4 ms·
it's clearly anti-competitive, then and now. whether it's an abuse of monopoly power or an anti-trust violation is open for debate (particularly, how you defin
by clairity 6y ago
it's clearly anti-competitive, then and now.
whether it's an abuse of monopoly power or an anti-trust violation is open for debate (particularly, how you define markets for analytical purposes).
- bdcravens 6y agoGiven the high percentage of Android phones, there was no monopoly to abuse.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThey had legitimate cause to keep a bloated, buggy, resource hog off of iPhone 1. Adobe had plenty of time to clean up their act and never has.
- simonh 6y agoDo you think companies should always be expected adopt and implement the proprietary products and technology of other companies in their products? That seems like an extremely broad expectation. For example cars nowadays have computerised entertainment systems. If your a car manufacturer and I bring out a service for use in cars with a free client app, should I be able to sue you if you don't put my client app in your car and integrate it into your infotainment systems at no cost to me? If I bring out a new proprietary internet technology, should I be able to sue all the phone manufacturers that don't build in support for it into their phones at their own expense? I'm having difficulty seeing how this ability for companies to unilaterally impose obligations on other companies, enforceable on anti-trust grounds is practical.