Apple Facing Imminent U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[AAPLbuyback]

According to Statcounter, iOS's mobile OS market share is closer to 30% globally. It's over 60% in the U.S. which is the market relevant to the DOJ case. Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) are the only two major players in the mobile OS market. Apple has a dominant position and deserves antitrust scrutiny.

No, 2 companies doesn’t mean 1 deserves it.

Counterpoint says 23% worldwide. Either way, it’s laughable when it comes to “antitrust” scrutiny. Again, start making a list of 2-3 dominant companies and you basically have the current state of business. It’s normal for,consolidation to cause a few major players. You can disagree with it, but targeting Apple for this is just a political play.

Microsoft was far and away the dominant player and even using 60%, Apple doesn’t come close. Apple doesn’t even fit the definition of monopoly because you have a choice.

 

[webkit]

No, 2 companies doesn’t mean 1 deserves it.

Counterpoint says 23% worldwide. Either way, it’s laughable when it comes to “antitrust” scrutiny. Again, start making a list of 2-3 dominant companies and you basically have the current state of business. It’s normal for,consolidation to cause a few major players. You can disagree with it, but targeting Apple for this is just a political play.

Again, since this is a DOJ matter the relevant market is the U.S. where iOS has over 60% share. Besides, market share isn't the only factor that goes into monopoly/antitrust investigations, litigation, etc.

Microsoft was far and away the dominant player and even using 60%, Apple doesn’t come close.

That's kind of like arguing that because one person was going 130 mph in a 55 mph zone, another person going 90 mph doesn’t deserve a speeding ticket. MS deserved antitrust scrutiny and Apple deserves antitrust scrutiny as well.

Apple doesn’t even fit the definition of monopoly because you have a choice.

A company can be a monopoly while there is still "choice" in their market. Microsoft was declared a monopoly in computer operating systems yet there were other choices like Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

 

[Zest28]

According to Statcounter, iOS's mobile OS market share is closer to 30% globally. It's over 60% in the U.S. which is the market relevant to the DOJ case. Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) are the only two major players in the mobile OS market. Apple has a dominant position and deserves antitrust scrutiny.

Not for long, China is now looking to ban every western technology and start using Chinese made hardware and software.

And China is the biggest market in the world.

Heck, maybe soon there will no more iPhone if China bans TSMC from producing western technologies.

 

[Damian83]

This sounds like a user setting issue more than an Apple one (unless it is a bug on that phone). If and when I hotspot, all my Apple stuff easily connects - I believe it’s an iCloud function or (can’t spell) continuity feature.

i thought i had auto connect disabled, also i had just "iPhone" as hotspot's name so very common name. I double checked and auto connect is enabled, changed ssid name to another more "uinque" and nothing changed.... and no, its not an user setting or bug on that phone. this is the behavior i always experienced.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

Again, since this is a DOJ matter the relevant market is the U.S. where iOS has over 60% share. Besides, market share isn't the only factor that goes into monopoly/antitrust investigations, litigation, etc.





That's kind of like arguing that because one person was going 130 mph in a 55 mph zone, another person going 90 mph doesn’t deserve a speeding ticket. MS deserved antitrust scrutiny and Apple deserves antitrust scrutiny as well.





A company can be a monopoly while there is still "choice" in their market. Microsoft was declared a monopoly in computer operating systems yet there were other choices like Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

Again 60% not a monopoly. Microsoft was far more dominant despite the other options. Think what you want. This will go nowhere or have some very minimal impact after a lot of wasted time and lawyer fees.

Choice isn’t in quotes here. Android is a MASSIVE choice and bigger than Apple in terms of share worldwide.

 

[webkit]

Again 60% not a monopoly. Microsoft was far more dominant despite the other options. Think what you want. This will go nowhere or have some very minimal impact after a lot of wasted time and lawyer fees.

Choice isn’t in quotes here. Android is a MASSIVE choice and bigger than Apple in terms of share worldwide.

There is no clear legal definition of what market share is needed for a company to be declared a monopoly or having monopoly power, and market share is not the only factor that goes into making that determination. Court/legal views on this have varied over time.

Just because there is choice in a market does not negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant companies can engage in anticompetitive behavior.

From the FTC website:

Market Power
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.

