3 ms·

>> congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior Anti-trust law requires having a monopoly(which Apple doesn't have) or acting together with other co

by petra 11y ago

>> congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior Anti-trust law requires having a monopoly(which Apple doesn't have) or acting together with other companies. So in this case it's probably legal. EDIT: that's basically the opinion of Keith Rabois, who litigated several anti-trust laws. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...

cm2187 11y ago
I think it requires having a dominant position, which in the in app purchase market is pretty much the case (by revenues). Lots of android in the market but sold to people who couldn't tell the difference with iOS and wouldn't even know how to buy an app.
- cgm616 11y ago
  I think anti-trust also requires a non-privately administered market. In Apple's App Store, they own the servers serving the app market, giving them control. I don't think the government could force them to keep an app on their server and continue to serve it to consumers running their software if they didn't want to.
- diziet 11y ago
  Actually, in terms of total revenue both markets are pretty close together now due to the larger install base on Android and ever increasing monetization of users.
nitrogen 11y ago
Anti-competitive behavior doesn't require a monopoly. There's collusion/price fixing, libel, and other ways to interfere in a business which are all illegal without having a monopoly. If we use cars as an analogy, we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics, but we don't require the same for phones (yet). Car manufacturers do not have monopolies. At some point, asking, "Does Apple have a monopoly?" becomes the wrong question to ask.
- petra 11y ago
  >> we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics True, but that required a new law, and sure a new law could also be deployed with regards to Apple.

by petra 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago

I think it requires having a dominant position, which in the in app purchase market is pretty much the case (by revenues). Lots of android in the market but sold to people who couldn't tell the difference with iOS and wouldn't even know how to buy an app.

cgm616 11y ago
I think anti-trust also requires a non-privately administered market. In Apple's App Store, they own the servers serving the app market, giving them control. I don't think the government could force them to keep an app on their server and continue to serve it to consumers running their software if they didn't want to.
diziet 11y ago
Actually, in terms of total revenue both markets are pretty close together now due to the larger install base on Android and ever increasing monetization of users.

nitrogen 11y ago

Anti-competitive behavior doesn't require a monopoly. There's collusion/price fixing, libel, and other ways to interfere in a business which are all illegal without having a monopoly. If we use cars as an analogy, we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics, but we don't require the same for phones (yet). Car manufacturers do not have monopolies. At some point, asking, "Does Apple have a monopoly?" becomes the wrong question to ask.

petra 11y ago
>> we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics True, but that required a new law, and sure a new law could also be deployed with regards to Apple.