5 ms·

> However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitiv

> However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices The practice of locking down hardware is many things, but textbook anticompetitive it does not seem to be. Apple isn't working with other vendors to fix prices (cheap Android devices are far more common), reduce quality, or innovation.

mankash666 8y ago
From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism
- artimaeis 8y ago
  How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Did you even read the article? The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE. The existence of other handset manufactures is irrelevant
    - artimaeis 8y ago
      > Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Considering you're declaring Apple's practices anti-competitive, I thought you were. Apple's competition is definitively other handset manufacturers. > The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE Okay so you're trying to lay down that Apple, who profits _billions_ per quarter on the iOS App Store, is actively engaging in practices which _discourage_ competition? I mean, I think I see where you're coming from, and that fits a kind of definition of anti-competitive practice. Since a developer can't offer software free of the app store Apple has manipulated their own market to discourage that kind of competition. Still the fact is that there is nothing _special_ about iPhones or any other phone. They have distinct user bases. Despite the fact that Apple does sell software on their platform, if they didn't I don't believe it would change their position on the value of the walled garden. Apple is competing with decidedly few software companies, and those it competes with seem to be able to manage just fine even on iOS (see: Apple Music v Spotify, Notes v many-notes-apps, Reminders v many-todo-apps, etc.). It's not as though Apple releases apps then removes competing apps from the app store _because_ of the competition. Either way, thanks for engaging. I doubt we agree, but it was good to explore the thought out some more.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Gillette Razor Blades are not a monopoly. They are simply part of a product which is in a highly competitive market. Talking about a monopoly within an ecosystem misses what a monopoly means in economic terms. It's a question of consumer choice and leverage.

mankash666 8y ago

From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism

artimaeis 8y ago
How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.
- mankash666 8y ago
  Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Did you even read the article? The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE. The existence of other handset manufactures is irrelevant
  - artimaeis 8y ago
    > Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Considering you're declaring Apple's practices anti-competitive, I thought you were. Apple's competition is definitively other handset manufacturers. > The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE Okay so you're trying to lay down that Apple, who profits _billions_ per quarter on the iOS App Store, is actively engaging in practices which _discourage_ competition? I mean, I think I see where you're coming from, and that fits a kind of definition of anti-competitive practice. Since a developer can't offer software free of the app store Apple has manipulated their own market to discourage that kind of competition. Still the fact is that there is nothing _special_ about iPhones or any other phone. They have distinct user bases. Despite the fact that Apple does sell software on their platform, if they didn't I don't believe it would change their position on the value of the walled garden. Apple is competing with decidedly few software companies, and those it competes with seem to be able to manage just fine even on iOS (see: Apple Music v Spotify, Notes v many-notes-apps, Reminders v many-todo-apps, etc.). It's not as though Apple releases apps then removes competing apps from the app store _because_ of the competition. Either way, thanks for engaging. I doubt we agree, but it was good to explore the thought out some more.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Gillette Razor Blades are not a monopoly. They are simply part of a product which is in a highly competitive market. Talking about a monopoly within an ecosystem misses what a monopoly means in economic terms. It's a question of consumer choice and leverage.