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

 

[Warped9]

There can be companies that are influential in driving ideas and standards. For a long time BMW set a standard with their cars that other companies sought emulate. But BMW was never a dominant player in the automotive market.

Sony was once thought of as the pinnacle of television hardware with their trinitron technology wherein subsequently you paid more for the name long after they weren’t at the top anymore. Thats now decades in the past although you still could be paying for the Sony name today even though their televisions actually have a Samsung panel.

Apple punched above its weight for years wherein today they are a major player. The Apple name still has cache and influence, but I fear, in some respects, they’re relying on their brand recognition to sell products one mightn’t accept from others companies—yes, I’m referring to hardware specs for given price points.

When a company is small(ish) it can often change strategy and direction quickly. When it gets big it can get somewhat complacent and slow to respond to market changes. Thats a dangerous trap, and history is full of companies that expired after they failed to properly read the signs.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

There is no clear legal definition of what market share is needed for a company to be declared a monopoly or having monopoly power, and market share is not the only factor that goes into making that determination. Court/legal views on this have varied over time.

Just because there is choice in a market does not negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant companies can engage in anticompetitive behavior.

From the FTC website:

Market Power
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.

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

Think what you want. For all practical and logical reasons, Apple is very far from monopoly. The excerpt you provided is simply vague enough to give the government latitude to do whatever they want in a lawsuit. They are going to have some trouble because they do specify “less than 50%” which means Apple can argue even with their share, there is plenty of choice and their superior value proposition is simply working. If Apple sells in other developed markets like Europe and Asia without as dominant share, it’s proof they are not acting as a monopoly because similar competitors are available in both places and consumers make their choices.

 

[vantelimus]

You are making stuff up. Government just forces Apple to make those apps available. It does not force you to use them.

you forget the browser wars. Or you were not alive at the time

 

[webkit]

Think what you want. For all practical and logical reasons, Apple is very far from monopoly. The excerpt you provided is simply vague enough to give the government latitude to do whatever they want in a lawsuit. They are going to have some trouble because they do specify “less than 50%” which means Apple can argue even with their share, there is plenty of choice and their superior value proposition is simply working. If Apple sells in other developed markets like Europe and Asia without as dominant share, it’s proof they are not acting as a monopoly because similar competitors are available in both places and consumers make their choices.

It's not about what I think, it’s how the justice system has worked. The relevant market to the DOJ is the U.S. and the DOJ is stating that Apple's U.S. share of the "performance smartphone market" exceeds 70% and its U.S. share of the overall smartphone market exceeds 65%. That's not "very far from a monopoly" as you put it.

 

[webkit]

you forget the browser wars. Or you were not alive at the time

What aspect of the "browser wars" led to the government forcing people to use particular browsers or apps?

 

[vantelimus]

What aspect of the "browser wars" led to the government forcing people to use particular browsers or apps?

Fourteen years ago, Microsoft was forced by the EU to intrusively offer anyone using IE as their default browser a screen with a randomly order selection of alternative browsers to trick users into selecting a different browser. It was a political attempt to force a more competitive market. The EU required a selection from 12 different browsers. Most people cannot name more than 3 different browsers today because, aside from the few people who already know how to install an alternative browser, the market doesn't care.

But, hey, I'm sure you are still using one of the other browsers that the EU tried to prop up. Right?

Here's the selection from BrowserChoice.eu, a website Microsoft was forced to created by the EU in the name of competition and choice.

 

[webkit]

Fourteen years ago, Microsoft was forced by the EU to intrusively offer anyone using IE as their default browser a screen with a randomly order selection of alternative browsers to trick users into selecting a different browser. It was a political attempt to force a more competitive market. The EU required a selection from 12 different browsers. Most people cannot name more than 3 different browsers today because, aside from the few people who already know how to install an alternative browser, the market doesn't care.

But, hey, I'm sure you are still using one of the other browsers that the EU tried to prop up. Right?

Here's the selection from BrowserChoice.eu, a website Microsoft was forced to created by the EU in the name of competition and choice.

The government didn't force people to use a particular browser, though. They also didn't force users to switch from their current/existing default browser.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Think what you want. For all practical and logical reasons, Apple is very far from monopoly. The excerpt you provided is simply vague enough to give the government latitude to do whatever they want in a lawsuit. They are going to have some trouble because they do specify “less than 50%” which means Apple can argue even with their share, there is plenty of choice and their superior value proposition is simply working. If Apple sells in other developed markets like Europe and Asia without as dominant share, it’s proof they are not acting as a monopoly because similar competitors are available in both places and consumers make their choices.

