The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)
In my opinion, the first quote doesn’t apply at all. Unless you can express how Apple is objectively superior?
And Apple smartphone market share is at the higher end of your second quote. When all competitors are much lower, it may very well be that it is considered a monopoly. Though that’s literally what this case will determine.
Objectively superior? Superior user experience is entirely subjective, but that is the main selling point of almost everything Apple has done in the last 17 years
Marketing and reality are two different things. It’s definitely not a superior experience. When Apple’s stuff stops working, and it frequently does, the user has zero control to fix anything. Instead, they’re shoehorned into having no recourse other than to use Apple’s support, making them entirely dependent on the company in order to use their device.
Apple purposely hamstrings the user experience to exert control over users.
I think you’re just proving that it is entirely subjective. If it was objectively an inferior experience, I’m confident they wouldn’t be nearly as popular as they are. I get that there are plenty of people who believe firmly that total control over their own electronics is the best experience, and I can understand that. I enjoy tinkering in a Linux machine as much as any Lemmy user. However the vast majority of people do not want to be overwhelmed with the amount of ways they can configure their devices to the point that they can’t discern one choice from another. And my iPhone does exactly what I need it to just as much as my Android did.
Yeah, marketing is definitely part of it. They make their devices sound, look, and appear like they’re some sort of luxury experience. But there’s definitely something extremely smooth about the way Apple’s suite of software works with their hardware, and how their hardware works with each other, and I appreciate that for what it is.
Whoever down voted you is coping, this is easily seen all over their products. RCS, headphone ports, charging ports, not allowing you to side load apps, the walled garden, yadda yadda. Apple makes good (really expensive) hardware but the rest is marketing.
Apple has been more successful in the US, so by definition one could conclude they’ve done something better than competitors, whether it’s the products, timing, or something else about their business activities. People aren’t forced to buy iPhones any more than they are forced to buy Android.
By this logic all monopolies could be described as being better.
I think you could analyze it based on a company’s history. Some companies clearly didn’t earn a monopoly, for instance if they had a market handed to them by the government. Or, if they did the thing that’s actually illegal under antitrust law - used a monopoly in one market to expand to another.
By this same logic, on a global scale they are not dominant, so they can be argued to be a worse product, not superior. Therefore, their dominance on the US must be forced by coercive actions and categorized as a monopoly.
Their actions in the US market and tastes of US customers are not necessarily the same as elsewhere in the world. If Apple concentrated marketing in the US, for example, that would be sufficient.