this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
979 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
58673 readers
3545 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.