[nostromo]

How is Apple a monopoly? They don't even have a majority of the US market.

I do agree they have incredible market strength. But that comes from a large base of loyal customers with deep pockets, not from monopolizing the market.

[basch]

Closed ecosystem technology service conglomerate is a better way to say it. The word monopoly gets used interchangeably within antitrust conversations all the time to mean abusive market position and behavior.

Apple is forcing anyone that uses Sign in With Facebook or Google to also support Sign in With Apple, or they will be removed from the app store. Quite a power play. (hence the title of the article)

Can you make the argument that they are abusing their position as one of two mobile operating systems to force unnatural adoption of their service, at the expense of their competition, Google and Facebook.

[gimmeThaBeet]

The fact that they don't have anywhere near a numerical majority of devices always makes me pause on this stuff.

The weird thing with Apple using its market position to get their way is that they don't have all the customers, not by a long shot. It's that they have the customers you want.

I'd hazard to guess Apple looks more dominant by some customer money-weighted metric.

When Apple directly competes against companies on its own platform it does seem a bit shaky a la Spotify.

But in the general case, the idea still bites at me that you don't need Apple to access a sufficient customer base, but you want them because you want to access Apple's customers.

[basch]

well said.

Heres where I think it is anti-competitive. Lets say you are building a streaming service. You choose to be android only, because you want the majority of the market, and calculate that you dont need the Apple users. Your competitor complies with more apple rules, and goes cross platform. They win because they chose to be cross platform.

It's hard to win (and by and large you usually need to be a winner, to exist in the long run) without offering your product to people, whichever device they choose to access it from.

Apple, despite being a non majority of the market share, is a king maker, they can choose the winners. And if they want to, they can cripple their competitors through a combination of app store rules, payment processing requirements and limited api access (streaming, payment, maps, etc)

[scarface74]

How is that any different from game makers choosing not to support every console?

[summerlight]

There are two factors that matters to a relevant market definition in monopoly; product and geographic. We don't know what product definition will eventually be chosen by the Justice Department yet, but Apple will be in surely trouble when it's defined as users with Apple mobile devices since Apple has an absolute power in this hypothetical market.

It's true that Apple doesn't have a dominant position in the phone market, but the same logic may not be applicable to the app store. Do not confuse those two; Not much customers change their expensive phone due to $1 increase of app prices which could be easily mandated by Apple even though there's nothing stop them from changing their phone. So Android apps are not really viable substitutes unless Apple allows another competing OS or app store on iPhone. Because of this reason, even Apple hasn't attempted to defend itself with "Android is a viable option!".

[mrkstu]

Which would make no sense, since it would be a circular argument that would apply to every company with a product to sell.

[fooey]

It's the argument that the car makers lost when it was determined you're not restricted to only their mechanics when it comes time for a warranty claim.

Ford can't restrict you to only Ford parts and Ford service mechanics and Ford Gas and Ford toll roads just because you bought a Ford.

[summerlight]

I agree that it's not very intuitive. That's why there's no single clear definition of "market" in antitrust laws and most of the time it's done by hypothetical monopolist test, which is a highly data-driven process. I have no idea on what will be the final decision since it's not a predictable one for the outsider; I am just giving you one real possibility rather than ruling it out from the beginning.

[anoncake]

How so? Most goods can trivially be substituted for another of the same category. A dishwasher can be substituted for another dishwasher etc.

[Drew_]

They have complete control over the iOS application market: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/14/18618127/apple-pepper-sup...

[scarface74]

As does Sony over PlayStation, Microsoft over XBox, and Nintendo over their consoles.

[partiallypro]

You don't have to have the majority of the market to display anti-competitive behavior.

[anoncake]

The EU assumes you have a market-dominant position at a market share of 40%. You don't even need a majority of the market to be treated as a "monopolist".

[rhizome]

Such as in price-fixing, collusion, and more.

[erikpukinskis]

I don’t know if monopoly is the right word, but if I want to share messages with my family and friends reliably, I have to use their devices.

I could conceivably convince everyone around me to switch to WhatsApp or similar. But in practice I don’t think that’s likely so I just only buy Apple devices.

Apple also lied to us about this, claiming FaceTime would be an open protocol. I don’t think they ever said the same about iMessage.

I think there is both fraud and federal telecommunications law being violated in these acts, but I don’t have the resources to sue Apple.

[scarface74]

The only messaging controlled by Apple is iMessage and it integrates with SMS.

[erikpukinskis]

It's so disheartening that every time I post about this on HN, I am downvoted into negative numbers and argued with.

If you disable iMessage, any messages people send to group chats you were in will just silently stop working. I don't know what else to say. You will never see those messages. Yes, it sort of integrates with SMS. But if you want to actually see all of your messages, once you are in you have to stay in.