Under what definition of monopoly does Apple possess one? Even in their best market, the U.S., iPhone holds just a smidge over 50%.
Market power is defined by pricing power (empirical absence of substitution effect), not share of some descriptive market (where you could always get any result you wanted just by changing the way you divide market descriptions.)
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
> Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
>Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages.
which seems to lend real credence to the argument that Apple would (most likely) not be understood as a monopoly in the courts. Sure it could happen, but lots of unlikely things can happen that still say won't happen because of how humans communicate.
The issue isn't marketshare, the issue is defining the market within which marketshare is looked at. If you don't use some consistent objective defenition of market boundaries, you can pick or choose any result you want by how you describe the market applicable to any given case.
While it isn’t perfect, “the space within which consumer substitution in response to changes like pricing occurs from the given good or service” is a rough description of what market boundary determination in US antitrust/competition law aims at.
It's also, for obvious reasons, often the most contentious issue in antitrust cases, with a whole lot of market data thrown up by every interested party aimed at proving what the right market boundary is. If you just assume the boundary is some popular market description without interrogating whether consumer substitution for the given product really occurs across that whole descriptive market space (and, on the other side, only within that space), you are really just skipping over the most important question in antitrust.
It exactly is, if you further define “market” empirically by consumer behavior demonstrating products actually compete with each other rather than analytically based on some abstract comparison of features that make you think they should.
> A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
Are we able to substitute browser engine or app store in iOS? If not, then its app store itself can make of a single relevant market. This is so obvious to the level that even Apple knows they cannot avoid, so they're trying to make an argument that app store and browser engine are technically inseparable system service, not an interchangable product. (I strongly suspect that this is one of the reasons why we cannot get standard 4~6 weeks browser updates for Safari, decoupled from OS updates) EU doesn't seem to be very happy with that argument so they passed the Digital Market Act in response. And US is preparing a bipartisan bill similar to DMA as well.
Yeah, I know the actual process for defining market is much more complicated but this is the basic idea. Antitrust investigation is a largely economical, data driven process and you cannot simply say "Even in their best market, the U.S., iPhone holds just a smidge over 50%". I won't assert they're in a monopolistic position, but many regulators (especially in EU) believe in that.
We just had a real judge say that definition is completely false in the Epic vs Apple case.
Apple, please listen. These platform dreams of controlling supply, demand and the underlying tech platform are dangerous. Likely to fail or if you succeed it will run anti-trust problems. But your biggest risk is distraction. The shiny new kids on block wagging the core business to the detriment of customers and shareholders.
One of the other arguments here is that when it comes to games I can get a Nintendo, or an Xbox, or a PS5, or a PC that I can run Windows/Linux games on.
When it comes to phones we pretty much have a duopoly which means both groups can find it easy to manipulate the market to higher prices without indirect (illegal) signalling.
Luckily it looks like the EU is telling Apple to suck it and they'll have to open up app stores on their phones.
There is also a big difference between a company saying "I am only going to make this for the Apple app store" and saying "You can only have the Apple app store".
You use Firefox on your desktop and you're upset at Apple because you need to use Firefox on your mobile in order for tabs etc to sync.
Are you also upset at Apple for needing to use Lightroom on your desktop and mobile for photos to sync ?
Would you actually want a computer to ship with nothing?
Also your other talking point about no “real adblockers” is at least a year out of date. Safari has supported standard extensions for over a year not just JSON based content blocking rules.
Had OEMs not be forced to pay for Windows licences for all computers shipped regardless of whether it actually included Windows or not perhaps they wouldn't have shipped Windows so damn much?
1. Microsoft was held accountable and forced to stop making OEMs pay Windows licenses for computers that didn’t ship with Windows.
As an aside, there is no “Windows tax”. OEMs make more than enough by bundling third party crapware it more than pays for Windows. But third party OSs - especially Linux was never going to be big on the desktop without third party commercial support. The only Unix[1] operating system that has ever gained any traction on the desktop is MacOS and Apple makes sure they bend over backwards to keep Microsoft and Adobe happy.
I sold IBM Aptivas briefly in the 90s that came with OS/2 at Radio Shack. They were not going to overtake the world.
2. As far as “bundling” in 2022, would you suggest any platform come without a browser? Macs, Windows, ChromeOS computers, iOS and Android all come with browsers. What would the consumer experience be like if all platforms just came with an empty desktop and they had to download everything?
[1] yes MacOS is real certified Unix.
And had it shipped on OEM machines that might have attracted more third party devs too. And they could have sold crapware if they wanted as well. It's impossible to say for certain that MS's policies had no impact on the desktop computer space.
As for 2, well that depends how hard is it to get a browser? Can I just open a store or repo and grab one or do I have to sneakernet it on there? I don't think it has to be a bad experience to have a barebones system if done right.
Vertical market apps are going to target the computer with the largest market share. You’re going to be hard pressed to tell your local dentist office they need to run Linux to run the equivalent of their VB based software.
Most people already complain when their first launch experience requires them to update their OS - mostly consoles. I can’t imagine telling my mom, to download a browser, email client, dialer, messaging app, calendar, contacts software, notes app, etc.
The app store being closed and not allowing 3rd party stores would be considered anti-competitive. They have a 100% monopoly on the ios application market.
I don't think they're doing much anti-competitive in the phone hardware space though.
This idea that Apple has a monopoly is ridiculous.