2 ms·

You'd be surprised what someone who runs a food truck or works in real estate "needs" to project "success". Actual protip: get out of your tech bubble for two

• nl 5y ago
  A brand requirement to establish prestige seems a weak anti-trust case. Infact, a judge might see it as a counter argument. If prestige is the reason people buy Apple then almost by definition there must be alternatives.
• hraedon 5y ago
  "I need this specific platform to succeed for some reason" does not somehow make that platform a monopoly that should be subject to regulatory action. Apple's management of their platform is not unique, is not meaningfully different from their competitors, and not meaningfully different from the management of similar stores in different industries. Even assuming they actually have built a strong enough brand that people are judged for having a competing product, I fail to see how requiring changes to the App Store solves that problem.
• coldtea 5y ago
  Adding true clauses (e.g. some people want an iphone to project success) doesn't necessarily make a true argument. The conclusion must also be supported by the clauses. In this case, an argument which amounts to: "People need to have an iPhone because some business owners feel they need it to project success, thus Apple has a monopoly on something essential" is so random it can't be even be called wrong. Whether some "business owners" feel they need an iPhone to "project success" doesn't mean anything, and is an absolutely moot point as to whether Apple is a monopoly, or even as to whether the iPhone is an essential good, or whatever else you had in mind.