The iPhone Goes Downstream: Mandatory Universal Distributionâˆ—
AbstractAppleâ€™s original decision to market iPhones using a single downstream vendor prompted calls for mandatory universal distribution (MUD), whereby all downstream vendors would sell the iPhone under the same contract terms. The upstream monopoly may want eitherone or more downstream vendors, and, in either case, consumer welfare may be higher with either one or more firms. If the income elasticity of demand for the new good is greater than the income elasticity of the existing generic good, the MUD requirements leads to a higherequilibrium price for both the new good and the generic, and therefore lowers consumer welfare.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley in its series Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series with number qt7vc007jh.
Date of creation: 15 Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 207 Giannini Hall #3310, Berkeley, CA 94720-3310
Phone: (510) 642-3345
Fax: (510) 643-8911
Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/are_ucb/
More information through EDIRC
Social and Behavioral Sciences; vertical restrictions; mandatory universal distribution; new product oligopoly;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-05-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-BEC-2012-05-22 (Business Economics)
- NEP-COM-2012-05-22 (Industrial Competition)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2008.
"An Empirical Investigation of the Welfare Effects of Banning Wholesale Price Discrimination,"
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series
qt7vg17026, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
- Sofia Berto Villas-Boas, 2009. "An empirical investigation of the welfare effects of banning wholesale price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 20-46.
- Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2006. "An empirical investigation of the welfare effects of banning wholesale price discrimination," CUDARE Working Paper Series 1017R3, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, revised Oct 2008.
- Yoshihiro Yoshida, 2000. "Third-Degree Price Discrimination in Input Markets: Output and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 240-246, March.
- Alvaro Bustos & Alexander Galetovic, 2003.
"Vertical Integration and Sabotage in Regulated Industries,"
Documentos de Trabajo
164, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
- Bustos Alvaro E & Galetovic Alexander, 2009. "Vertical Integration and Sabotage with a Regulated Bottleneck Monopoly," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-52, September.
- Michael Riordan, 1996.
"Anticompetitive Vertical Integration by a Dominant Firm,"
0064, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
- Riordan, Michael H, 1998. "Anticompetitive Vertical Integration by a Dominant Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1232-48, December.
- Riordan, M.H., 1996. "Anticompetitive Vertical Integration by a Dominant Firm," Papers 64, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
- Weisman, Dennis L., 2001. "Access pricing and exclusionary behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 121-126, July.
- Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 127-42, March.
- Lucy White, 2007. "Foreclosure with Incomplete Information," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 507-535, 06.
- Ireland, Norman J, 1992. "On the Welfare Effects of Regulating Price Discrimination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 237-48, September.
- Innes, Robert & Hamilton, Stephen F., 2006. "Naked slotting fees for vertical control of multi-product retail markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 303-318, March.
- Shaffer Greg, 2005. "Slotting Allowances and Optimal Product Variety," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, June.
- Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
- Rafael Moner-Colonques & José J. Sempere-Monerris & Amparo Urbano, 2004. "The Manufacturers’ Choice of Distribution Policy under Successive Duopoly," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 532-548, January.
- Economides, Nicholas, 1998. "The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input monopolist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 271-284, May.
- Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.