5 ms·

The Apple Store has 100% market share on all iPhones, iPads and iWatches. I really don't see this being that much different from the famous United States v. Mi

The Apple Store has 100% market share on all iPhones, iPads and iWatches. I really don't see this being that much different from the famous United States v. Microsoft Corp. case[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... EDIT: comments have made clear that Windows had a monopoly on the personal computer space, whereas Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet space.

ninedays 8y ago
Although I don't disagree, the difference was that Microsoft had a monopoly on computing. Not just on PC but take computing as a whole and microsoft was hugely dominant. From a legal standpoint there is a huge difference.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Desktop computing -- in the 90s in the server area there was more competition, primarily from Netware. It wasn't until the end of the 90s when macs started making an impression on peoples desktops, with the imac, but oddly enough if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems#/media/File:Operatingsystem_market_share.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operati... is to be believed, windows still has a 95% share of the desktop/laptop market.
  - ZeikJT 8y ago
    I believe it because Windows comes on all kinds of devices and supports all kinds of hardware mixes and SKUs. It effectively encompasses the entire price range in a way that Apple doesn't care to.
close04 8y ago
MS had a monopoly in the personal computer industry. Apple does not have one in the mobile industry. By this logic Mercedes has a monopoly on all Mercedes cars but they're clearly not one in the auto industry. If Mercedes ever decides to ban or squeeze a supplier, monopoly will not be the argument to nail them. I'm not saying Apple is right to do this. I'm saying the monopoly on their own product is not the correct argument. Apple is not a monopoly. If they lose this case it won't be based on this.
- askmike 8y ago
  Fair point.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
simonh 8y ago
The other posters are right about the Microsofty monopoly, but what made it particularly egregious was Microsoft's anti-competitive practices using their market dominance to actively damage or destroy competitors. This included: * Contractually barring licensees from offering competing OSes, or selling boxes without Windows installed. * Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software. * Pinching competitor's technology using their advantages as platform owner and rolling it into their own products (Stac). There was more, but those were the main ones.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  >* Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software. Such as leveraging their preferred status to get dominance for Apple Music (by being able to charge less since they aren't subject to a 30% Apple Store 'fee')?

ninedays 8y ago

Although I don't disagree, the difference was that Microsoft had a monopoly on computing. Not just on PC but take computing as a whole and microsoft was hugely dominant. From a legal standpoint there is a huge difference.

isostatic 8y ago
Desktop computing -- in the 90s in the server area there was more competition, primarily from Netware. It wasn't until the end of the 90s when macs started making an impression on peoples desktops, with the imac, but oddly enough if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems#/media/File:Operatingsystem_market_share.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operati... is to be believed, windows still has a 95% share of the desktop/laptop market.
- ZeikJT 8y ago
  I believe it because Windows comes on all kinds of devices and supports all kinds of hardware mixes and SKUs. It effectively encompasses the entire price range in a way that Apple doesn't care to.

close04 8y ago

MS had a monopoly in the personal computer industry. Apple does not have one in the mobile industry. By this logic Mercedes has a monopoly on all Mercedes cars but they're clearly not one in the auto industry. If Mercedes ever decides to ban or squeeze a supplier, monopoly will not be the argument to nail them. I'm not saying Apple is right to do this. I'm saying the monopoly on their own product is not the correct argument. Apple is not a monopoly. If they lose this case it won't be based on this.

askmike 8y ago
Fair point.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simonh 8y ago

The other posters are right about the Microsofty monopoly, but what made it particularly egregious was Microsoft's anti-competitive practices using their market dominance to actively damage or destroy competitors. This included: * Contractually barring licensees from offering competing OSes, or selling boxes without Windows installed. * Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software. * Pinching competitor's technology using their advantages as platform owner and rolling it into their own products (Stac). There was more, but those were the main ones.

FireBeyond 8y ago
>* Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software. Such as leveraging their preferred status to get dominance for Apple Music (by being able to charge less since they aren't subject to a 30% Apple Store 'fee')?