How does this have anything to do with market share anyway?
Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.
Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.
That was never an issue the US doesn’t care about Global market share the courts would care about US market share. Or are you saying there could never be a monopoly? I don’t see how bell had a monopoly then they never had anywhere near the global market. The US is very soft on monopolies currently.
It is actually pretty surprising that the play store is the one getting the antitrust. You’d think Apple would’ve been an easier case.
deleted by creator
No, Apple won on some technicalities.
deleted by creator
Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.
deleted by creator
When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.
deleted by creator
Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.