The enviable second place

While many companies have done everything to get the head of sales and maintain the domination of a market is a plight in many ways, and can be very expensive.

Long time, Apple has based its communication on the facetious irreverence against a titanic adversary. IBM, Microsoft or Intel in turn symbolized the order established that Apple was annoying, even this upset little game of gadfly could sit at the Cupertino company during a time when she was still a figure of outsider, but then it became one of the most expensive companies in the world and can now most of its competitors in terms of profit and turnover, it must affect a First a little more humble and respectful of the smallest it, otherwise it could tarnish its image.

In fact, the legal complications in which it is located, regardless of its legitimacy further, already some teeth gnashing. And if one attracts the sympathy of the public in defiance stronger than itself, it was also quick to be mistaken for a terror of the sandbox when the impression to enforce the law of the jungle. This would be the worst possible taste. Praise of an outsider

This is not the worst pitfall that goes along with the critical mass that the company has reached: if it has clearly succeeded in managing its incredible growth, too much influence on the market would probably be the last thing Apple like.

While many companies seem committed to ensuring hegemony over all the competition, Apple has maintained that his only desire was only able to live the best products they could offer.

There remain skeptical of these noble intentions, but they can be easily proven by contradiction: if Apple had one day to be in a dominant position or virtual monopoly, we would have for her to carve the sacrosanct user experience as it has striven to do so far.

If regulators were to impose special rules on Apple to counterbalance the weight on the market, as was the case for example with Microsoft, while its various platforms suffer a backlash quality with full force. In the European market, including Microsoft must offer a variety of web browsers to install Windows. Can you imagine such a thing is only on iOS, even Apple rejects any browser on the App Store that does not WebKit, and also the general public has a very imperfect notion of what It is only a web browser? The fate of Microsoft would also probably hard to match, as the Redmond Company was able to provide comfortable with Windows and Office revenues that are nearly out of cash. A situation that would probably be more difficult to accomplish for Apple, whose products are much more seasonal and subject to the whims of consumers. And the firm at the apple away well pleased, as this encourages him to go beyond itself, it does not hesitate to compete with itself rather than giving a chance to another company to raise its torch. Conversely, the hegemony of Microsoft that will make him the status quo, which ultimately proved far more costly than profitable.

Too much "control freak" to dominate

While many of the rules on the App Store are designed to maintain control of the Apple user experience, both in terms of safety and performance, there is also to make the Apple warder of all existing ways to earn money, and have an impact on the various business models that will flourish. All this would be jeopardized if IOS had one day to be considered monopolistic.

Would not that painful for these disadvantages that come and go against all the same practices that he has known so far, Apple is clearly not ambitious of having a share market than other, especially since the top of the podium often means compromise in which it does not usually live with, starting with the race to the bottom to please the greatest number. It is already in the best position it can hope for: to have the highest profits in markets in which it operates, without sell more devices. Results that swear all the more with those of Android, which holds the top of the podium on the mobile OS without generating much revenue for Google or for manufacturers.

Monopolies and succession

Google already has a lot to do market research tools or browsers. Many observers have remained somewhat surprised by the amount of the agreement between Mozilla and Google (see Google and Mozilla renew their agreement for at least 3 years). Indeed, this amount exceeds the previous one, even though Firefox has lost market share in the meantime. Of course, there was probably a bidding war with Bing, Microsoft does not clearly reluctant to nibble at the expense of market share in the field of research tools, but perhaps should also see in this a record will maintain robust competition in the market for browsers, specifically Internet Explorer then continues its slow descent, and that Firefox is the first to bear the brunt of competition from Google software.

Of course, if market shares are changing, the number of users is growing, offsetting the decline in terms of audience, but do not weaken the position of least Firefox browsers on the market, and the first target Google is first and foremost for Internet Explorer.

Google is arguably the company that is currently most at risk for possible abuse of dominant position, not so much on the market for mobile browsers, but on the tools of research, knowing that several government investigations are ongoing, without after various legal actions. The worst that could happen to him would probably have to reveal the "recipe" of the algorithm, even if only to demonstrate that it does not cheat on the results. Specifically, if Google has refrained from filing a patent on this algorithm, it is to keep the exclusivity as long as it is in operation, and to keep it secret at all costs.