Comment by diebeforei485
4 years ago
One reason is that they weren't under antitrust scrutiny in 2016 when they fought the the government in court.
Their incentives have changed - they now have the real looming threat of being broken up by governments, so it is now in their interest to comply with anything else governments ask them to do.
If you believe this is true, why didn’t Apple also launch in the EU where antitrust scrutiny and case law are both more strongly against Apple?
How do you think will the lawyers be able to prove Apple is a monopoly when Android exists?
The mere existence of a competitor doesn't matter in competition law.
Other oil companies existed, but the government still broke up Standard Oil.
Other browsers existed, but the government still made Microsoft make certain API's available to other browser makers.
This is a false equivalence. Standard Oil was at the top. Apple is clearly not. In the USA, they may very well be, but I doubt the margin is very high. https://images.app.goo.gl/hLr1zAGs7Wq5TG46A A lawyer will say that Apple though in the lead as a brand, is still second to Android in terms of market share, no matter how fragmented the market is.
This might be the same in other western countries as well. But overall Android would still have more devices running it than iOS.
2 replies →