Apple Facing Imminent U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[Sophisticatednut]

W

They are still competing against the same American company’s OS worldwide and that company has over a 71 ( actually 90 percent in your made up scenario) percent market share worldwide? Seems the DOJ would be putting their thumb on the scale for the company with the much broader appeal worldwide.

Worldwide isn’t the jurisdiction of the DOJ.
If an American company has 90% in another jurisdiction it’s literally none of their businesses. And why would the DOJ care about other countries with other laws and procedures?

They also sued in 11 states. Now NJ is the market? What about Lambertville, does a 90 percent share in one town become a monopoly? This is ridiculous and the fact is it’s not 90 percent in the US market. It’s 60 with a worldwide share of less than 30.

And I suspect the DOJ targets the country of the United States and exclusively federal laws, not individual states or towns.

Just how the EU commission doesn’t care what a company does in a specific country or region, but only concerns themselves with the EU market and EU level primary and secondary laws. Everything else is locally handled or outside of EU.

 

[Uofmtiger]

W

Worldwide isn’t the jurisdiction of the DOJ.
If an American company has 90% in another jurisdiction it’s literally none of their businesses. And why would the DOJ care about other countries with other laws and procedures?

And I suspect the DOJ targets the country of the United States and exclusively federal laws, not individual states or towns.

Just how the EU commission doesn’t care what a company does in a specific country or region, but only concerns themselves with the EU market and EU level primary and secondary laws. Everything else is locally handled or outside of EU.

It’s an American company that is competing against another American company on a worldwide basis and losing in market share 71-29 percent and they don’t take that into account when talking about them being a monopoly? Even the 60 percent in the US is going to be a hard bridge to cross… ( which is why they had to make up a brand new category of smart phones).

 

[Samplasion]

Go to the App Store you can download Chrome, Firefox, Opera, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Aloha, Edge, Yandex, and others. Lots of others

Wrong. They are all Safari/WebKit reskins. A far cry from "a multitude of browsers".

What you can't do is go to an alternative store and download trojaed and compromised versions of software trying to trick you into revealing your personal information.

Wrong again. There was an article right here on MR from a month or two ago that a malicious app had snuck into the App Store. And there are plenty others that fly under the radar.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It’s an American company that is competing against another American company on a worldwide basis and losing in market share 71-29 percent and they don’t take that into account when talking about them being a monopoly? Even the 60 percent in the US is going to be a hard bridge to cross…

And how does this relate to US customers what an American company does abroad?

If Apple harms companies, consumers and the market in China or Europe it’s not relevant to the U.S. market or U.S. consumer.

 

[Uofmtiger]

And how does this relate to US customers what an American company does abroad?

If Apple harms companies, consumers and the market in China or Europe it’s not relevant to the U.S. market or U.S. consumer.

Because their competition is also an American company and the numbers don’t lie. The 71-29 global numbers prove consumers have options. No one is locked into iOS or Android. It has to do with monopoly power, which they don’t have here in the US or anywhere else.



https://www.yahoo.com/tech/apple-iphone-not-monopoly-really-141109303.html

“Suppose the US Government wins, and it does start making those choices. It would be fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and that no consumer asked it to fix, while also potentially ruining the relationships with companies and their products which most consumers currently enjoy”

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because their competition is also an American company and the numbers don’t lie. The 71-29 global numbers prove consumers have options. No one is locked into iOS or Android. It has to do with monopoly power, which they don’t have here in the US or anywhere else.

And what can the DOJ do if an American company have monopoly power in foreign jurisdiction that have no issue with them being a monopoly? Should the DOJ suddenly try and expand American law to American companies globally the same way they force Americans to pay taxes abroad?

I really fail to see why Apple competing with an American company has any relevance whatsoever when it’s happening outside the USA? It has no impact nor relevance to the domestic market.

In my hypothetical scenario what would the difference be if Apple had 99% or even 100% of the global market, but in the U.S. they can barely crack the 10% or even 30% market.

Or Apple had 99% or even 100% of the U.S. market but not even 30% of the global market including the U.S. market.

In what scenario should the DOJ intervene? Or should they only do that when they have 100% of the world market and nothing but iPhones are sold?

 

[Uofmtiger]

And what can the DOJ do if an American company have monopoly power in foreign jurisdiction that have no issue with them being a monopoly? Should the DOJ suddenly try and expand American law to American companies globally the same way they force Americans to pay taxes abroad?

I really fail to see why Apple competing with an American company has any relevance whatsoever when it’s happening outside the USA? It has no impact nor relevance to the domestic market.

In my hypothetical scenario what would the difference be if Apple had 99% or even 100% of the global market, but in the U.S. they can barely crack the 10% or even 30% market.

Or Apple had 99% or even 100% of the U.S. market but not even 30% of the global market including the U.S. market.

In what scenario should the DOJ intervene? Or should they only do that when they have 100% of the world market and nothing but iPhones are sold?

It always takes a bunch of hypotheticals to fight the actual situation. It’s 60-40 and 29-71. In either event they aren’t a monopoly. The fact is they are taking into account revenue made on the global stage rather than separating out what they made in the USA. So they are looking at their overall global success.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It always takes a bunch of hypotheticals to fight the actual situation. It’s 60-40 and 29-71. In either event they aren’t a monopoly. The fact is they are taking into account revenue made on the global stage rather than separating out what they made in the USA. So they are looking at their overall global success.

A hypothetical scenario is used to determine the consistency of your premise.

Especially considering your definition of monopoly is nonsensical because it’s an impossible scenario as customers always have a choice in some forms. And it’s completely detached from the legal meaning of the word.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Plus the point is apples global revenue impacts the domestic market. But it doesn’t mean Google is their competitor. Android is only sold to OEMs. Apple compete against Google pixel, Samsung galaxy etc.

But that’s up for the U.S. to decide based on their legal framework

It always takes a bunch of hypotheticals to fight the actual situation. It’s 60-40 and 29-71. In either event they aren’t a monopoly. The fact is they are taking into account revenue made on the global stage rather than separating out what they made in the USA. So they are looking at their overall global success.

 

[sdfox7]

Didn't have a chance to read the 23 pages of comments, but just because Apple software works better with Apple hardware doesn't make it a monopoly. Obviously if the software and hardware are made by the same company it will likely lead to a better experience and increased market share. If iOS is more popular because of a better product, how is that Apple's fault? Doesn't Apple have a right to determine what's compatible with its product and what isn't?

Where's the outrage over Microsoft's heavy handed Edge promotion? Looks like circa 1998 web browser abuse.

Every trick Microsoft pulled to make you browse Edge instead of Chrome​