4 ms·

That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.

amelius 5y ago
Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores then?
izacus 5y ago
Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one. So excluding and removing healthy market competition is completely OK in that respect. Or so we're told.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one. Even that deflection is incorrect. When it comes to the mobile market in the US, Apple has over 60% of the market, and Google has the rest. When it comes to the mobile app distribution market, they're responsible for 100% more sales than Google is, and both companies make up that entire market. In the US, Apple is the most used mobile and mobile app provider. And even if they weren't, they have a duopoly with Google in a dozen or more markets.
ahtihn 5y ago
How is that different to what they're doing with browsers? Last time I checked, you can't ship your own browser/js engine on iOS
- onion2k 5y ago
  It's exactly the same. I have no idea how they're able to get away with it.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Perhaps your understanding of antitrust law is flawed.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      I hope it is, because the alternative is that they're being allowed to get away with something that's against the law, bad for the free market, and anti-consumer.
      - labcomputer 5y ago
        Really? One of the few things keeping the creeping Google Chrome monopoly in check is bad for the consumer and bad for the market? I, for one, am happy that Google isn't able to unilaterally dictate the next generation of web standards.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        Almost any time anyone brings up accusations of anticompetitive behavior against Apple for the iOS ecosystem, notice that what they’re saying is “in order to make the smartphone market more competitive and give customers more choice, Apple should be forced to make their smartphone offerings less distinguishable from Android, the only other smartphone ecosystem.”
        ipaddr 5y ago
        If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome. If Apple decided there next phone would have no screen or phone it would automatically make it a better choice because it is so much more different from android? I don't buy that line of thinking.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        > If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome. Because it will make iPhones worse for a huge number of iPhone users. You might say “I don’t care if you’re less satisfied with your iPhone because you now have ‘more choice’ according to my limited definition.” But Apple presumably actually cares about how satisfied people are with their iPhones.
threeseed 5y ago
That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition. For example, Microsoft had ~95% market share of the entire computing market when they tried to embrace and extinguish Netscape. It's why it was perfectly fine for Google to use its web services to influence competition within the Android OS market.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Anti-trust law is not simple. In the case of MSFT and IE they were accused under the protects of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act[1] of using their monopoly position (Windows) to reduce consumer choice (bundling IE without letting users pick a different option). In the case of Apple and Google, it's more likely to fall under the Clayton Antitrust Act[2] as it's a matter of corporations collaborating to reduce consumer choice (but I am not a lawyer, and not even American, so I could be waaaay off the mark here.) [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.a... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.a...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition. This is incorrect. From the FTC[1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

amelius 5y ago

Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores then?

izacus 5y ago

Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one. So excluding and removing healthy market competition is completely OK in that respect. Or so we're told.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one. Even that deflection is incorrect. When it comes to the mobile market in the US, Apple has over 60% of the market, and Google has the rest. When it comes to the mobile app distribution market, they're responsible for 100% more sales than Google is, and both companies make up that entire market. In the US, Apple is the most used mobile and mobile app provider. And even if they weren't, they have a duopoly with Google in a dozen or more markets.

ahtihn 5y ago

How is that different to what they're doing with browsers? Last time I checked, you can't ship your own browser/js engine on iOS

onion2k 5y ago
It's exactly the same. I have no idea how they're able to get away with it.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Perhaps your understanding of antitrust law is flawed.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    I hope it is, because the alternative is that they're being allowed to get away with something that's against the law, bad for the free market, and anti-consumer.
    - labcomputer 5y ago
      Really? One of the few things keeping the creeping Google Chrome monopoly in check is bad for the consumer and bad for the market? I, for one, am happy that Google isn't able to unilaterally dictate the next generation of web standards.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Almost any time anyone brings up accusations of anticompetitive behavior against Apple for the iOS ecosystem, notice that what they’re saying is “in order to make the smartphone market more competitive and give customers more choice, Apple should be forced to make their smartphone offerings less distinguishable from Android, the only other smartphone ecosystem.”
        ipaddr 5y ago
        If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome. If Apple decided there next phone would have no screen or phone it would automatically make it a better choice because it is so much more different from android? I don't buy that line of thinking.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        > If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome. Because it will make iPhones worse for a huge number of iPhone users. You might say “I don’t care if you’re less satisfied with your iPhone because you now have ‘more choice’ according to my limited definition.” But Apple presumably actually cares about how satisfied people are with their iPhones.

threeseed 5y ago

That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition. For example, Microsoft had ~95% market share of the entire computing market when they tried to embrace and extinguish Netscape. It's why it was perfectly fine for Google to use its web services to influence competition within the Android OS market.

onion2k 5y ago
Anti-trust law is not simple. In the case of MSFT and IE they were accused under the protects of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act[1] of using their monopoly position (Windows) to reduce consumer choice (bundling IE without letting users pick a different option). In the case of Apple and Google, it's more likely to fall under the Clayton Antitrust Act[2] as it's a matter of corporations collaborating to reduce consumer choice (but I am not a lawyer, and not even American, so I could be waaaay off the mark here.) [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.a... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.a...
heavyset_go 5y ago
> That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition. This is incorrect. From the FTC[1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...