[crazygringo]

The different is crystal clear. Microsoft was considered a monopoly. You really had no good choice but Windows.

Apple and Google aren't. You have a choice between iOS and Android, both vibrant and thriving.

It really is that simple. And it's not just the legal but common sense definition of monopoly too -- do you control the market or not?

Now you might have other criticisms of app stores, but basing them on the Microsoft-monopoly-argument isn't going to be helpful or useful. You're going to need a different legal foundation for that.

[titzer]

The monopoly criterion is so outmoded. Anti-trust laws were enacted to counter organizations that cornered basic things like steel, railroads, power, communications, etc. 100 years ago, almost everything they could imagine was a commodity that was easily replaceable.

But app platforms are not commodities. There is considerable vendor lock-in, by design. It's not like one just takes an iOS app and instantly ports it over to Android when Apple's terms no longer suit; there is considerable sunk cost. Platforms cleave the market into captive audiences that can and are abused.

And what to do if you are little guy who invested everything in one of those two platforms and didn't have the foresight to write your app in a way that it was easily ported? Well, screw you.

So these platforms actually compete with each other to offer "value adds" which are really just like traps for vendor lock-in.

Anti-trust laws are full of flawed and antiquated reasoning that is unable to deal with the realities of the 21st century marketplace. And there is precious little understanding of these technological issues in courts and legislatures.

[paganel]

An oligopoly (i.e. a business cartel) it's just as bad as a monopoly. Even worse, I would say, because on the outside it gives you the illusion of business competition, while with a monopoly you kind of know loud and clear what you're dealing with.

[bobmaxup]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly