- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.zip
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.
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.