- (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.
I rarely find myself defending giant corporations but after having looked at the list it seems I am going to have to.
Some of the things do make sense, like allowing other smartwatches the same notification access as Apple Watches. But others like the audio switching seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how that even works.
I keep trying to figure out though what exactly Apple has a monopoly in… they don’t have the largest segment of any market they are in so it makes it seem like the EU is complaining that they have a monopoly on iPhones… which… yes… but that is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on the Switch.
Edit: I seem to have failed to express the nuance I wanted to. None the less there seem to be some issues with the demands here and I think it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
I disagree. Apple should not force other companies’ products to work in an inferior way to their own. They already tried to force us all onto wireless headphones by removing the jack. They need to at least allow the 3rd party ones access to the same pairing and multihoming tech they use for their own. Openness is never a bad thing IMO.
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.”
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
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.
They have a trust. As in the term “antitrust”. They control a significant part of multiple inter-dependent markets and have unethically used that control to block competition and harm the free market.