Hacker News Reader

Comment by phs318u | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity. You couldn't vote with your feet because there was nowhere to go. Even now, MS have about 75% of the PC OS market.

Apple's share of the smartphone market is around 15% globally, and 55% within the US. Under no definition can Apple be said to be in the same position that Microsoft was. You can indeed vote with your feet and many do (in both directions).

Anti-trust law is designed to do two things. Prevent companies from becoming monopolies in a market, and break up companies that are monopolies. By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly, and there are plenty of healthy alternatives to Apple. Anti-trust law is just fine and dandy and I support it. It just does not apply here.

View on HN

In the Internet age, monopolies should be defined in the 2nd degree.

It should not be about how many consumers using X anymore. It should be about how many consumers are related to consumers using X.

The reality is internet network effects create too much concentration of power. The question is how hard is it for a new business to build a dense network? And who profits from it being difficult?

Microsoft's anti-trust charges arrived in 1998, years before endemic Internetification of social interaction and making use of business's services. There were charged for attempting to control the Internet.

Apple's hypothetical anti-trust charges in 2022 would arrive years before endemic open APIs and personal data ownership. They would be charged for attempting to control people's freedom to interact with each other regardless of each others chosen platform.

> By the numbers, Apple is not a monopoly

We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive.

> Under no definition

Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive.

So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.

> It just does not apply here.

Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.

"While Apple is not considered a monopoly and did not engage in anti-trust behavior on nine of ten counts, Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive."

Apple are currently appealing the anti-steering restriction.

> on nine of ten counts

So then, yes, on 1 count it did engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.

See, you were the one trying to claim that it is completely impossible, that any definition of anti-trust law would cover Apple's behavior. And we have evidence that this is false.

Clearly, your previous extremely strong claim, of zero possibility of anti-trust behavior, is wrong. Because on 1 count, it was ruled that it was illegally anti-competitive.

Glad we could clear that up.

If you wanted to be more accurate, you could have instead said something like "Apple's position in the market is complicated. It does not have complete control of the market, but it has a large enough control of the market, that some of its most egregiously bad behavior, could be illegal. Really, things could go either way on some of its actions".

That would be a much better, and more nuanced statement, that opens the possibility for some of Apple's behavior to fall under anti-trust law, but not all. Clearly it is not as absurdly in Apple's favor you were trying to claim, and it is not as simple as "just vote with your feet, they aren't doing anything illegal or anti-competitive".

Leaving aside the possibility that Apple have a good chance of overturning the anti-steering ruling, I'd like to ask you directly - what is stopping you as either a customer or a developer from buying an Android phone, or developing exclusively for the Android ecosystem? i.e. why can't you just vote with your feet?

> i.e. why can't you just vote with your feet?

Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.

If you think that it is totally OK to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior, then just say that. Otherwise this is the answer.

The answer is that we have anti-trust law for a reason. So if you disagree then you need to say that you want anti-competitive behavior to be legal and bite that bullet of being in favor of that stuff.

So go ahead and just say that you support microsoft anti-competitive behavior or if you think that it is not OK, then whatever reason you have for saying that anti-competitive behavior is bad, I can use whatever reason that is.

> > i.e. why can't you just vote with your feet?

> Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.

Sorry but that's not a reason. You indeed can choose a different smartphone and smartphone ecosystem (as a customer), and you can choose to boycot Apple as a developer, and tell your customers that iPhone users are stuck with the web app while Android users get the benefit of better integration and features. These are real choices that people and companies are making today.

As I said in another comment, you absolutely can pursue legal remedies either through the courts and/or the political process - which is also happening right now. But absolutely nothing is stopping you from buying and using a Samsung/LG/Pixel/etc phone right now, and having a really good (by all accounts) experience.

And to make myself completely clear to you - I do not want anti-competitive behaviour to be legal. I just don't think this is anti-competitive.

Also worth noting that Microsoft filed an amicus brief in support of Epic in its fight against Apple. Google did not.

> Sorry but that's not a reason.

Ok, then that is not a reason that you can use against microsoft or standard oil. Thats your position that you have that you have to bite the bullet on.

> These are real choices that people and companies are making today.

Ok. Then in your opinion, those are "real choices" that people can use against microsoft or standard oil.

I don't know about Standard Oil, but I absolutely do know about Microsoft. In the late 90's and early 00's there was no realistic alternative to Microsoft Windows. So no, they are decidedly not the same. Not sure why you can't see the difference.

> Not sure why you can't see the difference.

Microsoft engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices. As well as how Apple has engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices, as according to the decision of Judge Gonzalez Rogers.

They also have a chance of having the counts they won on overruled. So it can very easily turn against them

Honestly, I can see validity in both your comment and the parent comment that you're arguing against. But I'll press you a little, if only to understand your point better:

> Microsoft's share of the desktop market at the time was very close to unity.

> Apple's share of the smartphone market is around... 55% within the US.

At what percentage of the market should Apple be required to loosen their grip over their platform / open up their marketplace? Is there a specific number they could reach where you'd feel comfortable placing more restrictions on these practices?

Good question. I don't have a view. Though the boiling frog analogy is probably apt so there should be a threshold or some agreed metric of "competitiveness". One of the key aspects though is the disparity between US market share vs global market share. Given that globally, the remaining 85% of market share are virtually all Android, is penalising Apple increasing or reducing competitiveness? I don't know there's a clear or objectively fair answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com