“Hurting consumers” would be an almost Orwellian characterization of the smartphone technology revolution driven predominantly by the competition between Apple, Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc.
The problem is when by "competing like hell", you compete so hard that you suppress your competition. The issue that anti-competition laws seek to redress is the suppression of other competition.
What we have is a pretty clear case of a minuscule minority of users bitterly complaining that a company isn’t making its products exactly the way they want them to.
A store is allowed to charge what it wants for its products. A store is allowed to set the policies that it wants for the goods that it sells in its own stores.
It just so happens that Apple’s customers absolutely love its products, and that Apple’s products are absolute technological leaders in their space.
Apple didn’t get there, e.g. like Facebook by buying up the competition any time it started to emerge as a threat. They got there through decades of focused development and investment.
A store is allowed to block you from using any other store? These aren't natural continuations or logical extensions of meatspace, stop pretending they are.
Apple doesn’t get to tell Google, Samsung, Huawei, LG, OnePlus, Fairphone, etc. how to build their devices.
The one device they do get to decide how it works is the iPhone. Because they created it, they own it, and they get to decide its future.
Their device, their decision. The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not. Overwhelmingly, they decide that they do.
The same exact argument could be used regarding the desktop PC.
Do you think that microsoft could prevent competing web browser from being installed on the PC, if it choose to do so?
I think not. They would lose that anti-trust lawsuit.
> Because they created it, they own it, and they get to decide its future.
No, actually they dont get to decide that. If they are breaking anti-trust law, via anti-competitive behavior, then there are certain actions that they cannot do.
> The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not.
The consumers, or other companies, can also sue them for breaking anti-trust law, which Apple is required by law to follow.
Once I buy an iPhone, I own it and it is my device.
Maybe the above is how you think things ought to be (I disagree), but anti-trust jurisprudence does not agree with your pseudo-libertarian worldview.
Anti-trust only applies if there’s a finding that Apple is a monopoly. The jury, so to speak, is still out.
If Apple was found to be a monopoly, then there may need to be some restrictions placed on how they operate.
But I think controlling how your own product works is the presumed default, even if that product is wildly successful, as long as that success is through actual product merit, and not done deceptively or through illegal collusion.
Wrong again, you can violate anti-competition law without being a monopoly. You're correct that it hasn't been decided in a court of law.
I'm saying that I think they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior, you are saying "actually it is okay because they haven't been judged to engage in anti-competitive behavior in a court of law", which does not seem contrary to my claim, which is that I think they should be judged to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
The case law on this is not as definitive as you are claiming. I don’t think their behavior is illegally anti-competitive.
Sure, you can say that not supporting a specific 3rd party application (e.g. an App Store) on your device is “anti-competitive” but obviously not illegally so for any business.
Behavior which is totally legal can become illegal in a monopoly situation.
> Their device, their decision. The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not.
and now you're telling me that the case law isn't definitive?
That's my whole point - you're making strong assertions as if they are the way the law works, when they are just your personal opinion on how things ought to work. Numerous decisions in the past have required companies to change how they do things on their devices. I'm not saying the case will be decided against Apple.
To somewhat oversimplify, you are allowed to not invite competitors to sell to your customers in your own backyard. Unless you are a monopoly. Because then that “backyard” isn’t rightfully yours to control.
At the moment I am inclined to believe the iPhone is Apple’s own backyard and they should have dominion over what happens there.
If you want to confiscate Apple’s backyard, you do it at the risk that you damage a company that has done a great service for the world, and a company that IMO deserves the benefit of controlling its own destiny and should be left to continue innovating on its own terms.
If someone thinks they can do better then there’s trillions of dollars in market cap on the line and I welcome them to try. Apple won’t stop them from trying, but will certainly compete fiercely on the merits.
I also think it shouldn't be up to courts. It should be up to the consumers themselves. They generally seem quite happy with Apple and Google.
On the other hand, if there is a consumer need that is not being met by Google or Apple, it is a prime opportunity to disrupt the market with a new offering that fulfills that need. If Google or Apple stamp that out or have done so in the past, then I will agree it's an anti-competition issue.
How would a consumer even know if they were happy given the lack of options? Are they actually happy, or do they just have bigger issues to worry about? That's why we hire experts to act as regulators for new industries.
Regardless of what you think "should" happen, the reality is that you massively understated the scope of the applicable law.
> Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute.
actually isn't always true - especially when it hurts consumers. of course it isn't up to us here to decide if it does. remember that private doesn't mean unregulated.