The free marketed worked. And we only have Apple and Google left. People decided that.
In the EU, mostly Google, by a wide margin. Not even big Micro$oft could save Nokia to give the world a 3rd one.
The free market worked to do what? Do you think EU wants more competition than android and iOS? That’s not even on their radar. Remember EU don’t care if competition exist, they care that competition is possible by the meritocratic means.
The OS of a system is one factor of a million that people use to determine whether they purchase a phone or not.
Android and iOS aren’t competitors. AppStore and play store aren’t competitors.
Google RCS and iMessage isn’t competitors.
iOS Safari and chrome isn’t competitors.
Edge/internet explorer and safari isn’t competitors.
iPhone and Xbox isn’t competitors
Samsung galaxy and Apple iPhones are competitors.
WhatsApp and iMessage is competitors
WhatsApp and RCS are competitors.
Galaxy store and play store are competitors.
Mac Safari and chrome is competitors.
And this might sound strange and arbitrary, how can’t android and iOS not be competitors, or iOS safari and chrome?
Well the core reason is how a relevant market is understood and the meaning of competition is. And this was written in 1997 before the digital market was like today.
The relevant market combines the product market and the geographic market, defined as follows.
- A relevant product market comprises all those products and/or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer by reason of the products’ characteristics, their prices and their intended use.
- A relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the firms concerned are involved in the supply of products or services and in which the conditions of competition are sufficiently similar.
Once the product market and the geographic market have been defined, the Commission carries out a more detailed analysis based on the concept of substitutability. Firms subject to a competitive system must respect two major constraints: demand substitution and supply substitution. A market is competitive if customers can choose between a range of products with similar characteristics and if the supplier does not face obstacles to supplying products or services on that market.
The substitutability criterion enables research to be targeted on any substitute products, making it possible to define the relevant product market and geographic market with a greater degree of certainty. Only in the final stage is the relevant market analysed to determine the degree of integration in the EU’s markets.
The Commission therefore carries out an assessment of demand-side substitutability (i.e. of customers) and supply-side substitutability (i.e. of suppliers). In the first case, the question is whether customers for the product in question can readily switch to a similar product in response to a small but permanent price increase (of between 5% and 10%). In the second case, the question is whether other suppliers can readily switch production to the relevant products and sell them on the relevant market.
However, this criterion of substitutability does not take account of the conditions in which the firms in question operate. Therefore it is necessary, for instance, to examine the conditions of access to the defined market. In this regard, the Commission assesses the product dimension and the geographic dimension of the relevant market, taking account of the following elements.
- The recent past. In certain cases, it is possible to analyse evidence relating to recent price variations, for example in terms of substitution between two products or in terms of the customer response.
- The results of specific studies. It is possible to assess the elasticity of demand* for a product by means of econometric and statistical tests. It is also useful to assess the geographic market on the basis of factors which have an impact on local preferences (such as culture, language, etc.).
- The views of customers and competitors. The Commission may contact the main customers and competitors of the firm in question to gather factual evidence and to evaluate their reaction in the event of price variations within the geographic area.
- Consumer preferences.: The Commission may ask the firms in question for the market studies they carried out prior to launching a product on the market or setting its price. It may also compare the purchasing habits of customers on the relevant market with those of other customers on a separate geographic market where similar conditions prevail.
- Barriers (regulatory or others) and costs associated with switching demand to other products or areas.
- Different categories of customer and price discrimination. A distinct group of customers for the relevant product may itself constitute a narrower, distinct market when such a group could be subject to price discrimination.
Before drawing its conclusions, the Commission may consult the main firms in the sector on the limits of the product market and geographic market. Where appropriate, it may also carry out an on-the-spot inspection.
And, I suspect if it keeps working the way it has. Google over time would get a larger share of the pie. It's not like they are not doing any innovations themselves. And you have so many phone options to choose from with that OS.
Apple's value is that they don't always conform to some "standard". They often go their own way. And to force them to open up and standardize is antithetical to what they are. They want to be a "choice" not something "similar" to others.
Again EU don’t care about a standard, opening up the AppStore isn’t about standards. Apple can still go their own way but not harm the market. If Apple or google wins isn’t important.
C'mon man. Seriously. ASML doesn't design chips. They create the lithography machines. ARM (a company Apple invested in some time ago before any of these M chips existed) sells a license to anyone that wants to purchase it. Apple designs its own chips how it wants that is compatible with the ARM instruction set.
So no, I wouldn't agree that ASML is the only reason. The tech is needed to get to 3nm, but you can't just have that to get the chips you want. Everything else has to be in place for this to work. And Apple having a design is just as important as the next wheel in the cog.
Yet they are the only ones producing the (EUV) photolithography machines that are required to manufacture the most advanced chips. Without it Intel wouldn’t Be able to make their advanced chips
And their DUV lithography machines( the last generation ) are also world heading. Thera a reason why Intel buys from them and no American companies exist in the sector.
Apple designs their own chips in accordance the license allows them to.
