Hacker News Reader

Comment by xigency | Hacker News Reader

The example given is forcing them to sell DoubleClick. I think Android is a great example because that was an aquisition at one point. Google pays Apple for default search placement so a similar arrangement could be made.

The article is a bit vague and hand-wavey (and the title is a bit off) but I would definitely say that Apple is hugely monopolistic, for a company sitting at #1.

Apple has a stranglehold on iOS browsers by forcing App Store browsers to use Safari's renderer and web view.

And being vertically integrated, the hardware and software are both locked-down in ways that restrict a consumer.

Why can't I install macOS on non-Apple hardware? Why do I need macOS to develop for Mac/iPhone? Why can't I replace the battery or install memory easily on my Macbook? Each of these are shady, manipulative business practices, and lo and behold, Apple has the greatest market cap (and least competitive pricing.)

View on HN

How can you be monopolistic without having a monopoly, however? Apple has far less than 50% market share in all the markets it operates in (except, maybe, for smartwatches...).

The majority of people does not seem to have a problem with being "locked-down" by Apple: they just buy an Android phone and Windows PC instead.

Google is very different - it has the by far largest mobile OS share and in some markets more than 90% search share. If you are a web (or -- thanks to Google Maps -- physical) business, Google can make or break you and there is nothing you can do about it. If Apple doesn't like your app, you can just develop it for Android. If Google doesn't like your webpage, no one will find it.

Monopoly power/market power don't necessarily refer only to domination of an industry, that's just the common case; network effects fall under this category even (and especially) if your company created the lock-in. Given that anti-monopoly law is being ignored these day it's unlikely you'll see enforcement extended so far, but it certainly could be. Back in the day local phone and power monopolies were very common (a close equivalent) and weren't allowed to escape regulation just 'cause their market power was local.

> Apple is hugely monopolistic

Being a large company doesn't make you a monopoly, nor does anti-consumer mean the same as anti-competitive. In both product segments you mention (smartphones and personal computers), Apple has a minority marketshare. "Monopoly" isn't a catch-all phrase for "mean business"; it has a very specific meaning, and Apple isn't even close.

Yes, but they have monopoly influence over iOS and Mac software as well as restricting development. It would take a Supreme Court of about a century ago to take them down, but it seems over-the-line to me, personally.

If that was your strategy as an off brand clone-OS it's not a concern, but at the $700B valuation range there should be increased scrutiny. Depends on the court system as well. See Microsoft and IE bundling? Virtually identical circumstances to mobile Safari.

> monopoly influence over iOS and Mac software as well as restricting development

This is generally not what is considered a monopoly. You're describing control over a product segment that is a small part of a larger industry.

> See Microsoft and IE bundling? Virtually identical circumstances to mobile Safari.

Except Microsoft was 95%+ of the desktop market, whereas iOS is less than 20% of the smartphone market. Bundling wasn't the problem; bundling that used one monopoly to extend another market segment is. iOS doesn't have that critical first piece.

Not clear in law, especially re questions of patent misuse - an area of the law which in the U.S. is now a mass of contradictions, admittedly.

> Apple is hugely monopolistic, for a company sitting at #1.

In the US, generally it's OK to be a monopoly, as long as you don't abuse your monopoly by doing anti-competitive things. It's also OK to do many anti-competitive things, as long as you aren't abusing a monopoly; unfair pricing (dumping) is prohibited, but courts have been pretty lenient in the absence of a monopoly on the theory that the dumper usually damages itself more than the competition and that in the mean time consumers benefit.

So, Apple doesn't really have the market share to be considered a monopoly, unless you creatively define the market. Certainly, they can do whatever they want on Macs, because their US market share is 13% [1], and nobody can credibly accuse them of selling below cost. For mobile, it's different, but still Apple only has about 30% of the market [2], so I don't know that's really high enough to consider their behavior an abuse of monopoly, unless you narrowly define the market to be apps on iOS devices, instead of apps on (smart)phones.

[1] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3568420 table 2 [2] https://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-andro...

Your whole point about Apple seems to misunderstand the meaning of monopoly.

Which market or product category do they have monopolistic dominance of?

Vertically-integrated, closed product ecosystems are not the same as a market monopoly.

Vertical integration leveraging perhaps only a single patent can certainly be illegal. Market does not mean "entire product category" in law, (but enforcement has been so weak in recent decades that's been the case de facto.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._....

The courts have already decided against you here, saying Apple both had market power and abused it re ebooks: http://macdailynews.com/2013/08/28/u-s-a-v-apple-judge-denis...

Closed ecosystem can literally be anticompetitive. Being largest in the market means they control that largest market.

I understand what you are saying and what you mean, but looking under the lens of scrutiny used around 100 years ago would lead to a different analysis. There hasn't been a trust busted in quite some time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com