I’m not sure I buy that, too, but if it is true that it is common and that gamers buy multiple consoles and we think that’s an acceptable state of affairs, and also true that users don’t buy multiple smartphones (that, I wholeheartedly buy), one could argue the latter is because they can get all the apps they want on either brand, and that would be an argument against one of the brands having monopoly power.
> one could argue the latter is because they can get all the apps they want on either brand, and that would be an argument against one of the brands having monopoly power.
But that isn't true if they reject apps for arbitrary reasons, because then there are apps you can't get. Moreover, even if all the apps were available on both, the fact that they don't have to compete after device purchase means they can each charge a higher percentage as a fee, which in some cases will be passed on to the customer as higher prices and in other cases reduce the quality or quantity of available apps by starving developers of resources.
But Android allows side-loading and hence cannot reject apps. So, consumers can get all the apps they want (insofar as they exist) by buying Android devices.
I guess Apple would argue that their policy to reject apps doesn’t hurt consumers, because, if it did increase prices and/or decrease quality and/or decrease availability of apps on iOS, why do so many consumers still buy iPhones? Maybe because having only one, vetted, store has value to them, too?
(Just to make sure: I’m not sure whether I would buy that argument, but I also don’t think it is a slam-dunk that Apple’s behavior hurts consumers, and that consumers have no choice to accept that (there’s nothing against companies giving their customers a bad deal, as long as they’re free to walk away))
> But Android allows side-loading and hence cannot reject apps. So, consumers can get all the apps they want (insofar as they exist) by buying Android devices.
Someone else already addressed side loading, but notice that this wouldn't be true even if Android had actual competition between stores, because it still wouldn't have every app. For example, if everyone in my family uses iMessage, I can't get it for Android, and not because Google rejected it. If I need an iPhone for iMessage, I'm stuck with Apple's store.
> I guess Apple would argue that their policy to reject apps doesn’t hurt consumers, because, if it did increase prices and/or decrease quality and/or decrease availability of apps on iOS, why do so many consumers still buy iPhones? Maybe because having only one, vetted, store has value to them, too?
Or maybe because of iMessage, or because Apple makes faster processors than Qualcomm, or because they do like Apple's store even if they would prefer to have other stores available too, or because they want iOS over Android, or because an iPhone is a status symbol with signaling value in certain business contexts, or because they originally chose an iPhone before it came out that Apple was making all these capricious app rejections and by then were already locked in to the platform, and so on.
That's the problem. When all your choices are merged into one, you can't say no to something you don't want without also saying no to two other things you actually want, which forces you to say yes to things you want to say no to.
> But Android allows side-loading and hence cannot reject apps. So, consumers can get all the apps they want (insofar as they exist) by buying Android devices.
Google is removing the ability to side-load apps for anybody but developers who have developer mode on.
Not only that, but side-loaded apps can't automatically upgrade, install in the background or install alongside other applications at the same time. Third party app store can't implement these features, either.
At best, Apple and Google have a duopoly on mobile application publishing and distribution, and they engage in anti-competitive behavior in that market and adjacent ones.
Besides, your argument is a red herring. From the FTC[1]:
> 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. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
>but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Android, however, still holds the largest share of the United States smartphone operating systems’ market and has done for many years. Vendors Samsung, Motorola, and LG have all adopted Android as their mobile OS and sales of their devices make up around 50 percent of all smartphones sold in the United States. Sales of Samsung smartphones alone account for 28 percent of the sales market and this could rise in the future with studies showing their Galaxy series of devices rank highly for customer satisfaction among Americans.
Care to cite cases in the modern era? Every time someone tries to find citations, it’s always multiple companies colluding - which is always illegal.
