Google, in comparison, absolutely dominates the search and ad markets and sucks all oxygen out of them to keep any competition from springing up by controlling distribution and limiting choice. They e.g. paid vast amounts of money to Apple to make sure users don't get a free choice of search engine.
If you wanted to compare the Apple Watch with this it would mean that Apple would make exclusive deals with all stores (online and IRL) selling watches so that consumers would only see Apple watches everywhere they go and would need to look in the basement or on an obscure subpage to find any watches from a different manufacturer. Clearly that's not the case.
That said I'm not a fan of Apples walled garden either, I think this should be addressed (and in the EU it is being addressed). It's ridiculous to have this super powerful hardware and I can only run sanctioned apps on them instead of being able to install any kind of software I like.
Apple has exclusive control over a market (AppStore), which has almost 2 million different products (Apps), 820,000 suppliers (app publishers) and over 1.3 billion customers (active iPhone users) which conducts more trade ($1.1 trillion) than the entire GDP of Luxemburg.
If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is.
Anticompetitive behavior would be if they used their power to make it more difficult for people to buy Android phones e.g. by entering into exclusivity deals with cell service providers or electronics stores so that you could only find Apple products there (i.e. T-Mobile would only sell iPhones with their contracts and you wouldn't find any Android phones except in some small speciality shops out of town). That's what Google is doing in its markets among other things, i.e. pay tons of money to ensure all virtual store fronts are only stocked with Google products and everything else is hidden behind.
Apple does of course show anti-competitive behavior to a degree, i.e. they purchase the entire production capacity of the most advanced semiconductor fabs to have exclusivity and preserve their edge, but again there are still other players in that market and competition still seems possible. If you want to compare that to what Google is doing in the search and ad space it would translate to them locking up almost all semiconductor suppliers in exclusivity contracts for 10 years so that no other company could ever build any advanced chips in large numbers.
The relevant markets includes, but is not limited to that.
> Anticompetitive behavior would be if they used their power to make it more difficult for people to buy Android phones
Anti-competitive behaviour includes, but is not limited to that.
Either way regulators are taking action.
US Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets[1]
The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market[2]
Well, no. You can install games on your computer however you want.
If Steam was the only possible way to do so, then yeah I would say Valve had a monopoly.
(It's worth noting that Apple has already gotten in trouble for this - the EU has fined them billions and forced them to allow alternative app stores. Hopefully US regulators take inspiration and force them to do the same domestically.)
But the choice isn't between Apple and not having a phone. Android exists, and as long as its a viable choice, Apple isn't a monopoly.
Not only is Apple a monopoly, they become one, and maintain it illegally.
US Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets[1]
The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market[2]
I really don't think you can give a rational explanation other than the courts are mentally troubled. They should have cracked down on both Epic cases or neither.
Epic tried to make this case already, but the judge ruled that the App Store is not a market that Apple can have a monopoly over.
> If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is.
This level of certainty is not warranted.
They are both markets in and of themselves, Apple themselves refer to it as a market place and it's a place where trade in particular goods occurs.
You can argue it shouldn't be a market subject to anti-trust laws but US and EU regulators would disagree.
> > If that's not a monopoly i don't know what is. > This level of certainty is not warranted.
Again, you can argue that it's a 'legal' monopoly, but 'legal' or 'illegal', it is a monopoly.
Monopolies are not illegal, but creating or maintaining a monopoly through anti-competitive means is and regulators in the US and EU are acting.
Steve Jobs wrote that "Apple would “force” developers to use its payment system to lock in both developers and users on its platform." https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
I think worldwide numbers are skewing your data there, for antitrust only the US numbers matter and those are 59% for Apple on mobile.
What is illegal are anti-competitive practices that a business might employ in an attempt to create or maintain a monopoly. A business that violates these laws might already be a monopoly, or it might not be one.
Yes agree. But we know Apple does the same. I don't think divestment is a good solution for Apple, but there is a clear concentration of market power that causes problems.
Buy different hardware then. You know these things when you buy the device. It isn't a secret. If the device doesn't meet your needs, there are alternatives that do. The fact that there are adequately substitutable products available other than iPhone destroys any concept of "monopoly." Saying Apple has a monopoly on iOS is ridiculous -- they _are_ iOS.
I opened my local configurator to buy a 13" M3 MacBook Air.
Memory, update from 16GB to 24GB -> +230€
SSD, update from 256GB to 2TB -> +920€
Then you pay, because they basically force you to use their hardware, software, connectors, formats, billing services, etc every step of the way.
So they’re a monopoly because you can only buy Apple laptops from them?
You may argue that the relevant market is for "computers" as a whole, however it can be argued that bundling hardware and software to charge high prices is a classic monopoly behavior nonetheless.
Saying Apple has a "macOS hardware" monopoly is like saying Dyson has a "Dyson motor monopoly"
Companies get to choose what their products are, full stop
Microsoft was forced to unbundle IE, so why would this not be possible?
But... funny you brought up Tesla, because Tesla also had this exact problem! Tesla had the supercharging network, which they own and manufacture. But superchargers aren't just a product, they're a platform.
Tesla had a monopoly on superchargers, until they pre-emptively opened up the network and open sourced the connector. If they hadn't, IMO it was extremely likely they would've been forced, eventually.
This is ridiculous
I also have some information about the wetness of water.
Clearly textbook price gouging from the monopolistic auto manufacturer, Aston Martin.
Granted, the appropriate response is to demand a Mac from this company, but it still highlights that a Mac isn't a luxury item the same way an Aston Martin is
There's no world in which you can tell me Apple has a monopoly on laptops. C'mon.
These things take a long time, though. I think the Apple one is just not as far along.
This makes web tracking and attribution impossible to anyone who is not Apple. Users might be happy with it but I think it is similar anti-competitive behaviour to what Google are doing.
One could ask, "How is Apple a Monopoly, and do they abuse that position?". In my view it is, since you can't have a business or build connected hardware without an iOS app. And as for abusing that position for gaining market share, there are just too many examples starting with say, watches.