No worries, in Netherlands monopoly isn’t illegal. They look at a dominating position and if it’s abused. If they have a dominating position but doesn’t abuse it, then nothing will happen
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
Large or excessive popularity in a given industry/market, yes. It doesn't necessarily make it illegal though. It only becomes a (potential) antirust issue if the company uses this power in unfair/illegal ways.
And a "monopoly" would be determined by usage share which is what I stated in post #259; and OS is a consumer market too via OS being sold/licensed through the purchase of devices.
That's true globally but monopolies are typically assessed by country/region. In the U.S., for example, iOS has the largest mobile OS share.
Having said that the recent court case did not find apple to be an illegal monopoly. Of course that may change….everything could change.
Last edited:
Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. As if it were suddenly a crime now to *gasp* have the audacity to sell a great user experience to customers.
Yes, cases can vary, laws can vary, interpretations of laws can vary, evidence can vary, situations change, etc. For better or worse, "laws" are not necessarily as defined or cut and dried as some may think.
Apple has a monopoly on Apple products. As if it were suddenly a crime now to *gasp* have the audacity to sell a great user experience to customers.
Monopolies are obviously not based on that (Apple having a "monopoly" on Apple products). Also, as has been discussed, being a monopoly is not itself illegal. Apple could have 90% share in something and it would be legal UNLESS they were using that power in unfair or illegal ways.
You are still confused by the terms. Search competes in a market. It's just a service market instead of a product market. Google delivers the service in exchange for consumers viewing ads.
I'm not confused. Usage share for a product or a service can be used to assess monopoly status. Google Chrome would be an example of that, based on usage share, in the browser market.
We're just talking in circles at this point. I posted a link earlier from the FCC with an explanation of how they define market power. I do appreciate the conversation!
Just curious... how do dating apps work on Android in the Netherlands?
We know Android overall is a lot less restrictive.... but Google still charges commissions in the Google Play Store.
So do Dutch dating apps take advantage of Android's openness and use 3rd-party payment processors to avoid paying those fees? Do they send people to the web to purchases their dating subscriptions or whatever?
Or are they stuck paying a commission to Google like they do on iOS?
Let's not forget that Epic is suing Apple and Google... so Epic isn't satisfied with Android's openness.
You'd think the Dutch ACM would be mad at Google too.
?
We know Android overall is a lot less restrictive.... but Google still charges commissions in the Google Play Store.
So do Dutch dating apps take advantage of Android's openness and use 3rd-party payment processors to avoid paying those fees? Do they send people to the web to purchases their dating subscriptions or whatever?
Or are they stuck paying a commission to Google like they do on iOS?
Let's not forget that Epic is suing Apple and Google... so Epic isn't satisfied with Android's openness.
You'd think the Dutch ACM would be mad at Google too.
?
You cannot walk into any store and say, "I'll take one iOS please" (or, you can, but you won't get anything). It's an integral part of the device. You also wouldn't have much luck going to a car dealership and trying to buy the software that controls the ABS brakes.
Integral or not, just because a company chooses to exclusively sell/offer/license something they make as part of something else they make doesn't automatically mean the first something isn't a product or doesn't compete in that particular product market. Just because Apple chooses to only sell/license iOS as part of iPhone or iPod purchases doesn't really matter. In this case, the consumer is paying for the software product as part of the device purchase.
I guess google search or even google chrome would count in to this. You can’t buy them, but just like iOS you can download or access it through an integral part. This distinction is meaningless
Perhaps not. I don't know all of the details of that case as far as laws, how laws were being interpreted, what was and wasn't allowed as far as arguments and evidence, how things were being assessed, etc.
While a consumer is buying/licensing iOS as part of the purchase price price of an iPhone or iPod, it has its own license purchase agreement, Apple has referred to iOS as a software product, it competes in the mobile OS market, etc.
Again, I’m not sure the Judge in the epic vs apple lawsuit agrees that iOS competes in the mobile os market. But if that is your opinion or some other entity has a different interpretation than so be it.
iPhone = iOS one can’t buy one without the other.
So, if Apple chose to start only selling iMacs and iPhones together (i.e., you couldn't buy one without the other, you had to buy both), does that mean Apple would no longer have smartphone or desktop computer products and would no longer be considered competing in each of those markets?
Whataboutism, not worth going through the mental energy to answer something that most likely won’t happen.
My comment wasn't about what is or isn't likely to happen. My point was that just because Apple CHOOSES to only sell/license iOS as part of an iPhone or iPod purchase doesn't mean that iOS can't or shouldn't still be treated as its own product at its own price, competing in the mobile OS market, etc.
In the US the judge in the epic vs apple made a ruling on that and that ruling doesn’t agree with your definition.
Well the judge sided with ACM and dismissed apple’s wish to postpone the ruling on the basis that it was unlikely apple would win an appeal to a higher instance