[BuckRogers]

It’s a privately held platform. The apps created by Apple should be on top if they want them to be. There’s no right to equal access such as with Net Neutrality, it’s not a publicly owned or subsidized platform. The only way this could possibly be wrong is if we nationalize Apple. I’m definitely left of center economically and I have no problem with Apple placing their apps on top. It would completely align with current rules, regulations and economic expectations. At 40% market share in the US, they’re not even a monopoly, not that it would matter anyway. That’s without mentioning that on a personal level I would prefer to do business with Apple rather than giving my information to many of the third parties. They’ve earned a reputation of being trustworthy and deserving of our money.

[simion314]

>At 40% market share in the US, they’re not even a monopoly

Can someone confirm my understanding that there is no percentage like 90% and if you are over that you are a monopoly . Is more about if you abuse your dominant position to screw the competition and consumers, and in this case Apple is screwing the application developers that they compete with by abusing their dominant position.

[ceejayoz]

You have to have a dominant position to abuse it.

You can quibble over whether 80% or 90% is a monopoly, but 40% clearly isn't one.

[WaltPurvis]

There's a whole host of anticompetitive and restraint-of-trade business practices that are illegal whether a company has 90% or 40% or 2% market share.

[simion314]

Just some question so is clear in my mind what your idea is

Why more then 80% ? why not 50% + 1

IS 80% of smartphones ? or smartphones+tablets , or all phones , or 80% of capital/financial of all mobile app stores ?

What if I say that Apple has 100% monopoly on the iOS? you would say but what about Android ? I would say if I am Netflix,Spotify,Bank X, etc I have no REAL choice as a developer not to make iOS apps similar how some people have no choices where to get their Internet, they get the expensive good internet or if they don't like it they have some subpar choices if their are lucky and you telling them not to use Internet if they don't like it is not a REAL choice even if it is a possible choice. (I am referring mostly at developers but screwing with developers yous crew your users like you have less choices on iOS as a user because you can't use GPL apps)

[ceejayoz]

> What if I say that Apple has 100% monopoly on the iOS?

That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.

> why not 50% + 1

Because the "mono" in monopoly means "one", not "two".

You can accurately say that Apple and Google enjoy an oligopoly in the mobile operating system market. You cannot reasonably say either one holds a monopoly.

[simion314]

>That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.

And if Ford would not allow me who can enter in my Ford, won't allow me to replace the original Ford mirror with a cheap working one then I would also be pissed at Ford and ask the government to fix this.

You can push the bad argument you brought in the other direction, Microsoft does not dominate the PC , what about servers ? but desktop and server users differ? so iOS and Android users differ and it is not about Apple dominating Google is about Apple having a leverage position over developers and abusing it.

>Because the "mono" in monopoly means "one", not "two".

But we were talking about dominating and abusing, but if you missed it, then I will repeat, you do not need to be a monopoly do dominate and abuse, you can have 2 or 3 companies sharing a market and abusing their dominance, so stop posting same comment of "Apple is not a monopoly on smartphones" someone was smart enough to think about more the duopoly case and the laws covder that too.

[gamblor956]

That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.

It's a very appropriate argument, and Ford does have a monopoly on F-150's. As I've noted elsewhere, monopolies are not by themselves illegal.

The trucks are like the iPhone, so in this context we would be talking about truck parts (i.e., apps). Ford doesn't restrict or attempt to control the market for F-150 parts. If you damage your car, the mechanic can buy parts from Ford or any one of dozens of auto parts makers. In contrast, Apple does restrict and artificially control the market for apps, even to the extreme of drowning out competing apps with irrelevant search results, and Apple is the only market for getting iOS apps.

[BuckRogers]

I agree that it's a silly argument. F150s are not a market, that's one product. The truck market is a market.

Ford may have a "monopoly" on F150s, just as I have a monopoly on ownership on the house I live in. That's not a market, it's a product.

Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly in the app market, there are alternative places to sell your apps other than their store.

[damnyou]

I'm sure you've seen endless comments on this website about how Apple has an outsized amount of "profit share", and that it matters a lot more than market share for app developers.

[gamblor956]

You have to have a dominant position to abuse it.

This is true. But antitrust law doesn't require that you have a mnonopoly or a dominant market position. It's simply that the analysis is more complex and significantly more contextual if you don't have a dominant market position.

[BuckRogers]

This is because antitrust laws are not specific to solving the problem of monopolies. Your point is an obvious one and borders on argumentative without a point.

[kemayo]

Yes, but the article isn't objecting to Apple listing its own Podcasts app at the top of a search for "podcast". It's objecting to it then listing Compass, Find Friends, Tips, and 12 more Apple apps that aren't related to the search query before any non-Apple app is listed. (Which issue they have since fixed.)

The article is about "Apple made a mistake in its search algorithm", not about competition per-se.

[sambe]

The article uses the term "stacked". It refers to a complaint to the EU about the abuse of their position as owner of the App Store. It refers to a Supreme Court anti-trust case. It repeatedly frames the discussion in terms of what Apple gained vs competitors.