Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 11:08 UTC
Apple "European Union regulators are examining the contracts Apple strikes with cellphone carriers that sell its iPhone for possible antitrust violations after several carriers complained that the deals throttled competition." Well paint me red and call me a girl scout.
Permalink for comment 556290
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: big sigh"
Member since:

That isn't relevant in determining whether it's a violation of competition law. Price discrimination is standard practice, but can be a violation of competition law if it amounts to an abuse of market power.

Neither does it make it necessarily monopolistic; therefore, it's not highly relevant.

It's what the article in the NYT said, and without meaning any disrespect, I think the (anonymous) sources on whom they relied probably know more about Apple's contracts than either you or I do.

The article reads as if the source(s) are the complainant(s) so I find no reason to find their opinions highly credible. The NYT article shows the greatest amount of objectivity in pointing out that small carriers in the US are in the same situation and yet seem to be satisfied... so it was my point that you are making up details about contracts you are not a party to and which you have never seen.

Market share isn't the sole factor that's relevant in EU competition law to assess dominance, and in any event the EU has for many years had a concept of 'unilateral market power' that has much broader applicability. If you have a conclusive argument that irrefutably demonstrates that Apple doesn't have market power for the purposes of EU Competition law, there are a number of peer reviewed journals which will be interested in hearing from you. This is a much debated question, on which existing cases don't give sufficient clarity.

I'm not suggesting that Apple needs to have dominant market share. I am stating as a fact that a company with less than 30% market share is clearly not a "necessary" business partner that can exert undue force. I am stating that in a market where "others" represent 70% or greater market share, it should be impossible for anyone to argue that Apple is preventing them from doing business with others.

If you can somehow form a cogent argument to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Edited 2013-03-22 23:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1