It's not just business - it's basically a monopoly. Enough to extract rent while providing a minimal service.

Imagine if all streets were owned by two large companies who charged you enough to use them that you'd be paying as much in fees as you are in paying for gas. People would still use cars. The streets could be in horrible condition, the two companies would be making an insane amount of profit, but there would still be people out there saying that if it wasn't for those companies we wouldn't be getting anywhere and it's just business.

▲

kriops 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's literally not. And your analogy is bad, because it describes inelastic demand, and not the platform effect.

▲

Netcob 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To me that's semantics.

If I had an app, I'd have to pay Apple whatever they want to charge in order to get access to one part of all mobile phone users and Google whatever they want to charge in order to get access to the other.

Maybe calling that a monopoly wouldn't be good enough in an economics paper, but I don't see much of a practical difference. I get to accept the price or not do business.

And to set off some more bots: We desperately need regulation in this space.

▲

Topfi 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How is the Play Store not a monopoly? It has been found such by multiple judges in multiple jurisdictions for a reason.

▲

WarmWash 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ironically, the Apple App store was found to not be a monopoly. Or the playstation store, or xbox store for that matter.

In fact the legal system punishes you for having an open platform. The very reason the author can leave the play store is the same reason why the play store is a "monopoly". So sure, maybe the play store is a monopoly with some rigid definitions that lack nuance, but lets not throw away logic here.

	▲	44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	Topfi 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If Apple/Google v Epic is what's on your mind, it was not having an open platform that resulted in the judgement. More what they did beyond just operating the platform. Being a monopoly in the US is legal, abusing market position less so. Maybe that lacks nuance and is a bit rigid, but it's the law in the States and what courts are bound by. Something like the DMA and gatekeepers exist in part exactly because of the status quo and entities like Apple. I personally see the gatekeeper approach as a solid base, but know that it can be quite unpopular within the industry.