We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive.
> Under no definition
Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive.
So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
> It just does not apply here.
Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.
"While Apple is not considered a monopoly and did not engage in anti-trust behavior on nine of ten counts, Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive."
Apple are currently appealing the anti-steering restriction.
So then, yes, on 1 count it did engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
See, you were the one trying to claim that it is completely impossible, that any definition of anti-trust law would cover Apple's behavior. And we have evidence that this is false.
Clearly, your previous extremely strong claim, of zero possibility of anti-trust behavior, is wrong. Because on 1 count, it was ruled that it was illegally anti-competitive.
Glad we could clear that up.
If you wanted to be more accurate, you could have instead said something like "Apple's position in the market is complicated. It does not have complete control of the market, but it has a large enough control of the market, that some of its most egregiously bad behavior, could be illegal. Really, things could go either way on some of its actions".
That would be a much better, and more nuanced statement, that opens the possibility for some of Apple's behavior to fall under anti-trust law, but not all. Clearly it is not as absurdly in Apple's favor you were trying to claim, and it is not as simple as "just vote with your feet, they aren't doing anything illegal or anti-competitive".
Leaving aside the possibility that Apple have a good chance of overturning the anti-steering ruling, I'd like to ask you directly - what is stopping you as either a customer or a developer from buying an Android phone, or developing exclusively for the Android ecosystem? i.e. why can't you just vote with your feet?
Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.
If you think that it is totally OK to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior, then just say that. Otherwise this is the answer.
The answer is that we have anti-trust law for a reason. So if you disagree then you need to say that you want anti-competitive behavior to be legal and bite that bullet of being in favor of that stuff.
So go ahead and just say that you support microsoft anti-competitive behavior or if you think that it is not OK, then whatever reason you have for saying that anti-competitive behavior is bad, I can use whatever reason that is.
> Because Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and I support existing anti-trust laws.
Sorry but that's not a reason. You indeed can choose a different smartphone and smartphone ecosystem (as a customer), and you can choose to boycot Apple as a developer, and tell your customers that iPhone users are stuck with the web app while Android users get the benefit of better integration and features. These are real choices that people and companies are making today.
As I said in another comment, you absolutely can pursue legal remedies either through the courts and/or the political process - which is also happening right now. But absolutely nothing is stopping you from buying and using a Samsung/LG/Pixel/etc phone right now, and having a really good (by all accounts) experience.
And to make myself completely clear to you - I do not want anti-competitive behaviour to be legal. I just don't think this is anti-competitive.
Also worth noting that Microsoft filed an amicus brief in support of Epic in its fight against Apple. Google did not.
Ok, then that is not a reason that you can use against microsoft or standard oil. Thats your position that you have that you have to bite the bullet on.
> These are real choices that people and companies are making today.
Ok. Then in your opinion, those are "real choices" that people can use against microsoft or standard oil.
I don't know about Standard Oil, but I absolutely do know about Microsoft. In the late 90's and early 00's there was no realistic alternative to Microsoft Windows. So no, they are decidedly not the same. Not sure why you can't see the difference.
Microsoft engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices. As well as how Apple has engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices, as according to the decision of Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
We have court precedent that says otherwise. The Epic vs Apple case had at least 1 count that defined Apple's behavior as being illegally anti-competitive.
> Under no definition
Yes there is a definition. Under the definition that Judge Gonzalez Rogers used, they are large enough that some behavior is illegally anti-competitive.
So yes. An actual judge, who is the authority on the matter, disagrees with you, that it is impossible for apple to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
> It just does not apply here.
Actually, it already did apply. Judge Gonzalez Rogers applied it to Apple.