"Apple/Google" isn't a single entity, neither has anything close to complete control of the US mobile-device market, and they do seem to actively be opposed to each other in many areas rather than being some sort of cartel.
My clients have employees who essentially have two ecosystem options when buying a smartphone - Apple or Google.
I, as a developer, then have to bend to the will of both of these corporations which, no matter how they compete on other things, are just as bad as each other when it comes to developer treatment.
Monopoly, duopoly, whatever - it’s crazy. Why am I uploading my fucking ID to Google, giving them my phone number, which they say “they may contact periodically to ensure the account is still active”, because I distribute private software to a private organisation?
Re: Google, given that you're privately distributing software to a private organization, couldn't you just sideload it onto the Android devices in question? It seems reasonable enough to for them to want you to have a developer account if you're using their infrastructure to distribute these things. But my (minimally informed) understanding is that, unlike Apple, Google doesn't force you to have a signing certificate from them or anything for the software to even run on a device.
If I had an airline as a client and I wanted to change the upholstery on a plane, I don’t think I’d need to have the changes approved by Boeing/Airbus in addition to having my personal data (home address, phone, and ID) sold and used to target me with advertising.
monopoly | məˈnɒpəli | noun (plural monopolies) 1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting. • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies | France's electricity monopoly, EDF.
In case it's not clear from the definition, notice the first example's deliberate pluralisation; "largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies".
Your definition is both wrong, and I suspect made in bad faith anyway.
The example is, presumably, referring to a single entity that provided “passenger services” between two destinations, and no other entity provided passenger services between those destinations. But since there could be multiple sets of destinations that single entities provided all passenger services for, then there would be multiple monopolies.
Which does not contradict kemayo’s post.
There is no reason to use monopoly (in this context) when more accurate vocabulary exists, such as duopoly or oligopoly.
Which is precisely the point. Take as "destinations" the two parties to any given transaction, i.e. a particular software developer and a particular user. If the user has an iPhone, they can't use the Play Store, or Samsung or Amazon or anyone but Apple. The developer has no choice in this, even though they're the one paying the fee and being subjected to opaque and arbitrary rules.
Within each smartphone operating system, Apple has a monopoly on software sold for their devices.
But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly.
It's possible but not trivial. In particular, the stores have a network effect where users won't install them if they've never heard of them (remember you have to give your payment info to a store), and developers have no use for a store without users. Google also makes a lot of features dependent on Google Play, which makes it hard for OEMs not to include it with their phone, which might otherwise have allowed the store they did include to reach a critical mass. So Google Play still has >90% market share on Android, even if the alternatives aren't explicitly prohibited.
> passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned _monopolies_