5 ms·

Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engin

Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engines. Though, afaik, Apple does not stoop to the levels of Amazon, who removed the Twitch app from Roku platform for absolutely no reason other than to line their pockets with more cash.

joshred 9y ago
Before they purchased it?
- connorelsea 9y ago
  Nah, after - to make it a "Fire TV Exclusive" app http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...
baddox 9y ago
Aren’t anticompetitive and anti-consumer two completely separate things?
- connorelsea 9y ago
  Yes, but I would say that anti-competitive behavior is inherently anti-consumer, as the consumer does not benefit from it - and Apple preventing other browser engines is both
Someone 9y ago
Anti-trust is there for cases where society thinks 1) the free market doesn’t work because it is too hard for competition to enter an existing market or for existing competition to dethrone a market leader. _and_ 2) the big player(s) take (too much) advantage of their position by engaging in ‘anti-consumer’ practices. Given the existence of Android, Apple isn’t in position 1. So, do you think (2) alone is sufficient for taking legal action? The common thinking is that the market will take care of it by by bankrupting the company doing it.
- devit 9y ago
  Android doesn't run iOS apps. Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. They abuse all of them (e.g. the Webkit-only issue for iOS, monopoly pricing on iPhones, censorship in App Store). Conversely e.g. Google has none of these monopolies except for the monopoly in running perfectly apps that require Google Play Services.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    > Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. You could also say that Samsung has a monopoly of smartphones with "SAMSUNG" printed on them.

joshred 9y ago

Before they purchased it?

connorelsea 9y ago
Nah, after - to make it a "Fire TV Exclusive" app http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...

baddox 9y ago

Aren’t anticompetitive and anti-consumer two completely separate things?

connorelsea 9y ago
Yes, but I would say that anti-competitive behavior is inherently anti-consumer, as the consumer does not benefit from it - and Apple preventing other browser engines is both

Someone 9y ago

Anti-trust is there for cases where society thinks 1) the free market doesn’t work because it is too hard for competition to enter an existing market or for existing competition to dethrone a market leader. _and_ 2) the big player(s) take (too much) advantage of their position by engaging in ‘anti-consumer’ practices. Given the existence of Android, Apple isn’t in position 1. So, do you think (2) alone is sufficient for taking legal action? The common thinking is that the market will take care of it by by bankrupting the company doing it.

devit 9y ago
Android doesn't run iOS apps. Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. They abuse all of them (e.g. the Webkit-only issue for iOS, monopoly pricing on iPhones, censorship in App Store). Conversely e.g. Google has none of these monopolies except for the monopoly in running perfectly apps that require Google Play Services.
- jhasse 9y ago
  > Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. You could also say that Samsung has a monopoly of smartphones with "SAMSUNG" printed on them.