Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.
This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible.
This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.
But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.
You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want a walled garden, which is a monopoly, and then want to claim it isn't one.
A monopoly means that there's no choice for the whole product category. Back in the bad old days, if you wanted a home computer, then you were buying a Microsoft operating system whether you wanted to or not. That's what a monopoly looks like. (Yes, there were a couple of other niche players out there, like Apple. They didn't have any significant portion of the market, though. You can argue that they matter, but if so, then you're arguing that Microsoft didn't have an OS monopoly because of these competitors, which kind of reinforces my point.)
I believe the practice of requiring products to be purchased together is called "tying" and it's also problematic, but a different concept from a monopoly.
> People who already own Apple iOS products can easily obtain apps from companies that aren't Apple. They just have to buy an Android device first.
The problem with claiming that Android apps are competition for iOS apps is that to get competition for a $1 app you have to replace a $500 device. That isn't reasonable. It's like claiming Google Fiber is competition for Comcast because you can move to Kansas.
If you had to move every time you signed up for any broadband service, even the first one you ever sign up for, then that might be a comparable analogy.
Nintendo controls the availability of games for my Wii, and I'd have to spend a chunk of money to switch to another gaming platform, but that doesn't make them a monopoly either.
While I think that $500 doesn't break my point, I'd still also like to point out that it's wildly inflated. If you own an iOS device and want to run Android apps, the cost of entry is more like $30-50, even if you don't consider used hardware. Even coming the other way, prices start at $229.
You paid $500 for a device that can browse the internet, make phone calls from the back of a moving car, give you directions from anywhere to anywhere, record video, etc. You don't see how having to replace that entire device in order to buy a $1 app is unreasonable?
> If you had to move every time you signed up for any broadband service, even the first one you ever sign up for, then that might be a comparable analogy.
1) Where Comcast is the only provider in your area, you do. 2) In areas where Comcast has actual competitors, that would imply that Comcast is less of a monopoly than Apple. I don't think that's what you were going for.
> Nintendo controls the availability of games for my Wii, and I'd have to spend a chunk of money to switch to another gaming platform, but that doesn't make them a monopoly either.
Sure it does. It's exactly the same thing. Although Apple does have a higher barrier to switching, because cost of phone:cost of app is a much bigger ratio than cost of console:cost of game.
> While I think that $500 doesn't break my point, I'd still also like to point out that it's wildly inflated. If you own an iOS device and want to run Android apps, the cost of entry is more like $30-50, even if you don't consider used hardware. Even coming the other way, prices start at $229.
The $500 isn't the cost of the Android device, it's the cost of the iPhone you canceled the service on. Unless you want to say you're going to keep the iPhone too, in which case you're going to have to add in the recurring cost of a second cellular plan. And the market value of the huge inconvenience of having half your stuff on each of two devices.
Further, why do cellular services factor into any of this? Both iOS and Android devices run apps fine without cellular service. In fact, lots of them don't even have the ability to use cellular service.
If you're insisting on only examining the scenario where you own an iPhone and a long-term cellular contract, then you can still switch to Android for $30-50 through the simple expedient of buying an unlocked Android phone, taking the SIM out of your iPhone, and placing it in the Android phone.
Exchanging $500 for an iPhone was a sunk cost. You now have an iPhone with an expected future value to you of at least $500 (or why did you pay that much for it?). Using an Android phone instead of the iPhone you already have prevents you from extracting that expected future value from the iPhone. The more you use the Android phone instead, the less value you can extract from the iPhone. It's effectively a $500 opportunity cost.
> Further, why do cellular services factor into any of this? Both iOS and Android devices run apps fine without cellular service. In fact, lots of them don't even have the ability to use cellular service.
If cellular service is so unimportant then why does everybody pay so much for it?
> If you're insisting on only examining the scenario where you own an iPhone and a long-term cellular contract, then you can still switch to Android for $30-50 through the simple expedient of buying an unlocked Android phone, taking the SIM out of your iPhone, and placing it in the Android phone.
Your efforts to reduce the switching cost are doing nothing but incurring more switching costs. A $30 Android phone is not comparable to a $500 iPhone. It will have a slower CPU, less memory, less storage, a lower resolution screen, etc. It's liable to be running an old version of Android that doesn't support newer apps, and any apps it does run will run more slowly and otherwise not work as well as they would on the newer iPhone (or newer Android device). These are all costs -- costs the market values at hundreds of dollars or the price disparity wouldn't exist. Meanwhile even $30 is a significant price to pay against a market for $1 apps.
And sharing a SIM card is an enormous pain in the ass. If you have an iPhone, other iPhones remember that and route text messages to iMessage. Your Android phone won't receive them when it has the SIM card. Any app you use on either device which is dependent on receiving events from the network won't work outside of WiFi whenever you put the SIM card in the other device, and every time you go to a new place you get to type the WiFi password twice. "Is an enormous pain in the ass" is a significant switching cost.
Which is before we even get to all the other costs of switching platforms, like trying to move your data, which is only difficult when it isn't impossible.
Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance, IE was during the anti-trust suite upwards of 95% of all browsers on the Internet, this was because of bundling and defaults.
While other OS's may not execute on Apple's own hardware, other hardware exists (other smart phones) that directly compete with Apple. And by compete I mean neither Apple nor Andriod nor WindowsPhone 'owns' >90% of the mobile market.
This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware, because its hardware was work station hardware. Which had to compete with Silicon Graphics, IBM, Apple, Next, etc.
There is also the fact that Sun didn't prohibit other operating system or application vendors from making operating systems or applications for its hardware by locking the boot loader.
No, I'm claiming that under the circustances that you (or the OP) described in the previous comment it wouldn't lead to an antitrust violation.
I can't talk for "under ANY circustances".
>That seems implausible
Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles.
The OP was claiming that the reason Sun was not prosecuted for an antitrust violation despite the lack of OS competition for SPARC hardware was that other hardware existed in competition with SPARC. But the reason there was no competing OS to run on SPARC is not the same reason that there is no competing OS to run on iPhone. In the case of SPARC the lack of OS competition was not a result of any interference on the part of Sun. When Linux was subsequently ported to SPARC they made no effort to prevent it, I imagine they probably did most of the work. In the case of iPhone the lack of OS and app store competition is directly a result of Apple thwarting it. It is extremely likely that at least one of Android/Ubuntu/FirefoxOS/etc. would be ported to iPhone hardware in the alternative, and that Amazon or others would be operating competing app stores. So the existence of hardware competition was not the only thing saving Sun from an antitrust violation -- even if they had a strong hardware monopoly their behavior wouldn't have been an abuse of it. Apple is behaving differently. Its behavior is distinguishable from that of Sun in a way that makes an antitrust violation significantly more plausible. There is a much stronger argument that Apple exerts monopoly power over the market for iOS applications than Sun ever did over the market for Solaris applications. Which part of this do you deny?
> Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles.
I'm not sure how clear that is. Was there an antitrust case against a game console maker in which they were vindicated? Just because the government has never prosecuted anyone doesn't mean it isn't a violation. Antitrust law is about as clear as mud and they rarely prosecute anybody even in cases of much less nuanced violations.
I thought it was because it tried to use its dominance in the desktop OS market to get dominance in the we browser market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...:
"The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars"