Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodamage | Hacker News Reader

I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales on its own devices might be technically true but is not a meaningful statement when there are plenty of alternatives to Apple devices on the market.

It is about as meaningful as claiming a gas station has a "monopoly" on gas sales in a three block radius, or that a bar has a "monopoly" on cocktail sales in its own building, or that I have a "monopoly" on lemonade sales on my front lawn.

If you have to apply an arbitrary constraint to eliminate the consideration of meaningful alternatives that the consumer has access to, then you're not dealing with an actual monopoly.

View on HN

Another poster already mentioned that legal definition varies. And not only that. It's not that it's "wrong" or illegal to be a monopoly. It's what you do with those powers.

Natural (and legal) monopolies exist and are regulated so that there's a perceived net benefit to society for having them. The EU will investigate is (to Europeans) Apple's monopoly is net beneficial to them.

And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

Is Apple obliged to make their phones available to other app stores? No. But not doing so AND profiting from 30% AND having a large marketshare is precisely why the EU is investigating them for abusive monopolistic behaviour.

> And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

They can choose a non-Apple phone. There is an alternative product on the market.

That is not what the case is about. The case is about Spotify not having fair access to Apple customers.

Spotify is no more entitled to Apple's customers than Nike is entitled to Walmart's customers. If Nike wants to sell shoes in Walmart they will have to accept Walmarts terms, or find another store to sell in.

Walmart customers are not hostages being prevented to buy in other shops. Analogy doesn't hold.

Just like you can choose not to be a Walmart customer, you can also choose not to be an Apple customer.

I think you're confusing the common-usage meaning with the legal definition.

Generally in Europe the market share threshold for monopoly investigations is 25% - Apple's market-share for mobile app sales is well above that threshold.

Not sure where you got 25% from?

> The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [1]

Historically the European Commission's antitrust cases against tech giants have largely been against companies with overwhelming market share:

European Commission vs Google: 90% market share in search [2]

European Commission vs Intel: 70% market share in x86 CPUs [3]

European Commission vs Qualcomm: 90% market share in LTE chipsets [4]

Apple's 25% is nowhere near the same level and I expect the Commission's investigation will conclude that they do not, in fact, have a monopoly in the EU.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_...

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...

The 1994 investigation of Nintendo & Sega for monopoly practices in game distribution which is the closest historical case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com