[seanmcdirmid]

They can be anticompetitive on their platform as long as their platform doesn’t have a lock on the market. So say, if you didn’t need to buy an iPhone and could buy an android instead, and if that actually happened in practice, Apple could reasonably argue they didn’t have a monopoly on the market even if they had a monopoly in their own platform.

[howinteresting]

By the HHI, Apple absolutely has a lock on the market.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman...

With 53% market share, Apple alone contributes over 0.25 to the HHI. 0.25 for the entire market is regarded as highly concentrated.

[wayneftw]

Not when their platform holds the majority of users in the US and when they're colluding with the "competition".

[ryan93]

A majority of users choose apple. but they didnt have to

[CrimsonRain]

Just like the majority of users choose to use Windows back in the day? They didn't had to. Linux was always a choice.

[ryan93]

No it wasn’t. Android is a consumer friendly replacement Linux wasn’t

[ryan93]

Why am I getting downvoted. Are people surprised its hard to compete with apple and android size organizations. You arent entitled to as many sophisticated phone OS's as you want

[seanmcdirmid]

54% is a majority, but its not a vast majority.

> and when they're colluding with the "competition".

Unless you have evidence for that, that's just libel.

[wayneftw]

Libel? It's directly from the material referenced by the tweets that we're talking about:

> 'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'

[seanmcdirmid]

Which they already got busted for and had to pay fines on. If you mean they are still doing it, then provide evidence, don’t just assert its true.

[wayneftw]

Nobody here is talking about things that Apple and Google got busted for already. Everything that we're getting today is new.

[dwaite]

So no link to evidence?