[sbf501]

> on a company which operates on free market.

You probably shouldn't have based your argument on this statement, which is generally regarded as a myth. It is a myth in the sense that Apple exists in a free market: it is a near monopoly but is savvy enough not to wade into the area other companies did in the 90's and were penalized.

Second, governments have the right to enforce environmental protection acts to protect the health and safety of its people. Technology companies are subject to this from day one at many levels (e.g., fabs have limits on how much toxic waste they can pump into the air).

The EU is leading the way for cracking down on trillion-dollar companies who choose to treat you as a product rather than a person. I hope the rest of the world follows.

[pazimzadeh]

I'm not arguing that the EU shouldn't be able to pass these laws, but which markets does Apple monopolize?

[tinus_hn]

In the market of mobile phones for consumers who actually buy apps. That’s why everyone wants Apple to lose that monopoly. The problem of course is that exactly that monopoly is a large part of the reason why it’s the market for consumers who actually buy apps.

[chroma]

How can Apple have a "near monopoly" when Samsung sells 50% more phones than them?

[bsder]

Oh? When did I become able to carry my Apple software, purchases, addresses, backups, pictures, etc. over to Android? When did I become able to buy a phone that functions in the Apple ecosystem that isn't made by Apple?

Oh, right, I can't.

A Pixel and a Galaxy are direct competitors. An iPhone and a Galaxy are not direct competitors because of lock-in effects.

Now, if you are saying that the EU should mandate that I be able to switch my purchases between those ecosystems, that would change. However, even as much of a fan as I am about anti-trust, I believe that would be a bridge too far.

Furthermore, from what we have seen in the past 36 months with respect to supplier consolidation, I would argue that ANY market with less than 5 real competitors should get broken up recursively until that gets fixed. That should apply to phones, food, toilet paper, disinfectants, etc.--everything.

Part of what is allowing all the economic price hikes to stick is that even in markets where there is "competition", there is some single upstream supplier that can't (mostly) or won't (rarely) increase production. This prevents any of the "competitors" from being able to gain significant market share since they can't increase their production since everybody is blocked.

A lot of businesses figured this out through Covid. So, they raised prices. What are you gonna do? Go to a competitor? He can't absorb your order and you'll be at the back of his queue. Good luck.

[chroma]

So because iOS apps can't run on Android phones, Apple is a monopoly and should be forced to use USB-C? I'm very confused by what you're trying to say. If apps not running on other OSes is enough to count as lock-in, then every OS creates lock-in. I've bought many Windows apps over the years, but they don't run on my linux laptop, and vice-versa. Does that mean both linux and windows should be regulated as monopolies? I don't think so. What you call "lock-in" are just software incompatibilities. Or do you think Apple should be forced to write drivers for every Android phone out there, and sell and support their OS on those platforms?

[smoldesu]

Because Samsung doesn't run an app store on iOS.

[chroma]

And Apple doesn't run an app store on Android. Does that mean Android is also a monopoly? Heck, Sony doesn't run an app store on the Nintendo Switch. Does that mean Nintendo is a monopoly? We could play a similar game with streaming services. Yes, you can give money to people in different ways and get software that works on different systems. That's how it has always been. Nobody is being deceived or coerced. Well until now, since the EU is coercing everyone to use USB-C.

[smoldesu]

Apple should be coerced into adopting USB-C on iPhone. Their refusal to do so has been an explicit, repeated failure on Apple's behalf. The iPhone is one of the only remaining Apple products that does not use USB-C, and it's exclusion is entirely unnecessary since USB-C's base-spec was designed by Apple and well-exceeds the capabilities of Lightning.

At the end of the day, it's a serial port. People should stop acting like Apple is being asked to re-engineer the Death Star, and recognize that this is a change so rudimentary that people on YouTube do it for a fun weekend project. It's the textbook definition of a failure, and the EU has every right to hold Apple accountable for the insane things they call 'innovation' in the US.

[sundvor]

Apple could, though.

[jonwinstanley]

Apple make billions every quarter and at this point no one can realistically unseat them.

They collect pretty much all the profit in the phone market.

They don’t technically have a monopoly, but they are in an incredibly strong position which is close to being guaranteed for the short and medium term.

[enriquec]

"fine, they don't have a monopoly - which I stated as fact - but they are too successful for my liking and I get a high off of forcing compliance"

[jonwinstanley]

To be clear, I'm a massive fan of Apple.

Was just trying to explain that although they don't technically have a monopoly in the phone market, they do hold a huge amount of power.

In a basic sense, monopolies were outlawed to try to keep markets fair, but Apple are in such a strong position now that they have pretty much the same level of influence that a company with an actual monopoly would have.

[theshrike79]

Being highly profitable isn't illegal, monopolies are.

[jonwinstanley]

Sure. But what was the whole reason for making monopolies illegal?

[Jtsummers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act - You can read about it here and branch out to other resources and articles.

It's not about profit, directly at least. A company making twice the profit while selling half the product of their competitor is not in any violation of anti-monopoly/trust/whatever laws.