So if there are 3 competitors and one drops out, the other two are now guilty of something? In all my years studying economics and law, I never heard anyone suggest anything remotely this draconian.
Considering in the Google antitrust case it came out that the companies were working hand in glove for years, what were have is a duopoly where the participants collude. This is also the case in broadband where ISPs carved up neighborhoods between themselves to reduce competition.
So sure, duopoly of real competitors is one thing, but that’s rarely the case once players realize they can set prices and divide the spoils.
> Considering in the Google antitrust case it came out that the companies were working hand in glove for years, what were have is a duopoly where the participants collude.
But then, the problem is that you have a cartel, not a duopoly. That’s the thing: you can only punish companies for their actions. A duopoly is a fact, in itself it does not imply any particular behaviour from either company. If there is collusion, then it’s anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of their dominant positions in the market, etc. Things that are already illegal and should be enforced.
> This is also the case in broadband where ISPs carved up neighborhoods between themselves to reduce competition.
The reason there is only 1 broadband ISP is because people are not willing to pay sufficiently more for fiber to offset the costs to install fiber to the home, especially in places with buried utilities.
Therefore, the existing coaxial connection is the only economically viable option.
Also, it rarely makes sense for 1 home to have multiple physical infrastructure connections, so they lend themselves to natural monopolies. If a house has access to fiber, it makes no sense to spend resources to run another fiber to the house.
Which is also why ISPs should be utilities, but that is not comparable to personal devices.
> is because people are not willing to pay sufficiently more for fiber to offset the costs to install fiber to the home
Which might be the case if, through taxes, we hadn't collectively paid for a lot of that in the way of subsidies and grants to those ISPs to do exactly that, subsidies and grants which resulted in, generally, more dividends, bonuses and stock buybacks than they did miles of fiber being laid.
> So if there are 3 competitors and one drops out, the other two are now guilty of something?
Well, Microsoft eventually got all but forced to port Office and, for a time, Internet Explorer to macOS to evade getting sanctioned by the EU.
In a similar vein, if the market is not healthy any more, the duopolists may be forced by regulatory authorities to make life easier for potential startup competitors: open up file format specifications, port popular applications with network effects (iMessage, Facetime, Find My in the case of Apple) to other platforms or open up specifications to allow others access/federation.
> Well, Microsoft eventually got all but forced to port Office and, for a time, Internet Explorer to macOS to evade getting sanctioned by the EU.
I have seen some people assert this a few times in the last couple of weeks and I don’t know where this comes from. This is not at all what happened.
This was part of an agreement between Apple and Microsoft in 1997, long before any EU decision. Microsoft bought some Apple shares and agreed to support office on MacOS for a few years, and Apple made IE their default browser.
One can argue whether they did it to improve the optics in their (American) antitrust lawsuit (and there are several details that do not make sense if it were the case), but it certainly was not forced on them by any court.
Ugh, this entire thread will be a frustrating exercise in folks insisting their feel-feels are the law of the land because they hate Apple and that takes precedence over facts and reality.
> So if there are 2 competitors and one drops out, then it's hardcore illegal, but otherwise it's a-okay?
No, it is absolutely not. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in the US. The government even explicitly and purposefully creates and grants monopolies pretty often. Natural monopolies are not illegal. Abusing your government-granted or natural monopoly is the illegal behavior.
I'm curious to see how they even construe a duopoly as a monopoly under current law, because this will have some profound impacts to the entire economy if they succeed.
> Ugh, this entire thread will be a frustrating exercise in folks insisting their feel-feels are the law of the land because they hate Apple and that takes precedence over facts and reality.
Typing this on one of many Apple devices I own. I don't hate Apple. But, you're right, comments like yours make this a frustrating exercise indeed.
> No, it is absolutely not. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in the US.
Yes yes, it may technically not be illegal per se, but then again, it's a problem. I am not a lawyer and I don't care about the details of the law. That's for other people. I am looking at this from a perspective of a consumer who feels actively harmed by what the tech industry has become. And as a member of society who cares for other people. If one company accrues that much by making it hard for others to compete, then they will rightfully be forced to give back if they don't do it out of their own free will.
Your point is not based on laws though, you're just wishing the laws were different. Which is fine, but the process here should be to change the laws first instead of warping the current laws' definition to punish Apple first, collateral damage be damned.
>then it's hardcore illegal
You aren't a lawyer, you don't care about the laws as written, yet make false statements about what the law says according to how you feel anyways then back pedal when called out that it's not actually illegal. I think you've said everything you can.
> Monopoly law needs to be reinterpreted in light of network effects.
This is the context of this discussion. If you think dragging me into details of the current law will distract me, sorry, no it won't. This thread is not about that.
> yet make false statements about what the law says
Now you are making false statements. I didn't say that the law says that. What's more, you dragged that piece of a sentence out of its context to make it appear as if it wasn't part of a question. But it was. So it's not a statement. It's a question. Is it a false question, maybe? Sounds a bit laughable to me.
