4 ms·
That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple. I don't understand how this is any different than
by Clent 3y ago
That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple.
I don't understand how this is any different than Sony or Nintendo deciding the terms to release games on their hardware. Is it because they charge for dev-kits and Apple doesn't.
Are we certain it's in the public's interest to make development for Apple platforms more restrictive?
- taeric 3y agoIt is only relevant as evidence that antitrust != monopoly laws. They include monopoly laws, of course; but there is more to them than that. This isn't a decided case, such that I don't know what you are asking? Do we have evidence that Sony/Nintendo won't let you be a paying developer? More, do we have evidence that they would let you, but then after possibly benefiting from your efforts, kick you off their platform with no recourse? I confess I would not be too surprised if we do have some of that evidence, but I haven't seen it. We have seen plenty of shady crap from those companies, but there are material other differences that make them hard to compare.