That logic is kind of absurd if you think about it.

If Apple had 90% market share in the U.S., but the global market share was barely 10%. Would you say they aren’t a monopoly?

Or if Apple had a 90% market share globally, but only 10% in the USA, would they suddenly be a monopoly?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Fourteen years ago, Microsoft was forced by the EU to intrusively offer anyone using IE as their default browser a screen with a randomly order selection of alternative browsers to trick users into selecting a different browser. It was a political attempt to force a more competitive market. The EU required a selection from 12 different browsers. Most people cannot name more than 3 different browsers today because, aside from the few people who already know how to install an alternative browser, the market doesn't care.

But, hey, I'm sure you are still using one of the other browsers that the EU tried to prop up. Right?

Here's the selection from BrowserChoice.eu, a website Microsoft was forced to created by the EU in the name of competition and choice.

View attachment 2362867

Well seems to have worked considering chrome today dominates.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

That logic is kind of absurd if you think about it.

If Apple had 90% market share in the U.S., but the global market share was barely 10%. Would you say they aren’t a monopoly?

Or if Apple had a 90% market share globally, but only 10% in the USA, would they suddenly be a monopoly?

No, still not a monopoly. The question is if there are other choices which clearly, there are.

The point I’m making is that US consumers just like Apple products but with similar competitors, other countries prefer Android. It shows people are making choices, otherwise you’d see consistent share everywhere.

 

[1129846]

The government takes 30% of your salary and nobody bats an eye.

Apple takes 30%, provides you with an actual service and platform to make money on and everyone loses their stuff.

I feel the anger is misdirected.

Pretty sure the government is not taking 30% your salary. I know I make in the top 10% and just completed my taxes and I don’t pay 30% in taxes.

Now I will admit that around 40-45% my paycheck goes away in deductions and taxes but I can promise you less than 30% goes to the government in taxes.

 

[Warped9]

When you consider all the taxes government takes in terms of income tax as well as sales taxes and god knows what else it could well exceed thirty percent. The thing about government taxes is that you don’t see an immediate return unless you consider the upkeep of roads, schools, health care (in Canada), police, fire fighting, medical facilities, water and waste and sewer management, government services, military and who knows what else. And you’re paying to all levels of government.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No, still not a monopoly. The question is if there are other choices which clearly, there are.

The point I’m making is that US consumers just like Apple products but with similar competitors, other countries prefer Android. It shows people are making choices, otherwise you’d see consistent share everywhere.

Then effectively a monopoly doesn’t exist, a choice and option always exist. And it’s not a term used by any government or person dealing with economic policy.

Even if Apple had 99.9-100% market share in the USA, but 30% market share in the world it wouldn’t make a difference.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

When you consider all the taxes government takes in terms of income tax as well as sales taxes and god knows what else it could well exceed thirty percent. The thing about government taxes is that you don’t see an immediate return unless you consider the upkeep of roads, schools, health care (in Canada), police, fire fighting, medical facilities, water and waste and sewer management, government services, military and who knows what else. And you’re paying to all levels of government.

Well take this, imagine if you leave Canada and every time you purchase any food, get cloths, earn money etc you would still pay taxes to the government you left and no longer uses their services.

Everyone would lose their marbles, 😂

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The government takes 30% of your salary and nobody bats an eye.

Apple takes 30%, provides you with an actual service and platform to make money on and everyone loses their stuff.

I feel the anger is misdirected.

Sure, so you wouldn’t lose your mind if the government took 30% of your taxes even when you travel abroad?

Purchase a cheaper computer abroad? Nope pay the local governments tax and your gone governments tax. 👌

 

[vantelimus]

Well seems to have worked considering chrome today dominates.

Did it work? Maybe it did. Maybe the whole idea was not foster competition and choice, but to have the market adopt a different dominant browser instead of Microsoft.

It didn’t work to foster competition and give a chance for all the little companies. That was and is the whole idea behind these laws concerning anti-competitiveness and judgments against (potential) monopolists. The problem is that the market doesn’t want that. It wants two or three good options. It had Safari, Chrome and IE before the action. It has Safari, Chrome and Edge (formerly IE) after the action. NOTHING CHANGED except relative ordering. The market would have gotten there without intervention anyway.

