> I don't think that having better margins than the competitors says anything about being a monopoly.
> Apple's large margins are merely an opportunity that no one was able to fetch.
In a functioning free market, competitors would have picked up the slack long ago (iPhone is 14 years old now), and cashed in on those high profit margins too.
Now, you can choose to believe that literally every multi billion dollar tech company in the world is so stupid and incompetent as to be unable to replicate Apple's "premium user experience" to capture similar profit margins, or you can look for simpler explanations, that inevitably generalize as anti-competitive practices.
That doesn't deny the popularity of Apple's products, by the way. Believe it or not they can be both genuinely popular and monopolistic / anti-competitive, with both of those factors contributing to insanely above-market profit margins.
"You can buy LG" just shows that you don't understand the distinction between concentrated market power power, anti competitive business practices, and actual monopoly, nor the fact that antitrust regulations do not require their target to be an actual monopoly with zero competitors available for sale (and for good reason).
> They are viable, in fact, many reviewers and techies say that Samsung/Google/LG/Whatever are much better than Apple
Bing and DDG are also available and viable, and "[some] techies say" that they're better than Google. So what. This metric is utterly irrelevant.
> Now, you can choose to believe that literally every multi billion dollar tech company in the world is so stupid and incompetent as to be unable to replicate Apple's "premium user experience" to capture similar profit margins, or you can look for simpler explanations, that inevitably generalize as anti-competitive practices.
The simpler explanation is they are not willing to invest the cash needed to create the Apple premium user experience.
See Microsoft pulling the plug on Windows phone and Microsoft stores. They decided to rest on their laurels (licensing fees for Excel almost pure profit and Azure rather than plow tens of billions into creating quality hardware and software and a retail experience for customers.
No, MSFT (and others) failed at mobile because there is no amount of money you can invest to break into that industry anymore, due to all the moat the duopoly has built up. It's literally impossible. Google started early and got on the last train with Android. Windows phone started when iOS App Store already had ~300K apps, and Play store had ~100K apps. That was a couple years too late. The duopoly was always an order of magnitude ahead of MSFT, and in this kind of market that's what matters.
> Apple's large margins are merely an opportunity that no one was able to fetch.
In a functioning free market, competitors would have picked up the slack long ago (iPhone is 14 years old now), and cashed in on those high profit margins too.
Now, you can choose to believe that literally every multi billion dollar tech company in the world is so stupid and incompetent as to be unable to replicate Apple's "premium user experience" to capture similar profit margins, or you can look for simpler explanations, that inevitably generalize as anti-competitive practices.
That doesn't deny the popularity of Apple's products, by the way. Believe it or not they can be both genuinely popular and monopolistic / anti-competitive, with both of those factors contributing to insanely above-market profit margins.
"You can buy LG" just shows that you don't understand the distinction between concentrated market power power, anti competitive business practices, and actual monopoly, nor the fact that antitrust regulations do not require their target to be an actual monopoly with zero competitors available for sale (and for good reason).
> They are viable, in fact, many reviewers and techies say that Samsung/Google/LG/Whatever are much better than Apple
Bing and DDG are also available and viable, and "[some] techies say" that they're better than Google. So what. This metric is utterly irrelevant.