3 ms·

That’s not what I’m saying. The case law on this is not as definitive as you are claiming. I don’t think their behavior is illegally anti-competitive. Sure, y

by zaroth 6y ago

That’s not what I’m saying. The case law on this is not as definitive as you are claiming. I don’t think their behavior is illegally anti-competitive. Sure, you can say that not supporting a specific 3rd party application (e.g. an App Store) on your device is “anti-competitive” but obviously not illegally so for any business. Behavior which is totally legal can become illegal in a monopoly situation.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Dude, you're the one who said > Their device, their decision. The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not. and now you're telling me that the case law isn't definitive? That's my whole point - you're making strong assertions as if they are the way the law works, when they are just your personal opinion on how things ought to work. Numerous decisions in the past have required companies to change how they do things on their devices. I'm not saying the case will be decided against Apple.
- zaroth 6y ago
  It comes down to what you mean by anti-competitive. If you mean illegally anti-competitive then there’s a debate to be had. If you mean “anti-competitive” in the sense that they don’t offer their entire code base MIT licensed, then 100% they are anti-competitive in that sense, and they have every right to choose to be. To somewhat oversimplify, you are allowed to not invite competitors to sell to your customers in your own backyard. Unless you are a monopoly. Because then that “backyard” isn’t rightfully yours to control. At the moment I am inclined to believe the iPhone is Apple’s own backyard and they should have dominion over what happens there. If you want to confiscate Apple’s backyard, you do it at the risk that you damage a company that has done a great service for the world, and a company that IMO deserves the benefit of controlling its own destiny and should be left to continue innovating on its own terms. If someone thinks they can do better then there’s trillions of dollars in market cap on the line and I welcome them to try. Apple won’t stop them from trying, but will certainly compete fiercely on the merits.

by zaroth 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

Dude, you're the one who said > Their device, their decision. The consumer gets to decide if they like it or not. and now you're telling me that the case law isn't definitive? That's my whole point - you're making strong assertions as if they are the way the law works, when they are just your personal opinion on how things ought to work. Numerous decisions in the past have required companies to change how they do things on their devices. I'm not saying the case will be decided against Apple.

zaroth 6y ago
It comes down to what you mean by anti-competitive. If you mean illegally anti-competitive then there’s a debate to be had. If you mean “anti-competitive” in the sense that they don’t offer their entire code base MIT licensed, then 100% they are anti-competitive in that sense, and they have every right to choose to be. To somewhat oversimplify, you are allowed to not invite competitors to sell to your customers in your own backyard. Unless you are a monopoly. Because then that “backyard” isn’t rightfully yours to control. At the moment I am inclined to believe the iPhone is Apple’s own backyard and they should have dominion over what happens there. If you want to confiscate Apple’s backyard, you do it at the risk that you damage a company that has done a great service for the world, and a company that IMO deserves the benefit of controlling its own destiny and should be left to continue innovating on its own terms. If someone thinks they can do better then there’s trillions of dollars in market cap on the line and I welcome them to try. Apple won’t stop them from trying, but will certainly compete fiercely on the merits.