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.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.”

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.