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 556272
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: big sigh
by oskeladden on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 20:40 UTC 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[5]: big sigh
by oskeladden on Sat 23rd Mar 2013 00:11 in reply to "RE[4]: big sigh"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

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.


Here's the exact quote from the article:

"The issues do not appear to apply to carriers in the United States; an executive at an American carrier said the terms of its contract with Apple were aggressive but not unreasonable."

Given that quote, I'll leave it to others to judge whether I was "making up" the detail that these terms do not apply to the US.

And, just to be clear, the NYT states that the source is "a person briefed on the communications with the carriers". That is obviously a reference to a person in the Commission - an employee of one of the carriers is hardly likely to be described as "a person briefed on the communications with the carriers".

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.


As a matter of law, that isn't correct. European competition law distinguishes between differentiated and homogenous product markets. The point is that differentiated markets are characterised by subjective prefences between products which cannot be reduced to matters of price and quality. If you read the article, you'll see that this precisely what the carriers are contending in relation to the iPhone.

This matters quite a bit in legal terms. For one, in differentiated markets market share is assessed with reference to value, not volume. I don't have the exact figures to hand - I can't access the reports from home - but my recollection is that Apple's market share by value for smartphones is around 40%. That is significant. More fundamentally, in a differentiated product market, the ordinary rules in relation to market share can be waived. The Commission has always stressed that it is possible for a company with a small market share to have market power in a differentiated product market. The usual 25% de minimis threshold won't apply and, as happened in the United Brands case, the strength of the company's brand is often treated as a more relevant factor in assessing whether it had market power than the quantitative tests such as cross-elasticity of demand which you seem to have in mind.

That's the law, not my personal opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 3