- (JS Required) Press Release.
Apple was ordered by EU antitrust regulators today to open up its closed ecosystem to rivals, with the latter spelling out details on how to go about it in line with the bloc’s landmark rules and where non-compliance could lead to an investigation and fines.
They don’t have a monopoly, but they do have anticompetetive practices
While I appreciate semantic clarity as much as anybody else I’m not sure it changes my question in this case.
Really? Anticompetitive practices don’t require you to have a monopoly over any specific area though. The answer to “what do they have a monopoly in” is “they don’t.”
I didn’t say that. What I said was if you change “monopoly” for “anticompetitive practices” my question still stands. “How is it different from how Nintendo acts with the Switch?” Keeping in mind that I had already conceded that better smartwatch access made sense.
Because Apple is a Gatekeeper. With their control over the entire operating system and which apps and firmware you’re allowed to install (“ecosystem”), they have a lot more economic power over other companies and people than Nintendo.
The Switch is a game console, smart phones are the portal to modern society.
So the only difference is one is a phone, and the other a gaming device? Because Nintendo js a gatekeeper in exactly the same way Apple is. Nintendo controls the entire operating system and which apps you’re allowed to install on the Switch. You’re going to have expand on how Apple has economic power over other companies and people for me.
Nintendo restricting game and app access on the Switch is also anticompetitive. However, Apple’s anticompetitive restrictions on iOS are a higher-priority problem because smartphones are essential communication devices while video game consoles are not.
Go read up on the Digital Markets Act, everything will be spelled out for you.
Do you really not grasp the fundamental difference in magnitude between controlling a store where a limited amount of media is sold versus a store for applications of everyday life for basically everyone?
It does require that though, at least in the US. Previous antitrust actions have made it clear that a monopoly is the distinction. If you don’t control the market it’s acceptable to use all sort of sketchy practices to grow your market share. It’s only after you’ve succeeded enough to control the market that these same behaviors are “anti trust”, unfairly locking out competition.
And there’s your answer