4 ms·
It doesn't have a monopoly. Now if one restaurant chain controlled 50% of the market, suddenly you've got good reason to treat them as a platform and regulate t
by eloff 6y ago
It doesn't have a monopoly. Now if one restaurant chain controlled 50% of the market, suddenly you've got good reason to treat them as a platform and regulate them accordingly.
- jpttsn 6y agoOnce I’m in he restaurant, it has a monopoly. The same way Apple has a monopoly once I’m in the App Store. Apple is the only seller of apps on my Apple phone. Burger King is the only seller/provider of plates and cutlery at my local Burger King.
- eloff 6y agoThe difference is, if you don't like it you can leave the restaurant and choose any other. You have no lock in. Once you've bought an iOS device, you can't buy apps anywhere else. Even if you forget the sunk cost you just have two providers to choose from.
- jpttsn 6y agoI can always get my next phone from Samsung, just as I can always get my next meal from McDonalds. But this meal is locked in. If I don’t like the pickles on my whopper, they don’t provide McDonald’s pickles, do they? The don’t allow me to get a McFlurry with my Chicken Sandwich? Bundling is allowed in every other instance and is key to many great products. Apple can do it too.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThis comparison of situation in restaraunts and mobiles is laughable. It reads as either disingenuous or daft.
- notSupplied 6y agoYou are significantly more locked in to your phone than your meal. There are also more choices for where to eat that what phone OS you want to have. Your phone OS is also a gateway to many different industries. Transactions made on a smart phone make up an ever expanding portion of economic activity, whereas eating-at-restaurant generally remains a constant portion of consumer spend.
- aabbcc1241 6y agoBut Apple phone is not your only choice