Another day another case of an HN user not understanding the definition of a “monopoly”.
However, if we define the "market" as "places that you can legally purchase and install iOS device apps from", the App Store is close to 95%+ of the market share.
In that case are all of the console makers “monopolies” since they have to approve both digital and physical media distributed on their platform?
Does Apple also have a “monopoly” in the smart speaker market since they control what runs on the HomePod even though they are a distance third to Amazon and Google? What about the “AppleTV”? Should Apple have been forced to open up the 2nd/3rd generation AppleTV to developers?
Do they have a “monopoly” on AirPods since they don’t allow third party smart assistants?
Personally, I would say that they are monopolies. And people are starting to think about them that way because so many games now have an "always online" component. The problem is that even if I own a game disk, that game that I paid money for is suddenly worthless when Sony or Microsoft pull the plug on the online servers.
The issue is stronger with Google and Apple in that smart phones are almost reaching "necessity" level and you can't opt out. You either have Android, iOS or nothing.
We have been here before. Monopoly laws are not some immutable commandments from on high. Monopoly laws were passed in response to specific abuses in rail, steel, coal, etc. We will create new laws to deal with the current crop of abusers.
And whether you "personally" think they are monopolies. They are in no sense of the word "monopolies" by any definition that has been used by the US or EU.
This is not correct. Nothing like the Sherman Act existed prior to it even though there were "anti-competition" rules from common law. The Sherman Act was a product of its times and changed the laws and the way of thinking about monopolies.
Standard Oil was never a "monopoly" according to your definition, and yet was declared to be so by the US Supreme Court in 1911.
Your assertions about "monopoly law" are shallower and more dogmatic than its actual application in the real world.
I have no duty to continue to engage to someone who can't exhibit simple reading comprehension or basic use of Google.
You're just arguing against a strict definition of the word "monopoly, which is utterly besides the point.
Again, the regulations in the EU speak of the term "market dominance", in order to decide whether a case is anti-competitive or not. They do not (as far as I'm aware) mention the word "monopoly", except perhaps in a figurative sense.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_...
The EU website should have all the further answers you need, all the cases, translated into all the languages, and the regulations written down in relatively simple language (you don't need a lawyer to understand). It's really all there:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/doing-busine...
There's even a search engine so you can look up all the cases.
Even though it's technically incorrect to refer to these situations as "monopoly", that still happens in conversation.
But if you then correct someone for not using the strict meaning of monopoly properly, then really you're just showing that you are unaware of the regulations around anti-competitive behaviour. The actual rules don't mention "monopoly", they are centred all around market dominance.
It should be pretty clear what people mean in this context when they say "monopoly" and it doesn't really help to take that word literally, since all the actual regulations are about market dominance.
* But if you then correct someone for not using the strict meaning of monopoly properly, then really you're just showing that you are unaware of the regulations around anti-competitive behaviour. The actual rules don't mention "monopoly", they are centred all around market dominance.*
I guess if I’m “unaware” so is both the EU and the United States since you still have failed to show where either government has defined a monopoly as a minor player nor has either government defined a market as narrowly as you’re trying to. What next? Apple has a monopoly on smart speakers running whatever variant of iOS that the HomePod runs?
What random posters on HN “mean” by monopoly is irrelevant.
That said 'monopoly' is essentially a fine word, it captures the essence of the situation.
Monopolists in particular dictate the terms to all their surrounding entities, which is what Apple does.
It's actually a misunderstanding of the nature of monopoly to characterise it as the only 'single provider' of a service, because that technical differentiation doesn't articulate the real nature of what's happening, which is generally an imbalance of power.
A 'responsable regulatory approach' to such things and social media is well past due, the only risk from my perspective is that the powers that be are fools and will either get it entirely wrong, either by over regulating or missing the pointe entirely.
One of those meanings isn’t “a company is doing something with their platform that I don’t like”.