4 ms·

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

by loumf 12y ago

bontoJR 12y ago
> Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic. ...and in an hypothetical lawsuit this will just turn in favor of Apple.
hub_ 12y ago
But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.
- mc32 12y ago
  That's a monopoly but it's not an economy monopoly. You have a monopoly over where you live, but that's not an economic monopoly. Monopoly is not a magic word. The FTC has very strict standards for when something is considered a monopoly. It's not the same as the general definition.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  Well, sure, they have control over their own platform. Monopolies are about markets though, and Apple is hardly a monopoly in the smart device app market.
dragonwriter 12y ago
"Control" is not the relevant test, market power is, and the prime test for market power is having the ability within some (even small) range to increase prices (or possibly more generally increase price-to-feature mix) without sales moving to competitors. Its not an easy test to apply, and its possible for more than one player in the same general market (e.g., smartphones) to have market power, or for a player that isn't absolutely dominant -- or even the #1 seller -- in a market to have market power in that market. Without having done any kind of structured data gathering and analysis, my intuitive impression is that it is not all that unlikely that a finding of market power for Apple in the smartphone market could be supported, and that therefore anticompetitive leveraging of its position in that market to build a stronger market position in the smart watch market could be an antitrust violation.
bjt 12y ago
In antitrust cases, much of the game is in delineating the bounds of the relevant market. Apple would argue for it being really wide, as you have done. One of the other comments here argues for it being "the market for iOS apps", which is far narrower, and seems way too narrow to me. If Apple built the device, and the OS, and the marketplace, of course they're going to have a monopoly there. Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. A definition of the market that seems sensible to me would be the "mobile device apps" market. There, Apple is one of two players with any significant market share. It's not a monopoly, but it's probably enough "market power", in the antitrust sense, to draw scrutiny from regulators.
- Touche 12y ago
  > Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. No, not just like it. Walmart does not exclusively sell goods that require a Walmart product to use. That distinction makes the comparison not very similar at all.
- duncanawoods 12y ago
  IMHO the trade-off for creating anti-consumer walled gardens should be that you define the market in which you are subject for anti-trust cases. If you have set yourself up as the sole gatekeeper for selling apps in your walled garden, you accept legal responsibility in that role to maintain a level playing field. If you don't like it, don't put up the walls and compete at being the best flower in open parkland.
- JadeNB 12y ago
  > If Apple built the device, and the OS, and the marketplace, of course they're going to have a monopoly there. Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. I'm not sure that this is as innocent as it might sound. Walmart exercises plenty of market power, unethically if not illegally, to make sure that it has a monopoly on some of the things it sells. (By way of comparison, would you expect that, say, Target of course has a monopoly on things sold there? Maybe you would, and I've misunderstood your language.)
mcguire 12y ago
Apple does have their own smart watch, though, and seems to be using their influence over the iPhone market to pressure the auxiliary device market. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that roughly compatible to the Microsoft/Netscape situation?
- Touche 12y ago
  It's compatible with what they did in the eBook market which drove up prices for eBooks and killed off some eBook businesses.
  - huxley 12y ago
    Which businesses were these? I thought the plaintiff was Amazon.
    - Touche 12y ago
      In the case, yes. There were ebook markets that had to shutdown as a result of the 20% in-app rule.

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

by loumf 12y ago

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

bontoJR 12y ago

> Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic. ...and in an hypothetical lawsuit this will just turn in favor of Apple.

hub_ 12y ago

But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.

mc32 12y ago
That's a monopoly but it's not an economy monopoly. You have a monopoly over where you live, but that's not an economic monopoly. Monopoly is not a magic word. The FTC has very strict standards for when something is considered a monopoly. It's not the same as the general definition.
enraged_camel 12y ago
Well, sure, they have control over their own platform. Monopolies are about markets though, and Apple is hardly a monopoly in the smart device app market.

dragonwriter 12y ago

"Control" is not the relevant test, market power is, and the prime test for market power is having the ability within some (even small) range to increase prices (or possibly more generally increase price-to-feature mix) without sales moving to competitors. Its not an easy test to apply, and its possible for more than one player in the same general market (e.g., smartphones) to have market power, or for a player that isn't absolutely dominant -- or even the #1 seller -- in a market to have market power in that market. Without having done any kind of structured data gathering and analysis, my intuitive impression is that it is not all that unlikely that a finding of market power for Apple in the smartphone market could be supported, and that therefore anticompetitive leveraging of its position in that market to build a stronger market position in the smart watch market could be an antitrust violation.

bjt 12y ago

In antitrust cases, much of the game is in delineating the bounds of the relevant market. Apple would argue for it being really wide, as you have done. One of the other comments here argues for it being "the market for iOS apps", which is far narrower, and seems way too narrow to me. If Apple built the device, and the OS, and the marketplace, of course they're going to have a monopoly there. Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. A definition of the market that seems sensible to me would be the "mobile device apps" market. There, Apple is one of two players with any significant market share. It's not a monopoly, but it's probably enough "market power", in the antitrust sense, to draw scrutiny from regulators.

Touche 12y ago
> Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. No, not just like it. Walmart does not exclusively sell goods that require a Walmart product to use. That distinction makes the comparison not very similar at all.
duncanawoods 12y ago
IMHO the trade-off for creating anti-consumer walled gardens should be that you define the market in which you are subject for anti-trust cases. If you have set yourself up as the sole gatekeeper for selling apps in your walled garden, you accept legal responsibility in that role to maintain a level playing field. If you don't like it, don't put up the walls and compete at being the best flower in open parkland.
JadeNB 12y ago
> If Apple built the device, and the OS, and the marketplace, of course they're going to have a monopoly there. Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart. I'm not sure that this is as innocent as it might sound. Walmart exercises plenty of market power, unethically if not illegally, to make sure that it has a monopoly on some of the things it sells. (By way of comparison, would you expect that, say, Target of course has a monopoly on things sold there? Maybe you would, and I've misunderstood your language.)

mcguire 12y ago

Apple does have their own smart watch, though, and seems to be using their influence over the iPhone market to pressure the auxiliary device market. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that roughly compatible to the Microsoft/Netscape situation?

Touche 12y ago
It's compatible with what they did in the eBook market which drove up prices for eBooks and killed off some eBook businesses.
- huxley 12y ago
  Which businesses were these? I thought the plaintiff was Amazon.
  - Touche 12y ago
    In the case, yes. There were ebook markets that had to shutdown as a result of the 20% in-app rule.