Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shiroiushi 620 days ago
>This is very different from the global market share, where Android has 45% more.'

This case is about US antitrust law, so what happens outside US borders isn't really that important, except as far as it affects the companies' revenues and profits. Supposedly, the actions of any antitrust action are to protect consumers/the general public, but what that really means is consumers in the US. Consumers outside the US are irrelevant. And the simple fact is that, by your own numbers, consumers in the US are mostly using iOS, not Android.
1 comments
kelnos 620 days ago
If anti-trust action in the US results in the break-up of Google, it affects users worldwide, not just in the US.

Regardless, 42% (in the US) is still a huge market share. Huge doesn't have to mean majority or even plurality.

link
dimitrios1 620 days ago
Correct. "Huge" in the case of antitrust matters is big enough to act anti-competitively. It's much more broad than you think, and it sees a lion share of litigation done by the Feds.

For example, there's currently an ongoing anti trust case against "Al’s Asphalt Paving Company"

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-als-asphalt-paving-com...

link
close04 620 days ago
> "Huge" in the case of antitrust matters is big enough to act anti-competitively.

With the extra clarification that just the size of the company or its market share aren't in and of themselves enough to constitute a crime. It's how the company acts once it has that power that constitutes the crime.

You could be a huge company, or dominate a market and still not run afoul of anti-competitive laws because you didn't abuse the position [0]. The abuse of position particularly (or only, depending on jurisdiction probably) if it brings harm to consumers is what lands a company in hot water.

[0] https://thehustle.co/originals/the-worlds-cutest-monopoly

link