3 ms·

I am arguing it is constrained by its manufacturer and that consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase. That is sufficient for the consumer to ta

I am arguing it is constrained by its manufacturer and that consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase. That is sufficient for the consumer to take on liability if the choice does not meet their needs.

bduerst 7y ago
Again, a consumer using something doesn't justify anti-competitive behavior with companies. If the bar for antitrust was whether or not a person bought it, then there wouldn't be a need for antitrust law.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  I would recommend looking up what antitrust does and does not cover. This is not suitable grounds for antitrust arguments as the law is currently given; if you were arguing 'Apple has a monopoly on Apple-exclusive apps', you might have a case, but even then there are many apps that are cross platform, and those that choose to develop exclusively for Apple are making a market decision that they may be liable for if the cost of production increases because of it. I don't think you can argue platform monopoly here any more than you could argue, say, that Amazon has a monopoly on AWS-specific services. Since an app developer can choose which platform to use with approximate levels of parity between those platforms and a few distinctive services per platform, it is my opinion that the 'platform monopoly' argument is rendered void. This argument is only weakened in recent years as feature parity increases between Android and Apple ecosystems.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Vertically integrating and excluding competition is exactly what antitrust covers! The monopoly that Apple has on the app store for the devices it sells allows it to exploit consumers with pricing. That's the case that the Supreme Court has allowed to move forward. AWS is also a platform but they don't lock customers into only using AWS or AWS-licensed services. This is almost as preposterous as saying, "Someone bought it, so it's not anti-competitive".
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      All the vertical integration Apple has been able to muster hasn't prevented more open competition from growing in the smartphone market, so your point continues to remain moot. Again, to make your case, you must argue that Apple products are categorically different from any other device available on market and that they are preventing new entrants from competing with it, which is so blatantly not the case here.
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        Addendum after edit time passed: the final and primary criticism I'm making about this argument is this: if you selectively narrow your view to the Apple ecosystem and ignore all external entities, you would easily come to the conclusions you are coming to. I believe that is an artificial and distorting narrowing of the scope that must be considered in this argument.
pier25 7y ago
Consumers were well aware of Internet Explorer not being removable from Windows too. So?
- Fellshard 7y ago
  This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones are non-general, insofar as they are not made for user programmability from the device itself. Secondly, that MS case is a different matter than the one cited here, and does not map well onto this case. Thirdly, the major precedent of the original ruling appears to have been overturned shortly after. This damages the argument somewhat. The ruling seems scurrilous in the first place, in my opinion.
  - pier25 7y ago
    1. Apple advertised the iPad (which is also an iOS device) as a laptop replacement. 2. My point is not to compare the two cases, legally speaking, but you argued that "consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase". Well, consumers were well aware of the limitations of Windows and that didn't change the fact that Microsoft was charged with unlawful monopolization. 3. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
    - millstone 7y ago
      A key finding was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the PC OS market, with marketshare > 90%. If 90's Microsoft had Apple's marketshare today, <50% in US, the judgement would have been absurd.
      - Fellshard 7y ago
        Defining monopoly as level of market share and not just shutting out competition has always and will always be a mistake.

bduerst 7y ago

Again, a consumer using something doesn't justify anti-competitive behavior with companies. If the bar for antitrust was whether or not a person bought it, then there wouldn't be a need for antitrust law.

Fellshard 7y ago
I would recommend looking up what antitrust does and does not cover. This is not suitable grounds for antitrust arguments as the law is currently given; if you were arguing 'Apple has a monopoly on Apple-exclusive apps', you might have a case, but even then there are many apps that are cross platform, and those that choose to develop exclusively for Apple are making a market decision that they may be liable for if the cost of production increases because of it. I don't think you can argue platform monopoly here any more than you could argue, say, that Amazon has a monopoly on AWS-specific services. Since an app developer can choose which platform to use with approximate levels of parity between those platforms and a few distinctive services per platform, it is my opinion that the 'platform monopoly' argument is rendered void. This argument is only weakened in recent years as feature parity increases between Android and Apple ecosystems.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Vertically integrating and excluding competition is exactly what antitrust covers! The monopoly that Apple has on the app store for the devices it sells allows it to exploit consumers with pricing. That's the case that the Supreme Court has allowed to move forward. AWS is also a platform but they don't lock customers into only using AWS or AWS-licensed services. This is almost as preposterous as saying, "Someone bought it, so it's not anti-competitive".
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    All the vertical integration Apple has been able to muster hasn't prevented more open competition from growing in the smartphone market, so your point continues to remain moot. Again, to make your case, you must argue that Apple products are categorically different from any other device available on market and that they are preventing new entrants from competing with it, which is so blatantly not the case here.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Addendum after edit time passed: the final and primary criticism I'm making about this argument is this: if you selectively narrow your view to the Apple ecosystem and ignore all external entities, you would easily come to the conclusions you are coming to. I believe that is an artificial and distorting narrowing of the scope that must be considered in this argument.

pier25 7y ago

Consumers were well aware of Internet Explorer not being removable from Windows too. So?

Fellshard 7y ago
This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones are non-general, insofar as they are not made for user programmability from the device itself. Secondly, that MS case is a different matter than the one cited here, and does not map well onto this case. Thirdly, the major precedent of the original ruling appears to have been overturned shortly after. This damages the argument somewhat. The ruling seems scurrilous in the first place, in my opinion.
- pier25 7y ago
  1. Apple advertised the iPad (which is also an iOS device) as a laptop replacement. 2. My point is not to compare the two cases, legally speaking, but you argued that "consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase". Well, consumers were well aware of the limitations of Windows and that didn't change the fact that Microsoft was charged with unlawful monopolization. 3. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
  - millstone 7y ago
    A key finding was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the PC OS market, with marketshare > 90%. If 90's Microsoft had Apple's marketshare today, <50% in US, the judgement would have been absurd.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Defining monopoly as level of market share and not just shutting out competition has always and will always be a mistake.