In this case, though, Google is alleged to be dominant in "general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system" (per EC press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm).

I think Google has 90%+ market share in all of those, at least in Europe.

> Google is alleged to be dominant in "licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system"

That's kind of a weird statement, of course they are dominant / monopolistic on Android, just like Apple has a monopoly on iOS.

Maybe the formatting wasn't entirely clear, but "licensable smart mobile operating systems" and "app stores for the Android mobile operating system" are two different categories.

As for the latter being a thing but Apple not getting into trouble for their iOS App Store monopoly, I guess that is because Apple isn't using that "dominant position" to prop up a dominant position in another market (like Google is propping up their dominance in search engines).

Or maybe the overall consumer harm is considered to be much smaller, considering that Android has 80% smart mobile device market share in Europe (according to the EC press release), and iOS has a much smaller share.

going after google but not apple sets a weird lesson. That lesson is: don't be in the "licensable smart mobile operating system" market.

I'm not sure if this is an outcome I want.

No, the lesson is don't use your dominance to unfairly promote yourself. Do you guys really find this confusing?

I believe even if that lesson is set, it would be beneficial. As it leaves a space open for another player in smart mobile operating system -- in turn creates more competition in the market. By giving Android for free, the market stayed duopoly.

Android is dominate in cell phones, even if you count the iphone. I don't know the numbers for the EU, but worldwide Android is larger than the 40% threshold to be considered a monopoly in the EU.

If you're interested, 2018 statistics show Android's share of the smartphone space as 54% in the US, 73% in Europe, and 88% globally, all above the 40% threshold.

>As you describe it, it is the same style, but the market fraction is a lower number.

The intent is different too.

The EU is looking to protect a healthy level of competition in the marketplace, while we in the US have moved the goalposts to "can you prove this particular monopoly is doing consumers harm"?

Which allows companies that produce superior services to thrive. Want more money? Create better goods and services - don't rely on the government to harm the market leader just to give you a heads up.

America's "hands off" approach to regulation has allowed the country to produce companies that much of the world envies.

You are perfectly free to produce a superior product or service that achieves a near total share of the market.

That is not what is illegal.

However, once you hit a certain market share (40% in the EU) you may no longer use that market share as a weapon against competitors in other areas.