>Some of the resulting businesses may have to update their model or may not remain profitable, but historically break-ups have resulted in an increase in value for the new businesses.

All of this teaches one lesson: be more like Apple. Treat your customers poorly and massively overcharge them. Make sure you are never the biggest in your field. Essentially, don't offer products that are too good for the price.

I'd also like to point out that if those companies have to be spun off on their own, then the only way for some of them to make money is to sell your data to third parties. Right now Google doesn't seem to do that, but how else would Analytics monetize itself, if it cannot offer ads?

Charge money for the product. Plenty of other companies in the space do so successfully. There's ample business value provided by good analytics.

Google Analytics was originally the product of Google's acquisition of Urchin Software. At the time, Urchin's self-hosted version cost $895 with additional optional "modules" that cost up to $3,995 extra. Their "on demand" version cost $199 per month.

You’re wrong on both counts: Apple has its own share of potentially monopolistic behavior, and there are billions of people worldwide who disagree with you on how the company treats them.

But I rarely see Apple being included in these calls for breaking up the tech companies. Also, I'd be surprised if Apple even has a billion customers, let alone a billion who are happy with Apple.

Does it also have a monopoly on apps that can be run on the “HomePods”? Does every smart TV manufacturer with their own OS also have a “monopoly” on their ecosystem?

Let’s go further down the rabbit hole. Does Tesla have a “monopoly” on software that can run on its cars?

If non insignificant switching costs defines a “monopoly” every software as a service app would have a “monopoly”.

Unfortunately, neither the EU or the US has ever defined “monopoly” like HN posters...

I just explained one possible scenario how this could be defined as a relevant market and you're now throwing a bunch of random assumptions on my comment. I would read the link thoroughly (it explicitly mentions DoJ?) and study more on the history of the antitrust law and its applications before doing such.

If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?

I already told you that the market defining process is a very case-specific one and big techs now are unprecedented. Why are you trying to find applicable prior arts on such cases? You asked how Apple can be monopoly on a market and I gave you one possibility which may or may not materialize due to its uncertain and complex nature. It's pretty hard to understand why you're being so defensive on this issue?

> If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?

There has been multiple antitrust lawsuits and investigations on Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for their gaming consoles while their exercise of monopolistic power was nowhere comparable to Apple's nowadays. Why don't you google just 2~3 words before making such a false claim?

Maybe because I don’t believe that people can randomly make up definitions instead of citing precedent?

There has been multiple antitrust lawsuits and investigations on Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for their gaming consoles while their exercise of monopolistic power was nowhere comparable to Apple's nowadays. Why don't you google just 2~3 words before making such a false claim?

Well seeing that Nintendo specifically has been very strict about what was allowed on its platform, forced third parties to use its manufacturing facilities since the 80s, forced all software whether distributed physically or virtually to be licensed and to pay a fee and had a much larger marketshare, where was the government intervention? Where were the consent decrees? Lawsuits?

Please provide one citation where any of the console manufacturers were ever forced to change their business practices?

If my claim is “false”, you should easily be able to find a citation.

While you're trying to frame my argument as "make up definitions", the reality is not; this is a standard practice since 1982. Spend your time on searching and studying the topic, not mine. This is an area of vast complexities and I don't think it's effective to spend my time to enlighten you.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/operationalizing-hypothetical-mo...

> where was the government intervention? Where were the consent decrees? Lawsuits?

Your ignorant in the topic doesn't necessarily mean an actual lack of a prior. In Nintendo v. Atari case, there was not much arguments on the market definition, but its practice was illegal or not. Yes, I've been talking only about the market definition and you're intentionally conflating the concept of the relevant market definition and antitrust violation. Don't do that. And please don't even try to say "come up with evidence". You can spend your time on studying this.

And your citation were about hypothetical arguments, and went to show more of my point. All throughout the article it speaks about the government’s arguments being “defective” and still doesn’t show a single example where a vertically integrated minority player was called a “monopolist” nor where government imposed remedies or sanctions were implied.

In fact, Atari vs. Nintendo affirmed that Atari did in fact violate Nintendo’s copyright when it tried to circumvent Nintendo’s control over its platform.

So in fact, you still haven’t come up with a single precedent where Apple could be considered a “monopolist” on its own platform or where they are violating “antitrust”.