> we’ve always agreed on one thing一that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone’s interest.
We're so much in agreement that we're only going to trial that healthy, thriving market in the EU - where we're legally obligated to.
We're so much in agreement that we're only going to trial that healthy, thriving market in the EU - where we're legally obligated to.
I'm sensing BS here.
Which users, exactly?
The ones who don't know what chrome is other than "my google"? Or even, "my internet"?
The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser.
And that's billions of dollars per year.
> Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market
Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system".
Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market".
Get you facts minimally straight :)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
"At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system."
Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system".
It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
It's manifestly legal to put your own software on your own hardware - I mean duh. Google is in hot water for working the levers to control software on other peoples' hardware.
They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share.
Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android.
The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.
In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple.
The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC.
> The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
"At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system."
Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system".
It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest.
They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.
Doesn't change the fact that it has 100% market share in that market, no matter how you call that market.
You can't have your cake and eat it too: you can't defend the ECs case on Android and not demand the same on iOS.
Well, you can, but then we're not talking about antitrust policy, we're talking about politics and picking winners.