How does this not violate the Sherman Antitrust act under illegal tying of services and goods?
> (From Wikipedia) Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements:
(1) two separate products or services are involved; (AppleTV and other Apple phone/iPad, as demanded by the tied product in question)
(2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (Yes, and forced only after using said hardware for its claimed fitness of playing shows)
(3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (QED)
(4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected. (again, QED)
Not sure if "market power" is strictly synonymous with "market share" though. It is probably possible to argue they have much more power than the 3% would suggest.
You could even argue that "power" in this context is actually framed around an idea of latent market share - the amount of market share that can be achieved outside of normal competitive means.
But yes, in general this would underscore the criticism of US competition policy that it's designed to close the gate after the horse already bolted.
I could see that. However the only flaw with that graph is that the scope is world-wide. I believe the Sherman Antitrust Act cares primarily about US operations.
> (From Wikipedia) Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements:
(1) two separate products or services are involved; (AppleTV and other Apple phone/iPad, as demanded by the tied product in question)
(2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (Yes, and forced only after using said hardware for its claimed fitness of playing shows)
(3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (QED)
(4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected. (again, QED)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)