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.
Thread beginning with comment 556261
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: big sigh"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

(a) standard practice. Better clients get better treatment.

(b) that's your personal presumption. The small regional and MNVO carriers in the US certainly have similar terms.

(c) nonsense. Apple is unlikely to have more than 30% market share in a single European market. To say that Apple is so desirable that they can't not do business with them, but that doing business with Apple is so onerous that it prevents them from doing business with other clients is wanting to have your cake and eat it too ... and simply not supported by reality.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: big sigh
by oskeladden on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 20:40 in reply to "RE[2]: big sigh"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

(a) standard practice. Better clients get better treatment.

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.

(b) that's your personal presumption. The small regional and MNVO carriers in the US certainly have similar terms.

It's not my personal presumption. 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.

(c) nonsense. Apple is unlikely to have more than 30% market share in a single European market.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 23:07 in reply to "RE[3]: big sigh"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

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

RE[3]: big sigh
by JAlexoid on Sat 23rd Mar 2013 17:52 in reply to "RE[2]: big sigh"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

C) Oh look... You apparently have read the explanations for the competition rules by CJEU that say that sizeable market share does not need to be very high for violation of the TFEU Art. 101&102. Oh wait...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: big sigh
by unclefester on Sun 24th Mar 2013 06:10 in reply to "RE[2]: big sigh"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

(a) standard practice. Better clients get better treatment.


Wrong. It is illegal to offer discriminatory pricing (apart from volume discounts) to different customers. By law all carriers should pay the same price for handsets because they would all buy sufficient numbers to qualify for a bulk discount (eg >1,000 handsets).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Sun 24th Mar 2013 17:04 in reply to "RE[3]: big sigh"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

What nonsense! Greater than 1,000 is bulk? That's less than a couple of hours of opening day sales.

Apple's pricing is very similar to what they do with Macs: you are obligated to buy x number of devices at y price. The price is not highly variable but the x number is based on the size of the carriers themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 1