U.S. App Store Ecosystem Facilitated $406 Billion in Sales in 2024, Up From $142 Billion in 2019

[rp2011]

Since they didn't allow other stores for sales of apps (and other digital transactions) on their platform.

Even if it were free, it doesn't (shouldn't) give them the right to leverage the monopoly power obtained from it anticompetitively against a subset of third-party developers.

So it's not about monopoly, but you insist since they are successful, that's enough for you to want to control them?

Let's go back.
There was once a thriving phone market. Microsoft, among others, was a leader in the market, chiding Apple that Microsoft sold millions of phones, whereas Apple was an underdog, selling zero. Saying the numbers spoke for themselves and that they loved their strategy. Microsoft laughed off Apple and the iPhone.

BlackBerry, also a market leader, doubted Apple's phone and strategy would succeed, saying no one could just waltz on in and outperform them. That it was far too difficult.

Nokia ditto.

Fast forward, and Apple, with its expensive alternative to the market leaders, is still here, and people begrudge that? Even as another iPhone clone in Android dominates?

It's not about monopolies, you agreed; this is about people upset at a successful company for being successful.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Fast forward, and Apple, with its expensive alternative to the market leaders, is still here, and people begrudge that? Even as another iPhone clone in Android dominates?

If a monopoly is established, and abuse of that position is taken, it doesn’t matter how it is established.

Or replace monopoly with any other term describing anticompetitiveness.

To add, the question is not if Apple has a monopoly on smartphones/phones, but on app distribution on iOS.

 

[BaldiMac]

What is your argument then? I don’t see a mention of it being a fork, I do see it is a skin. A skin is a alternative UI. Like, I might be wrong, but usually you I might reconsider if you provide proof or a good argument.

fork: "In software development, a fork is a codebase that is created by duplicating an existing codebase and, generally, is subsequently modified independently of the original. "

Also not on the basis of it having UI, but it being defined as a skin.

No, the UI is a skin. The OS is the fork that the skin, among other things, was added to.

They both have conceivable power, and are using those powers. That last one is what they should be held responsible for.

I have no idea what that means. Again, Apple has relaxed its policies over time.

You connect, for no reason, Android with ‘search and ads monopolies’.

I said Google leveraged they're search and ads monopolies to push Google Play Services on their competitors. Those are the anticompetitive agreements that I was referring to. That's a pretty relevant reason.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Cook's quote is written by ChatGPT and I'm not even joking. Anyone who's familiar with how ChatGPT writes can tell right away.

Computer says no

 

[awshucks]

Computer says no

ZeroGPT says otherwise

 

[AppliedMicro]

Hardware sales goes for development of R&D on new hardware and new OS work.

Agreed. 👍

And the OS and its APIs is what make third-party apps apps work.
Access to the Apple App Store isn't necessary (it's merely a commercial requirement for distribution to consumers).

Which confirms what I said: Apple's "hard work" and APIs have been paid for with the purchase of a phone.

Apple isn’t undercutting its competitors with predatory pricing like Microsoft and Standard Oil did

But that's exactly the argument opponents of regulation use all the time:
"The developer subscription is priced way to low. It's in no way compensation for all of Apple's hard work, etc. ..."

Standard Oil and Microsoft were using their market power in an unfair way.
(...)
Apple hasn’t actively purchased or eliminated competitors across all levels of its supply chains; it’s built its market organically.

So is Apple using their market power in an unfair way.
Especially where they're competing with third-party apps for app and services.

Imposing a 30% tax on competing streaming service provides - or otherwise prohibiting them from communicating with consumers on their own apps - is unfair and anticompetitive. It gives Apple's services an unfair advantage in the market.

The competition is called Android.

It is not.
Android does not compete with the Apple App Store for distribution of apps.
Not in the short and medium term, when consumers are locked into a platform through a hardware purchase.

Apple has no obligation to aid their competitiors, nor let them freeload

Newsflash: They are obligated now.
In the E.U. (thanks to the DMA), in Brazil, as well as in the U.S. (thanks to the court rulings secured by Epic).

