3 ms·

I think you’re misunderstanding tying by getting it backwards. If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netsca

I think you’re misunderstanding tying by getting it backwards. If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. The issue is the economic interest in the product being sold. The equivalent would be if you want to buy an iPhone, you have to use iMessage. Which is not the case. Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. If you want to buy iMessage, you have to use iOS/macOS. You might be confused because it actually works in both directions. iMessage achieves a large network by being bundled with iPhones, then the large network creates market power and iMessage is tied to Apple devices which pressures other people to buy those devices, even when they'd have preferred not to, in order to avoid the green bubble. This is one of the reasons this kind of tying is prohibited. Leveraging a dominant position in market A increases your share of market B and leveraging a dominant position in market B increases your share of market A, repeat until the market is concentrated into an oligopoly of vertically integrated conglomerates or a monopoly. > Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations. Why not? Anti-competitive practices don't become otherwise just because you say "it's for your own good" as you lock the door.