4 ms·

Apple is not affected by most of these rulings as they only apply to firms that control the majority of a given market (the goal of these laws is to impact pote

by angott 8y ago

Apple is not affected by most of these rulings as they only apply to firms that control the majority of a given market (the goal of these laws is to impact potential monopolists, not smaller actors). Apple is not considered to have majority market share in smartphones because iOS represents only 20% of the market, as opposed to Android which is ubiquitous.

hesarenu 8y ago
That would still be millions of users who don't have a choice.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Google have a significant financial interest in directing Android users towards Google search. The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Abuse_of_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser. And that's billions of dollars per year. > Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system". Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market". Get you facts minimally straight :)
    - strictnein 8y ago
      Please link one place that has the EC mentioning "proprietary mobile operating system".
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        It didn't, because it only addressed Android so far: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store. So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
  - hesarenu 8y ago
    If apple don't stand to make a profit then why not allow competition. Dominant position or not there are millions of user who don't have a choice. The android case seems more to punish google for their abuses rather then something which would help consumers.
- millstone 8y ago
  What distinguishes these users from other users? Is it their choices? It's manifestly legal to put your own software on your own hardware - I mean duh. Google is in hot water for working the levers to control software on other peoples' hardware.
- wtdata 8y ago
  The law being observed here is not about giving platform users freedom of choice whiting the platform (that law doesn't even exist), the law here is about anti competition practices by monopolist companies.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Why does it only apply to web browsers?
- illvm 8y ago
  It doesn't. It's also been applied to media players, for example.
ucaetano 8y ago
No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android. The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
    - strictnein 8y ago
      Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.

by angott 8y ago

hesarenu 8y ago

That would still be millions of users who don't have a choice.

jdietrich 8y ago
Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Google have a significant financial interest in directing Android users towards Google search. The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Abuse_of_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser. And that's billions of dollars per year. > Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system". Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market". Get you facts minimally straight :)
  - strictnein 8y ago
    Please link one place that has the EC mentioning "proprietary mobile operating system".
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      It didn't, because it only addressed Android so far: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store. So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
- hesarenu 8y ago
  If apple don't stand to make a profit then why not allow competition. Dominant position or not there are millions of user who don't have a choice. The android case seems more to punish google for their abuses rather then something which would help consumers.
millstone 8y ago
What distinguishes these users from other users? Is it their choices? It's manifestly legal to put your own software on your own hardware - I mean duh. Google is in hot water for working the levers to control software on other peoples' hardware.
wtdata 8y ago
The law being observed here is not about giving platform users freedom of choice whiting the platform (that law doesn't even exist), the law here is about anti competition practices by monopolist companies.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

Why does it only apply to web browsers?

illvm 8y ago
It doesn't. It's also been applied to media players, for example.

ucaetano 8y ago

No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android. The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.

s3r3nity 8y ago
That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
  - strictnein 8y ago
    Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.