Probably Apple is hoping the entire Apple ecosystem not to be defined as "a market" in terms of antitrust laws. I am not sure if the Justice Department will agree with it though; we'll see.
If it's defined as a market, then Apple will be surely in trouble but enforcing Apple ID alone doesn't make much differences from the current situation as it always has been doing similar things for web browsers, music apps, app store itself etc. So it's pretty natural to enforce this policy for Apple; no additional risks but only benefits.
Excluding other third party sign on options would be problematic if Apple were abusing a dominant position among smartphone makers, which is not the case by any objective measure.
Leveraging their status as the controller of the platform to require support for their solution is not the same thing as their solution competing head to head with other solutions.
Note that I'm not making an argument about how to classify the behavior legally, I'm arguing that calling it "competing" is pretty generous.
The trouble here is the definition of "market". Apple's ecosystem (which Apple has an absolute control on) doesn't seem to be very safe from being defined as a sole market since there's no viable substitute to the app store for Apple users.
For instance, even if Apple decides to increase the app store fee to 50% so its app's prices as well, still consumers don't have much choice since buying a new phone is typically more expensive by order of magnitude than buying an app. This is also a part of Spotify's claim as well and Apple is trying to defend itself for this time unlike Apple v. Pepper.
I already have explained; there's no alternative to iOS for apple mobile devices unless you're willing to pay more than $500 for an equivalent level of android device. If Apple allows Android to be installed to Apple devices, then things can be different though.
"Dominant player" isn't especially relevant in European market law. Essentially the test is that you are of sufficient import to materially affect pricing in that market, which Apple definitely is.
Yes it is anticompetitive. It is using Apple’s monopoly as gatekeeper of their app store.
Apple would have long ago been cited for Antitrust if Android hadn’t had most of the market. I personally think that the definition of a trust is too narrow — one member of an oligopoly abusing its position as a platform provider and strongarming people is also pretty bad.
That’s not how antitrust law works. It’s not a test of whether a company exerts too much control over its own customers. It’s a test of whether customers have some alternatives and a real opportunity to vote with their dollars.
Apple has argued that developers are its customers (in the Pepper lawsuit). What options do developers have? Ignore the iOS market (those most likely to pay money)? There isn't a choice here: you let Apple have 1/3 of all of your revenue and you implement Apple Sign In. Because... competition?...
Antitrust is among the most mature areas of law, in terms of how these concepts have been thoughtfully wrangled over. I definitely encourage you to dig deep on how market scope is determined, if that’s interesting to you. There are many ways to manipulate a market but very few rise to the level of requiring state or regional government intervention.
If it's defined as a market, then Apple will be surely in trouble but enforcing Apple ID alone doesn't make much differences from the current situation as it always has been doing similar things for web browsers, music apps, app store itself etc. So it's pretty natural to enforce this policy for Apple; no additional risks but only benefits.