8 ms·

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in any market they are in.

by mulderc 6mo ago

TheDong 6mo ago
It depends how you define the market. In the 2001 microsoft case [0], the courts ruled Microsoft had a monopoly over the "Intel-based personal computer market". Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store. They have a monopoly over the driver market on macOS. Like, Microsoft was found guilty of exploiting its monopoly for installing IE by default while still allowing other browser engines. On iOS, apple bundles safari by default and doesn't allow other browser engines. If we apply the same standard that found MS a monopoly in the past, then Apple is obviously a monopoly, so at the very least I think it's fair to say that reasonable people can disagree about whether Apple is a monopoly or not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
  That’s not how monopoly definitions work. That makes about as much sense as saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo consoles or Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs
- Underphil 6mo ago
  I don't think any of what you're describing are legal "monopolies". I don't have a single Apple product in my life but I'm fairly sure there's nothing I'm prevented from doing because of that.
  - TheDong 6mo ago
    And back in the "Microsoft has a monopoly on IE6" ruling's days, I did not use Windows or Internet Explorer, and I was not prevented from doing anything because of that. Netscape Navigator on Linux worked fine. Sure, I occasionally hit sites that were broken and only worked in IE, but I also right now frequently hit apps that are "macOS only" (like when Claude Cowork released, or a ton of other YC company's apps). Microsoft was found guilty, so clearly the bar is not what you're trying to claim.
    - selectodude 6mo ago
      Microsoft was found guilty of using their market power to do product bundling, which is illegal. The fact that they had dominance in the market is not what they got popped for, nor is it illegal.
      - sroussey 6mo ago
        You just described Apple.
        selectodude 6mo ago
        Apple has not, to my knowledge, required OEMs to bundle Safari with macOS alongside threats to withhold macOS if they don’t comply expressly to put Firefox out of business. But hey, maybe some weird shit happened during the clone years that I’m not privy to.
        SvenL 6mo ago
        Apple requires Developers to use AppStore with their App alongside threats to withhold their App if they don’t comply. Just an example… and yes, I know the EU ruling but it’s still fitting.
        pdpi 6mo ago
        The crucially important subtlety here is that Apple requiring developers to use the App Store doesn't leverage an existing monopoly (like what Microsoft had with Windows). Compare the games console market. Nintendo is allowed to say you have to go through them to sell games for the Switch, ditto Microsoft with the Xbox. Sony doing the same thing with the Playstation is exactly equivalent, but they're approaching the sort of market dominance where it might soon be illegal for them (and them alone) to do that in some markets.
        AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
- hilsdev 6mo ago
  I wouldn’t say it is obvious. Apple does not have the monopoly of ARM based PCs. Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel. It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware. They had a monopoly on a market where you effectively had to use their software to use the hardware you bought from a different company. Because Apple is selling their own hardware and software as a single product, the consumer is not forced into restricting the hardware they bought by a second company’s policies.
  - SvenL 6mo ago
    Well “had to use” is a strong phrase here. Linux was already around and you could have used it too with your hardware. I think you can always bend an argument to fit your point.
    - detourdog 6mo ago
      The PC manufacturers had to pay MS for a license no matter what operating system was installed.
      - LocalH 6mo ago
        Indeed. Pepperidge Farm remembers Microsoft's campaign against "naked PCs"
      - SvenL 6mo ago
        Didn’t knew that, but only if they also sold windows pc? Like, if a company would only sold blank PCs without any offering associated to MS they wouldn’t need to pay MS anything.
        detourdog 5mo ago
