How does this have anything to do with market share anyway?
Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.
Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.
It is actually pretty surprising that the play store is the one getting the antitrust. You’d think Apple would’ve been an easier case.
It seems Google lost because they allow other app stores, but also because they paid off other companies not to include them.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see them take the Apple route in the future and just ban them altogether to avoid additional anti-trust suits.
No, Apple won on some technicalities.
The case was in a US court but the court was only concerned with their global market share?
How does this have anything to do with market share anyway? They could have 1% and it would still be wrong.
I don’t understand what the difference is. Games are functionally and financially the same as every other app in the store.
Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.
My brother in Christ, if you think any size company should be allowed to engage in anticompetitive activities then we have nothing more to discuss.
When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.
So the law says “anticompetitive measures are totes chill as long as you’re not completely dominating the market”?
Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.