Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

And don't forget the biggest gorilla of the bunch, Apple, with its locked down walled garden that it gets a 30% cut of.

Maybe the next administration will give equal scrutiny to all of the big tech companies rather than seemingly targeting just one of them.

View on HN

Apple's app store policies are probably going to be forced to change, yeah. But that's an easier change than the other ones.

Apple is not in a situation where they need to be broken up to ensure a free market like Facebook, Amazon, and perhaps Google are.

Realistically I don't see forced break-ups being in the cards here. That hasn't happened since, what, AT&T, decades ago? My guess would be it's all consent decrees -- what they hit Microsoft with, and what they could hit Apple/Google/Facebook/Amazon/Microsoft with now.

Dunno about the US, but in Europe several companies in the last few decades have been forced to divest some part of their operations because of antitrust activity, typically (but not limited to) at merger time. Banks and telecom providers, for example, have seen quite a bit of movement in the Uk. It’s just that they don’t make massive headlines.

Unless they gobble up the entire supply chain.

That’s not a monopoly. It’s something to scrutinize but it’s not a monopoly.

Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software, and while it's true that users who dislike the App Store can switch to Android, there is an enormous cost to switching phone ecosystems.

If you don't like Comcast, you could move to an area with a different ISP, and there's a certain point where you probably would move, if Comcast's service became egregious enough. But I don't usually see this argument when people refer to Comcast as a monopoly, because it's understood that the switching cost is unreasonably high.

> Apple has a monopoly on iPhone software

Monopoly's are whether or not a product or service dominates a specific sector, industry or market. A company can't have a monopoly over its own products which by definition would cover most product/service companies.

Given iOS market share is about ~25% of the Mobile OS Market, it currently doesn't qualify as a Monopoly although it's currently under EU investigation & Epic lawsuit which may rule differently.

But isn't iOS software a specific market? iOS might be an Apple product, but "iOS software" is made primarily by third parties. That software is exclusively sold by Apple, but that's exactly what I find anti-competitive!

Separately, it's worth noting that iOS has ~60% market share in the United States[1]. It's lower globally, as you pointed out, but I'd argue domestic market-share should be what matters in US-based suits.

1: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...

> But isn't iOS software a specific market?

No it's just a software platform that's open to 3rd parties to develop for, just like Android, Windows, macOS, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Smart TV's, Speakers, Watches, embedded platforms, etc. you could go as far and say that Cloud Providers or even Game Engines are software platforms.

But a single platform doesn't define a market, the prominent market iOS is in would be smart mobile OS's of which Android is apart of. Its 60% US Market share could be a determining factor in the US although they do have a clear unobstructed competitor in Android - time will tell as rulings from current investigations & trials get handed down. Of course it's not illegal to have a monopoly, only if its dominant Monopoly power position is abused for anti-competitive purposes, typically for creating a monopoly in a different market, but there are a few other abuses.

How is switching between Android and iOS remotely comparable to moving where you live?

I've switched between iOS and Android before. What's the big deal?

Antitrust enforcers care about anticompetitive behavior not monopolies. They certainly should care about rent seeking behavior that Apple is engaged in.

Saying something is or is not a monopoly is distracting from what actually matters. It's deflecting.

Anticompetitive behavior only matters when it is a monopoly.

This is a common misconception but is not correct.

Anti-competitive behavior can be illegal all by itself. Price fixing is one obvious example but there are plenty of others.

In addition to most violations of antitrust law being from companies that do not have monopolies, it goes the other way too. You can have an actual monopoly without violating antitrust law.

If you got the monopoly without doing anti-competitive behavior, such as by simple having a better product or by getting lucky and having competitors that all made stupid mistakes that sunk them, your monopoly may be legal.

Correct Apple and several book publishers got in trouble for doing just that years ago in the fight against Amazon.

This is a patently false statement from first principles. Anticompetitive behavior to keep a monopoly is illegal, but that is not the only case. Cartels, predatory pricing, and price fixing are all illegal with or without monopolies and are all considered anticompetitive practices.

In every thread someone makes a comment like this. As though a duopoly is somehow meaningfully different than a monopoly.

And it doesn't even address anything I actually said. It's a deflection at best. The spectrum of corporate misbehavior that needs to be regulated is much broader than "singular monopoly".

Good point.

Cable companies and cell companies should be hoisted up next.

Cable (or a wire that transmits data) and mobile internet should be a utility. It makes no sense for multiple fibers to be run to a single home for the sake of competition, nor does it make sense to operate multiple cell towers transmitting the same data, just like it doesn't make sense to run multiple pipes for water and electrical lines for the sake of competition.

It really depends on market definition to be honest. If one were to define a market for native app distribution services on iOS smartphones, then I think there is a real argument that Apple is a monopolist that is extracting monopoly rents.

And there is a strong case for defining the market that way, because it represents a discrete set of customers. Approximately none of the people who use the iOS app store also use Google Play, because it doesn't work on their phones. Whereas if you say "the Walmart market for windshield wipers" that isn't a discrete set of customers, because the same people can walk across the street to Target and buy windshield wipers for the same car over there.

How are customers discrete? I own both android and iOS devices.

99% of people don't, and even you have to use the store that corresponds to the device you want to use the app with.

If one company actually had a monopoly on windshield wipers for cars and another had a monopoly on windshield wipers for trucks, that doesn't change just because there is somebody who has both a car and a truck. When you need windshield wipers for your car, there is still only one place you could get them.

But doesn't that mean the basis for the argument is heavily in how you define the market? How people define the market feels entirely arbitrary to me -- supporters of the antitrust investigation scope it to "iOS", while opponents scope it to "smartphones". Both are valid, but it's our personal position that drives how we define market. That seems backwards.

Apple is barely a monopoly, despite their horrible behaviour. Googles complete stranglehold of advertising is much more damaging.

- Sent from my android

Some people online like to complain about Apple, but they are probably the least concerning of the bunch. Android is a viable alternative, and 30% from app stores is the norm right now.

FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here?

30% from app stores is the norm for app stores that have market power in their respective markets, but all that tells you is that's the amount of the monopoly rent. Compare this to the Microsoft store, where the store itself doesn't have market power, and then they don't take 30%:

https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share...

But still 30% for XBOX/games where they once again have market power in that market.

Facebook is a viable alterative to Google from an advertising perspective. This action is taking place despite there being far more competition in search and advertising than there is about the abuse of code signing permissions by Apple.

Antitrust action has never required the lack of an alternative.

> FB is being used by foreign powers to shape US elections, and you think Apple is the biggest problem here?

Apple is being used to attack democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, mainland China and Belarus, and has a long history of attacking sexual minorities and sex education efforts.

Yes, Apple is 100% the biggest problem here.

Would you make the same argument for PS/XBox/Salesforce marketplaces? They have similar restrictions.

Yes, but they're of lower priority. Gaming has increasingly moved away from the PC (the only truly open/competitive platform) towards the walled gardens of consoles and mobile devices. This has a censorious effect in what's actually allowed to be released, the big platforms get to do a lot of rent-seeking, and crucially, games are increasingly going digital, which eliminates a consumer's right to resale and loan games to their friends. The gaming marketplace would be a lot more competitive and interesting without gatekeeping. About the only downside you'd see is that the up-front cost for some consoles would need to be higher, because selling them as a loss-leader and making the money up in back-end licensing fees would no longer be allowable.

I would love to see some sort of regulated 10% rake cap on digital marketplaces (both mobile and gaming) and ticket sales. Note that this would apply only to games being distributed through the platform owner's marketplace, and that consumers would be allowed to install by right software from other sources as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com