Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.
Well, those measures are not seen as anticompetitive then, because you’re not stiffling competition, you’re rather even aggressively competing with the big players. But yes, a company with a monopoly may not be allowed to perform the exact same action like a company with little market share.
The thing is, laws don’t have to be fair. As a society, we want laws to ensure the best outcome for everyone involved. Fairness just happens to generally serve that purpose.
But in case of anti-competition laws, it does not. For example, it could even be beneficial to humanity to literally just force any company above 60% market share to pay a big fee. Because ultimately, competition is beneficial to humanity and a monopolist is couteracting that.
deleted by creator
Antitrust is about powerful companies abusing their powerful positions. With powerful I mean control over a market.
The idea is that if society is functionally dependent on a product, it shouldn’t be the case that the owning company abuses that position to force people into walled gardens.
While it’s of course still bad if a smaller company does it, the amount of people impacted will be lesser, so it’s not seen as critically important to take action against it. So that’s why antitrust laws only target the big ones.
I do absolutely disagree with Apple not being big enough though. iOS has a 30% market share in the mobile OS market according to statcounter, that ought to be big enough imo.
Well, those measures are not seen as anticompetitive then, because you’re not stiffling competition, you’re rather even aggressively competing with the big players. But yes, a company with a monopoly may not be allowed to perform the exact same action like a company with little market share.
The thing is, laws don’t have to be fair. As a society, we want laws to ensure the best outcome for everyone involved. Fairness just happens to generally serve that purpose.
But in case of anti-competition laws, it does not. For example, it could even be beneficial to humanity to literally just force any company above 60% market share to pay a big fee. Because ultimately, competition is beneficial to humanity and a monopolist is couteracting that.