| iPhone market share is very close to 50% in the US. You can't have a successful app launch in the US without making your app available on the iPhone. Apples policies affect the entire market, especially in the US. If they're not already a monopoly in the US, then they might as well be since they have the same market control as a monopoly player. Also, a strict majority market share is not required for a company to be considered a monopoly. It's up to the courts to decide. [1] [2] [3] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. [2] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-... > In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred," they have demanded a dominant market share. [3] https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/14/18618127/apple-pepper-sup... > The plaintiffs, meanwhile, will argue that these alternatives don’t matter. “The fact that they have a [less than] 50 percent market share of smartphones doesn’t mean they don’t have a 100 percent share of the distribution of iPhone apps — which they absolutely do,” says Rifkin. |
Yes, that's true, but it's not a particularly meaningful or insightful statement. That's defining the market in terms of the answer you want. Any company has a 100% market share if you define the market as "things that only that company can do".
"The fact that they have a [less than] 50 percent market share of operating systems doesn't mean [Microsoft doesn't] have a 100 percent share of Windows -- which they absolutely do", says Captain Obvious.
The question is, has there been a detrimental effect for customers?
Practically, I don't think the answer is as clear-cut as Rifkin wants it to be, because (at least to me), the drawbacks of a single-vendor app store (of which there are a significant quantity) have to be weighed against the benefits of a single-vendor app store (of which there are a significant quantity).