4 ms·
Yes. But this is trivializing the definition of monopoly I just warned against. What can't be construed with this logic? Verizon holds a monopoly on the devic
by evilduck 3y ago
Yes. But this is trivializing the definition of monopoly I just warned against.
What can't be construed with this logic?
Verizon holds a monopoly on the devices they allow on the Verizon network. Wal-Mart holds a monopoly on the products they allow on their retail floor space. Xbox holds a monopoly on their game compatibility. McDonalds holds a monopoly on selling burgers inside McDonalds. You can define these trivial "micromonopolies" on literally everything you want. Which is why courts have never punished any company for this nonsense line of reasoning, especially when it's on a company that holds no actual "macromonopoly", and monopolies by virtue of existing aren't illegal anyways.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y agoPhones are the way of interacting with much of the world, unlike xbox or McDonalds. People consume their news using them, pay their bills, make photos of their kids, communicate with their family. It's a completely different realm. There are two oligopolies on the market - Google (via google play) and Apple (via apple store), both are affected by the law.
- evilduck 3y agoSure, and by existing laws and court rulings they haven't done anything wrong except be a preferred choice by many consumers. This is not comparable in any way to antitrust transgressions that got Microsoft in trouble, nor do they have the market share to manipulate that's comparable to what Windows or Google have had. FWIW, I also want a more open iOS platform, but I don't think you can demonstrate that they run afoul of any existing antitrust laws or prior precedents either and trying to redefine what a monopoly means, exclusively to to the iPhone, is never going to work.