There's a whole host of anticompetitive and restraint-of-trade business practices that are illegal whether a company has 90% or 40% or 2% market share.
Just some question so is clear in my mind what your idea is
Why more then 80% ? why not 50% + 1
IS 80% of smartphones ? or smartphones+tablets , or all phones , or 80% of capital/financial of all mobile app stores ?
What if I say that Apple has 100% monopoly on the iOS? you would say but what about Android ? I would say if I am Netflix,Spotify,Bank X, etc I have no REAL choice as a developer not to make iOS apps similar how some people have no choices where to get their Internet, they get the expensive good internet or if they don't like it they have some subpar choices if their are lucky and you telling them not to use Internet if they don't like it is not a REAL choice even if it is a possible choice. (I am referring mostly at developers but screwing with developers yous crew your users like you have less choices on iOS as a user because you can't use GPL apps)
> What if I say that Apple has 100% monopoly on the iOS?
That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.
> why not 50% + 1
Because the "mono" in monopoly means "one", not "two".
You can accurately say that Apple and Google enjoy an oligopoly in the mobile operating system market. You cannot reasonably say either one holds a monopoly.
>That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.
And if Ford would not allow me who can enter in my Ford, won't allow me to replace the original Ford mirror with a cheap working one then I would also be pissed at Ford and ask the government to fix this.
You can push the bad argument you brought in the other direction, Microsoft does not dominate the PC , what about servers ? but desktop and server users differ? so iOS and Android users differ and it is not about Apple dominating Google is about Apple having a leverage position over developers and abusing it.
>Because the "mono" in monopoly means "one", not "two".
But we were talking about dominating and abusing, but if you missed it, then I will repeat, you do not need to be a monopoly do dominate and abuse, you can have 2 or 3 companies sharing a market and abusing their dominance, so stop posting same comment of "Apple is not a monopoly on smartphones" someone was smart enough to think about more the duopoly case and the laws covder that too.
That'd be a silly argument. By that logic, Ford has a 100% monopoly on F-150s.
It's a very appropriate argument, and Ford does have a monopoly on F-150's. As I've noted elsewhere, monopolies are not by themselves illegal.
The trucks are like the iPhone, so in this context we would be talking about truck parts (i.e., apps). Ford doesn't restrict or attempt to control the market for F-150 parts. If you damage your car, the mechanic can buy parts from Ford or any one of dozens of auto parts makers. In contrast, Apple does restrict and artificially control the market for apps, even to the extreme of drowning out competing apps with irrelevant search results, and Apple is the only market for getting iOS apps.
Since you all like car analogies,
then you would have only 2 car producers Ford and Toyota,
Ford does work cars and Toyota city cars, so your choices are limited to the extreme. Then say you buy a Ford and want to put a cat sticker on your car, you can't do it yourself and you go to a Frod store, then when you want to buy the cat sticker the store people direct you to buy dog stickers made by Ford, you insist you don't want the Ford sticker but a cat sticker so they send you to search in the back where the lights are dim because only Ford products get illuminated and put n the front of the store.
The people that make stickers don't like it at all when you want to buy a cat stickers but Ford are not showing them to you but instead pushing you to get the dog ones made by them. Then you ask some respect from Ford and they say if you don't like it don't use it you have so many choices (in fact just 1),
I'm sure you've seen endless comments on this website about how Apple has an outsized amount of "profit share", and that it matters a lot more than market share for app developers.
This is true. But antitrust law doesn't require that you have a mnonopoly or a dominant market position. It's simply that the analysis is more complex and significantly more contextual if you don't have a dominant market position.
This is because antitrust laws are not specific to solving the problem of monopolies. Your point is an obvious one and borders on argumentative without a point.
You can quibble over whether 80% or 90% is a monopoly, but 40% clearly isn't one.