposing a volume surcharge instead of a volume discount to its biggest customers, it means there exists an abusive monopoly and regulatory intervention is needed. There is absolutely no reason in a well functioning market for this to occur." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30111829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30111829
      - syndeo 2y ago
        That's really insightful, actually. Dang.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
        I haven't done a deep analysis, but that sounds perfect. It also clarifies why I dislike so much the concept of a Gaming Console (vs a computer)
eastbound 2y ago
AirDrop has 100% monopoly on iPhone. iPhone has 0% other ways to share files via bluetooth than AirDrop. As a user, I must be able to switch platforms at the end of the lifespan of a phone or Mac. So, buy a non-mac computer and then later a non-iPhone phone. So things need to interoperate. That position from the EU is genius because it’s capitalism at its highest form. (Next is, all Windows apps must work on Macs, sounds like a joke but you’ll notice we already live in a world where they’re all webapp/electron, so it’s literally not a problem).
- shuckles 2y ago
  This is really funny. Seriously? Sharing files _over a particular protocol_ is the scope of your monopoly? Going further: your claim isn't even true. Any app can write data to a bluetooth connection. So the monopoly is even narrower than that.
pmontra 2y ago
It's not about a monopoly. That word never occurs in the document. It's about interoperability and nurturing a market. I quote from the EU document > connected devices of all brands will work better on iPhones. Device manufacturers will have new opportunities to bring innovative products to the market, improving the user experience for consumers based in Europe. About developers: > The measures will accelerate their ability to offer a wider choice to European consumers of innovative services and hardware that interoperate with iPhones and iPads. The DMA defines gatekeepers as "large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services" and lists their obligations prohibitions. Apple is one of them because it's sufficiently large. Smaller companies are not gatekeepers and are out of the scope of the DMA.

by radimm 2y ago

Lived through it and while it might be similar, Microsoft had monopoly at that point (90% and higher share in personal computers - depending on the market). Apple is nowhere near that.

spogbiper 2y ago

it seems awfully similar.. MS using their dominance in the OS market to establish dominance in the application software market vs apple using their mobile phone to establish dominance in smart watches, etc.. the scale is a bit different since we have the duopoly in the mobile market, but it still doesn't seem like something we want.

threeseed 2y ago

It was around the time Apple was about to go bankrupt when Microsoft had about 95% share. Compare this to iPhone activations of new phones which is at 33% and declining [1]. Which means Android's market share of 70%+ is going to get larger over time. https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-android-dominates/ https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/24/iphone-market-share-new-low-a...

gundmc 2y ago
No, the article you linked specifically says this is because of increased quality and fewer new features reducing the rate at which users upgrade. Apple still has roughly 60% of the installed user base in the US.

thyristan 2y ago

Apple is a monopoly due to their closed ecosystem. They do have a monopoly on headphones that properly work with iphones, operating systems that properly work with apple computers, operating systems and application delivery mechanisms that work with iphones, etc. They could get rid of their legal problems by being more open and supporting open standards, but they don't want to. So as a monopoly, they have to be forced...

averageRoyalty 2y ago
You've moved the goalposts. A monopoly usually refers to market share or ownership over unique technology. Neither are true with Apple.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  From my perspective, the concept of monopoly has to change to include apple, but i can't put in words the problem I'm feeling
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    I believe this comment[1] could be it. "They should add a simple new heuristic to determine an abusive monopoly. If a company is imposing a volume surcharge instead of a volume discount to its biggest customers, it means there exists an abusive monopoly and regulatory intervention is needed. There is absolutely no reason in a well functioning market for this to occur." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30111829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30111829
    - syndeo 2y ago
      That's really insightful, actually. Dang.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
      I haven't done a deep analysis, but that sounds perfect. It also clarifies why I dislike so much the concept of a Gaming Console (vs a computer)

eastbound 2y ago

AirDrop has 100% monopoly on iPhone. iPhone has 0% other ways to share files via bluetooth than AirDrop. As a user, I must be able to switch platforms at the end of the lifespan of a phone or Mac. So, buy a non-mac computer and then later a non-iPhone phone. So things need to interoperate. That position from the EU is genius because it’s capitalism at its highest form. (Next is, all Windows apps must work on Macs, sounds like a joke but you’ll notice we already live in a world where they’re all webapp/electron, so it’s literally not a problem).

shuckles 2y ago
This is really funny. Seriously? Sharing files _over a particular protocol_ is the scope of your monopoly? Going further: your claim isn't even true. Any app can write data to a bluetooth connection. So the monopoly is even narrower than that.

pmontra 2y ago

It's not about a monopoly. That word never occurs in the document. It's about interoperability and nurturing a market. I quote from the EU document > connected devices of all brands will work better on iPhones. Device manufacturers will have new opportunities to bring innovative products to the market, improving the user experience for consumers based in Europe. About developers: > The measures will accelerate their ability to offer a wider choice to European consumers of innovative services and hardware that interoperate with iPhones and iPads. The DMA defines gatekeepers as "large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as for example online search engines, app stores, messenger services" and lists their obligations prohibitions. Apple is one of them because it's sufficiently large. Smaller companies are not gatekeepers and are out of the scope of the DMA.