The essential facilities doctrine might apply (the question isn't whether competitors are literally forbidden from the latest chips, it's whether they're "practically or reasonably" unable to access the latest chips, and all evidence suggests that's currently the case). Possibly it's the competitors own fault for refusing to pay the entirely reasonable price TSMC is insisting on, and perhaps Apple's contract with TSMC actually has carefully written clauses to ensure others could practically gain access without having to spend enormous amounts of money, but which nobody has been willing to use for their own reasons, but it certainly seems possible that the contracts effectively ensure Apple have sole access to the latest hardware, which would line up neatly with the apparent scenario we're in - that Apple currently has sole access to the latest hardware.
That's not to say it's a slam dunk case either. I wouldn't care to guess either way.
Shutting out all competitors from new technology for years by outspending them (arguably from profits largely made via other monopolistic like behaviors) could qualify for many.
I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn. Use some critical thought instead of treating it like sports
I'm describing a company that is able to pay far higher than competitors due to anticompetitive practices which drive their margins far above what would be realized in a truly competitive environment.
I'd gladly like to see the alternative timeline where Microsoft charged 30% for all software on windows and where you and others shamed them for it. Because I know for a fact all of those defending Apple here would have at the time
And if you look at their revenue breakdown, it’s clear that most of it comes from hardware.
When an ecosystem becomes large enough, societally impactful enough, and is controlled exclusively by one entity, that qualifies as a monopoly within that ecosystem.
You remove any capacity for competition to drive down margins. Apple can ban Spotify tomorrow to promote apple music on their devices, for example. Not anti-competitive in your mind?
You have two gated monopolistic ecosystems, choose the one you want to be gouged by. In a competitive environment, margins get compressed close to cost to deliver. If a company can achieve huge margins on items that could otherwise be much cheaper to deliver in a competitive environment, that qualifies as anti competitive.
How much does it cost the supplier to host apps via CDN? Or to process a single payment? Apple can take as much margin as they want on these because nobody else is allowed to provide those services within their ecosystem
The law will adapt to this, it's quite obvious to those that are unbiased.
The amount of REVENUE Apple makes from iTunes is likely less than $5Bn per quarter.
Apple is not using their iTunes monopoly to buy chips.
They're using their insane amount of phone sales (at absurd profit margins) to buy chips.
Again, I hate Apple as much as anyone. Anyone who thinks Apple is a monopoly in phones is a moron. They don't even own 30% of the smartphone market...
I agree Apple is anti-competitive within the ecosystem of the iPhone. That's not going to change their ability to buy all of TSMC's chips.
Is there some number of gated ecosystems that we get gouged by that would be considered acceptable and non-monopolistic? Three, ten?
When a platform reaches a sufficient size (subjective), it must be opened to competition for services provided within that platform.
We're talking about the base operating system for global computing here, not a car's dashboard system
This sounds similar to how Torvalds has a monopoly on services within mainline Linux?
You can poll your friends, colleagues, and relatives - how many people use iPhone vs something else. If % is more than 50%, then apple is monopoly effectively
same with mobile tablet market, just make a table of how many ipads vs alternatives.
It only makes sense to do this on the level of a governing body, because the term 'monopoly' is defined by governing bodies and the remedies against it are enforced by the same.
You can cherry-pick / gerrymander any group you want to make it look like Apple has a monopoly by the numbers, but in order to make it stick you'd need to demonstrate that Apple fixes prices (they don't, their phones cost ~2x or more what competitors' phones cost) or that they're somehow excluding other competitors from access to the phone market (they're not).
However, iPhone is not a commodity, it comes bundled with an OS and plethora of apps and services, the whole ecosystem.
per this report ( https://www.imore.com/apple-takes-75-smartphone-profits-desp... ) it says apple is taking over 75% of profit pool of the market, despite selling only 13% in units.
If we identify monopolists using bottom-line approach, then Apple will be a clear monopolist. As would be Facebook and Google. as they should be, if lawmakers truly cared about public good
Per the parent, the challenge is to convince governments to take your proposed approach. Repeating the argument to try to convince a HN crowd is not just non-productive, but counter-productive if it doesn't move toward this goal.
Taking away property and/or converting investments into a utility when a business becomes too successful results in a lot of nasty byproducts and most governing bodies will shy away from this.
Instead, you likely see the issue completely side-stepped. Nobody truly cares about labelling Apple a monopoly or declaring iOS to be a somehow accepted as a market onto itself - they want a change in behavior.
The challenge is how to side-step this when per the letter of the law, they have literally done nothing wrong. For instance, the EU will likely get a lot of pressure due to new regulations being solely against US-headquartered countries for the primary benefit of companies in the EU.
Actually, if this were to happen back in the days, we would have everyone on Linux Desktop already...
>I'll never understand the endless parade of apple goons who rush to defend them at every turn.
May be because people are not defending Apple but actually giving the correct account of the story?
I dislike modern Apple, or Tim Cook's Apple. But doesn't mean I would agree what they are doing ( in the context of TSMC ) are monopolistic. Without Apple, there would be no N3 by 2023. It is as simple as that. Apple in this case is not a customer, but more like a partner who are willing to invest ( and take the associated risk ) and spend to get and push for the latest technology.
Backing up though I think it's interesting that Apple has so much money that they can afford to buy up leading nodes for years. Why do they have that much money? I think it's obviously because of anti competitive behavior elsewhere such as their App Store which basically gives them a money printer.
If - in addition to what was described - part of the deal is that Apple would only make the deal if TSMC would not add any more capacity for 2 years NO MATTER WHAT - that is blatantly anti-competitive and monopolistic.
If no one else is willing to pay for TSMC to build another facility to produce more chips - then that's a free market. Apple was the highest bidder and won.