5 ms·

Apple does not have a <s>monopoly</s> dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you do

by rjvbk 8y ago

Apple does not have a <s>monopoly</s> dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.

vivan 8y ago
In my country, iOS are more than 50% of the market. I haven't been able to find any EU-wide numbers though, which are the important ones in this case.
- rjvbk 8y ago
  http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe It gets much worse depending on the country: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Richer countries naturally have more iOS devices because those are more expensive. With Android, you pay with your privacy. Unless you opt out of GMS, but that's an all of nothing deal.
  - inapis 8y ago
    Is this website seriously running off of a raspberry pi? I’m getting a 404 page with Apache/2.4 (Raspbian) in the metadata.
- ar0 8y ago
  Well, the European Commission alleges that Android has an 80% market share in Europe: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm (fifth paragraph) But for this case, they are using a definition that makes Android even more dominant: they allege that Google restricts device manufacturers' freedoms. And from a device manufacturer point of view, Android has a 90+% market share of "licensable smart mobile operating systems", with "licensable" being key: as a device manufacturer, you cannot use iOS, so that doesn't count if you buy into this line of argument: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm
  - vivan 8y ago
    That is fair enough - though is there really any competition in that space? Even if Google did nothing, I imagine most manufacturers would continue using Android as there isn't much choice. I don't actually know any mobile OS other than iOS and Android variants. Blackberry, Nokia (?) and Windows for mobile are all pretty much dead at this point.
    - detaro 8y ago
      It's also about giving the manufacturers more freedom in what "flavor" of Android they ship, e.g. currently Google forbids them from making both devices with Android with all the Google stuff and devices without it, or devices only using some of the package.
      - vatueil 8y ago
        Seems kinda perverse. After all, you can't fork Windows, macOS, or iOS at all. Why should making Android more open than the competition lead to worse punishment?
        yorwba 8y ago
        It's not making Android more open that leads to the punishment here. Google made Android more open when they open-sourced AOSP; they made it more closed when they prohibited manufacturers from actually forking Android in a way Google doesn't like. The behavior that is punished is the use of their market power to negate the open-sourcing, not the open-sourcing itself.
        ummonk 8y ago
        They are free to fork Android though and use it however they want, as Amazon did. They just can't install the Google Play Store without including the other Google apps which Google claims are part of a unified experience.
    - ar0 8y ago
- jlpom 8y ago
  According to Statcounter [1]: France: 71% Germany: 70,8% Europe: 74% [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
- tiatia123 8y ago
  What country is this?
  - piotrkubisa 8y ago
    Probably UK, because iOS marketshare in UK is very close to 50% (52% Android, 46% iOS [1]). For curious, in some countries there is much more Apple iPhone users than Android users, like in Liechtenstein (58% [2]) or Monaco (64% [3]). [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-king... [2]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenstein http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenste... [3]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco
    - rjvbk 8y ago
      Liechtenstein has a population of 37,666 and Monaco has a population of 37,308. I mean, they are "countries", but...
ekianjo 8y ago
Android does not have a monopoly either. You can buy an iPhone.
- rjvbk 8y ago
  I used the wrong term, I meant "dominant position". Google has one with Android and they abuse it. That's why they are being fined.
- littlecranky67 8y ago
  A monopoly is not defined by the possiblity that there are other products available for purchase on the market, but rather how many products have been purchased and are in use. Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    That latter definition is in fact a reasonable counter-argument to Windows being a monopoly (people did buy Macs), and that's why Microsoft got in trouble for the deals they cut to try and crush Netscape, not for making a more popular OS than Apple did. You can't define a monopoly as "your competitors aren't popular" because otherwise it'd be illegal to invent new product categories, as at the start you'd be the only player in the new space. You can't define it that way for another reason: it punishes success.
    - SparklingCotton 8y ago
      Monopolies are not illegal, so your argument is irrelevant.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      FWIW the definition of a patent is a "time-limited monopoly on working an invention", so all new products that are patented are monopolies by definition. As the sibling comment rightly says, monopolies are acceptable. But, as the EU clearly point out, a greater onus is put on monopolies to avoid abusing their monopoly power.
antr 8y ago
This fine isn't about monopoly. But Google: - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
- simongray 8y ago
  Yes, it is. Straight from the press release: > Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. > Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
  - antr 8y ago
    You said it "Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules." It isn't about a monopoly, it's about abusing power.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      It’s about abusing the power of a monopolistic position in the market. The power being abused is the monopoly power. If you don’t have a monopoly and do things your partners/competitors don’t like, they can’t complain that you are abusing a dominant market position to get away with it. There’s nothing wrong with bundling. But when you have a monopoly on the market bundling suddenly is wrong and abusive even if it’s the right thing for your end users. So we see time and again monopolies are knee-capped in the market and face these absurd fines, in the name of fairness and competition. I have no doubt that some monopolies leverage their market dominance for some pretty atrocious dealings. I personally see nothing wrong with Google licensing the optional (but extremely popular) Google Play services such that it requires Google Search and Chrome along with it. If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.
minusSeven 8y ago
The law should be the same for all companies and should not depend on which companies are monopolies.
greggman 8y ago
if we are comparing to the microsoft case apple does have a monopoly. microsoft was not found to have a monopoly on computers in general. it was specifically found to have a monopoly on intel based computers. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. A 100% monopoly

by rjvbk 8y ago

Apple does not have a <s>monopoly</s> dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.

