4 ms·

Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?

sublinear 2y ago
Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.
- buildbot 2y ago
  Why in the world should a company be forced to sell their hardware and software to other companies for them to sell?
  - ThatPlayer 2y ago
    To prevent companies from being anti-competitive by using vertical integration. There was once a similar thing with movie studios and movie theaters. The Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948: https://w.wiki/AWmk https://w.wiki/AWmk (HN eats the period at the end of regular links) Another example is the car dealership system, forcing car manufacturers to sell to dealerships for them to sell.
- starttoaster 2y ago
  > In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly. Maybe you can help me fill in the gaps as to how this is a monopoly. Now depending on where you go for a definition of a monopoly, you might find subtly different definitions. But to quote Investopedia: > A monopoly is characterized by a single company supplying a good or service, a lack of competition within the market, and no similar substitutes for the product being sold. Apple's iPhone is produced by a single company, you're right. But there is competition within the market thanks to Android, and other failed attempts at competition like Blackberry and the Windows phones. Furthermore, Apple might "stop" other competition from springing up by virtue of just being a better offering, but I don't believe anyone is quite literally halting someone from attempting to start a competing phone OS and hardware business. If the only choices are Android vs iOS, and the slew of Android phone manufacturers vs Apple, should Apple be held accountable for nobody making better offerings than what already exists? In my opinion, that answer is only "yes" if you can prove they're doing anything in back alleys to cut prospective competitors off at the knees, which as far as I know, doesn't happen. Maybe you can point me to where and how they do, though.
  - sublinear 2y ago
    If Android disappeared tomorrow, what would you call Apple's role in the smartphone market?
    - starttoaster 2y ago
      So it would be a monopoly if it's largest competition with a huge stake of the market disappeared tomorrow is your retort to me challenging accusations of having a monopoly?
      - sublinear 2y ago
        When the iPhone launched the claim was that they "invented" the smartphone. :D Android wasn't officially released at that time. What was Apple then? What if Android hadn't worked out?
        starttoaster 2y ago
        Your old rebuttal didn't work so your new rebuttal is that Apple innovated faster than competitors in the initial smart phone market almost 20 years ago? I'm sorry but I don't see how that's going to make your point today. Nor would it ever really make your point, in my opinion. If you start up a company that innovates an entire technological market, and you're waiting for the rest of the market to catch up, that's not something to really hold you accountable for. You just had a vision and executed it first. Please, just admit to yourself that you really want to believe Apple holds a monopoly, and you'll do any amount of mental gymnastics to get there. Once you admit that, we can have a thoughtful conversation on how Apple is a net negative to tech culture in more valid ways.
  - ENGNR 2y ago
    It depends how you define the market. If there is one market for phone hardware, and a separate market for app stores, then they’re illegally bundling them and using their position in the phone market to anti-competitively win in the app store market. If you define the App Store as a component of the phone (which Microsoft tried to do and failed with their OS and Internet Explorer) then they’re fine.

Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.

buildbot 2y ago
Why in the world should a company be forced to sell their hardware and software to other companies for them to sell?
- ThatPlayer 2y ago
  To prevent companies from being anti-competitive by using vertical integration. There was once a similar thing with movie studios and movie theaters. The Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948: https://w.wiki/AWmk https://w.wiki/AWmk (HN eats the period at the end of regular links) Another example is the car dealership system, forcing car manufacturers to sell to dealerships for them to sell.
starttoaster 2y ago
> In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly. Maybe you can help me fill in the gaps as to how this is a monopoly. Now depending on where you go for a definition of a monopoly, you might find subtly different definitions. But to quote Investopedia: > A monopoly is characterized by a single company supplying a good or service, a lack of competition within the market, and no similar substitutes for the product being sold. Apple's iPhone is produced by a single company, you're right. But there is competition within the market thanks to Android, and other failed attempts at competition like Blackberry and the Windows phones. Furthermore, Apple might "stop" other competition from springing up by virtue of just being a better offering, but I don't believe anyone is quite literally halting someone from attempting to start a competing phone OS and hardware business. If the only choices are Android vs iOS, and the slew of Android phone manufacturers vs Apple, should Apple be held accountable for nobody making better offerings than what already exists? In my opinion, that answer is only "yes" if you can prove they're doing anything in back alleys to cut prospective competitors off at the knees, which as far as I know, doesn't happen. Maybe you can point me to where and how they do, though.
- sublinear 2y ago
  If Android disappeared tomorrow, what would you call Apple's role in the smartphone market?
  - starttoaster 2y ago
    So it would be a monopoly if it's largest competition with a huge stake of the market disappeared tomorrow is your retort to me challenging accusations of having a monopoly?
    - sublinear 2y ago
      When the iPhone launched the claim was that they "invented" the smartphone. :D Android wasn't officially released at that time. What was Apple then? What if Android hadn't worked out?
      - starttoaster 2y ago
        Your old rebuttal didn't work so your new rebuttal is that Apple innovated faster than competitors in the initial smart phone market almost 20 years ago? I'm sorry but I don't see how that's going to make your point today. Nor would it ever really make your point, in my opinion. If you start up a company that innovates an entire technological market, and you're waiting for the rest of the market to catch up, that's not something to really hold you accountable for. You just had a vision and executed it first. Please, just admit to yourself that you really want to believe Apple holds a monopoly, and you'll do any amount of mental gymnastics to get there. Once you admit that, we can have a thoughtful conversation on how Apple is a net negative to tech culture in more valid ways.
- ENGNR 2y ago
  It depends how you define the market. If there is one market for phone hardware, and a separate market for app stores, then they’re illegally bundling them and using their position in the phone market to anti-competitively win in the app store market. If you define the App Store as a component of the phone (which Microsoft tried to do and failed with their OS and Internet Explorer) then they’re fine.