> add features to their products that other makers do not have, or do not execute as well
Generically that's true. If we were talking about bananas and Apple's banana's were better than Google's or Facebook's then that's legitimate competition.
But not all features are the same. Some features have secondary effects. The secondary effect in some cases has a competitive overlay. Once somebody starts using Facetime they can't switch out of the Apple ecosystem easily any more. It becomes very hard because you have to convince all the people you normally talk to switch to different apps. So there's clearly a benefit to Apple beyond Facetime being a good application in its own right.
When Apple competes by making Facetime a good product and there is zero friction to choose a different one, and hence users are choose Facetime - that's competition. When Apple introduces friction that stops users choosing a different produce no matter whether it is better or not - that is anticompetitive.
You are correct that Apple benefits from owning the full stack and that allows them to create a "better" experience". However it magnifies the anticompetitive aspect because competitors can't achieve the same experience as Facetime, even if the want. Not because of how much they are willing to invest, how skilled they are etc. Purely because of arbitrary barriers preventing them because Apple maintains proprietary control of the technical means to achieve it.
>Generically that's true. If we were talking about bananas and Apple's banana's were better than Google's or Facebook's then that's legitimate competition.
That's exactly what's happening here.
People switch platforms all the time. I suspect it's more into iOS than out of it, and I think that's evidence of Apple being straight-up better.
There's nothing stopping Google from trying to build that same interconnected smooth experience. They certainly have the money and expertise. But nothing you've said provides any justification for forcing Apple to open their platform's features to all comers.
(And, again, Facetime is better not just because of the protocol or software or servers; it matters that Apple controls the hardware side of the equation, too. That wouldn't be true if they published a Facetime client for Android, or allowed others to do so. The whole notion is anathema to the way they've built their ecosystem -- not just from a biz POV, but also from a smoothness/polish POV.)
Generically that's true. If we were talking about bananas and Apple's banana's were better than Google's or Facebook's then that's legitimate competition.
But not all features are the same. Some features have secondary effects. The secondary effect in some cases has a competitive overlay. Once somebody starts using Facetime they can't switch out of the Apple ecosystem easily any more. It becomes very hard because you have to convince all the people you normally talk to switch to different apps. So there's clearly a benefit to Apple beyond Facetime being a good application in its own right.
When Apple competes by making Facetime a good product and there is zero friction to choose a different one, and hence users are choose Facetime - that's competition. When Apple introduces friction that stops users choosing a different produce no matter whether it is better or not - that is anticompetitive.
You are correct that Apple benefits from owning the full stack and that allows them to create a "better" experience". However it magnifies the anticompetitive aspect because competitors can't achieve the same experience as Facetime, even if the want. Not because of how much they are willing to invest, how skilled they are etc. Purely because of arbitrary barriers preventing them because Apple maintains proprietary control of the technical means to achieve it.