        That was the what the trial about. If you wanted to contract with MS you had to pay for a license on every box shipped. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, IBM, Acer, and others had to sign the contract or ship only alternate OS’s If one sold a computer with OS/2 they also paid for a windows license.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store When a company is deemed an illegal monopoly, the DoJ basically becomes part of management. Antitrust settlements focus on germane elements, e.g. spin offs. But they also frequently include random terms of political convenience. I don’t think we want a precedent where companies having a product means they have an automatic monopoly on said product.
  - ascagnel_ 6mo ago
    More to the point: having a monopoly isn't de facto illegal (just look up natural monopolies), it's using the monopoly power in an anti-competitive way that's illegal. Microsoft wasn't charged with having a monopoly, they were charged because they used that monopoly to exclude Netscape Navigator and force bundling of IE.
- SllX 6mo ago
  Yes. If you define the market in a ridiculous manner and convince a court to go along with it, anybody can be a monopoly. But the M series are an Apple product line designed by Apple with a ARM license and produced on contract by TSMC for use in other Apple products. Don’t assume the facts from another case automatically apply in other cases. Or as Justice Jackson once put it: “Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions”
- brookst 6mo ago
  Reductionism is so cringe. Intel sold chips to anyone. Anyone could make Intel computers. Apple does not sell chips to anyone. Nobody else can make m-series computers. Your argument is basically that Ford has a monopoly on selling mustangs because standard oil had a monopoly on selling oil.
- scott_w 5mo ago
  There’s no such thing as “monopoly on Apple-produced processors” because that’s absurd. The monopoly for MacBook would be “consumer laptops” most likely. Apple does not have a monopoly in consumer laptops to the best of my knowledge.
- trueno 5mo ago
  > Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market lmao what ? the "M-chip" is literally their chip that they designed, built relationships with TSMC over and bankrolled into production to put in their products. literally hardware by apple for apple. this was a decade plus long thing in the making, this is the risk/gamble apple took and invested heavily into. that is apples innovation. any other manuf is free to go do this themselves for their own devices, they just didn't and for the most part still don't. that just like isn't a monopoly at all, i'm amused you even got to that point in the first place. seems to carry some broad misunderstandings of what the M-series chips are or carries an assumption that cpus are supposed to be shared to any interested parties just because that was intels business model. intel was historically slacking & their one-size-fits-most approach wasn't meeting the engineering requirements apple was after generation after generation, so apple took the cpu destiny into their own hands and made their own. if you feel like non-apple laptop chips aren't living up to that kind of perf/ppu.... well yeah you'd be right. but that's not really apples fault. that's not a monopoly thing, like at all. either laptop manufs need to go make their own chip (unlikely) or intel/qualcomm/etc need to catch up.
thisislife2 6mo ago
It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for.
- ssl-3 6mo ago
  > It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. If we have a right to repair (we broadly do not, AFAICT), then that doesn't necessarily mean that we have a right to modify and/or add new functionality. When I repair a widget that has become broken, I merely return it to its previous non-broken state. I might also decide to upgrade it in some capacity as part of this repair process, but the act of repairing doesn't imply upgrades. At all. > No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for. I agree completely, but here we are anyway. We've been here for quite some time.
satvikpendem 6mo ago
Courts have already ruled it does in the iOS app store market. You can disagree of course but then you'd be disagreeing with legal experts who know more about anti-trust law than you do.
- afavour 6mo ago
  But Apple’s share of the desktop/laptop market is very different than their share of the mobile one.
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    Yes, however the parent's claim was that Apple does not have a monopoly in any market they're in which is legally demonstrably false.
- hilsdev 6mo ago
  Credentialism to prevent discussion of political and government entities is incredibly dangerous
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    You can, but that doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as those who study the subject. Otherwise we might as well follow the sovereign citizen believers.
latexr 6mo ago
What’s that got to do with anything? Having a monopoly isn’t the only reason to be regulated.

