One argument I don’t see being made is that mobile phones are actually in fact a duopoly and because the duopoly acts exactly the same, they should probably be treated as a monopoly inasmuch as they do act the same.
Listen, I get there’s a whole legal world you can argue around this, but really if I consider Apple + Google together, the lump sum of all their anti-competitive practices are enormous. In fact, they sort of thrive off each other.
For example: you can’t change the default search engine on iOS to anything but the four that come built in. How this isn’t anti-competitive is beyond me. But it’s because “the other half” of the oligarchy avoids monopoly. But is duopoly really tangibly different when they both have a sort of “agree not to infringe on each other” deal. Google basically stays out of the premium device market, and Apple stays out of search and advertising.
They literally got caught for agreeing not to poach each other’s employees. They both basically are acting together to preserve the golden cows, respectively, while both implementing a wide variety of truly despicable policies designed to further entrench their moats, suffocating whole swaths of startups along the way. Look no further than AMP and the ever-expanding google inline search answers and widgets, or on Apples side the complete lockdown of third party apps and unchangeable search engine. Then add the huge cut of app payments for both which mysteriously neither seems to think they need to compete on the cut they take? Somethings not right there. Especially given they both make more profit than just about any other company on earth.
It’s tiring to see all the legal-first thinkers who love to jump in and show how they aren’t monopolies... well, sure. But they are coordinating their efforts. The day Apple launches a search engine or Google actually attempts to build out a premium line of laptops (no the Pixel notebooks don’t count, they dropped those immediately), I’d have a little more faith.
People need to make the argument that they are coordinating and in effect acting as a monopoly because of it.
Google and Apple should not be allowed to act in as coordinated a manner as they do.
Two changes that would immediately make the world a better place. First, mandating that search engines cannot be locked down, and must be presented as a choice at setup without pre-determined order. Second, mandating that alternative app stores be allowed with no extra overhead. The second I don’t see how it happens legally, but outside that, it would absolutely be good for the world, no doubt at all it would increase competition dramatically.
> They literally got caught for agreeing not to poach each other’s employees.
For anyone who is wondering, Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay all colluded with each other[1] in order to keep tech employee compensation below market rate.
Also, it's worth mentioning that the layman discussion around whether Apple and/or Google fits the dictionary definition definition of a monopoly is a red herring. The government doesn't determine whether or not a trust is a monopoly based on that definition[2]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
> Also, it's worth mentioning that the layman discussion around whether Apple and/or Google fits the dictionary definition definition of a monopoly is a red herring. The government doesn't determine whether or not a trust is a monopoly based on that definition
I disagree. The market power test is an objective measure of exactly what the dictionary definition of monopoly is. The problem in lay discussions isn't the definition of monopoly but that markets in lay discussion are delineated by descriptive boundaries of markets rather than objective measures of actual competition like the market power test.
Listen, I get there’s a whole legal world you can argue around this, but really if I consider Apple + Google together, the lump sum of all their anti-competitive practices are enormous. In fact, they sort of thrive off each other.
For example: you can’t change the default search engine on iOS to anything but the four that come built in. How this isn’t anti-competitive is beyond me. But it’s because “the other half” of the oligarchy avoids monopoly. But is duopoly really tangibly different when they both have a sort of “agree not to infringe on each other” deal. Google basically stays out of the premium device market, and Apple stays out of search and advertising.
They literally got caught for agreeing not to poach each other’s employees. They both basically are acting together to preserve the golden cows, respectively, while both implementing a wide variety of truly despicable policies designed to further entrench their moats, suffocating whole swaths of startups along the way. Look no further than AMP and the ever-expanding google inline search answers and widgets, or on Apples side the complete lockdown of third party apps and unchangeable search engine. Then add the huge cut of app payments for both which mysteriously neither seems to think they need to compete on the cut they take? Somethings not right there. Especially given they both make more profit than just about any other company on earth.
It’s tiring to see all the legal-first thinkers who love to jump in and show how they aren’t monopolies... well, sure. But they are coordinating their efforts. The day Apple launches a search engine or Google actually attempts to build out a premium line of laptops (no the Pixel notebooks don’t count, they dropped those immediately), I’d have a little more faith.
People need to make the argument that they are coordinating and in effect acting as a monopoly because of it.
Google and Apple should not be allowed to act in as coordinated a manner as they do.
Two changes that would immediately make the world a better place. First, mandating that search engines cannot be locked down, and must be presented as a choice at setup without pre-determined order. Second, mandating that alternative app stores be allowed with no extra overhead. The second I don’t see how it happens legally, but outside that, it would absolutely be good for the world, no doubt at all it would increase competition dramatically.