4 ms·
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for lo
by nvrspyx 6y ago
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1].
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
[1]: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
- nodamage 6y ago> First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case. > Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market. > They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met. Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances. > This is going to come down to how a court interprets this I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
- cwhiz 6y agoWith this line of reasoning Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite store. It’s a really absurd interpretation of competition law.
- xuki 6y agoWalmart has a monopoly of Walmart's shelves. /s