> Because they have tons of competition and don’t dominate the market. By revenue, android is way higher.
Apple has 60% of the mobile market in the US[1], and the App Store is responsible for more than 100% more revenue than the Play Store, too[2].
Regulatory bodies aren't concerned with layman definitions of monopoly[3]:
> 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.
They have a strong position, but I don’t think 60% is proof of any type of monopoly. I think people in this thread don’t 1) understand what monopoly means and 2) understand what US antitrust considers monopolies that damage consumers.
You forgot the rest of the quote from your 3rd source:
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."
Most anti-trust cases have historically been against companies with 90+% market share: Standard Oil, Bell Telephone, Microsoft. I'd love to see an example of a company that was found to have a monopoly with only 60% market share.
In fact I think Standard Oil wasn't far above that by the time action was taken. They were also cutting prices and modernizing heavily.
To get much beyond that I think you need some special advantage like govt protection. I suspect the patent system, which literally guarantees monopolies to companies in return for a fixed fee, creates a big advantage for the leaders in tech markets. Hence modern leaders last a lot longer with more market share (and way higher margins) than they should.
Except there are alternatives for all of these, you just have to use a different operating system.
Interoperability has never been legally mandated in the past, but for most of history it has just "happened" because people could get around hostile designs (IBM PC clones anyone?).
The problem with the complexity of today's technology is that, it's no longer feasible for an upstart to make a "compatible" device. You can't engineer an "iOS capable" non Apple device or an Apple-compatible non-Apple OS, not because it is not legal but because it is not feasible technologically. There are ways to do legally clean reverse engineering (ReactOS anyone?) but you cannot get around chip level signature checks nor can you fab your own state-of-the-art chips.
Yep, regulation is way behind. None of this lockdown is for the public good and thus it should not exist. The demand side of the market doesn't seem to be able to balance this out (i.e. vote with your wallet, stop buying the products, they hurt all of us long term). You would need another global level actor building the replacement, in the fair, for public good manner. However due to these global corporations essentially being close to global states in power, there is very little any one nation state can do comparatively. The level of investment would be worth it, for the world, but not for any single state.
"You just have to use a different operating system"
No. This can't help the customer who already bought a device, because Apple can (and does) change the terms on which the device is used. It would be more fair to use the word 'rent' when you buy Apple's devices, because you don't truly own them, Apple does: It decides which apps you can run, and it can pull off the apps you need from the Appstore, and so on.
When Apple alters the deal, all their customers can do is pray Apple doesn't alter them any further. This IS a monopoly, and you can't use a different operating system on your iPhone if it would be rendered useless to you by Apple.
You could say the same for game consoles and yet people are okay with those being closed systems because you can choose between different brands.
I don't like Apple's business practices either, but labels like monopoly and "rent"ing a device have clear definitions and Apple doesn't hit them. If anything this is a failure of regulations to catch up to the reality of technology.
The focus in the future should be mandating things like repair and interoperability.
> You can't use a different operating system on your iPhone if it would be rendered useless to you by Apple.
This is not true. First, all apps already installed are not automatically uninstalled just because they've been pulled from the store, you just stop getting updates. Secondly, even if Apple completely drops all app support for your phone, it does not make it "useless". The phone still does all of the basic functions it was advertised to do. Having a device get new features in the form of apps is not required, it's a nice to have. At best you maybe could make an argument for misleading advertising if any launch features were gone (see PlayStation otheros) but Apple have been very diligent to make sure that's not the case.
They absolutely dominate the market of iOS apps. Imagine the uproar you would be able to install windows apps only via MicrosoftStore? The uproar would be deafening, and yet the impact on users would be far less severe than Apple's tyranny, because you can install other OS on PCs, but you can't install other OSs on iPhones.
They absolutely dominate the market. If you wanted to create a successful service today and don't support iOS you have no chance. If that's not domination, what is?
Monopolies have a few characteristics like barriers to entry and competition. Apple doesn’t command this because the market is mostly not Apple.