> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.”
The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?
The concept you are looking for is market power or monopoly power. But in reality it should be anti-competitive behavior and market domination. There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.
A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.
> There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.
There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics.
In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold.
In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
Their arguments are more against anti-trust. Consider these cases. They will be concluded by Trump’s AG. Which means a DoJ under Gaetz or whomever will have the power to put the country’s largest companies under consent decrees that can contain almost anything. (My guess is something about free speech and DEI.)
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
Where should the new line be drawn though? And should we expect to move the line again when common opinion on the term adjusts and we again find that the legal definition is out if touch?
I'd feel a bit uncomfortable having laws and terms redefined to match what the average person thinks a word means. Its one thing to change a law that people actually disagree with, it feels off to me to change a law because people use words differently in everyday life compared to a court room.
I think the classic definitions are fine:
- Monopoly: 50%+ of a market
- Oligopoly: Just a few companies control most of the market.
Apple has more than 50% of mobile device market share. That means they're a monopoly.
Apple has 100% control of the app market for their device. This is also a classic form of Monopoly, kind of like a company store, but on a national scale.
Meanwhile, the legal definition has shifted because of activist judging by conservative judges, which created the "consumer harm" standard, which is nebulous, and much easier to turn into a wishy-washy judgment call than the actual, original definition. And conveniently lets corporate crony judges make judgments like "look how much consumer benefit there is from iPhones! we could care less how unfair Apple is to app developers," even though the idea that whatever features are in Apple devices that consumers get such benefits from won't still be available to consumers even if there's some anti-monopoly ruling.
Like many things in modern America, there's been extensive intentional erosion of things that shouldn't be controversial by what the founders would have referred to as "factions," IE special interests.
One of the funny things about antitrust, and especially when it comes to Apple, who (let's be real) have a high opinion of themselves and their products, is how much it induces them to say:
"What? We're not that popular, I don't know what you're talking about, there's so many options out there, and lots of people don't like or want our things and we're not as big as everyone imagines".
> We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning.
I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
>their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
No, they're not, inside the US. In the US, iPhone has a majority of the marketshare now. Outside the US isn't all that relevant since this is a US case in US courts and concerning the US market.
> and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
Apple could sell 1 phone a year and still have a monopoly if that single user can only install apps by using Apple services. You could argue the harms are irrelevant in that situation, but they certainly aren't with millions of users in the equation.
More like the general population doesn't understand how technological dark patterns are used against them. Blissful ignorance, while the rest of us, who know whats going on, suffer.
That pales in comparison to the payouts Apple does to its software suppliers. Just making payments to a company doesn't make you a "customer" in any real sense.
And yes, why on Earth should laws not have the outcomes that the citizens electing the government that passes them expect?
If people don't want a thing they call monopoly or any other word (and wanting that does not violate or contradict other norms or constitutional principles they want even more) isn't that what they should get in a democracy?
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?
Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.
The biggest irony in all of this is that AI is shaking things up in a major way. New entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic may very well end up beating Apple and Google in various markets over the next few years. The government is picking a time of intense competition and uncertainty to go after these companies.
> Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.
These companies are squeezing blood out of every company in existence, and there is no way out.
This racket hurts consumers, because there's no competition. Competition is impossible.
Apple and Google are an invasive species that have destroyed the ecosystem diversity, and now it's time for the government to step in and restore balance.
> big, successful companies
Disney is a big, successful company. Apple and Google are Blunderbores [1]. They control nearly all of computing. I can't think of a way you aren't paying them. They have their grubby hands on every part of the funnel, taxing it piece by piece.
They force you to pay for search, they force you to pay to deploy software, they tax your business transactions, they steal information about your business transactions, they keep you from forming a customer relationship yourself. They control what technology you use, they force you to make unscheduled updates, they prevent you from updating on your own or making your own choices.
They're Blunderbores, and the world is their kingdom until we cut them down a notch.
Ummm, what? What about Microsoft that has a stranglehold on corporate computing? IBM, SAP, TSMC, ASML all dominate certain aspects of computing. Nvidia? Meta has a near monopoly on social networks (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram).
I personally do think Apple behaves very anti-competitively but none of these are actual monopolies IMO (ASML might be the closest but only because no one else has figured out how to do what they do).
Apple is creating a large marketplace where it controls everything. It can be argued that the 30% tax is probably reducing the amount of useful software being produced, as is the case with other store rules like browser engine restrictions. Also, it allows Apple to compete in unfair ways against e.g. Spotify has to pay the 30% tax if they want to offer the same service as Apple, which is to offer in app subscription options, where Apple pays nothing. It may or may not meet the legal definition of a trust, but it surely seems to have all of its negative effects.
I don't quite agree with your conclusion. When these companies get as huge as they are, it's quite easy for them to abuse their size in ways that harm consumers and smaller businesses. This is different than just critiquing them for being large companies.
In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.
In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.
I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.
These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.
>In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?
Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all.
>Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)!
Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.
> Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother.
This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.
The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?