So it's not about monopoly, but you insist since they are successful, that's enough for you to want to control them?

Let's go back.
There was once a thriving phone market

I have absolutely zero problem with Apple successfully selling phones.
I only take issue with them being to anti-freedom and abusing their position and leveraging it anticompetitively.

There was once a thriving phone market. Microsoft, among others, was a leader in the market

Microsoft was never a leader in the market for phones or smartphones.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

ZeroGPT says otherwise

View attachment 2514816

That's fascinating. Even some AIs don't recognize each other. Clearly those two apps/sites are looking at different criteria.

EDIT: I checked several other AI detectors and they're all over the map on whether the quote attributed to Cook in the article is AI-generated or not. All I know so far is that the widely used tools I found in a brief search were very inconsistent with their results, and I probably wouldn't trust any single one of them at this point.

 

[surferfb]

This is called an argument, instead of yelling:

Without any thorough argumentation.

Why do I need "thorough argumentation" of the known, provable fact that iOS has less than < 30% of the smartphone platform market. Do you need a link? Here you go.

Ignores all the things I have pointed out. First and foremost, people make considerations based on criteria not only on the basis of app store. This is the reason why both Apple and Google hold so much power on SmartphoneOSes and the stores (just for you )/markets on them.

I'm not ignoring anything.

I agree when buying a product, you weight the pros and cons of the available options and then buy the product that best fits your needs. If you choose an Apple device despite Apple's well known and well publicized restrictions on how you can install apps, then "how you install apps" is pretty clearly not a very important issue to you, given there are dozens of fantastic devices that provide a comparable (some would claim better) experience that don't have that restriction, and it is probably the biggest functional difference between the two OSes. They used to make ads about it!

So if it's not even important enough to you to change which phone you buy, why do you think your desire for an open ecosystem is more important than my (and more importantly, Apple's) desire for a closed one? Can't you understand why those of us who want a closed ecosystem might think that's really, really selfish of you?

Well, if you keep repeating the same examples, I am not going to trust you on that.

You used a lot of words to come yo your opinion without stating any arguments.

It is not an analogy, it was the perfect market theory applied on your example.


this is why it is a ’perfect’ competition, as beef is not some rare resource, it should be fairly easy to change supplier/buyer.

Again, @AppliedMicro and I have been debating the competitiveness of the App Store and relevant legislation for over a year now. I fundamentally disagree with the premise of his signature. I don't need to rehash the arguments why I think it's silly every time I make an analogy just because you think the signature is clever.

The reason you don't think it works though is because you (correctly) agree that it's ridiculous to assume a beef supplier deserves access to Burger King, but somehow don't see that it's just as ridiculous to think developers deserve access to iOS. I don't think developers deserve access to iOS any more than said beef supplier deserves to have their meat in the Whopper.

But what you have here is people simultaneously arguing "Apple provides no value to developers" and "Developers can't survive if they don't sell their apps on iOS." It can't be both. If developers can't survive without iOS then Apple sure as hell is providing a lot of value with their intellectual property, and should be able to charge an entirely reasonable, (industry standard, I'd add) 15-30% fee for that value. Or they don't provide value, in which case, why are people complaining - just don't develop for iOS. But Apple does provide value, it's just that the Epics and Spotify's don't want to pay for it. Hence the freeloading.

 

[Agent007]

"The study that Apple commissioned comes as Apple is fighting a major U.S. ‌App Store‌ rule change"

Does anyone believe an Apple-funded "study" is unbiased? Please!

 

[ToothBlueth]

fork: "In software development, a fork is a codebase that is created by duplicating an existing codebase and, generally, is subsequently modified independently of the original. "

I know what a fork is. How do I know this is fork and not a skin? The Wikipage does say skin multiple times, but not a single time fork. Samsung doesn't mention operating system or fork or skin once. I want to believe you, but just repeating basic facts doesn't prove your point. The link you added doesn't mention One UI either. You know Samsung (and I don't know if they do), can just license Android and add a skin to it, right? This is what I assume, but I don't know for certain.

I have no idea what that means. Again, Apple has relaxed its policies over time.

