3 ms·

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.

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.