| |
| ▲ | lxgr 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > so you would have to declare a monopoly as “things I can run on an iPhone” as your position for that to work Yes, that's pretty much it. A similar concern applies to Google and Android. | | |
| ▲ | alt227 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But you can install other OSes such as Graphene on Android phones, I dont think you can do that on iPhones can you? https://grapheneos.org/ | | |
| ▲ | NekkoDroid 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | On a lot of Android devices you can't install ANY other custom OS because of locked down bootloaders. If you want GrapheneOS specifically that list is even narrower due to 1. official support 2. hardware security features just missing from the devices. |
| |
| ▲ | mingus88 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Does Ford have a monopoly position on the F150 because I can’t run Linux on it? | |
| ▲ | joemi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not how monopolies work, though. | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's absolutely how they work. If there's only a single grocery store in town (and for whatever reason others can't be opened), is that somehow not a monopoly even though there are several pharmacies and hardware stores? | | |
| ▲ | mingus88 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can buy whatever phone you want. Many of them can run multiple OSes if that’s what you want. There is not a single mobile platform in town. When Ford sells me an F150 I don’t cry about them having a monopoly on their Sync platform. That’s not now monopolies work | |
| ▲ | joemi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not a good analogy for the situation. A better grocery-based analogy would be if there's only a single Bob's Grocery in town (and for whatever reason more Bob's Groceries can't be opened) but there is a Sally's Groceries in town. Then Bob's Groceries isn't a monopoly. The only thing Bob's Groceries is a monopoly of is Bob's Groceries, which is a useless tautological argument. Apple has neither a monopoly on phones nor on app marketplaces. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | imthatsteve 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you read the post you replied to? Are you just being pedantic about the definition of monopoly or did you fail to understand the problem as it was explained. Do you use ios? If so do you like using broken websites? Do you have no desire for things to function as intended? Id imagine its very annoying as a developer to have your things broken for no reason other than pure corporate greed. If you do use ios then you probably enjoy paying more for an inferior product so ig this is more of a feature than a bug. | | |
| ▲ | simondotau an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Id imagine its very annoying as a developer to ...test on more than one browser platform? Seriously? Is this how lazy the industry has become? Is this how far we've fallen? Having websites say "if it doesn't work, install Chrome" is not choice. |
| |
| ▲ | protimewaster 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would I use the global market share to determine if someone has a monopoly, though? It seems like a flawed way to determine how much choice consumers have. For example, there's a monopoly on garbage service where I live, but he company with the monopoly has basically 0% of the world market. | | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do you defend a company with 30% marketshare being a monopoly but the other company with 70% market share isn't? I can see the duopoly argument, but no idea how apple could be a monopoly by itself | | |
| ▲ | protimewaster 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not defending anybody. I'm just saying, if I live in a market where one company has 99% of the market, somebody coming in and saying "There's not a monopoly. They only have 30% of the global market! " isn't going to make me feel any better, because I don't live everywhere in the world. I live where I live, and that company has 99% of the market there. I just don't think the 30% of the global market number is relevant to anything in terms of arguing if somebody has a monopoly. Are there even any countries who use a definition of "monopoly" that uses global marketshare to determine if there's a monopoly? Surely those definitions all look at marketshare within some specific region? | | |
| ▲ | floydnoel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | that argument doesn't relate to this discussion at all, though. you aren't limited to only buying Apple devices in your neighborhood, are you? | | |
| ▲ | protimewaster 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are entire countries where one company has 93%+ marketshare. Yes, maybe people can go to another country where the marketshare is different, but do we all seriously think that the global marketshare not resembling a monopoly definitely means that there's no one market where a monopoly exists? I imagine trying to effectively use (or market) a competing product in a region with 93%+ marketshare is a painful experience, regardless of whether the global marketshare is more balanced. Using global marketshare hides details like that. Apple could have 100% of the market in China and India, and Android could have 100% of the marketshare in the rest of the world. This would put, worldwide, Apple at about 35% and Android at about 65%. I would argue there are clearly monopolies in that case, though, even if the worldwide numbers are 65 and 35. