Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. Absolute market share isn't the only factor that goes into determining monopoly. You also get different numbers from different definitions. Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, or ~80% of the mobile subscription market, etc.
>> Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. [...] Apple controls 100% of the iOS market [...]
I find it maddening that a lot of people replying to your fair point have chosen to ignore the first half and decided to exclusively focus on the latter, when that part was clearly meant as an example of how market definitions can have an impact.
A fairly recent example of the latter being a commonly mischaracterized or (by members of the public) outright dismissed concern was MSFTs dominance in the Cloud Gaming market, which was often met either with "but MSFTs share of the gaming market overall is less" or the even less applicable "but nobody uses Cloud Gaming anyway", even though neither should count towards whether something rises to anti-competitive behavior in a given market.
It's bikeshedding. People respond to the parts that they can, and ignore the parts they can't. Even if everyone else has already responded with the same thing.
This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.
Of course it's non-sensical, right up until that thing grows to be a large part of the US economy.
I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.
On the contrary, it's exactly on the spot. EU used the term "gatekeeper" for such a market position, where you can dictate the terms of the market (and have oversized influence over other participant's behviour), while dodging classification of "monopolist" on technicality. It's exactly the point.
Yeah! Microsoft owns 100% of the Windows market, so users shouldn't be able to install software on their Windows devices unless they use the Microsoft store. Installing your own software from the internet or writing your own code would be non-sensical because Microsoft owns that.
You used the phrase “Windows deceives” to mean “general purpose PCs”, and I think it’s worth noting this because Windows Phone was a Windows device. I acknowledge that this is not cognitive dissonance if you also believe PlayStation is a monopoly.
Not sure I get your point since I'm not super familiar with the Windows phone. If the argument is that the Windows phone was locked down and could only load software from a Microsoft store, then I'm glad it died. Same way I'm glad Internet Explorer as the default on Windows had government action taken against it. Let me use my machine for my code. I don't care if you are Apple or Microsoft or whoever. I do not care if you "own" your company, the fact is that if you sell me a device, I want to to own my device by running whatever I want.
Okay, so you're an absolutist about this. I think that's fine, but it doesn't jive with my experience that not everyone wants to be (or is even capable of being) their own IT department. This quote by Benedict Evans resonated with me:
"It sometimes just amazes me that people who actually work in the tech industry, and are in their 30s and 40s, claim that it would be just fine if smart phones had the same app security and privacy model as the Mac or Windows, and that there is no benefit at all from additional controls. Where have these people been for the last 30 years? You seriously want to let any developer do whatever they want to a device that billions of people carry around every day?"
I would honestly be fine if Apple was at least as lenient as Android in terms of sideloading. Doesn't seem like a big ask to me, given that just about every other phone manufacturer in the world except for Apple does it and the world hasn't ended. Apple has other issues beyond the software thing, but saying that you shouldn't be allowed to actually own a device you purchased because "apple owns 100% of iphones!" is very silly to me.
“Apple controls 100% of the iOS market” as an argument sounds like satire lol. What point does this make?
Is the implication that Apple should allow iOS on non-Apple devices? There is not a single hardware company in the world that would integrate iOS to the degree that Apple does. A requirement like this would immediately enshittify Apple’s brand.
I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was simply trying to illustrate that market share is relative to the definition of "market" you use with extreme examples. Frankly, I'm not even saying that defining iOS/the app store as a market unto itself is a good definition.
They're using emotional arguments, not rationale ones. Like calling Apple's cut of app sales a "tax", as it is literally not a tax but a normal part of doing business. Similarly the lawsuit claims that iPhone users somehow are "undermined" from messaging other phones, when in reality there are zero restrictions on messaging to and from any phone. None of these arguments are based on the reality of the situation, but some emotional response to it.
