All I see is if, if and if. Apple does not operate in a duopoly. The cell phone market is healthy and rife with competition. Anyone can enter the market. All it takes are brains, muscle and financing.
They do. There's a duopoly for cell phone operating systems.
...and the ones for their operating systems and application stores are not.
the openness of a system, the ability of anyone being able to make for it if they wish, the ability for any dev or manufacturer to compete, the ability to use your own device as you see fit without the company you got it from insisting you do what they want you to do with it, isn’t a choice for people to make. It should be a given. Note: nobody is saying Apple can’t keep doing what they do - it’s just they must let others have the same abilities as they do.
It’s the only solution, and I can’t believe that that’s not obvious to you.
They don’t. Please cite relevant case law.
This is true. Apple controls their platform. Been saying it for years now.
It is.
Just because it isn't physical property doesn't mean it's not owned by Apple. If Apple took away the APIs they created and maintained apps wouldn’t work. Just because you wish that wasn't the case doesn't mean it isn't the case.
Enough with the duopoly red herring. That's not what the DMA says. If Apple had the same marketshare in the EU and Android was instead three different mobile operating systems each with a vibrant app ecosystem and with 25% marketshare, the DMA would still apply to Apple. Because market share isn't a category for being designated a gatekeeper. (Because, you're not dominant in your market in the EU unless your marketshare is over 40% and again, the E.U. pre-determined Apple was guilty and then wrote the law to ensure Apple was impacted). It's revenue and number of users (or in the case of iPadOS - because the EU says so even if they don’t meet the conditions written into the law).
What? Nonsense. It makes no difference. If Apple allowed other manufacturers to make a watch that could access the same level of functionality as their own brand - what on earth does it have to do with your mom? She can buy an Apple Watch. Or a wide variety of other choices. Or none at all.
I literally explained, she wants the simplest experience. If you want a watch, get an Apple Watch. Simple.
Maybe it would remain the best. But as it stands now it’s the best because Apple limit what anyone can do with a similar product. It’s the best by default. It’s the best because it’s the only one even allowed to be. I’m sorry for your mom, obviously, but it’s not right a company can wield that much power over the competition.
Stock Android is also extremely simple. It’s a phone. Nothing complicated- maybe it’s not a fluent as iOS but it’s by no means more complicated.
Now you’re starting to see it!
I agree, they could have the reduced profits of those companies by introducing a digital tax, but that would have sent a chilling effect across the ENTIRE EU market. “We can, at any time, punish you if you’re successful selling goods/services to EU citizens,” is not a message they wanted to send… that kind of regulation was successful in driving European companies out of the EU, it would have certainly had the same effect on non-EU companies. Not to mention, taxes would have been fair, indiscriminate, and affected far more companies than just American companies (lots of EU companies deal in digital goods, like Spotify). So, the regulators instead just created the term “gatekeeper” and tried to define punishments that they HOPED would cause a loss of profits. That hoping part is where it fell apart. Perhaps if they’d had more time, they would have done a better job, but with the end of Vestager’s term looming, they had to throw out their poorly written legislation. And, because they didn’t take into account the myriad ways companies can, within already existing regulations, profit from their R&D, they didn’t foresee that Apple would take advantage of those other regulations in meeting the expectations of the DMA with a minimal loss of profits.not as simple as iOS.
again, what's best for my mom is the simplest solution. the moment you have to compare Samsung against Apple Watch, you've already lost her (along with millions of other customers).
I don't need to cite case law to conclude that smartphones available in the market are split between only two operating systems (Android and iOS).
...but Apple's position wouldn't be as entrenched as it is, due to the market being more competitive.
Of course not. It's not about punishment - it's about fair competition for other businesses.
Absolute hogwash. It's about fair competition between other businesses. It's not intended to cause loss of profit - though for monopolists or duopolists, it obviously might. More competition tends to reduce rent and supracompetitive margins and profits.
Not true. The DMA provides for an official mechanism to update the definition and design gatekeepers - as well as update requirements for their conduct.
By creating a great end user experience that users are willing to pay a premium for. Obviously.
my mom retired from Verizon and gets lifetime employee discount. it's an easy choice.
That’s not entirely true. It may not matter some places and some places it does matter.
About the only curable thing is the recent google ruling. Other than that Microsoft what year? Apple. What year?
The fact that cases are lost are very relevant. It shows that one persons definition of anticompetitive is not another’s.
I know that there are hundreds of cell phone manufacturers. Most of them have an App Store. That horizontal integration isn’t regulated only vertical regulation.
The eu wants to deprive apple of its revenue by craftily ratifying laws based on profits and not units.
How does apple wield power when they have a 27% market share in the eu?
Acting as an intermediary connecting thousands of business users (developers) to millions of users.
You mean people who elect to opt in to apples ecosystem as apples customers? That not wielding power as you say that’s good business. That’s apple serving the needs of its customers.
Oh so profit is important not the number of handsets which it’s important everywhere in the world except for the eu who uses profits.
And that has to do with anything how?
Exactly. Cause they commit to an ecosystem and it's not as easy to switch as between McDonald's and Burger King.
For paid apps (or paid services, such as streaming services), the "profit" or sales volume is important.
Saying Apple only has a 27% (minority) market share - based on the number of users or active devices alone - is a misrepresentation by omitting major relevant facts, when those users spend more per capita.