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > How do you defend a company with 30% marketshare being a monopoly but the other company with 70% market share isn't? One allows you to install different browsers, the other does not. Being a monopoly isn't illegal (in the US). It's what they do that matters. Now, that doesn't mean Apple is a monopoly with iOS, because the Sherman act doens't dictate it only looks at US only markets. It look at what makes sense in the context. Of course, a court could decide that regardless of what the numbers are internationall, what matters in this case is just the US market. Trying to predict that is useless at the moment though because the US courts are all over the place. | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Being a monopoly isn't illegal. So many discussions gloss over this fact, and people get at each other's throat over hypothetical abuses and ad-hominem scenarios. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. Alphabet and Apple are both unquestionably monopoly businesses, and make incredible year-over-year revenue through market-damaging services like AdSense and the App Store. If they are allowed to continue, then other Fortune 500 businesses will copy their decisions, thereby destroying genuine market value that they provide in exchange for safer, more exploitative revenue streams. In the case of AdSense and Apple's App Store both, I think that any fair FTC investigation would conclude they are shakedown services that harm the greater economy. | | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | When nothing is stopping you from using an alternative i just don't see it | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could have said the same thing about Windows during it's antitrust case. Fat lot of good that logic would do Microsoft when they were deliberately gimping competitors. | | |
| ▲ | mithr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You couldn't have, though. Market share was a part of that Microsoft decision. At the time, they had 90-95% of the global market share — there were very few competitors. Apple has a higher though still in the 50s percentage-wise market share in the US, but a 20-30% share globally. Alternatives are much more viable in Apple's case, and often cheaper. You have to want an Apple device to get one, and it's very easy to get an Android instead and not lose out on any important software or functional ability. In addition, I think Apple has so far somewhat successfully argued that they have reasons for restricting their ecosystem that aren't just a thinly veiled "because we want to crush competition". They argue that their devices are safer to use, and that allowing arbitrary software full access to the system would compromise that. Similarly, they limit third-party software from tracking you. They certainly aren't saints, and I disagree with a many of their choices (their app store cut could've decreased long ago, for one, and they're now adding ads into their own services) but they often seem like the only large corporation of their kind that even tries to have a set of beliefs and care about their users, and I think intent should matter. I personally like that there's one popular ecosystem that has a particular perspective, and another competing popular ecosystem that has a totally different perspective. If you think all of the above is bullshit and Apple sucks, you're free to use Android and install exactly what you want on your phone. I've never really understood why folks are so adamant that this alternative should not be allowed to exist. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I've never really understood why folks are so adamant that this alternative should not be allowed to exist. Apple is responsible for market damages inflicted onto software distribution by picking-and-choosing who gets to ship, and where their money goes. It is reflected in Apple's astronomical service margins, which unfairly reward them with even higher ROI than the iPhone hardware itself (!!!), somehow. It is seen in Apple's back-room negotiations with Amazon, Netflix, Google, Epic and X, where they use their de-facto power to force unfavorable distribution terms and draw up protection fees. It's present in their entitlement system, which gives Apple the option to artificially hamstring competing services that want to integrate with iOS. It's inherent to Apple's developer program, which has been used to revoke software signing certificates when Apple simply disagrees with a competitor. Do we really think they deserve that money and power? It's not encouraging them to make smart choices. In a fair market, I'd say that Apple can offer their services as an option. A factory-new iPhone could use all of Apple's offered services with a hardware-attested eFuse that says the device was never jailbroken. If a user wants to do foolish things like play Fallout: New Vegas with Proton, give Dropbox system-level integration a-la iCloud, use an updated RCS client instead of iMessage, install Fortnite or use a third-party app store, then Apple can give them that choice without endangering other people. It isn't impossible, they already do this with macOS, running the same XNU kernel, and with an architecturally indistinct ARM chip. That would alleviate the market damages that Apple is responsible for, and create a positive pressure on iOS development to improve software-wise. Right now, Apple is being rewarded for extorting their competitors, pettily attacking consumers, blocking software features, stuffing ads[0] into first-party apps, and visually degrading iOS. They are clearly being protected from software alternatives that offer a less-invasive alternative to Apple's disgraceful OEM packins. Which is a shame, since Apple was historically not opposed to taking advantage of free software and making high-quality packin software that legitimately did compete against alternatives, like QuickTime and iTunes. [0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-to-ditch-unsolicited-f1-ads-n... |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
