Comment by xpe
2 years ago
> This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market.
Not simply that a company is dominant; it is more about how and why they are dominant.
Update 2:40 pm ET: After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justice views unfavorably:
* horizontal agreements between competitors such as price fixing and market allocation
* vertical agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain such as resale price maintenance and exclusive dealing
* unilateral exclusionary conduct such as predatory pricing, refusal to deal with competitors, and limiting interoperability
* conditional sales practices such as tying and bundling
* monopoly leveraging where a firm uses its dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another
Any of these behaviors undermines the conditions necessary for a competitive market. I'd be happy to have the list above expanded, contracted, or modified. Let me know.
And that is stuff Apple absolutely does. I have been at a company for which Apple was a customer. But you'd think that Apple owned the company the way they through around their power and demands.
It's like that everywhere unfortunately. You get a client with enough disparity in size and they are pretty much calling the shots. Can't even imagine that scaled up to Apple size.
It’s not though. My company partners with several other Apple sized and larger tech companies. Some are better than others, and we have running jokes about the ones that like to try to throw around their weight. Because, as you might expect, they are unpleasant to work with.
5 replies →
It should be based in size of contract, not size of company. If Apple wants to buy a stick of bubble gum from me, they go to the back of the line like everyone else. If my contract with Apple represents 80% of revenues for the year, yeah, they own me.
3 replies →
> Can't even imagine that scaled up to Apple size.
Have you ever dealt with a big government? Then you can imagine, Apple doesn't have as much weight as typical governments but it is close.
1 reply →
It boils down to the fact that iPhone is a pervasive computing device and similar to a "public good" should be regulated tightly.
For millions of people, it's their main/sole computing and internet access device so should be a neutral platform - with clear evidence as cited that Apple has not maintained its neutrality. As a neutral platform, customers should have the freedom to use their devices without undue interference or restrictions from Apple.
These are similar arguments made in the Microsoft vs. Netscape case. The lone example of being unable to install non-App Store apps is enough to justify the DOJ's case. Question is what would the verdict be? Similar to the EU's DMA rules would be a likely starting point.
> It boils down to the fact that iPhone is a pervasive computing device and similar to a "public good" should be regulated tightly.
Extremely authoritarian / communist take.
A $1000 luxury phone is not a "public good" just because many have FOMO and feel like they need one. There are many cheap alternative Androids that are just as good with virtually identical features. Nor is it a device that is absolutely necessary to function in society, like say other real public goods like running water or electricity.
Ha, my point is iPhone has become so ubiquitous that is has created a natural monopoly for Apple (50%+ US market share).
Like it or not, there are different rules for the biggest players who wield market power. If you want an iPhone, then Android is not an alternative option. DOJ's argument is that Apple has added artificial disincentives to enable switching to a non-iPhone and also favor its own apps/services.
This is verbatim the argument against Microsoft and how it was wielding its Windows monopoly to stifle competition like Netscape. Easy to forget that Microsoft had closed APIs for 3rd parties and dictated how OEMs installed its OS before the US government judgement. You could've made the same counterpoint at the time that there's theoretical alternative OSes like Linux and Unix.
1 reply →
Apple sells several different models of phones which, in fact, are not $1000
If it is used by a high % of the population, it is not a luxury good regardless of price. Luxury implies exclusivity imho.
> Extremely authoritarian / communist take.
What's authoritarian is Apple's lockdown of the iPhone. I should be able to run whatever application I want on my own device. Not the governement telling Apple, "Hey, people should be able to run what they want on their own device".
3 replies →
> Extremely authoritarian / communist take.
that's how you know he's right
I’ve read a few takes on this from smart people. This is the first time I’ve seen anything that sounds like a real winnable case. Thanks for the distillation. It’s good to know this isn’t as boneheaded as I’d thought (though they still need to go after the App Store).
Excellent breakdown. Much more concise compared to other versions of the story. And, to boot, all entirely true.
Thank you