4 ms·
We already have laws for this. Look up what “anti trust” is. The real question you should be asking is “why are anti trust rules not functioning properly” or w
by zadokshi 6y ago
We already have laws for this. Look up what “anti trust” is. The real question you should be asking is “why are anti trust rules not functioning properly” or why aren’t they being applied for this generation?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alexashka 6y agoI'm well aware of the reasons why. I'm simply using baby-steps to get others to inch their way towards realizing it, instead of naively hoping Apple or some other entity is their mommy/daddy figure that needs to be pleaded with.
- scarface74 6y agoTrue. Why isn’t anti trust going after a company that is less than 50% of the market.....
- manigandham 6y agoPerhaps "anti trust" needs to be revisited as a broader concept. A similar corollary is the "right to repair" which often falls under the same excuse of being able to use a competitor's product but ignores the high price consumers in giving up any control over what they purchased.
- scarface74 6y agoSure. Let’s give the government more power. What could possibly go wrong?
- zadokshi 6y agoNot sure why they would need to have more than 50% to be facing anti-trust issues, but it doesn't matter, Apple is already at 50% of the market. https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-global-smartphone-market-share-more-50-first-time/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/apple-global-smartphone-ma...
- scarface74 6y agoEven so, 50% is hardly a monopoly and consumers have plenty of other viable, cheaper options.
- chiefsucker 6y agoTo have a monopoly doesn’t mean to have a specific market share, it means to show monopolistic behavior.
- scarface74 6y agoYeah so I am sure the Justice Department would sue Apple for having a monopoly of enough people complained about how it treats Mac developers. That’s not how it works....