12 ms·

The majority of Facebook's users are outside of the US, and it is smaller than other big US tech companies (https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap https:

The majority of Facebook's users are outside of the US, and it is smaller than other big US tech companies (https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap). I'd rather see antitrust brought against a company using other kinds of anti competitive tactics. Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform... And extracting 30% on every transaction, including your competitors? Imagine if Microsoft tried taking a 30% cut of every transaction that passed through Internet Explorer, or Windows, in the 1990s Apple's market cap is bigger than Facebook's. Almost twice as big. https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/market_cap https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/market_cap

United857 8y ago
Unlike 1990s Microsoft, Apple is far from a monopoly in terms of market share. And Apple doesn't take money off browser-based transactions, so that's a flawed analogy.
- ghostcluster 8y ago
  It seems it is a bigger chunk of the economy than Microsoft was in the 1990s Microsoft didn't take 30% of Windows based transactions. Can you imagine what would've happened if they had tried?
  - johncolanduoni 8y ago
    What does that have to do with its lack of support for a particular API being anti-competitive? On the contrary, it’s giving Android (or other future mobile platforms) a vector to distinguish itself.
    - ghostcluster 8y ago
      It's a tactic to artificially reinforce the position of a propreitary API in the market (by killing support for its competitors)
      - johncolanduoni 8y ago
        They’re not selling an API, and if (built in) support on virtually all desktops and about half of mobile devices in the US (higher elsewhere in the world) aren’t enough to keep Vulkan alive and well I’d be pretty shocked. Vulkan wasn’t around when Metal started. Is it really their responsibility to kill their pre-existing API because an open one finally showed up?
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > Is it really their responsibility to kill their pre-existing API because an open one finally showed up? Well... Yes. If they want to do best by their users.
  - dasil003 8y ago
    They also didn’t collect the payment and host the binaries for unlimited volumes of $0.99 shovelware.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      It's really difficult for some people to understand that there is incredible value provided by retailers. And that there is a reason why manufacturers have historically not been vertically integrated with retailers.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    They would've been welcome to do that, if they didn't have a monopoly. There are different rules if you have a monopoly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
code_duck 8y ago
Anti-competitive tactics are only illegal for companies with monopoly positions. Google is far closer to that than Apple for phone operating systems, and would have a monopoly except for... Apple. Apple has something like 5-15% of the global phone market, which is nowhere near a monopoly, obviously.
lord_ring_11 8y ago
Apple is not a monopoly, even google is not a monopoly. facebook is. Fb is either buying or using its reach to enter into other markets. Messaging, videos (youtube), stories (snapchat), crowd sourcing (gofundme), marketplace (offerup). In all these it is using its existing dominance in one market to enter into other which is classical case of antitrust.
- ipsum2 8y ago
  Wait, what? You said Facebook is a monopoly, but just listed competitors in every single area Facebook is in.
  - tehsauce 8y ago
    Those are the competitors in spaces that facebook is currently invading, not its core
    - aylmao 8y ago
      It's been like this with every big tech company though; Microsoft had (has?) a monopoly on the desktop OS (the only OS that mattered back then), before it diversified. Google had (has?) a monopoly on search before it diversified. Amazon has a monopoly on e-commerce, and is just now starting to really diversify. Apple is the only exception-- they aren't really a "software" company though. Claiming that Facebook should be broken up but not other big-tech companies isn't taking this into account.
      - otabdeveloper1 8y ago
        > Google had (has?) a monopoly on search before it diversified. Search is not Google's product.
      - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
        We should break up most of them. Conglomerates and market concentration are bad for innovation and competition in general.
ulfw 8y ago
Do you think the majority of Apple's, Google's, Microsoft's etc. users are not also outside of the US?? US Population is 325 MM vs 7300 MM outside the US
pjmlp 8y ago
> Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform... A platform owner is free to do whatever it feels like on their platform, provided it respects the law. You are quite outdated about the state of OpenGL in Windows. The only thing Microsoft did was to let ICD drivers be around for desktop applications. OpenGL is not supported on UWP or Win32 store apps, nor the Windows 10 UI compositor. Finally, contrary to OpenGL urban myths,game consoles always favored their own 3D APIs, with the exception of OpenGL ES 1.0's failure on the PS3.
- ponyfleisch 8y ago
  > > Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform... > A platform owner is free to do whatever it feels like on their platform, provided it respects the law. The law that would come to mind here is the Sherman Antitrust Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    "The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales" Thing is, Apple platforms aren't a monopoly at the eye of the law. You are free to just use something else with bigger market share.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      Can I just change that to "The plaintiffs alleged that Apple abused monopoly power on A10, A10x, and A11 based smartphones and tablet computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales" Would that make it a monopoly? IIRC Apple didn't sell Intel based machines when Microsoft lost this case so IIRC there was only the tiny Linux market (at the time) relative to MS. No one else sells A10, A10x, and A11 based devices so Apple does have a monopoly there by that definition. I'm frustrated that I can't replace Apple Maps with Google Maps so that it's the integrated "map" function in iOS. I can't use real Chrome, which has a proven record of being faster and more secure than Safari, on my iPhone, even if it happened to use more battery. Frustrated can't make gmail my default mail app so clicking a mailto link goes to Apple's Mail app. I'm frustrated that it's extremely hard to run GPLed software on iOS (requires $99 a year and self-signing or free and resigning every week). No Kodi. No EMUs. I would love to see Apple change their polices there.
emiliobumachar 8y ago
You did say "in the 1990's", but for the record, these days MS does take 30% in the Windows app store.
- bena 8y ago
  Right? They're pretending Apple just came up with this idea, but they basically copied the model from Xbox Live, PSN, and Steam. They realized that by being the curators of the platform, they could charge developers for access to it.

