• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The iOS Monopoly?

5

550Horses

Newbie
There is a rumor that apple is talking with the only major service provider without the iPhone/iPad 2. Yes, I mean Sprint (since AT&T bought T-Mobile). I was curious as to how this might effect the smartphone market since a recent study shows 46% of people with cellphones have smartphones. But I was even more so interested in how a monopoly is determined and whether or not Sprint getting iOS would lead to apple cornering the market and whether or not that kind of dominance would lead to a monopoly.
 
I don't know how this would become a monopoly if Apple decided to have their devices available for customers on all mobile networks. It's just expansion.
 
For it to be a monopoly Sprint would have to offer only one phone at their stores.
 
Considering Android is still leading the pack in market share by over 10% last time I checked. I mean Apple did finally overtake Blackberry, so they are number 2... but no monopoly yet. However if you want an interesting read about the Apple monopsony on the other hand, I suggest you take a look here.
 
Dark Jedi said:
For it to be a monopoly Sprint would have to offer only one phone at their stores.
Click to expand...

Not true. Google is considered to have a monopoly on search even though there are dozens of alternatives.

Also, MS has a monopoly in the desktop and server world even though there are other alternatives there as well.
 
550Horses said:
But I was even more so interested in how a monopoly is determined and whether or not Sprint getting iOS would lead to apple cornering the market and whether or not that kind of dominance would lead to a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Start with the definition of monopoly. What you're asking about does not qualify. If no other smartphones existed, Apple would have a monopoly. Or, if Apple had a large enough market share that the other options didn't matter they would have an effective monopoly. Even the latter doesn't apply.

What makes you think that Sprint picking up iOS has anything to do with a monopoly? Sprint has plenty of other smartphones to choose from. Sprint isn't the only carrier either.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Not true. Google is considered to have a monopoly on search even though there are dozens of alternatives.

Also, MS has a monopoly in the desktop and server world even though there are other alternatives there as well.
Click to expand...

Google isn't considered to have a monopoly, they're just market leaders. There's a huge difference.

MS also didn't have a monopoly, they were stifling competition. They were stopped before they got there (to a monopoly which I'm sure they would have enjoyed given the opportunity) and have been whining ever since that they never recovered from it.

The term gets used far too loosely. :)
 
If anything, Google/Android is becoming a monopoly in the cell business. Apple offers one phone, the iPhone and there perhaps a couple of hundred Android phones.

Apple does have a monopoly in the iDevice app business. For all intents and purposes, if you own an iDevice and you want apps, you only have one choice, one place, one price-- take it or leave it.

If you are an iDevice application developer, you are forever tied to Apple which can kill your business by simply not allowing your apps on their store. You cannot sell outside of the Apple app store, either.

And yes, I know, Jailbreaking changes that but it does not apply to the vast majority of users.
 
_mw_ said:
Google isn't considered to have a monopoly, they're just market leaders. There's a huge difference.

MS also didn't have a monopoly, they were stifling competition. They were stopped before they got there (to a monopoly which I'm sure they would have enjoyed given the opportunity) and have been whining ever since that they never recovered from it.

The term gets used far too loosely. :)
Click to expand...

You're incorrect. Google very much has a monopoly on search which is why it's been subject to several anti-trust investigations. MS also does have a monopoly. They've got a 90% plus market share in the desktop space. In what world is that not a monopoly? Legally speaking, both of those companies have monopolies in search and OS spaces respectively.
 
A.Nonymous said:
You're incorrect. Google very much has a monopoly on search which is why it's been subject to several anti-trust investigations. MS also does have a monopoly. They've got a 90% plus market share in the desktop space. In what world is that not a monopoly? Legally speaking, both of those companies have monopolies in search and OS spaces respectively.
Click to expand...

Market Share != Monopoly, or exclusivity (which is required to have a monopoly).

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're saying it wrong is all.
 
_mw_ said:
Market Share != Monopoly, or exclusivity (which is required to have a monopoly).

