Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is even worse (if Apple didn't get a cut, would they be as willing to push the increasingly ad-infested google search?)
Consumers do what they are told to do. If a website says install this app in order to use it they will. If an app says approve this permission to use this app they will.
And so you will inevitably end up with websites that only support Chrome which will increase its market share up until the point it is an IE style monopoly. And aspects like the cost of testing apps/sites on multiple diverging browsers will further entrench this monopoly.
People go on about how this is great for competition as they can finally install Firefox etc. No. This is going to cement Google's control over the browser market and wipe out third party browsers like Firefox for good.
And then we will end up with pro-advertising features that are built into the browser that you can't block.
Google and Microsoft got into trouble because they used their dominance in services and OS to strong arm manufacturers to only use their stuff. They used their clout to hurt competition.
Apple does very little of this IMO. No one is forced to use Apple equipment and no one is forced to work with them. It is trivially easy to avoid Apple either as a consumer or developer. If you don’t think you can make enough money publishing to the App Store then you can code for some other purpose. If you want a phone that allows apps that Apple doesn’t allow you can get an Android.
I do not understand the argument that Apple has to sell devices that work the way you want them to. There is no false advertising, nobody is getting fooled, and nobody is being forced to work with Apple or pursue their customers. Apple has made a very popular system, why do so many people feel entitled to change what they do?
Microsoft controlled >90% of the entire desktop computing market when they ran into anti-trust issues with the EU. I suppose I'm not old enough to remember, but I don't recall the argument at the time being "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was?
Comparatively, it looks like Apple has marketshare in the EU is somewhere between 25 and 40% of the mobile phone market, depending on your source.
> "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was?
Kind of. The argument was that since they controlled 100% of Windows, and "coerced" people into using IE (and "coerced" is a kind way of putting it), and Windows was 90% of the desktop market, that shit was bad for everyone.
40% of the mobile market is significant, when you consider that the other 60% isn't held by a single company.
Apple is 100% a monopoly. They have a monopoly over software which can run on iOS. You either pay 30% of all revenue, or you lose out on half the North American market. Please explain how that is not a monopoly.
Yes. But this is trivializing the definition of monopoly I just warned against.
What can't be construed with this logic?
Verizon holds a monopoly on the devices they allow on the Verizon network. Wal-Mart holds a monopoly on the products they allow on their retail floor space. Xbox holds a monopoly on their game compatibility. McDonalds holds a monopoly on selling burgers inside McDonalds. You can define these trivial "micromonopolies" on literally everything you want. Which is why courts have never punished any company for this nonsense line of reasoning, especially when it's on a company that holds no actual "macromonopoly", and monopolies by virtue of existing aren't illegal anyways.
Phones are the way of interacting with much of the world, unlike xbox or McDonalds. People consume their news using them, pay their bills, make photos of their kids, communicate with their family. It's a completely different realm.
There are two oligopolies on the market - Google (via google play) and Apple (via apple store), both are affected by the law.
Sure, and by existing laws and court rulings they haven't done anything wrong except be a preferred choice by many consumers. This is not comparable in any way to antitrust transgressions that got Microsoft in trouble, nor do they have the market share to manipulate that's comparable to what Windows or Google have had.
FWIW, I also want a more open iOS platform, but I don't think you can demonstrate that they run afoul of any existing antitrust laws or prior precedents either and trying to redefine what a monopoly means, exclusively to to the iPhone, is never going to work.
But after I bought a Honda or Ford I can do with it what I want and install whatever aftermarket stuff I want. Ford makes no pretence to have an exhaustive whitelist what I can do with my car, whereas Apple does.
(In recent years some of the electronics might be locked down, or I wouldn't be surprised if they are, but this is also criticized and the reason things like right-to-repair laws have been proposed and in some cases enacted.)
I mean didn't we already rule that as true? That's why there are so many laws forcing the manufacturers to produce and sell parts for N year, allow third party repairs shops, etc.
Like of all things to pick cars are literally a place this has played out where Apple would be in the wrong.
the monopoly car companies have on their cars is one of the ways they fleece consumers. It's why they have pricing power on repairs, can charge whatever they want for their self driving solutions etc. There's a reason why almost all of them are trying to turn their cars from mechanical vehicles into glorified software/service platforms, it's a way to lock people in.
In a world where hardware and software is open and interoperable and you can say, buy a self driving solution from any vendor (which is essentially what comma does in a hacky way), consumers benefit. Same is true for phones or laptops.
Fine then apply rules equally, I want to be able to use Nissan parts in my BMW and play Xbox and Steam games on my PlayStation…
There are advantages to having a walled garden and I would want to have some assurance that I would be able to block side loading and that it would never be applied without it being clearly and constantly visible to the user. I also want to be sure that no 3rd party can compel me to install their own App Store to get their app which is a quite possible and likely scenario due to the DMA.