They both misbuse the power they have as a result of the duopoly. It doesn't matter who caused and whether it was intentional. The keyword is 'misbuse'.

I said Google leveraged they're search and ads monopolies to push Google Play Services on their competitors. Those are the anticompetitive agreements that I was referring to. That's a pretty relevant reason.

Then I had misinterpreted, my bad.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Why do I need "thorough argumentation" of the known, provable fact that iOS has less than < 30% of the smartphone platform market. Do you need a link? Here you go.

Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation and not replying in good faith why my scope is wrong. Just repeating your opinion that in your view the relevant market encompasses mobile apps, doesn't make it a fact, that it is the correct scope. Just as much as my view is not going to be confirmed here on the forum. But I have laid out arguments why it should not encompass both platforms.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise of his signature.

We don't have to agree either, in the end the only thing that will be of relevance is what the law/politics does. Let us then avoid making definitive claimes (claiming facts) on the main dispute.

don't need to rehash the arguments why I think it's silly every time I make an analogy just because you think the signature is clever.

I didn't introduce the hamburger analogy, that you used to make a point. I just build on your analogy to point out that analogy doesn't work, because the goods are fundamentally different in nature.

The reason you don't think it works though is because you (correctly) agree that it's ridiculous to assume a beef supplier deserves access to Burger King, but somehow don't see that it's just as ridiculous to think developers deserve access to iOS. I don't think developers deserve access to iOS any more than said beef supplier deserves to have their meat in the Whopper.

I don't agree or disagree with whether 'a beef supplier deserves access to Burger King,' I point out that the whole analogy is flawed as a tool to compare to iOS/mobile apps. And with the last two sentences we have come full circle to the main question, and that is the scope of the relevant market.

But what you have here is people simultaneously arguing "Apple provides no value to developers" and "Developers can't survive if they don't sell their apps on iOS."

Thank you for pointing out, this is away of recognising potential anticompetitve behaviour. They provide nothing, but you do need them.

 

[BaldiMac]

I know what a fork is. How do I know this is fork and not a skin?

If you understood what a fork is, then you wouldn’t ask that question. Samsung copies the open source code, modifies it (by adding a custom UI, applications, drivers, etc.), and then releases it.

They both misbuse the power they have as a result of the duopoly. It doesn't matter who caused and whether it was intentional. The keyword is 'misbuse'.

You’re begging the question here. Apple didn’t change it’s policies to take advantage of a duopoly. They did the opposite - relaxed their polices as they got bigger.

Then I had misinterpreted, my bad.

Thanks.

 

[rp2011]

Agreed. 👍

And the OS and its APIs is what make third-party apps apps work.
Access to the Apple App Store isn't necessary (it's merely a commercial requirement for distribution to consumers).

Which confirms what I said: Apple's "hard work" and APIs have been paid for with the purchase of a phone.

But that's exactly the argument opponents of regulation use all the time:
"The developer subscription is priced way to low. It's in no way compensation for all of Apple's hard work, etc. ..."


So is Apple using their market power in an unfair way.
Especially where they're competing with third-party apps for app and services.

Imposing a 30% tax on competing streaming service provides - or otherwise prohibiting them from communicating with consumers on their own apps - is unfair and anticompetitive. It gives Apple's services an unfair advantage in the market.


It is not.
Android does not compete with the Apple App Store for distribution of apps.
Not in the short and medium term, when consumers are locked into a platform through a hardware purchase.


Newsflash: They are obligated now.
In the E.U. (thanks to the DMA), in Brazil, as well as in the U.S. (thanks to the court rulings secured by Epic).


I have absolutely zero problem with Apple successfully selling phones.
I only take issue with them being to anti-freedom and abusing their position and leveraging it anticompetitively.


Microsoft was never a leader in the market for phones or smartphones.

anti-freedom. What bs is this? lol And Microsoft's Windows Mobile, like Android is today, was indeed one of the market leaders before the iPhone.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Yes corporations hold a legal monopoly in their own products. And also water is wet.

Is other people's software (picking a random one, say, SongShift) Apple's own product?

