On the most recent Windows Weekly, Paul asserted Apple is a monopoly because they have a billion plus iOS devices. Aren’t there a lot more Android devices? Last I saw, Apple had about 20% or less market share globally, and under 50% in the US, which is their largest market.
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#433688">In reply to vernonlvincent:</a></em></blockquote><p>Any game company that requires a license (often enforced through technology) before a third-party can produce a working game, is potentially being anti-competitive because it can limit consumer choice, although I don't think the government has ever charged a company for doing so. And of course, as I believe others have pointed out, you don't need to be a monopoly to be guilty of unlawful anti-competitive behavior. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434167">In reply to Brett_B:</a></em></blockquote><p>There's no expectation that bread is going to be usable for years as would be the case for apps. Bread doesn't require a pre-investment in specific equipment to be eaten. There's no requirement that a company that sells you an iOS app has to let you use the same app on an Android phone free of charge (assuming that the app is even available on Android).</p><p><br></p><p>Although Paul, as a tech writer, can justify bouncing back and forth between iPhones and Android phones, many people can't and they shouldn't have to just to satisfy Apple's business model. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434267">In reply to Brett_B:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'd like to see as few rules as possible on any of these app stores. The PC and the Mac had no rules for decades and it worked very well. One can only imagine how much less would have been accomplished if program development had been limited to what could be approved by Apple or Microsoft in the early days of personal computers.</p><p><br></p><p>Apple is under scrutiny precisely because their rules are more restrictive and anti-competitive than those of other apps stores.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434311">In reply to Brett_B:</a></em></blockquote><p>Like any business, Apple has to live within the restrictions imposed by law. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434115">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>Can you cite any court documents in the case in which a monopoly is stated as the reason for the violation? Which "monopoly power" are you referring to? Certainly there was no collusion between Apple and Amazon.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#433965">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, MS was essentially judged to have a monopoly on Windows operating systems which is pretty much the same. Unix and Linux were excluded. The government and eventually the courts decide what the market consists of. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434057">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>The problem with competitors driving the anti-trust investigation is that it can lead to the government acting as an agent for those companies rather than protecting the consumer which is what they should be doing. </p><p><br></p><p>IMO all the charges related to Java in the Microsoft case were complete nonsense. There were very few Java developers who were interested in targeting Unix/Linux that used Windows for their development or likewise very few Unix developers who wanted to target Windows with their Java programs. </p><p><br></p><p>Java's sweet spot at the time was allowing headless programs that could run on several non-compatible Unix systems without recompiling. Java is still unpopular for local programs except for tools to create Java programs.</p>
Bats
<p>Monopoly isn't "<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">about size, impact on consumers, control, and protectionist behavior" in that sense. That's ridiculous. Once I started hearing that explanation on the podcast, I stopped it and listened to something else. LOL….that's sounds like something a New York Time reporter would say.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Monopoly is when the end user (or consumer) has no freedom in choice. People choose to use an iPhone and they do so knowing full well what they are getting into. Like, what ghostrider said, they are only a monopoly from withing their own walled garden and that's it. If a consumer doesn't like, then you go to Android. </span> </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434041">In reply to Bats:</a></em></blockquote><p>The same thing could have been said about Microsoft and Windows: <em>People choose to use Windows and they do so knowing full well what they are getting into.</em> Yet somehow Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust laws. So I think antitrust is a bit more nuanced than you imagine.</p>
itclasses
<p><em>thanks for share knowledge</em></p>
brainsphere
<p>Apple has a USP that other Android devices are not having . Cannot say Apple a monopoly, there are other companies which gives tough competition to Apple. Brainsphere has done a case study on this</p>