4 ms·

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

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.

pjmlp 8y ago
No, because you fail to understand law. Apple does not have a monopoly regardless how many times you type the word, and come up with your own definitions.
xtian 8y ago
“Monopoly” is a term which can only be used in the context of a market. A market is defined only by the demand for some specific utility. iOS devices do not form their own market as the utility they provide is also provided by other products.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Normally I'd just agree, but... That doesn't jive with the "intel-based" part of the original version, though. A desktop is a desktop, and while there is a type of compatibility that matters to most users it's not the processor. So why is that use fair but not the other?
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Because the part quoted there is just one line that doesn't fully represent the case or the world in which it was set. At the time, there was no significant consumer market share for non-Intel-based computers. Microsoft had a monopoly on the personal computer operating system market. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on their own products isn't meaningful.

pjmlp 8y ago

No, because you fail to understand law. Apple does not have a monopoly regardless how many times you type the word, and come up with your own definitions.

xtian 8y ago

“Monopoly” is a term which can only be used in the context of a market. A market is defined only by the demand for some specific utility. iOS devices do not form their own market as the utility they provide is also provided by other products.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 8y ago
Normally I'd just agree, but... That doesn't jive with the "intel-based" part of the original version, though. A desktop is a desktop, and while there is a type of compatibility that matters to most users it's not the processor. So why is that use fair but not the other?
- code_duck 8y ago
  Because the part quoted there is just one line that doesn't fully represent the case or the world in which it was set. At the time, there was no significant consumer market share for non-Intel-based computers. Microsoft had a monopoly on the personal computer operating system market. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on their own products isn't meaningful.