Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by partiallypro 2125 days ago
a) Global market share is irrelevant, show US share, which is about 51/49

b) Apple makes up the plurality of all store revenues, despite having a smaller install base both globally and in the US.

c) You can display monopolistic/duopoly behavior without having 100% of the market.

3 comments

a) It's an opinion that global market share is irrelevant, but I will report the fact that Apple has 58% USA market share.

b) source?

c) But can Apple be a monopoly with 58% of the market and a trillion dollar competitor with 41% of that market...and 75% control of the global market?

A question for the courts, for sure, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.

reference: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...

Apple users spend 80% more on apps than Android users, and that's using global numbers which makes the number even more staggering.

https://fueled.com/blog/app-store-vs-google-play/#:~:text=Ap...

https://www.statista.com/chart/14590/app-downloads-and-consu...

b) isn't it fair then that Apple charges a premium for access to a better market segment?
Ok so when was 49% considered a “monopoly”. Can you name one incident in case law where that was the case?
it is a defacto 'duopoly', or an informal cartel... plenty of laws around it if you are not too lazy to google them...
Words Mean Things.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cartel.asp

“ A cartel is an organization created from a formal agreement between a group of producers of a good or service to regulate supply in order to regulate or manipulate prices. In other words, a cartel is a collection of otherwise independent businesses or countries that act together as if they were a single producer and thus can fix prices for the goods they produce and the services they render, without competition.”

Do you have any evidence that Apple and Google are conspiring illegally to set prices? Are they talking to each other to agree on price?

“Informal cartel” has no legal meaning.