Hacker News Reader

Comment by metageek | Hacker News Reader

I don't think "monopoly" requires 100% market share. Apple has over 75% market share, which may be enough to qualify.

You're allowed to have a monopoly, you're not allowed to abuse it. If Apple ordered mp3hardware stores to stop selling other brands or Apple would raise it prizes, that would be abuse.

Which is what Intel did to AMD.

If that's the only metric, then why was Microsoft censured for bundling IE with Windows?

That's technically not the reason why they were "censured", although what you describe was seen as part of abusing their monopoly.

Like the commenter above said, there is nothing illegal with being a monopoly.

They leveraged one monopoly to create another instead of trying to promote IE on its merits, and implemented IE with insider knowledge of how Windows works, and did various other things like coercing OEMs. Those are the things that got them in trouble, not simply having the OS monopoly.

(a) The GP of my comment asserted that automatically installing Safari when you install iTunes was monopoly abuse. I think they at least have a point.

(b) Apple has about 2/3 of the paid music download market and 3/4 of the MP3 player market. They block other MP3 players from talking to iTunes, and other desktop software from talking to the iPod. I think that's probably abuse: they're using iTunes's dominant market position to protect the iPod's dominant market position, and vice versa.

Portable music players isn't such a meaningful category when you consider most mobile phones can also play music; plus just other music listening devices in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com