alt Hacker News> 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?
Replies
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Agreed about the App Store mess.
You're suggesting that we ought to pass laws to reflect colloquial usage of all words that are also used in a technical sense in a legal context?
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.