 

[ToothBlueth]

If you understood what a fork is, then you wouldn’t ask that question. Samsung copies the open source code, modifies it (by adding a custom UI, applications, drivers, etc.), and then releases it.

You know that if I have a Pixel, I can add a skin to it, and make it look drastically different? Like, give me some proof this is an actual fork, or if that is not possible some reasons why it is. As far as I know (and I might be wrong, but you haven't proven that), Samsung can license Android, add a skin, add apps and drivers, these are all on top off Android, so the core Android is the same.

Since you only argue without facts:

Android is an operating system (OS) that powers smartphones. It is the broad layer of software on a phone. Google developed Android, but it is an open-source OS. Other companies can take this open-source OS, make changes to it, and then use that changed OS as the layer of software on their own phones. This is what Samsung does.

But that is not all:

All smartphones sold under the “Samsung Galaxy” branding run on Android. Samsung has made plenty of modifications to Android, and these modifications are collectively called “One UI.” One UI is the name of Samsung’s modified software skin that lives on top of Android. So when using a Samsung phone, you use One UI, which is still Android under the hood.

So, while they 'take' Android, and I must assume that is actually forking it, it doesn't change the fact that it is still Android.

Source: https://www.androidauthority.com/is-samsung-android-3354530/

You’re begging the question here. Apple didn’t change it’s policies to take advantage of a duopoly. They did the opposite - relaxed their polices as they got bigger.

The market is dynamic, Apple has grown, the market has changed, Apple doesn't need to have breached a rule intentionally, if it is breached it is breached. Companies have to act with diligence.

 

[I7guy]

Is other people's software (picking a random one, say, SongShift) Apple's own product?

It’s like a kiosk in the mall that pays rent to mall owner. Even though the kiosk owner owns all of their stuff.

 

[AppliedMicro]

anti-freedom. What bs is this?

Making it virtually impossible to install and use applications that are not signed/approved by Apple is exactly that:
Anti-freedom.

As is regulating developers' communication with their customers.

And Microsoft's Windows Mobile, like Android is today, was indeed one of the market leaders before the iPhone.

Microsoft indeed had a sizeable market share in the "smartphone" market.
Which - before the iPhone and Android - was merely a niche and not really "a thing".

The reason you don't think it works though is because you (correctly) agree that it's ridiculous to assume a beef supplier deserves access to Burger King, but somehow don't see that it's just as ridiculous to think developers deserve access to iOS. I don't think developers deserve access to iOS any more than said beef supplier deserves to have their meat in the Whopper.

I've long held what I wrote earlier here today.
And I have long been straightforward about it:

If beef suppliers faced a duopoly of distributors for their beef - and just half of the entry barriers to establish their own, independent distribution mechanism ("creating their own platform"), they deserve access. I.e. if Burger King together with McDonald's controlled 98% or so of the market for all beef sales, government should intervene.

Sounds silly?
Because the premise is.

Users have been coming up with various analogies to justify (or support) Apple's monopoly/control of app distribution and "charging as they please". Time and again.

Walmart and Costco or Target.
Cars.
Burgers.
Mall retail space rentals.

👉 Each and every of those analogies has failed to even remotely acknowledge and adopt markets with similar market dynamics as for distribution of mobile apps:

• Market concentration (as in percentage of the entire market/country)
• Network effects
• Customer lock-in
• Barriers to entry

Which I consider all of them misguided.

It's not as if it were impossible to come up with more appropriate analogies.
In fact, I have at various times mentioned my own:

Cellular service providers or internet access providers. Where often only two or three control the physical infrastructure connecting business with consumers. And are in a position to technically "lock out" traffic from Apple and their CDNs to consumer devices.

"Does a cellular service provider deserve 30% of Apple's App Store revenue for all of their hard work and investments over their infrastructure?"

👉 Did anyone ever agree that "yes, if Apple does (from app developers), so does the ISP/cellular provider from Apple?"

That they should be free to demand whatever they like from Apple. Just because they "can"? Because they're potentially in a very similar position to Apple vs. third-party developers: Able to shut them out and restrict their transacting with consumers?

