4 ms·
Microsoft was a supplier accused of abusing its market share to disadvantage other suppliers. They did not get prosecuted for being popular. Apple is not a sup
by snowwrestler 6y ago
Microsoft was a supplier accused of abusing its market share to disadvantage other suppliers. They did not get prosecuted for being popular.
Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers. They don’t even try to make their app store available on competing phones, even if it is technically possible.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Apple is not a supplier. They only sell directly to consumers Nitpick: Apple Music competing with Spotify is remarkably similar to the Microsoft case. (Epic's case is weaker.)
- snowwrestler 6y agoApple sells the computer. There is a reason Microsoft got prosecuted for those 90s contracts and not Gateway. OEMs have the right to decide what software they install at the factory. Apple Music is available in the Google Play Store but I don’t know of any credible accusation that Apple has tried to get Google to kick Spotify out.
- pjmlp 6y agoPC market share.
- FrojoS 6y agoBut Apple doesn’t take a cut on my Spotify subscription, afaik.
- chc 6y agoMe: Nobody's saying it's Apple's fault that they're in a duopoly position in the phone space, but that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility that position holds either. What is Apple's fault is that they're using their position in one market to force out potential competitors in other markets. You: Microsoft did not get prosecuted for being popular. How does that response follow at all?
- snowwrestler 6y agoIt’s not illegal or wrong to use your position in one market to enter and compete in other markets. If it was, Disney Plus would be illegal, and so would fresh groceries in Target. That’s not what Microsoft got in trouble for.