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in any market they are in.

by mulderc 6mo ago

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in any market they are in.

It depends how you define the market. In the 2001 microsoft case [0], the courts ruled Microsoft had a monopoly over the "Intel-based personal computer market". Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store. They have a monopoly over the driver market on macOS. Like, Microsoft was found guilty of exploiting its monopoly for installing IE by default while still allowing other browser engines. On iOS, apple bundles safari by default and doesn't allow other browser engines. If we apply the same standard that found MS a monopoly in the past, then Apple is obviously a monopoly, so at the very least I think it's fair to say that reasonable people can disagree about whether Apple is a monopoly or not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
That’s not how monopoly definitions work. That makes about as much sense as saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo consoles or Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs
Underphil 6mo ago
I don't think any of what you're describing are legal "monopolies". I don't have a single Apple product in my life but I'm fairly sure there's nothing I'm prevented from doing because of that.
- TheDong 6mo ago
  And back in the "Microsoft has a monopoly on IE6" ruling's days, I did not use Windows or Internet Explorer, and I was not prevented from doing anything because of that. Netscape Navigator on Linux worked fine. Sure, I occasionally hit sites that were broken and only worked in IE, but I also right now frequently hit apps that are "macOS only" (like when Claude Cowork released, or a ton of other YC company's apps). Microsoft was found guilty, so clearly the bar is not what you're trying to claim.
  - selectodude 6mo ago
    Microsoft was found guilty of using their market power to do product bundling, which is illegal. The fact that they had dominance in the market is not what they got popped for, nor is it illegal.
    - sroussey 6mo ago
      You just described Apple.
      - selectodude 6mo ago
        Apple has not, to my knowledge, required OEMs to bundle Safari with macOS alongside threats to withhold macOS if they don’t comply expressly to put Firefox out of business. But hey, maybe some weird shit happened during the clone years that I’m not privy to.
        SvenL 6mo ago
        Apple requires Developers to use AppStore with their App alongside threats to withhold their App if they don’t comply. Just an example… and yes, I know the EU ruling but it’s still fitting.
        pdpi 6mo ago
        The crucially important subtlety here is that Apple requiring developers to use the App Store doesn't leverage an existing monopoly (like what Microsoft had with Windows). Compare the games console market. Nintendo is allowed to say you have to go through them to sell games for the Switch, ditto Microsoft with the Xbox. Sony doing the same thing with the Playstation is exactly equivalent, but they're approaching the sort of market dominance where it might soon be illegal for them (and them alone) to do that in some markets.
        AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
hilsdev 6mo ago
I wouldn’t say it is obvious. Apple does not have the monopoly of ARM based PCs. Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel. It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware. They had a monopoly on a market where you effectively had to use their software to use the hardware you bought from a different company. Because Apple is selling their own hardware and software as a single product, the consumer is not forced into restricting the hardware they bought by a second company’s policies.
- SvenL 6mo ago
  Well “had to use” is a strong phrase here. Linux was already around and you could have used it too with your hardware. I think you can always bend an argument to fit your point.
  - detourdog 6mo ago
    The PC manufacturers had to pay MS for a license no matter what operating system was installed.
    - LocalH 6mo ago
      Indeed. Pepperidge Farm remembers Microsoft's campaign against "naked PCs"
    - SvenL 6mo ago
      Didn’t knew that, but only if they also sold windows pc? Like, if a company would only sold blank PCs without any offering associated to MS they wouldn’t need to pay MS anything.
      - detourdog 5mo ago
        That was the what the trial about. If you wanted to contract with MS you had to pay for a license on every box shipped. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, IBM, Acer, and others had to sign the contract or ship only alternate OS’s If one sold a computer with OS/2 they also paid for a windows license.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store When a company is deemed an illegal monopoly, the DoJ basically becomes part of management. Antitrust settlements focus on germane elements, e.g. spin offs. But they also frequently include random terms of political convenience. I don’t think we want a precedent where companies having a product means they have an automatic monopoly on said product.
- ascagnel_ 6mo ago
  More to the point: having a monopoly isn't de facto illegal (just look up natural monopolies), it's using the monopoly power in an anti-competitive way that's illegal. Microsoft wasn't charged with having a monopoly, they were charged because they used that monopoly to exclude Netscape Navigator and force bundling of IE.
SllX 6mo ago
Yes. If you define the market in a ridiculous manner and convince a court to go along with it, anybody can be a monopoly. But the M series are an Apple product line designed by Apple with a ARM license and produced on contract by TSMC for use in other Apple products. Don’t assume the facts from another case automatically apply in other cases. Or as Justice Jackson once put it: “Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions”
brookst 6mo ago
Reductionism is so cringe. Intel sold chips to anyone. Anyone could make Intel computers. Apple does not sell chips to anyone. Nobody else can make m-series computers. Your argument is basically that Ford has a monopoly on selling mustangs because standard oil had a monopoly on selling oil.
scott_w 5mo ago
There’s no such thing as “monopoly on Apple-produced processors” because that’s absurd. The monopoly for MacBook would be “consumer laptops” most likely. Apple does not have a monopoly in consumer laptops to the best of my knowledge.
trueno 5mo ago
> Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market lmao what ? the "M-chip" is literally their chip that they designed, built relationships with TSMC over and bankrolled into production to put in their products. literally hardware by apple for apple. this was a decade plus long thing in the making, this is the risk/gamble apple took and invested heavily into. that is apples innovation. any other manuf is free to go do this themselves for their own devices, they just didn't and for the most part still don't. that just like isn't a monopoly at all, i'm amused you even got to that point in the first place. seems to carry some broad misunderstandings of what the M-series chips are or carries an assumption that cpus are supposed to be shared to any interested parties just because that was intels business model. intel was historically slacking & their one-size-fits-most approach wasn't meeting the engineering requirements apple was after generation after generation, so apple took the cpu destiny into their own hands and made their own. if you feel like non-apple laptop chips aren't living up to that kind of perf/ppu.... well yeah you'd be right. but that's not really apples fault. that's not a monopoly thing, like at all. either laptop manufs need to go make their own chip (unlikely) or intel/qualcomm/etc need to catch up.

thisislife2 6mo ago

It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for.

ssl-3 6mo ago
> It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. If we have a right to repair (we broadly do not, AFAICT), then that doesn't necessarily mean that we have a right to modify and/or add new functionality. When I repair a widget that has become broken, I merely return it to its previous non-broken state. I might also decide to upgrade it in some capacity as part of this repair process, but the act of repairing doesn't imply upgrades. At all. > No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for. I agree completely, but here we are anyway. We've been here for quite some time.

satvikpendem 6mo ago

Courts have already ruled it does in the iOS app store market. You can disagree of course but then you'd be disagreeing with legal experts who know more about anti-trust law than you do.

afavour 6mo ago
But Apple’s share of the desktop/laptop market is very different than their share of the mobile one.
- satvikpendem 6mo ago
  Yes, however the parent's claim was that Apple does not have a monopoly in any market they're in which is legally demonstrably false.
hilsdev 6mo ago
Credentialism to prevent discussion of political and government entities is incredibly dangerous
- satvikpendem 6mo ago
  You can, but that doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as those who study the subject. Otherwise we might as well follow the sovereign citizen believers.

latexr 6mo ago

What’s that got to do with anything? Having a monopoly isn’t the only reason to be regulated.