4 ms·
Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.
by Forge36 5y ago
Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.
- techrat 5y agoI would argue that makes it worse.
- IncRnd 5y agoAre you saying that Safari requires hardware-level apis?
- pjmlp 5y agoNope, all PCs came with Windows and OEMs willing to sell alternative computers didn't had volume discounts. It was a choice, but most decided to cave in and only sell PCs. Here that isn't the case, most shops selling iPhones also have other brands available. Customers aren't forced into buying iPhones.
- IncRnd 5y agoYou raised the bar that is required. It is more appropriate to look whether iPhones are a dominant brand, not whether they are the only brand.
- weare138 5y agoAnti-trust cases aren't decided on binary terms. It's the overall act that's illegal. In other words just because the situation with Apple is different from Microsoft's anti-trust case doesn't mean Apple could not be violating the law. Paying or accepting money for the purposes of a company receiving an unfair competitive advantage is also covered under anti-trust laws such as the Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....