3 ms·
>That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Market shar
by jdietrich 8y ago
>That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market.
Market share is not the only criteria for determining whether a company has a dominant market position under EU competition law. Apple have a substantial share of the mobile phone market and they have a total monopoly on iOS app distribution. If you want to sell apps to ~27% of consumers in the EU, you have no choice but to go through Apple. End users might have a meaningful choice, but developers don't, which is highly relevant in this case.
- mediocrejoker 8y agoWhy can't developers sell apps in the Android play store?
- jdietrich 8y agoThey can, but that doesn't stop Apple's behaviour from being anti-competitive and illegal under EU law. Apple only control a minority of the smartphone market, but they exert a stranglehold over that share and use that stranglehold to artificially disadvantage competitors.
- mediocrejoker 8y agoI am not a lawyer (and it seems the law may differ significantly between the US and Europe) but I think all companies want to disadvantage their competitors, so whether or not this is illegal really hinges on the definition of artificial.
- jhasse 8y agoDo you have an example for a case where the EU fined a company for anti-competitive behaviour where the company did NOT control a majority of the relevant market?
- jhasse 8y agoI would say that a "substantial share" is not a "dominant market position".