>I mean it's bad but being number two to implement it
Number is irrelevant - power is.
>seems like the regulators should look at Apple first, not Google.
If some one person company proposed this instead, would you want regulators to look at them first?
To put it simply - Apple does not provide OS to smartphones and PCs, it manufactures them. So as long as they do not produce 50% of PCs or 50% of phones or have Microsoft agreeing with their proposal then they are lesser threat (for now).
It's like with Monopolies and Cartels - power over market should bring relative response from regulators over company - especially if that company tries to create proposal which invades users privacy.
I'm not sure if I agree that Google's future intent is the bigger threat versus Apple already using it.
>So as long as they do not produce 50% of PCs or 50% of phones
Apple's market share in the US smartphone market is at almost 58%.
>It's like with Monopolies and Cartels
Yes, and I'm not saying Google shouldn't be looked into if necessary, but Apple has a 100% monopoly on iPhones unlike Google on Android and PC where you can switch browser.
If Apple is stopped, there are no reasons to go after Google, as it would also be illegal for them to do the same. Two birds with one stone – and Apple definitely also needs to be stopped.
> Apple's market share in the US smartphone market is at almost 58%.
And less than 30% worldwide.
> and PC where you can switch browser.
Under condition that you are not using anything other than Windows/ChromeOS - then no matter how much you switch the browser the OS stack will still not be certified - like DRM always fails to work on my end.
>If Apple is stopped, there are no reasons to go after Google, as it would also be illegal for them to do the same.
You are missing the point for me - Apple is just somewhat big¹ hardware company with niche¹ system. If you want to fight them because they have enormous power on your market - power to you, but from global perspective "no reasons to go after Google" is clearly misguided.
Number is irrelevant - power is.
>seems like the regulators should look at Apple first, not Google.
If some one person company proposed this instead, would you want regulators to look at them first?
To put it simply - Apple does not provide OS to smartphones and PCs, it manufactures them. So as long as they do not produce 50% of PCs or 50% of phones or have Microsoft agreeing with their proposal then they are lesser threat (for now).
It's like with Monopolies and Cartels - power over market should bring relative response from regulators over company - especially if that company tries to create proposal which invades users privacy.