5 ms·

Monopoly means lack of competition, not lack of consumer choice. High end consumers prefer Apple devices, but nothing stops them or anyone from going out to buy

Monopoly means lack of competition, not lack of consumer choice. High end consumers prefer Apple devices, but nothing stops them or anyone from going out to buy any Android device they want, or any PC they want.

cma 4y ago
Sure there is, Apple has done the same kind of bundling Microsoft got busted for. Switch from Safari to Firefox on your desktop and now your browser won't sync tabs to your phone unless you use the fake webkit-in-sheeps-clothing version of Firefox that Apple has mandated and maintains insane control over (no real ad blockers, only limited ones).
- macintux 4y ago
  …when Microsoft held, what, a 90% market share?
  - cma 4y ago
    What's Apple's dollar share of the market? The low end isn't as relevant on a per device level to the market.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Dollar share? That’s not a definition of a monopoly.
      - cma 4y ago
        Dollar share of a market is 9ne measure of market share that can be used; and a large enough market can be split into segments when applying monopoly tests.
        scarface74 4y ago
        And I’m sure you have case law that the high priced lawyers couldn’t find that would have convinced the judge in the Epic trial that Apple was a monopoly?
        cma 4y ago
        What was the standard of proof used in that one?
        scarface74 4y ago
        Well, I would assume whatever it was, a bunch of high priced lawyers would have a better strategy and didn’t miss a line of argument that was found by a random person on HN.
- threeseed 4y ago
  I'm confused what your problem is here. You use Firefox on your desktop and you're upset at Apple because you need to use Firefox on your mobile in order for tabs etc to sync. Are you also upset at Apple for needing to use Lightroom on your desktop and mobile for photos to sync ?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Microsoft never got “busted” in the US for bundling IE and absolutely nothing change. Microsoft got “busted” for forcing OEMs to pay for Windows licenses even for computers that didn’t ship with Windows. Would you actually want a computer to ship with nothing? Also your other talking point about no “real adblockers” is at least a year out of date. Safari has supported standard extensions for over a year not just JSON based content blocking rules.
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    The alternatives weren't nothing or Windows. OEMs had other options even in the 90s. Would OS\2 have done a little better in the marketplace to actually carve out a niche? Would desktop Linux be a better experience since OEMs could have had machines designed and targeted with Linux in mind back in 1997? Would BeOS still be around? Had OEMs not be forced to pay for Windows licences for all computers shipped regardless of whether it actually included Windows or not perhaps they wouldn't have shipped Windows so damn much?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      I conflated two separate issues: 1. Microsoft was held accountable and forced to stop making OEMs pay Windows licenses for computers that didn’t ship with Windows. As an aside, there is no “Windows tax”. OEMs make more than enough by bundling third party crapware it more than pays for Windows. But third party OSs - especially Linux was never going to be big on the desktop without third party commercial support. The only Unix[1] operating system that has ever gained any traction on the desktop is MacOS and Apple makes sure they bend over backwards to keep Microsoft and Adobe happy. I sold IBM Aptivas briefly in the 90s that came with OS/2 at Radio Shack. They were not going to overtake the world. 2. As far as “bundling” in 2022, would you suggest any platform come without a browser? Macs, Windows, ChromeOS computers, iOS and Android all come with browsers. What would the consumer experience be like if all platforms just came with an empty desktop and they had to download everything? [1] yes MacOS is real certified Unix.
      - goosedragons 4y ago

cma 4y ago

Sure there is, Apple has done the same kind of bundling Microsoft got busted for. Switch from Safari to Firefox on your desktop and now your browser won't sync tabs to your phone unless you use the fake webkit-in-sheeps-clothing version of Firefox that Apple has mandated and maintains insane control over (no real ad blockers, only limited ones).

macintux 4y ago
…when Microsoft held, what, a 90% market share?
- cma 4y ago
  What's Apple's dollar share of the market? The low end isn't as relevant on a per device level to the market.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Dollar share? That’s not a definition of a monopoly.
    - cma 4y ago
      Dollar share of a market is 9ne measure of market share that can be used; and a large enough market can be split into segments when applying monopoly tests.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And I’m sure you have case law that the high priced lawyers couldn’t find that would have convinced the judge in the Epic trial that Apple was a monopoly?
        cma 4y ago
        What was the standard of proof used in that one?
        scarface74 4y ago
        Well, I would assume whatever it was, a bunch of high priced lawyers would have a better strategy and didn’t miss a line of argument that was found by a random person on HN.
threeseed 4y ago
I'm confused what your problem is here. You use Firefox on your desktop and you're upset at Apple because you need to use Firefox on your mobile in order for tabs etc to sync. Are you also upset at Apple for needing to use Lightroom on your desktop and mobile for photos to sync ?
scarface74 4y ago
Microsoft never got “busted” in the US for bundling IE and absolutely nothing change. Microsoft got “busted” for forcing OEMs to pay for Windows licenses even for computers that didn’t ship with Windows. Would you actually want a computer to ship with nothing? Also your other talking point about no “real adblockers” is at least a year out of date. Safari has supported standard extensions for over a year not just JSON based content blocking rules.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  The alternatives weren't nothing or Windows. OEMs had other options even in the 90s. Would OS\2 have done a little better in the marketplace to actually carve out a niche? Would desktop Linux be a better experience since OEMs could have had machines designed and targeted with Linux in mind back in 1997? Would BeOS still be around? Had OEMs not be forced to pay for Windows licences for all computers shipped regardless of whether it actually included Windows or not perhaps they wouldn't have shipped Windows so damn much?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I conflated two separate issues: 1. Microsoft was held accountable and forced to stop making OEMs pay Windows licenses for computers that didn’t ship with Windows. As an aside, there is no “Windows tax”. OEMs make more than enough by bundling third party crapware it more than pays for Windows. But third party OSs - especially Linux was never going to be big on the desktop without third party commercial support. The only Unix[1] operating system that has ever gained any traction on the desktop is MacOS and Apple makes sure they bend over backwards to keep Microsoft and Adobe happy. I sold IBM Aptivas briefly in the 90s that came with OS/2 at Radio Shack. They were not going to overtake the world. 2. As far as “bundling” in 2022, would you suggest any platform come without a browser? Macs, Windows, ChromeOS computers, iOS and Android all come with browsers. What would the consumer experience be like if all platforms just came with an empty desktop and they had to download everything? [1] yes MacOS is real certified Unix.
    - goosedragons 4y ago