3 ms·

While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire mark

While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrect because the word 'monopoly' applies to all toilets in a geographic area specifically larger than my bathroom. There is some gray area in the definition. A more appropriate use of 'monopoly' is, "does Apple control software on all tablets?", no. 'Does Apple control all tablet software in the new york area?' no. 'Does Apple control all popup widgets on all Apple Tablets in the New York area?' Yes, but that is not by definition, "a monopoly".

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible. This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.
- mseebach 12y ago
  > who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    That the customers know it's a monopoly at the outset doesn't make it not a monopoly. You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want a walled garden, which is a monopoly, and then want to claim it isn't one.
- mikeash 12y ago
  People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first. And while I agree that this is a barrier, it doesn't sit right with me at all to cry "monopoly" in a situation where other companies sell products with the same capabilities (indeed, in greater number than Apple sells them) and there's nothing that inherently prevents you from switching. A monopoly means that there's no choice for the whole product category. Back in the bad old days, if you wanted a home computer, then you were buying a Microsoft operating system whether you wanted to or not. That's what a monopoly looks like. (Yes, there were a couple of other niche players out there, like Apple. They didn't have any significant portion of the market, though. You can argue that they matter, but if so, then you're arguing that Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly because of these competitors, which kind of reinforces my point.) I believe the practice of requiring products to be purchased together is called "tying" and it's also problematic, but a different concept from a monopoly.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    The important thing to understand is that there is a difference between having a monopoly (which is not illegal) and abusing it (which is). That's what tying is about. If you have a monopoly, tying is an example of monopoly abuse. It's an attempt to leverage the monopoly in one market (e.g. operating systems) into a new market (e.g. web browsers). > People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first. The problem with claiming that Android apps are competition for iOS apps is that to get competition for a $1 app you have to replace a $500 device. That isn't reasonable. It's like claiming Google Fiber is competition for Comcast because you can move to Kansas.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't see why it's unreasonable to replace a $500 device, when you already had to buy a $500 device in the first place to get access to iOS apps. If you had to move every time you signed up for any broadband service, even the first one you ever sign up for, then that might be a comparable analogy. Nintendo controls the availability of games for my Wii, and I'd have to spend a chunk of money to switch to another gaming platform, but that doesn't make them a monopoly either. While I think that $500 doesn't break my point, I'd still also like to point out that it's wildly inflated. If you own an iOS device and want to run Android apps, the cost of entry is more like $30-50, even if you don't consider used hardware. Even coming the other way, prices start at $229.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible. This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.

mseebach 12y ago
> who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  That the customers know it's a monopoly at the outset doesn't make it not a monopoly. You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want a walled garden, which is a monopoly, and then want to claim it isn't one.
mikeash 12y ago
People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first. And while I agree that this is a barrier, it doesn't sit right with me at all to cry "monopoly" in a situation where other companies sell products with the same capabilities (indeed, in greater number than Apple sells them) and there's nothing that inherently prevents you from switching. A monopoly means that there's no choice for the whole product category. Back in the bad old days, if you wanted a home computer, then you were buying a Microsoft operating system whether you wanted to or not. That's what a monopoly looks like. (Yes, there were a couple of other niche players out there, like Apple. They didn't have any significant portion of the market, though. You can argue that they matter, but if so, then you're arguing that Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly because of these competitors, which kind of reinforces my point.) I believe the practice of requiring products to be purchased together is called "tying" and it's also problematic, but a different concept from a monopoly.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  The important thing to understand is that there is a difference between having a monopoly (which is not illegal) and abusing it (which is). That's what tying is about. If you have a monopoly, tying is an example of monopoly abuse. It's an attempt to leverage the monopoly in one market (e.g. operating systems) into a new market (e.g. web browsers). > People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first. The problem with claiming that Android apps are competition for iOS apps is that to get competition for a $1 app you have to replace a $500 device. That isn't reasonable. It's like claiming Google Fiber is competition for Comcast because you can move to Kansas.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't see why it's unreasonable to replace a $500 device, when you already had to buy a $500 device in the first place to get access to iOS apps. If you had to move every time you signed up for any broadband service, even the first one you ever sign up for, then that might be a comparable analogy. Nintendo controls the availability of games for my Wii, and I'd have to spend a chunk of money to switch to another gaming platform, but that doesn't make them a monopoly either. While I think that $500 doesn't break my point, I'd still also like to point out that it's wildly inflated. If you own an iOS device and want to run Android apps, the cost of entry is more like $30-50, even if you don't consider used hardware. Even coming the other way, prices start at $229.