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're saying it wrong is all.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking a monopoly is defined as control of a market to the extent that you can manipulate prices/services/etc...... Google and MS both fall under that definition. If MS decided tomorrow that they were going to charge $800 for a copy of Windows and it would no longer be sold on new computers, it would have HUGE ramifications on the OS market and violate all kinds of anti-trust laws. If Apple did that, it wouldn't break any law although it would piss their fanboys off to no end. If Google decided tomorrow that they were going to not list you in their search unless you paid them, it would have HUGE ramifications as well as violate anti-trust laws. If Altavista or some other obscure search engine did the same thing, legally no one would care.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Not true. Google is considered to have a monopoly on search even though there are dozens of alternatives.
Click to expand...

Considered by whom and where?

There are millions of Windows IE users using the default Bing, and haven't bothered to try any alternatives. Google is most definitely not top-dog on search where I live.

A.Nonymous said:
Also, MS has a monopoly in the desktop and server world even though there are other alternatives there as well.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of Macs out there these days. Maybe MS has the majority of the desktop PC market. Not so much servers, many servers are Linux, BSD, AIX, etc. Companies like IBM and Oracle do very well with non-MS servers. Google which is probably the biggest server user in the world, doesn't use MS for its servers.

FYI 'monopoly' means one company has complete control and there are NO alternatives. But in fact there are plenty of alternatives.
 
selling iphones in all stores... from electronics stores to gas stations... is not a monopoly.
because there are still other choices.

if a customer can only get an iphones .. that is a monopoly.
 
Thanks all. And for the record microsoft sits on the edge dangleing its feet over the gap between monopoly and market leader as they have been for years.
 
mikedt said:
Considered by whom and where?

There are millions of Windows IE users using the default Bing, and haven't bothered to try any alternatives. Google is most definitely not top-dog on search where I live.
Click to expand...

Considered by the feds. At least in the US. Google has a market share ~60% or so unless I'm mistaken (and someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure). If Google decided they hated education and de-listed all .edu domains in their search results you're telling me there wouldn't be anti-trust suits filed left and right?

There are a lot of Macs out there these days. Maybe MS has the majority of the desktop PC market. Not so much servers, many servers are Linux, BSD, AIX, etc. Companies like IBM and Oracle do very well with non-MS servers. Google which is probably the biggest server user in the world, doesn't use MS for its servers.
Click to expand...

There really aren't a lot of Macs. MS has a 90%+ share in the desktop space. I've seen estimates of Mac usage as high at 8-10%, but that's it. That is a monopoly my friend. On the server side, MS has a share of something like 75-80%. That's also a monopoly. They could easily force companies to jump through ridiculous hoops if they chose to.

FYI 'monopoly' means one company has complete control and there are NO alternatives. But in fact there are plenty of alternatives.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on the legal definition there.
 
550Horses said:
Thanks all. And for the record microsoft sits on the edge dangleing its feet over the gap between monopoly and market leader as they have been for years.
Click to expand...

that is true.. windows OS does come very close to a monopoly on the market.

but there is a big point.... it was market driven. (borrowing that there was no business underhanded moves).
the barriers for new OS to enter the PC Market are just to huge.
and if Windows OS (or any OS) due to market demand... there is nothing the gov can do about it.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Considered by the feds. At least in the US. Google has a market share ~60% or so unless I'm mistaken (and someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure).
Click to expand...

Not me! I hate numbers. They're silly.


A.Nonymous said:
On the server side, MS has a share of something like 75-80%.
Click to expand...

*ahem* ...well actually, not to throw numbers around, but Windows has about a 16% market share compared to Unix/Linux/BSD systems commanding more in the neighborhood of 70%. So... Microsoft is actually a force to be forgotten with when it comes to web servers.
 
dan330 said:
that is true.. windows OS does come very close to a monopoly on the market.

but there is a big point.... it was market driven. (borrowing that there was no business underhanded moves).
the barriers for new OS to enter the PC Market are just to huge.
and if Windows OS (or any OS) due to market demand... there is nothing the gov can do about it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. The illegal part is in how you get to that monopoly or in how you use that monopoly. If there are 100 rental homes in town and I buy 80 of them, I've got a monopoly. Nothing about that is illegal. If I use that monopoly to jack up prices, then we start crossing the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom