[simonh]

Right, so Microsoft holding a near-monopoly on desktop operating systems was not found to be illegal, but leveraging that power in anti-competitive ways was. Similarly Amazon doesn't have to control a monopoly on online retail, web service hosting, etc. It just has to be found to use it's dominance in illegal ways and it's not clear to me that it has done so. Similarly with Apple.

One nuance I'm not clear on is power gained through the monopoly ownership of a proprietary technology. So for example Apple was able to exert considerable influence over AT&T and later get unprecedented concessions from carriers in order for them to support the iPhone. Arguably their power over the App Store gives them similar leverage. But is that anti-competitive if it simply flows from the superiority of their proprietary software? Arguably no, it's entirely fair enough. They are not using dominance of the market, but legitimately exploiting their ownership of their platform. But couldn't Microsoft have used the same argument for Windows?

I'm genuinely conflicted on this. Simply gaining advantage by being 'better' can't be enough to be illegal surely? That would create truly bizarre and user-hostile incentives. However when you gain a monopoly position and then exert that power, it becomes anti-competitive. How do we tell when a company crosses the threshold? Nobody in 1997-2010 could argue Apple had monopoly power in the phone market and it had almost exactly the same policies back then. Now maybe it does hold some form of monopoly or at least market dominating power, but applies basically the same policies, so is that now illegal? Maybe policies appropriate for a smaller player can be inappropriate beyond a certain scale.

That might be true, I'm willing to accept that. As a customer in 1998 I chose to by an iPhone and accepted Apple's controls over the platform as beneficial, but a new purchaser now might feel compelled to do so due to Apple's dominance of the App ecosystem and resent the locked down nature of the system. That person might legitimately cry foul and maybe have an honest grievance. How does that work? How are Apple supposed to know that their existing, standing policies have now become a violation of the law where previously they were not? It genuinely perplexes me.

[kybernetikos]

> It just has to be found to use it's dominance in illegal ways and it's not clear to me that it has done so.

Amazon had a struggling video business, but that wasn't a problem, because they had a near monopoly on online shopping, so they bundled the cost of the video service into the delivery discount program 'amazon prime'.

[simonh]

By itself that's probably not a violation if it doesn't actually hurt anyone, Netflix still seems to be doing fine. Lets assume that changes though and Prime video comes to dominate, then it could be a violation. This is my point, it seems like it's only a violation if it works, or works too well. There's a lack of clarity, at least to me.

[kybernetikos]

They aren't harming netflix yet, because even with a captive audience, the offering isn't good enough to make people feel like they don't also need netflix. I'd be very surprised if there hasn't been significant harm to second tier services though - people might want to supplement netflix with something, but if they already have amazon prime, they're probably a lot less likely to supplement it with now tv, Hulu, etc

[Nasrudith]

But isn't that the exact opposite of a monopoly? They are creating more competition in another space that is difficult to enter.

[kybernetikos]

Imagine how you would feel if people weren't buying your bicycles because the water company was charging inflated prices for water and giving away free bicycles.

Incidentally, the fact that Amazon can choose to set the price for 'free, fast delivery of packages' so high that they can slide a video streaming system in there for 'free', is one of the signs of monopoly power, and bundling as a way to push into unrelated industries is a well accepted example of monopoly power abuse.

> But isn't that the exact opposite of a monopoly? They are creating more competition in another space that is difficult to enter.

The key is that they're using their monopoly power dominance of one industry to gain advantage in an unrelated industry.

[anextomp]

It could be argued that it is similar to predatory pricing, where you accept a loss on your offering to drive competitors away before increasing the price.

Amazon video as its own service would not be able to survive so it is unfair on services that just try to do video.

[dmwallin]

There is significant evidence Amazon has used it's dominant position and potentially sold products at a loss to undercut and remove competition.

https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be... https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/13/18563379/amazon-predatory...