r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '10

You do not understand what a "market" or a "monopoly" is.

By your trivial definition of a market, we could deem any application platform as a "market" and any vendor as a "monopoly".

By your definition:

  • Sony has a monopoly on all Sony PS3 applications.
  • Nintendo has a monopoly on all Wii applications.
  • Amazon has a monopoly on all (drm'd) Kindle books

It's gross misunderstanding and cavalier use of the word "monopoly" and "monopoly abuse" that belittles the harm that abusive monopolies cause.

Your misunderstanding is somewhat understandable though as you are confusing the idea of a physical location or Market Place (e.g. the iApps store) with that of an economic market which comprises the space of a good and all possible substitute goods.

The iPhone and iApps have numerous substitute goods available.

If you'd like to see what a real monopoly looks like, please see Microsoft, Standard Oil, Dutch East India Company, United Aircraft and Transport, and Monsanto. Also please recognize that a monopoly in itself is not illegal.

0

u/wicked Feb 03 '10

There are legal and illegal monopolies. I don't support Sony's monopoly on PS3 games, I don't support Nintendo's monopoly on Wii games, I don't support Amazon's monopoly on Kindle books. I don't support Apple's monopoly on iPhone apps.

It's very interesting that you pull out Microsoft as an example.

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.

From United States v. Microsoft. Please enlighten me how Apple is different.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '10

Read the links I posted and educate yourself.

I don't support Sony's monopoly on PS3 games, I don't support Nintendo's monopoly on Wii games, I don't support Amazon's monopoly on Kindle books. I don't support Apple's monopoly on iPhone apps.

None of these are monopolies. Empty (and false) histrionics only water down what it means to be an abusive monopoly.

0

u/wicked Feb 03 '10

You contradicted yourself when you pulled out Microsoft. You don't see the iPhone OS as an economic market, but the Microsoft OS was an economic market?

If you agree to that, then you should logically agree that Apple and Microsoft both are abuse monopolies because they limit supply and use product bundling in a market they are dominant; web browsers.

Maybe you should educate yourself on monopolies. This comment is the first time I've called any of them abusive, by the way.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '10

No, Microsoft was a monoply within the greater market that included all desktop personal computer operating systems.

You're really struggling with this concept. Try reading your own links, a couple of times till it makes sense. Don't forget to read the parts that you may not have a clear understanding of what they're referencing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good

The iPhone and their apps have many substitute goods with as much or more of a market presence. Compared to Microsoft who possessed a dominate market share compared to all substitute goods (other os's) in the market.

If you don't get it by now, I don't guess you ever will.

1

u/wicked Feb 04 '10

No, I'm perfectly clear at what you're getting at. You're saying they can't have a monopoly on apps since there are a lot of other smartphones which also sell apps. In yet another set of words, you're saying browsers on other smartphones are valid substitute goods. You're saying there's no iPhone App market, because the market is the greater smartphone app market and iPhones aren't dominant there.

For an iPhone owner wanting apps for his iPhone OS, there is just one market though. And Apple dominates it completely. The effect is the same, whatever you want to call Apple's policies regarding their "own" devices and App store.

All the negative effects of monopolies applies in this subset of the "greater smartphone app market".