👉 Answer: No.

If the same people agreed that ISPs/cellular carriers "deserved" as 30% share of Apple's digital service/App Store revenue "as they please", I'd still disagree - but at least would view their opinion as being consistent.

👉 But no, they usually refuse to even engage with said analogy.

But what you have here is people simultaneously arguing "Apple provides no value to developers" and "Developers can't survive if they don't sell their apps on iOS." It can't be both. If developers can't survive without iOS then Apple sure as hell is providing a lot of value with their intellectual property

And Apple (their iPhone business) can't survive without a rich ecosystem of third-party apps.
Third-party developers sure as hell are providing a lot of value to Apple (and its ecosystem) with their apps.

That's why there deserve a fair deal of their revenue. Fair opportunity to communicate and transact with customers. And last but not least: Fair and level playing field to compete with Apple on apps and services (e.g. music streaming).

Apple has only been taking, taking and taking from third-party app developers, while providing only so-so tools and sub-par developer support.

 

[surferfb]

Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation and not replying in good faith why my scope is wrong. Just repeating your opinion that in your view the relevant market encompasses mobile apps, doesn't make it a fact, that it is the correct scope. Just as much as my view is not going to be confirmed here on the forum. But I have laid out arguments why it should not encompass both platforms.

I’m going to ignore the personal attacks and answer your question. Android and iOS compete at the platform level on:

• Developers’ resources
• Consumer device choice
• Policies and rules
• Revenue models

Most apps exist on both platforms, and for all intents and purposes they’re substantially the same. Plenty of people switch every day. Despite protestations on here, it’s really easy to do.

Given all of this, there is no reason the market competitor that has ~27% share should be forced to act like the one with 73% share. It’s the government picking winners and losers.

We don't have to agree either, in the end the only thing that will be of relevance is what the law/politics does. Let us then avoid making definitive claimes (claiming facts) on the main dispute.

Agree. But if I think a law like the DMA is unjust, biased against American companies, wrong on the merits, will chill innovation, and ironically does nothing to actually solve the root cause but instead makes it worse, I’m going to say so.

I mean the law demands Apple give any iOS software innovation to any competitor for free. It’s forcing Apple to make AirPlay work on Android. How is that not a huge overreach and theft of IP?

I didn't introduce the hamburger analogy, that you used to make a point. I just build on your analogy to point out that analogy doesn't work, because the goods are fundamentally different in nature.

I don't agree or disagree with whether 'a beef supplier deserves access to Burger King,' I point out that the whole analogy is flawed as a tool to compare to iOS/mobile apps. And with the last two sentences we have come full circle to the main question, and that is the scope of the relevant market.

I agree with you that if you are pigeonholing the market to “iOS apps” then Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps. But we’ve never done that for any other sort of product. And we shouldn’t start now.

Thank you for pointing out, this is away of recognising potential anticompetitve behaviour. They provide nothing, but you do need them.

If they provide nothing, then why are we having this conversation? Just don’t develop for iOS. Done. Or make a web app. Or a free app with subscriptions outside of the app. If Apple is providing nothing then what’s the problem?

 

[ToothBlueth]

Agree. But if I think a law like the DMA is unjust, biased against American companies, wrong on the merits, will chill innovation, and ironically does nothing to actually solve the root cause but instead makes it worse, I’m going to say so.

You are entitled to do so, it is just not true in this case.

I mean the law demands Apple give any iOS software innovation to any competitor for free.

It does not.

It’s forcing Apple to make AirPlay work on Android. How is that not a huge overreach and theft of IP?

Not true either: 'that allow for third parties to offer equivalent AirPlay alternatives by iOS 20 (MR).'

 

[surferfb]

You are entitled to do so, it is just not true in this case.

It is the case.

It does not.

It does. Emphasis mine:

The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

Not true either: 'that allow for third parties to offer equivalent AirPlay alternatives by iOS 20 (MR).'

Yes, true. emphasis mine:

Apple shall provide a protocol specification that gives third parties all information required to integrate, access, and control the AirDrop protocol within an application or service (including as part of the operating system) running on a third-party connected physical device in order to allow these applications and services to send files to, and receive files from, an iOS device.

