HN Explorer

USvApple is meant to be similar to USvMicrosoft, but marketshare is so different

2 points by marricks ↗ HN
US v. MS in the 90s was big and I'd agree quite helpful. The argument then was "MS has a monopoly and is using it to squash competition from competing applications" And going by the numbers they absolutely did have a monopoly[1]. Macintosh was a rounding error compared to IBM PC.

This new fight over the iPhone seems so drastically different in one key aspect. Apple does have a large share and the court can decide whether it's unfairly treating competing apps but... it is clearly not a monopoly, iPhone only accounts for 25% of sales, far less than Microsoft owning the computer market in the 90s.

Any one have any takes on this aspect? Does the market share not matter just the practices?

[1] https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/

8 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 20.1 ms ] thread
codingdave
The suit does not claim that iPhones have a monopoly on the phone market - it claims that Apple has monopolistic control of the app ecosystem within the iPhone market.
smoldesu
Yup. It wouldn't be quite so close of a comparison if third-party browsers could ship with their engines intact, let alone at-cost to their users. Apple is using their control to block competitors. At their scale, that's a dangerous game.
marricks
They won't ever have a monopoly on a browser engine though, or messaging app.

Their monopolistic practices are, arguably, preventing other monopolies. If Safari disappeared 97% of mobile browsers would be Chrome (or use the Chrome engine):

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/world...

smoldesu
That's speculatory, and furthermore I'd argue Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in. Apple's anticompetitive behavior may well be the last thing stopping a browser monopoly. That's for the free market to decide though, and it's an entirely different lawsuit in the making.
marricks
> Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in

Chrome has plenty of anti-competitive practices that aren't under scrutiny. Nudges in all Google owned software to switch, breaking features in other browsers (Firefox Whoops).

Like, I guess I'd be way more "pro this lawsuit" if Google was under similar scrutiny.

smoldesu
Google is under similar scrutiny. They are designated as a service and digital market Gatekeeper under EU law and will be reprimanded if they abuse a potential monopoly position. I personally support regulating Google, and the scrutiny of their (comparatively few) anticompetitive practices.

You and I can feel whatever way we want about it, it doesn't change a thing. Apple's market abuses are unique from Google's, and specifically you are asking the DOJ to punish Google for abuse that hasn't happened. Google's most egregious violation so far has been their advertising racket, which they were already punished for last year: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...

marricks
Got it, makes sense.

It still seems quite distinct as users aren't forced to have an iPhone, there are widely used alternatives, but folks were forced to have a PC if they wanted a computer for most tasks and situations back in the 90s.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)