2 ms·

Apple/iOS has 100% on their platform. Noone stopped you back then from buying an Apple PC, installing Linux or BSD etc. either. Noone stopped you from installin

Apple/iOS has 100% on their platform. Noone stopped you back then from buying an Apple PC, installing Linux or BSD etc. either. Noone stopped you from installing an alternative browser on either Windows or Android, yet they got slapped for it.

chrisseaton 6y ago
This is like saying McDonald's have a monopoly because you can only buy McDonalds in a McDonalds restaurant... go somewhere else if you don't want the McDonalds menu.
- Avamander 6y ago
  Your analogy is just blatantly incorrect from the developer's perspective, very user-centric. You can't choose not to sell "patties" "McDonalds" if you want to actually sell your "patties". And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows and Chrome on Android, but it was still considered bad monopolistic behaviour and they got punished for it.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. Android is the dominant smartphone platform (per units shipped), so Google is closer being considered a monopoly. Apple does not have a monopoly in smartphones or computers, so I'm failing to see how any parallels here. The best argument you can hope to make is that a duopoly exists between Android and iOS, and the duopoly together should be treated as monopoly for practical purposes. But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly.
    - Avamander 6y ago
      > But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly. iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that. > Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that. Looks like 50/50, at most: * https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/ Maybe Android even has a little more: * https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... If the government wants to regulate the duopolist together as a monopoly, then let us say so and argue the pros/cons of that strategy. But saying that iOS has a monopoly when they do not is what is silly. > If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers. If Sun had a monopoly on scientific workstations, and they tried to leverage that to crush competition in another market, then that would make sense. But the only market in which there was a monopoly was consumer PCs, Microsoft had it, and they were found guilty of abusing it: > The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took a while to download or purchase such software at a store. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

chrisseaton 6y ago

This is like saying McDonald's have a monopoly because you can only buy McDonalds in a McDonalds restaurant... go somewhere else if you don't want the McDonalds menu.

Avamander 6y ago
Your analogy is just blatantly incorrect from the developer's perspective, very user-centric. You can't choose not to sell "patties" "McDonalds" if you want to actually sell your "patties". And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows and Chrome on Android, but it was still considered bad monopolistic behaviour and they got punished for it.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. Android is the dominant smartphone platform (per units shipped), so Google is closer being considered a monopoly. Apple does not have a monopoly in smartphones or computers, so I'm failing to see how any parallels here. The best argument you can hope to make is that a duopoly exists between Android and iOS, and the duopoly together should be treated as monopoly for practical purposes. But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly.
  - Avamander 6y ago
    > But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly. iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that. > Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers. If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that. Looks like 50/50, at most: * https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/ Maybe Android even has a little more: * https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... If the government wants to regulate the duopolist together as a monopoly, then let us say so and argue the pros/cons of that strategy. But saying that iOS has a monopoly when they do not is what is silly. > If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers. If Sun had a monopoly on scientific workstations, and they tried to leverage that to crush competition in another market, then that would make sense. But the only market in which there was a monopoly was consumer PCs, Microsoft had it, and they were found guilty of abusing it: > The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took a while to download or purchase such software at a store. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....