that smells like an anti-competitive behavior.
obviously apple has considered this and is forging on anyway. good for them.
obviously apple has considered this and is forging on anyway. good for them.
If it's defined as a market, then Apple will be surely in trouble but enforcing Apple ID alone doesn't make much differences from the current situation as it always has been doing similar things for web browsers, music apps, app store itself etc. So it's pretty natural to enforce this policy for Apple; no additional risks but only benefits.
Excluding other third party sign on options would be problematic if Apple were abusing a dominant position among smartphone makers, which is not the case by any objective measure.
Note that I'm not making an argument about how to classify the behavior legally, I'm arguing that calling it "competing" is pretty generous.
For instance, even if Apple decides to increase the app store fee to 50% so its app's prices as well, still consumers don't have much choice since buying a new phone is typically more expensive by order of magnitude than buying an app. This is also a part of Spotify's claim as well and Apple is trying to defend itself for this time unlike Apple v. Pepper.
Pretty much the standard.
I haven’t studied this since the late 90’s, so I may be out of date...
Apple would have long ago been cited for Antitrust if Android hadn’t had most of the market. I personally think that the definition of a trust is too narrow — one member of an oligopoly abusing its position as a platform provider and strongarming people is also pretty bad.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/appl...
It's not entirely how European anti-trust law works.
If Apple was the only provider of smartphones then there would be a case for them to open up their platform to third parties.