Because they do not have a monopoly in market A and abuse that to get an advantage on market B, where in this case A is mobile market from low to high end and B is search/user tracking/analytics/advertising
Arguably Apple is doing a similar thing by bundling iMessage and iTunes (and probably others), both of which have plenty of competitors but probably have an inherent advantage on iOS because they're built-in.
Ubuntu is also bundling Firefox and some default applications but they are not abusing any dominant position, Apple is at least in EU a niche, it has a significant market only on high end/expensive devices.
Apple is doing a lot of bad things too and I hope the right for repair will become a reality and Apple is forced to let people fix their devices.
I guess it feels a bit weird to say "the most successful operating system in a given region isn't allowed to bundle any first-party apps, but all of the other ones are". They seem like different scales of the same thing, and maybe Android's case is only being seen as "abuse" because it's at a larger scale due to more marketshare.
Is not about bundling, if Google would sell it's own Pixel phone is OK, but if I want to make a contract with Google to sell my xPhone with Android the illegal part is when Google is forcing my hand to put Google apps on the phone and put the Google search on the home screen on all my xPhones but also on say my cheap xCrap devices. The problem here is also the Google search part, you use your dominance in mobile OS market to force people into your search service.
Also, Apple has like 15% market share in the EU. If anything, it's the FTC that may want to start looking for an anti-trust case against Apple soon, which I think has around 50% market share in the US.
Apple already does many things that could be considered "abusive behavior". They just "don't count" as much right now because you can't argue it has a "dominant position" in smartphones in the US. iOS and Android have about 50-50.
When Apple starts reaching 60-70%, however, that antitrust case could (and should) be made.
Agree, I would also would like EU and USA to stop the big companies buying the competition, like FB buying WhatsApp or Google buying YouTube, this makes impossible for competitors to appear when you consider the huge budget advantage of the big companies.
To an extent, that buying of companies is what keeps them in business. The current model of creating a company without a long-term plan for survival turns them into a money-sink and their only hope for survival is to be bought by a company with deep-pockets who needs a loss-leader.
YouTube, WhatsApp, Reddit - all examples of services that would have disappeared or rotted away if they hadn't been swallowed up.
I am not sure why WhatApp or Reddit would disappear, don't we have so many IRC and mailing lists that are still running, you do not need a crazy amount of servers and developers to keep things running.
I am not sure about YouTube, it would have survive in a fair competition, the problem is competing with giants that play in many markets is not fair
IRC and mailing lists are more pro-sumer oriented than the average app. They survive despite the app market, rather than because of it. They also aren't particularly profitable, except in limited circumstances.
Apps are more clearly aimed at the consumer, ie., people who aren't going to get into the technical details of connecting to a particular service and learning the commands.
I doubt we'd have the overwhelming plethora of services if the app market hadn't been created.
Then maybe we should let those companies go under. Someone else will come along and iterate on that idea, and given the benefit of seeing what happened before, they'll be in a better position to make themselves profitable.
The meaning is much the same as an engrossing thought or conversation: one that fully occupies your attention.
It is as engrossment rather than monopoly that Adam Smith discusses exclusive control.
Of trade with a region:
The moderate capital of the [Hudson Bay] company, which, it is said, does not exceed one hundred and ten thousand pounds, may besides be sufficient to enable them to engross the whole, or almost the whole, trade and surplus produce of the miserable, though extensive country, comprehended within their charter. No private adventurers, accordingly, have ever attempted to trade to that country in competition with them. This company, therefore, have always enjoyed an exclusive trade in fact, though they may have no right to it in law....
Of skilled labour:
Half a dozen wool-combers, perhaps, are necessary to keep a thousand spinners and weavers at work. By combining not to take apprentices they can not only engross the employment, but reduce the whole manufacture into a sort of slavery to themselves....
Of grain:
[I]t is scarce possible, even by the violence of law, to establish such an extensive monopoly with regard to corn; and, wherever the law leaves the trade free, it is of all commodities the least liable to be engrossed or monopolized by the force of a few large capitals, which buy up the greater part of it. Not only its value far exceeds what the capitals of a few private men are capable of purchasing, but, supposing they were capable of purchasing it, the manner in which it is produced renders this purchase practicable....
Of land:
Great tracts of uncultivated land were, in this manner, not only engrossed by particular families, but the possibility of their being divided again was as much as possible precluded for ever. It seldom happens, however, that a great proprietor is a great improver. In the disorderly times which gave birth to those barbarous institutions, the great proprietor was sufficiently employed in defending his own territories, or in extending his jurisdiction and authority over those of his neighbours. He had no leisure to attend to the cultivation and improvement of land....
