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.
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.