2 ms·

IANAL but it seems as though a lawsuit would be filed pretty quickly if Apple blocked Adobe's interpreted apps and didn't block Rhomobile/Unity3D/MonoTouch inte

IANAL but it seems as though a lawsuit would be filed pretty quickly if Apple blocked Adobe's interpreted apps and didn't block Rhomobile/Unity3D/MonoTouch interpreted apps. Seems fair to block possibly harmful technologies, not competitive competitors. We all got pissed at Microsoft when they were giving themselves preferential treatment, but what if Microsoft had said "eeerrrrmmm, Wordperfect is no longer welcome on Windows, but AbiWord is okay".

ghshephard 16y ago
Okay, I'll bite. What law is being violated by Apple deciding who they wish to partner with and selectively give advantages (and disadvantages) to. What an amazing number of people (hackers included) don't understand from the 1999 ruling against Microsoft, is that Microsoft was ruled a Monopoly. Now that, per se, is certainly not illegal, but once you are a Monopoly, a large number of activities that previously were allowed, all of a sudden are now restricted. In the case of Microsoft, it was attempting to leverage a Monopoly in one market (Operating Systems) to takeover another one (Browsers). Apple is so, so, far away from being a Monopoly in any market that it's laughable. Profitable - yes. But I think they have like something of 25% of Market Share for Smart Phones, and less than 3% of the market for Mobile phones. And Android is aggressively courting developers/users who are interested in their Open and flexible platform. So, no - Apple is completely free to disallow competitors, and put them at a disadvantage, while allowing the Unity/Rhomobile's of the world.