I find it maddening that a lot of people replying to your fair point have chosen to ignore the first half and decided to exclusively focus on the latter, when that part was clearly meant as an example of how market definitions can have an impact.
A fairly recent example of the latter being a commonly mischaracterized or (by members of the public) outright dismissed concern was MSFTs dominance in the Cloud Gaming market, which was often met either with "but MSFTs share of the gaming market overall is less" or the even less applicable "but nobody uses Cloud Gaming anyway", even though neither should count towards whether something rises to anti-competitive behavior in a given market.
This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.
I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.
"It sometimes just amazes me that people who actually work in the tech industry, and are in their 30s and 40s, claim that it would be just fine if smart phones had the same app security and privacy model as the Mac or Windows, and that there is no benefit at all from additional controls. Where have these people been for the last 30 years? You seriously want to let any developer do whatever they want to a device that billions of people carry around every day?"
Is the implication that Apple should allow iOS on non-Apple devices? There is not a single hardware company in the world that would integrate iOS to the degree that Apple does. A requirement like this would immediately enshittify Apple’s brand.
“AlotOfReading” controls 100% of your HN posts.