6 ms·

Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?

by cess11 1y ago

crazygringo 1y ago
Why wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
- ryoshoe 1y ago
  Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Because companies compete globally, not just locally? Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features. And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
    - ThatPlayer 1y ago
      Companies may be global, but individual consumers are not. Anti-trust is about consumer harm. So that's why local markets matter.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood. But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
        ThatPlayer 1y ago
        > It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer. So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions. And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch. While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
- wilsonnb3 1y ago
  30% is a pretty big chunk of a market. There is no reason we have to wait until a company has 99% of the market to address anticompetitive behavior.
  - 8fingerlouie 1y ago
    Samsung is sitting at 28% of the Western European market share with their Android phones. Should we be worried about anti competitive behavior there as well ?
    - wavemode 1y ago
      If Samsung is using their market position to stifle competitors, then by all means yes.
      - 8fingerlouie 1y ago
        Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ? Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like. If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost guaranteed to be more than 30%. That is essentially what Apple is providing for those 30%, they provide a shopping mall where you can expose your goods, and people can pay for them. They handle the pesky stuff like refunds, (international) taxes, compliance with various government requirements, EU rules, and everything else. They even handle potential lawsuits for you (provided your app wasn't the one breaking laws). They also vet (mostly automated) apps to ensure they're not using private APIs. That is for your protection. It's not an evil scheme by Apple to keep competitors out, it's for protecting the end user from bad actors like Meta scooping up all your personal data for "backup purposes" via some internal API. Here in Europe we've had "alternative app stores" for a year or so, and despite living in a country where ~70% of the population uses iPhones, I don't know a single person that has ever used an alternative App Store, just like I don't actually know anybody that has downloaded an alternative keyboard despite those being available for a decade or more. There is really very little you cannot do on the App Store in terms of features, so for many end users it is not a problem. You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance. And that's the core of the problem, most of these companies complaining wants to use Apples built in App Store tools, but they want to direct them to their own App Store for free, ditching the complicated stuff of dealing with users on Apple. They're more than happy with Apple to handle payments and refunds if they do it for free. Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age. In northern europe at least, your phone is quickly becoming your most trusted device in matters concerning anything state or municipality, and here we have a national ID app on our phones, along with social security, healthcare, drivers license, micro payments, taxes, childcare, hell, there's even video conferencing with your GP, in an app that has access to your medical records, including bloodwork and various scans. There's literally no way in hell I'm trading the perfectly walled garden for the Wild West outside. Anecdotally, where I live, most companies don't allow Android phones as company phones as they're considered insecure, and instead mandate iPhones. The more regulated the industry (medical, banking, power, etc), the more certain it is that you'll be getting an iPhone.
- cess11 1y ago
  Apple has around 60% market share. The US does not have global jurisdiction. Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around. This happens to be incompatible with capitalism due to phenomena like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and fascism (as well as other corporativist ideologies). Capitalism survives and reproduces through monopolies and oligopolies, i.e. undemocratic forms of rent seeking and price cartels.

Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?

by cess11 1y ago

Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?

Why wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.

ryoshoe 1y ago
Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Because companies compete globally, not just locally? Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features. And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
  - ThatPlayer 1y ago
    Companies may be global, but individual consumers are not. Anti-trust is about consumer harm. So that's why local markets matter.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood. But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
      - ThatPlayer 1y ago
        > It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer. So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions. And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch. While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
wilsonnb3 1y ago
30% is a pretty big chunk of a market. There is no reason we have to wait until a company has 99% of the market to address anticompetitive behavior.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  Samsung is sitting at 28% of the Western European market share with their Android phones. Should we be worried about anti competitive behavior there as well ?
  - wavemode 1y ago
    If Samsung is using their market position to stifle competitors, then by all means yes.
    - 8fingerlouie 1y ago
      Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ? Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like. If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost guaranteed to be more than 30%. That is essentially what Apple is providing for those 30%, they provide a shopping mall where you can expose your goods, and people can pay for them. They handle the pesky stuff like refunds, (international) taxes, compliance with various government requirements, EU rules, and everything else. They even handle potential lawsuits for you (provided your app wasn't the one breaking laws). They also vet (mostly automated) apps to ensure they're not using private APIs. That is for your protection. It's not an evil scheme by Apple to keep competitors out, it's for protecting the end user from bad actors like Meta scooping up all your personal data for "backup purposes" via some internal API. Here in Europe we've had "alternative app stores" for a year or so, and despite living in a country where ~70% of the population uses iPhones, I don't know a single person that has ever used an alternative App Store, just like I don't actually know anybody that has downloaded an alternative keyboard despite those being available for a decade or more. There is really very little you cannot do on the App Store in terms of features, so for many end users it is not a problem. You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also not free, especially when you need to handle refunds, legal matters and international compliance. And that's the core of the problem, most of these companies complaining wants to use Apples built in App Store tools, but they want to direct them to their own App Store for free, ditching the complicated stuff of dealing with users on Apple. They're more than happy with Apple to handle payments and refunds if they do it for free. Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age. In northern europe at least, your phone is quickly becoming your most trusted device in matters concerning anything state or municipality, and here we have a national ID app on our phones, along with social security, healthcare, drivers license, micro payments, taxes, childcare, hell, there's even video conferencing with your GP, in an app that has access to your medical records, including bloodwork and various scans. There's literally no way in hell I'm trading the perfectly walled garden for the Wild West outside. Anecdotally, where I live, most companies don't allow Android phones as company phones as they're considered insecure, and instead mandate iPhones. The more regulated the industry (medical, banking, power, etc), the more certain it is that you'll be getting an iPhone.
cess11 1y ago
Apple has around 60% market share. The US does not have global jurisdiction. Competitive markets have enough similar suppliers that they are forced to adapt to customers instead of the other way around. This happens to be incompatible with capitalism due to phenomena like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and fascism (as well as other corporativist ideologies). Capitalism survives and reproduces through monopolies and oligopolies, i.e. undemocratic forms of rent seeking and price cartels.