3 ms·
Another poster already mentioned that legal definition varies. And not only that. It's not that it's "wrong" or illegal to be a monopoly. It's what you do with
by 627467 6y ago
Another poster already mentioned that legal definition varies. And not only that. It's not that it's "wrong" or illegal to be a monopoly. It's what you do with those powers.
Natural (and legal) monopolies exist and are regulated so that there's a perceived net benefit to society for having them. The EU will investigate is (to Europeans) Apple's monopoly is net beneficial to them.
And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.
Is Apple obliged to make their phones available to other app stores? No. But not doing so AND profiting from 30% AND having a large marketshare is precisely why the EU is investigating them for abusive monopolistic behaviour.
- nodamage 6y ago> And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee. They can choose a non-Apple phone. There is an alternative product on the market.
- 627467 6y agoThat is not what the case is about. The case is about Spotify not having fair access to Apple customers.
- nodamage 6y agoSpotify is no more entitled to Apple's customers than Nike is entitled to Walmart's customers. If Nike wants to sell shoes in Walmart they will have to accept Walmarts terms, or find another store to sell in.