And for all you idealists who want to talk about choice being what you want, save it. The science is in. Behavioral economics and marketing studies settled that a couple of decades ago. It doesn’t matter what you say you want. That is not the way the public acts. Your insistence otherwise is simply science denial.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Did it work? Maybe it did. Maybe the whole idea was not foster competition and choice, but to have the market adopt a different dominant browser instead of Microsoft.

It didn’t work to foster competition and give a chance for all the little companies. That was and is the whole idea behind these laws concerning anti-competitiveness and judgments against (potential) monopolists. The problem is that the market doesn’t want that. It wants two or three good options. It had Safari, Chrome and IE before the action. It has Safari, Chrome and Edge (formerly IE) after the action. NOTHING CHANGED except relative ordering. The market would have gotten there without intervention anyway.

It did work. Chrome who used a fork of the safari webkit engine was nobody at the time. Fostering competition and choice doesn’t mean a monopoly can’t exist, especially if it won fair and square by being best without making it harder for competitors to challenge them.

In 2011 Firefox and chrome had 30% each.
We currently have 3 engines in different flavors. We have chromium( blink) based engines such as Edge, chrome, opera. Internet explorer doesn’t exist anymore after it became a version of chrome.

Firefox(gecko engine) and safari and 100% of browsers in the AppStore (WebKit)

Here is an easy visualization for you.

And for all you idealists who want to talk about choice being what you want, save it. The science is in. Behavioral economics and marketing studies settled that a couple of decades ago. It doesn’t matter what you say you want. That is not the way the public acts. Your insistence otherwise is simply science denial.

Having a choice means a person can opt out. Having a choice means you can pick what suits you. If the science say people don’t want choice then would you agree that everyone should pick android and a single Samsung phone Model. One color, one screen size. One price.

No market, competition but as few choice land as possible.

No more iPhones, remove the iPad Air, iPad and only have one iPad Pro?

The paradox of choice is nowhere near a settled scientific consensus and it depends on many factors having to choose amount 100 thing isn’t equally to choose among a handful things that costs 0$ can be changed at anytime and used simultaneously.

Does the paradox of choice exist in theory? A behavioral search model and pareto-improving choice set reduction algorithm - AI & SOCIETY

A growing body of empirical evidence suggests the existence of a Paradox of Choice, whereby a larger choice set leads to a lower expected payoff to the decisionmaker. These empirical findings contradict traditional choice-theoretic results in microeconomics and even social psychology, suggesting...

link.springer.com

 

[vantelimus]

It did work. Chrome who used a fork of the safari webkit engine was nobody at the time. Fostering competition and choice doesn’t mean a monopoly can’t exist, especially if it won fair and square by being best without making it harder for competitors to challenge them.

In 2011 Firefox and chrome had 30% each.
We currently have 3 engines in different flavors. We have chromium( blink) based engines such as Edge, chrome, opera. Internet explorer doesn’t exist anymore after it became a version of chrome.

You make a good case if you ignore the data and the reason for the law.

In March 2010, when the EU order went into effect (ostensibly to break the "IE monopoly" and give people choice), worldwide market share for browsers was approximately

46% Firefox
35% IE
12% Chrome
4% Safari
2% Opera

There was no monopoly. There was no problem of choice. In fact, the time to argue that Microsoft was engaged in some kind of anti-competitive behavior was 8 years earlier, when they had beaten back Netscape to have over 90% market share. That didn't last long, though, because by the end of 2008, IE had already dropped below 50% market share, primarily due to competition from Firefox.

People had no problem finding alternate browsers on Microsoft. Chrome was released in December of 2008, so was a little over a year old at the time and had already garnered 12% market share without any government interference because, as every knew at the time, IE sucked. The market responded.

We now have a market in which Chrome has over 80% and the remainder is split among all the also-rans (Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera, and "other"). Notice how no new competitors entered the market and succeeded.

The market merely shifted from one dominant player to the other based not on interference, but on the better product. The EU action was merely a blip and putting its thumb on the scale. The market outweighed the interfering thumb by giving us a new dominant product.

Here is an easy visualization for you:

The paradox of choice is nowhere near a settled scientific consensus and it depends on many factors having to choose amount 100 thing isn’t equally to choose among a handful things that costs 0$ can be changed at anytime and used simultaneously.

