I must disagree. Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor.
Apple are beginning to show all these signs. I would suggest that given enough instances of incidents like these that the US DOJ would be within their rights to start another anti-trust case.
> Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor.
I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly.
Government-granted monopolies (US post office, some energy utilities, many transportation companies and so on) have little incentive to innovate and generally deliver poor service to consumers.
But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time.
> I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly.
That's demonstrably wrong; e.g., once Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market (somewhere around IE5-IE6), they stopped innovating, whereas before that point (IE2-IE5) they made great efforts to innovate.
> But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time.
That's true. Despite what many people in this thread feel, Apple does not have a monopoly in any market: Macs are ~15% of all PCs. iphones aren't event 30% of the phone smartphone market.
What Apple did manage to do is dominate the lucrative parts of most markets -- but that doesn't make them a monopoly more than it makes Louis Vutton a monopoly on lucrative handbags.
Its important to note that many government granted monopolies are created to provide important services to all areas, not just those that are profitable.
For example, USPS delivers mail to all addresses. Competitors use USPS to deliver to remote locations.
They have their problems of course, but they also have their share of burdens competitors don't.
But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time.
While Apple may be incredible innovators, they have also setup a marketplace to allow others to innovate. This marketplace is the only place you can get software from (I don't speak for jailbroken phones, which void the warranty). As the ones controlling and participating in the marketplace, they have an extremely unfair advantage if they prevent others from selling products Apple also want to sell.
This is anti-competitive, and the reason I believe they need to be careful before someone tries to put together an Anti-Trust case for them to answer.
Apple are beginning to show all these signs. I would suggest that given enough instances of incidents like these that the US DOJ would be within their rights to start another anti-trust case.