3 ms·
> US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and t
by smoldesu 3y ago
> US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly.
As far as I know, that has not been used as a successful defense of any large antitrust case. Ma Bell and Microsoft could have tried arguing the same point, but I'm not sure if it would override the anticompetitive damages of either company.
- lolinder 3y agoI linked to Epic v. Apple, where that exact argument was made and the court sided with Apple. It wasn't a DOJ antitrust suit, so maybe the rules are different there, but in that case Epic tried to make the argument that the relevant market was iOS app distribution and Apple therefore had a monopoly. The court ruled that in order to make that case, Epic had to demonstrate (among three other tests) that "the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase". The court found that consumers do know about the restrictions in advance of making their initial purchase decision and therefore found that the relevant market had to include more than just iPhones.
- smoldesu 3y agoRight, but other antitrust measures (eg. DMA/DSA) haven't been about monopoly power. Europe's measures are industry-wide changes that curtails certain first-party choices. Japan's legislation works the same way. It's entirely feasible to me that this sort of act could gain traction in the US, once the lobbyists are sufficiently exhausted. It'll be a hard fight for sure, but Epic and Spotify go for low-blows because they know Apple will cede something in the end. Their hostile behavior in France and the Netherlands did not go unnoticed.