Comment by WheatMillington
2 years ago
>It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose.
That argument only works until there is market dominance, which is the point of anti-trust regulations.
2 years ago
>It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose.
That argument only works until there is market dominance, which is the point of anti-trust regulations.
...but Apple doesn't have dominance. They may have slightly more than half the market, but that's not usually considered antitrust territory.
Apple is in a dominant position. It feels wrong to say that their behaviour does not impact the market.
"Impacts the market" is not the same as "controls the market," which is the threshold (usually) for antitrust litigation.
Microsoft, by comparison, OWNED desktop computing in the 90s. Apple was on the ropes badly, and Linux wasn't viable for most people. And they used that dominance to attempt to strangle the open web in its crib. People literally had no where else to go.
Apple has nothing like that control today. Android enjoys a healthy chunk of the market. A host of other messaging tools exist if you don't like iMessage. You can avoid using Apple's tech at every turn if you like (and I know many people who do, as a matter of personal policy).
This is not a situation that warrants governmental intervention. This is a situation where the government is overreaching, and if they succeed the precedent will be set that Washington gets to decide what features a vendor can control on their own platforms. That's not a good place to be.
3 replies →
Market share does not equal market power.