4 ms·

> Apple doesn't have more than 25% share in mobile or desktop market This is incorrect. In the US, Apple has over 60% of the mobile OS marketshare[1], and 60%

> Apple doesn't have more than 25% share in mobile or desktop market This is incorrect. In the US, Apple has over 60% of the mobile OS marketshare[1], and 60% of the market is therefore forced to use Safari and only Safari. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-android-dominates-in-china-and-india https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...

paulmd 5y ago
You're singling out one particular market and claiming that represents the big picture, when it very much is an exception. Specific niche markets having a small majority of one or the other isn't concerning, someone is going to be on top and 57-43 is basically as equal as it gets even in your cherrypicked example. Globally, Android has 87% of the market and iOS has 13%. That is far far more concerning than Apple having a small majority in one specific market. And to be clear it's not over 60%, even your own source says that's false - you're backing a literal browser monoculture with 87% global hardware marketshare and 90% software marketshare by wrapping yourself in the language of antitrust and competitiveness, and you still can't do it without using falsehoods and exaggerations.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  I'm in the US, and advocate for regulation in the US. I do not care about marketshare in the rest of the world, and neither does the FTC. The only statistic that matters in this case is that iOS has 60% of the marketshare in the US, and what happens in other countries is irrelevant.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    To be clear, the FTC doesn't have a problem with the current situation, so evidently they don't think it matters either.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      The FTC's current priority under Lina Khan is data privacy regulation, which is already a huge topic. One can of worms at a time.
    - mtomweb 5y ago
      At this point, I think the chances the US won’t adopt similar stances as the EU in relation to browser engines as close to zero.
- ksec 5y ago
  >Globally, Android has 87% of the market and iOS has 13%. That is not true. Neither in unit shipment or usage. However one wishes to define as market share. >You're singling out one particular market And if that market has its own jurisdiction. Then yes, both UK and Japan has over 60% of Smartphone user on Apple's platform.
simonh 5y ago
s/is therefore forced/have therefore chosen There, fixed that for you. They chose to buy an iPhone and I think at this point people know what they’re choosing and why. Nobody forced them to do anything. If I buy a PlayStation, I’m not being ‘forced’ to not be able to play Call of Duty. I do feel some of apple’s App Store rextrications are excessive, although they are being pushed in the right direction, but this sort of frothingly apoplectic language gets really irritating.
- dwild 5y ago
  No monopoly gets to 100% by simply existing, people chose to go toward that company... until it was so big that no one could compete with them any longer.
  - simonh 5y ago
    The problem really comes when that monopoly position is used to impose unreasonable restrictions, or leverage the company into additional market advantages. That is abuse of a monopoly position, or lets say an advantageous market position. I accept that. But you can't argue that features and restrictions that people freely chose when the company had a minority market share are somehow imposed unfairly or are leveraging unfair advantages. They had no such advantage, but users were perfectly happy with the tradeoff anyway, so clearly they're not being coerced or 'forced' into anything. They're just choosing it.

paulmd 5y ago

You're singling out one particular market and claiming that represents the big picture, when it very much is an exception. Specific niche markets having a small majority of one or the other isn't concerning, someone is going to be on top and 57-43 is basically as equal as it gets even in your cherrypicked example. Globally, Android has 87% of the market and iOS has 13%. That is far far more concerning than Apple having a small majority in one specific market. And to be clear it's not over 60%, even your own source says that's false - you're backing a literal browser monoculture with 87% global hardware marketshare and 90% software marketshare by wrapping yourself in the language of antitrust and competitiveness, and you still can't do it without using falsehoods and exaggerations.

heavyset_go 5y ago
I'm in the US, and advocate for regulation in the US. I do not care about marketshare in the rest of the world, and neither does the FTC. The only statistic that matters in this case is that iOS has 60% of the marketshare in the US, and what happens in other countries is irrelevant.
- paulmd 5y ago
  To be clear, the FTC doesn't have a problem with the current situation, so evidently they don't think it matters either.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    The FTC's current priority under Lina Khan is data privacy regulation, which is already a huge topic. One can of worms at a time.
  - mtomweb 5y ago
    At this point, I think the chances the US won’t adopt similar stances as the EU in relation to browser engines as close to zero.
ksec 5y ago
>Globally, Android has 87% of the market and iOS has 13%. That is not true. Neither in unit shipment or usage. However one wishes to define as market share. >You're singling out one particular market And if that market has its own jurisdiction. Then yes, both UK and Japan has over 60% of Smartphone user on Apple's platform.

simonh 5y ago

s/is therefore forced/have therefore chosen There, fixed that for you. They chose to buy an iPhone and I think at this point people know what they’re choosing and why. Nobody forced them to do anything. If I buy a PlayStation, I’m not being ‘forced’ to not be able to play Call of Duty. I do feel some of apple’s App Store rextrications are excessive, although they are being pushed in the right direction, but this sort of frothingly apoplectic language gets really irritating.

dwild 5y ago
No monopoly gets to 100% by simply existing, people chose to go toward that company... until it was so big that no one could compete with them any longer.
- simonh 5y ago
  The problem really comes when that monopoly position is used to impose unreasonable restrictions, or leverage the company into additional market advantages. That is abuse of a monopoly position, or lets say an advantageous market position. I accept that. But you can't argue that features and restrictions that people freely chose when the company had a minority market share are somehow imposed unfairly or are leveraging unfair advantages. They had no such advantage, but users were perfectly happy with the tradeoff anyway, so clearly they're not being coerced or 'forced' into anything. They're just choosing it.