They certainly have a monopoly on "distributing software to iPhones." I don't get why no one makes this point. One could argue it's a monopoly they've earned. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But certainly there is a market for iPhone app distribution, and Apple has a monopoly in that market.

Because at that point you've redefined the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes tautological.

How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the argument for that position?

Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market.

If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a bit further and find another gas station.

Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market.

Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.

> Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market.

Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my front lawn". Is that a meaningful distinction?

> Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.

No one would consider moving to another country a realistic alternative. So in that situation, yes, there is a monopoly because the consumer does not have a realistic alternative. If a gas station is the only gas station in the city, then it too would have a monopoly in that city, because driving to the next city every time you needed gas is not realistic.

Well there are US Supreme Court justices who seem to agree with that definition, so it might be tautological, but it's legally significant regardless.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-apple-monop...

s/monopoly/anti-competitive

Is it anti-competitive? Apple literally told them how they could reapply the app in a way where they would owe Apple $0.

Which again, Basecamp already does. They know this is how it is and how to work around it, but they're pitching a fit because they don't want to do it.

I'm a bit ornery about this because Basecamp is using the plight of other developers now only because it suits their bottom line. Where have they been for the past decade? They've been raking in money off the App store for years.