We were so close! That's not correct. Antitrust laws are about market power. Not about install base or usage share.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Defends App Store Changes in the Netherlands as Fines Reach €30 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's been explained more specifically, anyway. I assumed it was fairly obvious given the context but perhaps it wasn't.
Sure. But it has a different meaning in that context. Hence my point that it creates confusion to discuss OS "market share" (as in usage share) in a coversation where the relevant topic is market share (as in share of sales).
Not necessarily. A company's usage share can be used to show monopoly power, depending on how they choose to or are able to capatlize on it.
Obviously different laws depending on the market. But in the US, monopoly power is about pricing and competition within a market. Not about how many products you sold in the past.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
The relevance was related to things like the App store which is tied to iOS and in that context, it's about percentage of ciurrent or active users (or usage share) Apple had in the market. As already discussed, StatCounter (and others) refer to the percentage as "market share". The discussion wasn't about how many iPhones Apple sold in a certain period.
And after my explanation earlier... do you see how those terms are completely different?
It should be clear... usage is usage... but market refers to sales.
In my opinion... traffic firms should never use the word "market" when what they're talking about is usage.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Again, you are using "market" to mean two completely different things. That's why you are confused.
Monopoly power can come from usage share if it can be shown that a company's (excessive) control of "usage" in a certain market gives the company an "unfair" advantage in how they can do business whether it be with consumers, competitors, vendors, etc.
Even at 58% (which is up more than I last looked, could have sworn it wasn't at 50% in the US) is usually not enough to consider it a monopoly power in the market, especially if that marketshare has been gained by consistent delivery of the product over time. The other challenge that the likes of Epic face is that the laws only go into effect if the actions have changed once monopoly power is gained to abuse the monopoly but the judge in the Epic suit asked a number of pointed questions around how Epic had been doing business with Apple for something like a decade and Apple hadn't changed the rules so at what point did Apple in their opinion become a monopoly. The Epic response was that Apple has always been a monopoly in the market which the judge seemingly disagreed with hence for the most part Apple winning on most of the federal antitrust and the judge some how applying California state law as the only finding which was always going to be appealed. The judge also defined the relevant market in this case to gaming transactions and dismissed that there is a market for anything that isn't licensed or sold. One must also note the judge called out to the 15% global market share when defining the possible market as smartphones.
They don't compete in the "market" because an OEM can't buy iOS to put on their device. The OEMs used to be able to choose between Windows Mobile, Symbian, PalmOS, Maemo and a handful more. There were vendors who built their own platforms, some based on Linux or other RTOS and obviously Apple with iOS as well. Android replaced all but iOS in that ecosystem. That everything is collapsed into the smartphone operating system market being iOS vs Android is again the problem where Android has wiped out all of the competitors and essentially owns 100% of the smartphone operating system market.
Realistically there is a number of competitors in the browser space with the notable exception of on iOS the engine is limited to Safari for the renderer. Even then the irony is that Chrome is a fork of Safari where they competed originally on different features outside of just the rendering engine prior to forking. That shows that even without the renderer there is scope for competition and we see that with Firefox on iOS offering extra sync functionality for example.
It wasn't about understanding or not understanding how terms can be used. My point was that firms/sites like StatCounter and others use the term "Market Share" (as I showed in post #244) when it has nothing to do with product sales and is actually about usage.
And I was simply showing how firms like StatCounter are using the term incorrectly.
Glad we're all on the same page!
How much share is needed for a company to be considered as having a monopoly or monopoly power can vary but, more importantly, antitrust issues are really only triggered by unfair/illegal actions potentially being used by the company thanks to their position as a monopoly.
As far as the OS product (license) goes, Apple competes in the market by the fact that they make the product and a consumer can choose iOS or Android or other OS via the device purchase. The product doesn't have to be sold separately. By choice or otherwise, a consumer is buying iOS as part of their purchase of an iPhone or iPod Touch just as a consumer is buying Android as part of their purchase of a Pixel or some other Android-based device.
One example is Google search. There have been antitrust claims, investigations, etc. regarding Google's use of its monopoly power in search (nearly 90% usage share in the U.S.) to "unfairly" gain leverage, advantages, etc. in other business dealings.
Per the judgement in the Epic case there is no smartphone operating system market, only a smartphone market of which the judge determined Apple had 15% marketshare globally as of 2020. Again if the product isn't sold or licensed, which in this case it is not, then it does not have a market. Don't take my word for it though, that's the words of the judge on the definition of "market". Apple does not compete in the smartphone operating system market as it does not sell a smartphone operating system, it sells a smartphone.
To be fair though, this case is in the EU, so the Epic case may not apply, depending on how much weight judges there give foreign legal opinions. Apple will need to make the same case and persuade the judge(s) there to come to the same conclusion.
Well this one seems to be a much simpler definitional of the ACM said that dating apps should be allowed to use third party payments, Apple seems to have provided a mechanism to do that and for some reason ACM has determined that this isn't in fact compliance. Ultimately it'll go back to a judge who will decide if submitting a Netherlands specific binary that enables Netherlands specific capabilities to go onto a Netherlands specific version of the store is in fact not complying with this Netherlands specific ruling.
The Netherlands is one country.
But Apple operates the App Store in what... 150 countries?
Is this same sorta thing gonna happen all across the globe? Where various regulatory bodies have to open an investigation lasting months or years to propose changes which might ultimately get sent to the courts?
Yikes.
But Apple operates the App Store in what... 150 countries?
Is this same sorta thing gonna happen all across the globe? Where various regulatory bodies have to open an investigation lasting months or years to propose changes which might ultimately get sent to the courts?
Yikes.
Not at all. There are many apps that uses their own payment system and apple takes zero percent
I did, the os market is not related to who they compete with.
ACM concluded it was payment providers they competed with.
And in EU and Netherlands it’s all about having a dominant position and abusing said position.Obviously different laws depending on the market. But in the US, monopoly power is about pricing and competition within a market. Not about how many products you sold in the past.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.www.ftc.gov
Monopoly or monopolistic aren’t used as you can’t be an illegal monopoly. You can only abuse your market position to harm others businesses and consumers
Apple is not a monopoly when Android is even bigger than iOS. It can’t be.
ACM is smoking some good weed over there.
What’s next, MAC OS will be considered a monopoly power because there is effectively only Windows and Mac OS to choose from, despite Windows being larger? (yeah, i know there is Linux, but most people can’t use it)