IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt7vc007jh.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The iPhone Goes Downstream: Mandatory Universal Distribution∗

Author

Listed:
  • Karp, Larry
  • Perloff, Jeffrey

Abstract

Apple’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.

Suggested Citation

  • Karp, Larry & Perloff, Jeffrey, 2011. "The iPhone Goes Downstream: Mandatory Universal Distribution∗," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7vc007jh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt7vc007jh
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7vc007jh.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Riordan, Michael H, 1998. "Anticompetitive Vertical Integration by a Dominant Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1232-1248, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Weisman, Dennis L., 2001. "Access pricing and exclusionary behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 121-126, July.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Lucy White, 2007. "Foreclosure with Incomplete Information," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 507-535, June.
    13. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 127-142, March.
    14. Ireland, Norman J, 1992. "On the Welfare Effects of Regulating Price Discrimination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 237-248, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; vertical restrictions; mandatory universal distribution; new product oligopoly;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt7vc007jh. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.