Comment by AlotOfReading
2 years ago
Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. Absolute market share isn't the only factor that goes into determining monopoly. You also get different numbers from different definitions. Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, or ~80% of the mobile subscription market, etc.
>> Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. [...] Apple controls 100% of the iOS market [...]
I find it maddening that a lot of people replying to your fair point have chosen to ignore the first half and decided to exclusively focus on the latter, when that part was clearly meant as an example of how market definitions can have an impact.
A fairly recent example of the latter being a commonly mischaracterized or (by members of the public) outright dismissed concern was MSFTs dominance in the Cloud Gaming market, which was often met either with "but MSFTs share of the gaming market overall is less" or the even less applicable "but nobody uses Cloud Gaming anyway", even though neither should count towards whether something rises to anti-competitive behavior in a given market.
It's bikeshedding. People respond to the parts that they can, and ignore the parts they can't. Even if everyone else has already responded with the same thing.
> Apple controls 100% of the iOS market…
This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.
Of course it's non-sensical, right up until that thing grows to be a large part of the US economy.
I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.
You are agreeing with the parent poster, who is saying that the 80% matters, and it's nonsensical to call the 80% 100%.
Perhaps the more sensical version is "Apple controls 100% of the iOS app store market". Because no other app stores are allowed.
On the contrary, it's exactly on the spot. EU used the term "gatekeeper" for such a market position, where you can dictate the terms of the market (and have oversized influence over other participant's behviour), while dodging classification of "monopolist" on technicality. It's exactly the point.
Yeah! Microsoft owns 100% of the Windows market, so users shouldn't be able to install software on their Windows devices unless they use the Microsoft store. Installing your own software from the internet or writing your own code would be non-sensical because Microsoft owns that.
You used the phrase “Windows deceives” to mean “general purpose PCs”, and I think it’s worth noting this because Windows Phone was a Windows device. I acknowledge that this is not cognitive dissonance if you also believe PlayStation is a monopoly.
3 replies →
“Apple controls 100% of the iOS market” as an argument sounds like satire lol. What point does this make?
Is the implication that Apple should allow iOS on non-Apple devices? There is not a single hardware company in the world that would integrate iOS to the degree that Apple does. A requirement like this would immediately enshittify Apple’s brand.
I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was simply trying to illustrate that market share is relative to the definition of "market" you use with extreme examples. Frankly, I'm not even saying that defining iOS/the app store as a market unto itself is a good definition.
They're using emotional arguments, not rationale ones. Like calling Apple's cut of app sales a "tax", as it is literally not a tax but a normal part of doing business. Similarly the lawsuit claims that iPhone users somehow are "undermined" from messaging other phones, when in reality there are zero restrictions on messaging to and from any phone. None of these arguments are based on the reality of the situation, but some emotional response to it.
> Apple controls 100% of the iOS market
“AlotOfReading” controls 100% of your HN posts.
The call is coming from inside the house.