How is Apple a monopoly?
They don't have anything approaching 50% in any EU market.
They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.
I would still like to see a court, ANY court, make that determination based on antitrust laws.
That's an assertion by bureaucrats, not a legal finding.
Is there a problem with that? Legal traditions are different in different parts of the world, and maybe instead of judging European policy decisions based on American standards, you should judge it based on European standards.
Surprise surprise, judges are not the best judges of policy, especially when it comes to tech, and this is a common complaint of the American system. They commonly hand judgements that make no sense because they don't understand the underlying technology. But bureaucrats spend their entire career studying and understanding the markets and technologies they regulate. So maybe they are in a better position to make policy, because the purpose of a bureaucracy
is to create policy. Unlike the judicial system.
And hey, look at that, you get better outcomes as a result. Without a doubt, consumers and consumer regulations are way more protected in the EU and other regulation-heavy jurisdictions than in the US.
You don’t have to argue that Apple is a monopoly to argue that they should be regulated, and EU regulation is not evidence that they consider Apple a monopoly.
100% agreed. The American way is enforce regulation only
AFTER a company has robbed the country blind, and has left the country entirely dependent on their whims. c.f. the Bell System. The European (and Canadian and Australian) approach is regulate to prevent that happening in the first place.
Which European court case, specifically, found Apple to be a monopoly?
I guess we can't tell companies what to do until they are a monopoly. We should throw out all laws requiring companies to include seat belts, and throw out regulations that ensure that diet pills don't contain methamphetamine.
That's not going to be the legal threshold in the EU no matter how many times it's repeated incorrectly.
Love the "Team America World Police" attitude many Americans seem to have.
Different jurisdictions operate differently, such a tautological argument that you wouldn't think you would have to repeat, but here we are.
I don’t know enough about European antitrust law or tech regulation to have an opinion on this, but assuming you’re right, discussing this in the context of a monopoly is a pretty easy mistake to make in this thread given, well, its title. And the original post.
So given your professed ignorance on this topic, do you think perhaps after hearing opinions from people who
are knowledgeable about it, and DO live in the jurisdiction in question, that perhaps the OP posed the topic in a slanted way to begin with that maybe influenced the discussion based on an incorrect premise? And maybe the OP is equally ignorant about the topic as you are?
Or maybe we can only accept what the OP is saying as true in every discussion thread on the Internet, and the discussion must flow from there, even if the original premise is incorrect.
They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.
And this is exactly why I don't have Microsoft Outlook on my iPh...wait, what?!
This is actually a good example. They don't block other companies from having competing apps on the phone. They don't block other companies from accessing the camera or GPS. They don't block the audio jack (when they had them) or bluetooth audio.
Are we talking about email clients here, or Apple Pay? You both seem to be thoroughly confused about which thread you are responding in.
