5 ms·

But in this case, the town is not 90% of the geography. Last i heard Google's town is bigger and there is also RIM Town (mass exodus happening there), a new WP7

But in this case, the town is not 90% of the geography. Last i heard Google's town is bigger and there is also RIM Town (mass exodus happening there), a new WP7 town (lots of airport signs) and a few others around.

nkassis 14y ago
I don't think you need a certain percentage of a market for this to start becoming a antitrust issue. And it could be argued that they have a strong monopoly on Tablets at this time. If this doesn't feel like anticompetitive behaviour, I don't know what does. They are using their rather large position in the smartphone/tablet market to enter another market (in this case storage) and snuff out the competition. And there are other examples.
- bilbo0s 14y ago
  Hmm... Be careful what you wish for. If antitrust laws can be applied even when there is no monopoly, indeed, not even a majority market share, you are basically giving the government a green light to do a WHOLE lot of bad things.
  - FreakLegion 14y ago
    Antitrust laws regulate anti-competitive behavior. Coercive monopolies are simply one of the forms this behavior may take. It's possible to run afoul of antitrust laws without having a monopoly, and it's also possible to have a monopoly without running afoul of antitrust laws.
  - jahewson 14y ago
    Anti-trust covers attempts to gain monopolies too (though I don't think Apple are in violation of either, as mentioned above).
- twidlit 14y ago
  Its not anti trust because developers can switch to android or wp7. There are no unmoveable market forces that will deem switching as market suicide, in other words there is no monopoly.
  - el_presidente 14y ago
    If it were so easy to switch, why wouldn't developers target all the platforms? It isn't market suicide, but it's not as easy as recompiling the code either.
- jahewson 14y ago
  Anti-trust law (where "trust" is an antiquated term for "cartel") is all about preventing multiple companies from conspiring to price-fix or monopolise a specific market via non-compete agreements and the like. For example Microsoft's famous agreements with OEMs to bundle IE and not Netscape. Having a monopoly is no sin, and Apple are no more obliged to sell non-Apple software for their phones as they are to sell non-Apple hardware in their stores.
- rimantas 14y ago
  Sorry, but this sounds a bit like "hey, they actually have a tablet worth something, let's punish them for that".
recoiledsnake 14y ago
Interesting, because the comments on other HN posts read like "There is no tablet market, there is only an iPad market", "Apple makes 80% of the money in the cell phone market, Apple is the only one making any money", "If you want to make money selling apps, the App Store is the best since it has the paying customers, Android is full of cheapskate freeloaders who want your app for free and install adblock". With the obligatory links to Asymco and Gruber to "prove" it. Now it's kind of funny to see some of the same people make the argument in comments here that Apple has no significant marketshare or dominance of anything.
- Retric 14y ago
  There is no contradiction, Apple 'owns' the high end market where people actually pay for apps. But, as a percentage of overall phone / tablet OS there well under 40% so it's hard to call them a monopoly.
  - zzleeper 14y ago
    BTW, in antitrust terms, they do have a monopoly in that segment, and could be charged for abusive practices.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      No. They don't. It is impossible to have a monopoly in a market segment and under the law, it is perfectly acceptable for a business to control a small portion of the marketplace.
      - anotherthrow 14y ago
        Why do you say this? A market segment just is a market according to the dictionary definitions. And legally, a lot of EU competition law concerns exactly how one individuates such markets/market segments. Can you draw out what you're claiming more?
        14y ago

nkassis 14y ago

I don't think you need a certain percentage of a market for this to start becoming a antitrust issue. And it could be argued that they have a strong monopoly on Tablets at this time. If this doesn't feel like anticompetitive behaviour, I don't know what does. They are using their rather large position in the smartphone/tablet market to enter another market (in this case storage) and snuff out the competition. And there are other examples.

bilbo0s 14y ago
Hmm... Be careful what you wish for. If antitrust laws can be applied even when there is no monopoly, indeed, not even a majority market share, you are basically giving the government a green light to do a WHOLE lot of bad things.
- FreakLegion 14y ago
  Antitrust laws regulate anti-competitive behavior. Coercive monopolies are simply one of the forms this behavior may take. It's possible to run afoul of antitrust laws without having a monopoly, and it's also possible to have a monopoly without running afoul of antitrust laws.
- jahewson 14y ago
  Anti-trust covers attempts to gain monopolies too (though I don't think Apple are in violation of either, as mentioned above).
twidlit 14y ago
Its not anti trust because developers can switch to android or wp7. There are no unmoveable market forces that will deem switching as market suicide, in other words there is no monopoly.
- el_presidente 14y ago
  If it were so easy to switch, why wouldn't developers target all the platforms? It isn't market suicide, but it's not as easy as recompiling the code either.
jahewson 14y ago
Anti-trust law (where "trust" is an antiquated term for "cartel") is all about preventing multiple companies from conspiring to price-fix or monopolise a specific market via non-compete agreements and the like. For example Microsoft's famous agreements with OEMs to bundle IE and not Netscape. Having a monopoly is no sin, and Apple are no more obliged to sell non-Apple software for their phones as they are to sell non-Apple hardware in their stores.
rimantas 14y ago
Sorry, but this sounds a bit like "hey, they actually have a tablet worth something, let's punish them for that".

recoiledsnake 14y ago

Interesting, because the comments on other HN posts read like "There is no tablet market, there is only an iPad market", "Apple makes 80% of the money in the cell phone market, Apple is the only one making any money", "If you want to make money selling apps, the App Store is the best since it has the paying customers, Android is full of cheapskate freeloaders who want your app for free and install adblock". With the obligatory links to Asymco and Gruber to "prove" it. Now it's kind of funny to see some of the same people make the argument in comments here that Apple has no significant marketshare or dominance of anything.

Retric 14y ago
There is no contradiction, Apple 'owns' the high end market where people actually pay for apps. But, as a percentage of overall phone / tablet OS there well under 40% so it's hard to call them a monopoly.
- zzleeper 14y ago
  BTW, in antitrust terms, they do have a monopoly in that segment, and could be charged for abusive practices.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    No. They don't. It is impossible to have a monopoly in a market segment and under the law, it is perfectly acceptable for a business to control a small portion of the marketplace.
    - anotherthrow 14y ago
      Why do you say this? A market segment just is a market according to the dictionary definitions. And legally, a lot of EU competition law concerns exactly how one individuates such markets/market segments. Can you draw out what you're claiming more?
      - 14y ago