Does the paradox of choice exist in theory? A behavioral search model and pareto-improving choice set reduction algorithm - AI & SOCIETY

A growing body of empirical evidence suggests the existence of a Paradox of Choice, whereby a larger choice set leads to a lower expected payoff to the decisionmaker. These empirical findings contradict traditional choice-theoretic results in microeconomics and even social psychology, suggesting...

link.springer.com

The paradox of choice is just one component. Marketing science shows that people want a choice between two or three adequate products. They want to make their decision once. They don't want to think about changing their minds, let alone change their mind. This is why we have Coke and Pepsi, each of which enjoys exceptional brand loyalty. This is why we have Mac vs Windows, Android vs iOS, Chrome vs. whatever is bundled, etc.

Deny the science. Its okay.

Personally, I am all for laws to hammer the crap out of companies that engage in collusion, price-fixing, and any other manner of anti-competitive behavior. Having a great product that people like isn't anti-competitive, especially in the case of Apple, against which there is ample worldwide competition.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You make a good case if you ignore the data and the reason for the law.

In March 2010, when the EU order went into effect (ostensibly to break the "IE monopoly" and give people choice), worldwide market share for browsers was approximately

46% Firefox
35% IE
12% Chrome
4% Safari
2% Opera

There was no monopoly. There was no problem of choice. In fact, the time to argue that Microsoft was engaged in some kind of anti-competitive behavior was 8 years earlier, when they had beaten back Netscape to have over 90% market share. That didn't last long, though, because by the end of 2008, IE had already dropped below 50% market share, primarily due to competition from Firefox.

The question wasn’t about monopolies, as for EU it’s just a question of anti trust behavior. And their mandate was implemented in only EU, not globally or worldwide and was mainly for the European market.

It’s al about preventing harm to the internal free market. To allow the free movement of goods and to defend the founding charters of EU. It doesn’t matter if it’s an American company, European one or Asian one. Eau doesn’t tolerate any threats to the founding principles of EU and the healthy option to compete on the market.

People had no problem finding alternate browsers on Microsoft. Chrome was released in December of 2008, so was a little over a year old at the time and had already garnered 12% market share without any government interference because, as every knew at the time, IE sucked. The market responded.

We now have a market in which Chrome has over 80% and the remainder is split among all the also-rans (Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera, and "other"). Notice how no new competitors entered the market and succeeded.

The market merely shifted from one dominant player to the other based not on interference, but on the better product. The EU action was merely a blip and putting its thumb on the scale. The market outweighed the interfering thumb by giving us a new dominant product.

Here is an easy visualization for you:

View attachment 2363843

Being a dominant player isn’t illegal, just how EU in forcing google again to allow users to choose their preferred browser. If they still choose chrome then it will be completely fine.

The paradox of choice is just one component. Marketing science shows that people want a choice between two or three adequate products. They want to make their decision once. They don't want to think about changing their minds, let alone change their mind. This is why we have Coke and Pepsi, each of which enjoys exceptional brand loyalty. This is why we have Mac vs Windows, Android vs iOS, Chrome vs. whatever is bundled, etc.

A choice between 2 or 3 adequate products? That is what we have in some instances but not in others.

We have 1 option for a browser on iOS.
We have 1 option for a store on iOS.

If i could chose between iOS AppStore, epic store and steam, then I wouldn’t have a choice between 3 adequate options, but one terrible, one adequate and one excellent choice.

If I could choose between, safari, chrome and Firefox, then I would have one mediocre choice, and two adequate choices. Especially considering that better plugin support for Adblockers.

Deny the science. Its okay.

Having the ability to chose, to have the option of something that’s forbidden isn’t denying science. Today Apple removes choice by curating what can and can’t be presented to users.

Personally, I am all for laws to hammer the crap out of companies that engage in collusion, price-fixing, and any other manner of anti-competitive behavior. Having a great product that people like isn't anti-competitive, especially in the case of Apple, against which there is ample worldwide competition.

Your confusing having a choice voluntarily, and refusing the possibility of choice.

It should not be up to Apple what choices customers get on their device.

It’s not apples job to prevent other companies on the market to try and compete against their services.

Apple must remove their thumb of the scale and let the cards fall where they may.