United857 8y ago

Unlike 1990s Microsoft, Apple is far from a monopoly in terms of market share. And Apple doesn't take money off browser-based transactions, so that's a flawed analogy.

ghostcluster 8y ago
It seems it is a bigger chunk of the economy than Microsoft was in the 1990s Microsoft didn't take 30% of Windows based transactions. Can you imagine what would've happened if they had tried?
- johncolanduoni 8y ago
  What does that have to do with its lack of support for a particular API being anti-competitive? On the contrary, it’s giving Android (or other future mobile platforms) a vector to distinguish itself.
  - ghostcluster 8y ago
    It's a tactic to artificially reinforce the position of a propreitary API in the market (by killing support for its competitors)
    - johncolanduoni 8y ago
      They’re not selling an API, and if (built in) support on virtually all desktops and about half of mobile devices in the US (higher elsewhere in the world) aren’t enough to keep Vulkan alive and well I’d be pretty shocked. Vulkan wasn’t around when Metal started. Is it really their responsibility to kill their pre-existing API because an open one finally showed up?
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > Is it really their responsibility to kill their pre-existing API because an open one finally showed up? Well... Yes. If they want to do best by their users.
- dasil003 8y ago
  They also didn’t collect the payment and host the binaries for unlimited volumes of $0.99 shovelware.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    It's really difficult for some people to understand that there is incredible value provided by retailers. And that there is a reason why manufacturers have historically not been vertically integrated with retailers.
- code_duck 8y ago
  They would've been welcome to do that, if they didn't have a monopoly. There are different rules if you have a monopoly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

code_duck 8y ago

Anti-competitive tactics are only illegal for companies with monopoly positions. Google is far closer to that than Apple for phone operating systems, and would have a monopoly except for... Apple. Apple has something like 5-15% of the global phone market, which is nowhere near a monopoly, obviously.

lord_ring_11 8y ago

Apple is not a monopoly, even google is not a monopoly. facebook is. Fb is either buying or using its reach to enter into other markets. Messaging, videos (youtube), stories (snapchat), crowd sourcing (gofundme), marketplace (offerup). In all these it is using its existing dominance in one market to enter into other which is classical case of antitrust.

ipsum2 8y ago
Wait, what? You said Facebook is a monopoly, but just listed competitors in every single area Facebook is in.
- tehsauce 8y ago
  Those are the competitors in spaces that facebook is currently invading, not its core
  - aylmao 8y ago
    It's been like this with every big tech company though; Microsoft had (has?) a monopoly on the desktop OS (the only OS that mattered back then), before it diversified. Google had (has?) a monopoly on search before it diversified. Amazon has a monopoly on e-commerce, and is just now starting to really diversify. Apple is the only exception-- they aren't really a "software" company though. Claiming that Facebook should be broken up but not other big-tech companies isn't taking this into account.
    - otabdeveloper1 8y ago
      > Google had (has?) a monopoly on search before it diversified. Search is not Google's product.
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      We should break up most of them. Conglomerates and market concentration are bad for innovation and competition in general.

ulfw 8y ago

Do you think the majority of Apple's, Google's, Microsoft's etc. users are not also outside of the US?? US Population is 325 MM vs 7300 MM outside the US

pjmlp 8y ago

> Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform... A platform owner is free to do whatever it feels like on their platform, provided it respects the law. You are quite outdated about the state of OpenGL in Windows. The only thing Microsoft did was to let ICD drivers be around for desktop applications. OpenGL is not supported on UWP or Win32 store apps, nor the Windows 10 UI compositor. Finally, contrary to OpenGL urban myths,game consoles always favored their own 3D APIs, with the exception of OpenGL ES 1.0's failure on the PS3.

ponyfleisch 8y ago
> > Why deprecate OpenGL and not support Vulkan, Apple? Even with DirectX, Microsoft always maintained updated OpenGL on their platform... > A platform owner is free to do whatever it feels like on their platform, provided it respects the law. The law that would come to mind here is the Sherman Antitrust Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- pjmlp 8y ago
  "The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales" Thing is, Apple platforms aren't a monopoly at the eye of the law. You are free to just use something else with bigger market share.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    Can I just change that to "The plaintiffs alleged that Apple abused monopoly power on A10, A10x, and A11 based smartphones and tablet computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales" Would that make it a monopoly? IIRC Apple didn't sell Intel based machines when Microsoft lost this case so IIRC there was only the tiny Linux market (at the time) relative to MS. No one else sells A10, A10x, and A11 based devices so Apple does have a monopoly there by that definition. I'm frustrated that I can't replace Apple Maps with Google Maps so that it's the integrated "map" function in iOS. I can't use real Chrome, which has a proven record of being faster and more secure than Safari, on my iPhone, even if it happened to use more battery. Frustrated can't make gmail my default mail app so clicking a mailto link goes to Apple's Mail app. I'm frustrated that it's extremely hard to run GPLed software on iOS (requires $99 a year and self-signing or free and resigning every week). No Kodi. No EMUs. I would love to see Apple change their polices there.

emiliobumachar 8y ago

You did say "in the 1990's", but for the record, these days MS does take 30% in the Windows app store.

bena 8y ago
Right? They're pretending Apple just came up with this idea, but they basically copied the model from Xbox Live, PSN, and Steam. They realized that by being the curators of the platform, they could charge developers for access to it.