 

[rp2011]

Making it virtually impossible to install and use applications that are not signed/approved by Apple is exactly that:
Anti-freedom.

As is regulating developers' communication with their customers.


Microsoft indeed had a sizeable market share in the "smartphone" market.
Which - before the iPhone and Android - was merely a niche and not really "a thing".

According to Wikipedia, by 2006 the year before the iPhone, Microsoft's Windows Mobile held 37% market share behind Symbian. Which is a little more than "not a big thing."

Also, freedom means the right to choose. Among all the choices, all the competition, some people still choose the iPhone. Certainly not the cheapest, certainly not the only choice, but people have the right to choose and not be dictated to, like you, as to what features and functions and pricing on their devices. Let the market decide. Not you, not government. We are not talking about monopolies.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Also, freedom means the right to choose

Yes.
And that's also true for my (and others') software purchases and streaming service purchases.

Let the market decide.

 

[ToothBlueth]

It is the case.

It is not the case.

Paragraph 7 of DMA:

Therefore, the purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by laying down rules to ensure contestability and fairness for the markets in the digital sector in general, and for business users and end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers in particular. Business users and end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers should be afforded appropriate regulatory safeguards throughout the Union against the unfair practices of gatekeepers, in order to facilitate cross-border business within the Union and thereby improve the proper functioning of the internal market, and to eliminate existing or likely emerging fragmentation in the specific areas covered by this Regulation. Moreover, while gatekeepers tend to adopt global or at least pan-European business models and algorithmic structures, they can adopt, and in some cases have adopted, different business conditions and practices in different Member States, which is liable to create disparities between the competitive conditions for the users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of integration of the internal market.

No mention of United .. States or USA.
---

It does. Emphasis mine:

The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

Apple doesn't have to give its IP to others, it needs to implement an API for others to give interoperate with the such features. Anyway, if you argue Apple needs to limit other hardware makers etc on arbitrary grounds to be competitive, they sure must make ****** products. Also, consider this with the fact of Apples power of one of only two OSes. And Apple limits also common infrastructure like bluetooth sharing between devices etc. because safety I guess.
---

Yes true, emphasis mine:

'to integrate, access, and control' not to implement. So Apple could provide an API on which bluetooth sharing could interoperate with AirDrop.

So they don't have to give up intellectual property, they require others the posibility to interoperate with it.

 

[rp2011]

Yes.
And that's also true for my (and others') software purchases and streaming service purchases.

Let the market decide.

Glad we agreed. Yet you want legislation to decide for the consumer instead of just letting them choose another option.

 

[Graphate]

[…]

But that's exactly the argument opponents of regulation use all the time:
"The developer subscription is priced way to low. It's in no way compensation for all of Apple's hard work, etc. ..."

(I may be misunderstanding you) The developer account and Xcode are tied together, and there isn’t a practical way to develop an App for iOS without it. And that is problematic, but it’s clever because they’re also the ones who built the market. I lean towards that being ok, but I have no further comment on that portion, I don’t know if I have formed an opinion on that yet.

So is Apple using their market power in an unfair way.
Especially where they're competing with third-party apps for app and services.

Imposing a 30% tax on competing streaming service provides - or otherwise prohibiting them from communicating with consumers on their own apps - is unfair and anticompetitive. It gives Apple's services an unfair advantage in the market.


[…]

Maybe. It’s probably hard to say that they definitely develop apps to take revenue from the developer; realistically, they’re offering these services for free (exception being the invites app that has the iCloud+ upgrade), so they’re losing money by not getting the commission. In the case of iWorks (Pages, etc.), they’re offering a core service, the alternative being market dominant Word. Again, I don’t know if I am prepared to say it’s an unfair use of market dominance or illegal or ok, but I am inclined to lean toward this being okay.

Microsoft was never a leader in the market for phones or smartphones.

This is just a search away (that I did not do), but didn’t they have a dominant (or at least Apple equivalent) position in the late 90s early 00s?