vivan 8y ago

In my country, iOS are more than 50% of the market. I haven't been able to find any EU-wide numbers though, which are the important ones in this case.

rjvbk 8y ago
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe It gets much worse depending on the country: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Richer countries naturally have more iOS devices because those are more expensive. With Android, you pay with your privacy. Unless you opt out of GMS, but that's an all of nothing deal.
- inapis 8y ago
  Is this website seriously running off of a raspberry pi? I’m getting a 404 page with Apache/2.4 (Raspbian) in the metadata.
ar0 8y ago
Well, the European Commission alleges that Android has an 80% market share in Europe: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm (fifth paragraph) But for this case, they are using a definition that makes Android even more dominant: they allege that Google restricts device manufacturers' freedoms. And from a device manufacturer point of view, Android has a 90+% market share of "licensable smart mobile operating systems", with "licensable" being key: as a device manufacturer, you cannot use iOS, so that doesn't count if you buy into this line of argument: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm
- vivan 8y ago
  That is fair enough - though is there really any competition in that space? Even if Google did nothing, I imagine most manufacturers would continue using Android as there isn't much choice. I don't actually know any mobile OS other than iOS and Android variants. Blackberry, Nokia (?) and Windows for mobile are all pretty much dead at this point.
  - detaro 8y ago
    It's also about giving the manufacturers more freedom in what "flavor" of Android they ship, e.g. currently Google forbids them from making both devices with Android with all the Google stuff and devices without it, or devices only using some of the package.
    - vatueil 8y ago
      Seems kinda perverse. After all, you can't fork Windows, macOS, or iOS at all. Why should making Android more open than the competition lead to worse punishment?
      - yorwba 8y ago
        It's not making Android more open that leads to the punishment here. Google made Android more open when they open-sourced AOSP; they made it more closed when they prohibited manufacturers from actually forking Android in a way Google doesn't like. The behavior that is punished is the use of their market power to negate the open-sourcing, not the open-sourcing itself.
        ummonk 8y ago
        They are free to fork Android though and use it however they want, as Amazon did. They just can't install the Google Play Store without including the other Google apps which Google claims are part of a unified experience.
  - ar0 8y ago
jlpom 8y ago
According to Statcounter [1]: France: 71% Germany: 70,8% Europe: 74% [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
tiatia123 8y ago
What country is this?
- piotrkubisa 8y ago
  Probably UK, because iOS marketshare in UK is very close to 50% (52% Android, 46% iOS [1]). For curious, in some countries there is much more Apple iPhone users than Android users, like in Liechtenstein (58% [2]) or Monaco (64% [3]). [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-king... [2]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenstein http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenste... [3]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco
  - rjvbk 8y ago
    Liechtenstein has a population of 37,666 and Monaco has a population of 37,308. I mean, they are "countries", but...

ekianjo 8y ago

Android does not have a monopoly either. You can buy an iPhone.

rjvbk 8y ago
I used the wrong term, I meant "dominant position". Google has one with Android and they abuse it. That's why they are being fined.
littlecranky67 8y ago
A monopoly is not defined by the possiblity that there are other products available for purchase on the market, but rather how many products have been purchased and are in use. Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.
- repolfx 8y ago
  That latter definition is in fact a reasonable counter-argument to Windows being a monopoly (people did buy Macs), and that's why Microsoft got in trouble for the deals they cut to try and crush Netscape, not for making a more popular OS than Apple did. You can't define a monopoly as "your competitors aren't popular" because otherwise it'd be illegal to invent new product categories, as at the start you'd be the only player in the new space. You can't define it that way for another reason: it punishes success.
  - SparklingCotton 8y ago
    Monopolies are not illegal, so your argument is irrelevant.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    FWIW the definition of a patent is a "time-limited monopoly on working an invention", so all new products that are patented are monopolies by definition. As the sibling comment rightly says, monopolies are acceptable. But, as the EU clearly point out, a greater onus is put on monopolies to avoid abusing their monopoly power.

antr 8y ago

This fine isn't about monopoly. But Google: - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

simongray 8y ago
Yes, it is. Straight from the press release: > Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. > Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
- antr 8y ago
  You said it "Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules." It isn't about a monopoly, it's about abusing power.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    It’s about abusing the power of a monopolistic position in the market. The power being abused is the monopoly power. If you don’t have a monopoly and do things your partners/competitors don’t like, they can’t complain that you are abusing a dominant market position to get away with it. There’s nothing wrong with bundling. But when you have a monopoly on the market bundling suddenly is wrong and abusive even if it’s the right thing for your end users. So we see time and again monopolies are knee-capped in the market and face these absurd fines, in the name of fairness and competition. I have no doubt that some monopolies leverage their market dominance for some pretty atrocious dealings. I personally see nothing wrong with Google licensing the optional (but extremely popular) Google Play services such that it requires Google Search and Chrome along with it. If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.

minusSeven 8y ago

The law should be the same for all companies and should not depend on which companies are monopolies.

greggman 8y ago

if we are comparing to the microsoft case apple does have a monopoly. microsoft was not found to have a monopoly on computers in general. it was specifically found to have a monopoly on intel based computers. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. A 100% monopoly