3 ms·

I keep reading, there is no tablet market except for ipad. Why is that not considered monopoly?

by jbp 14y ago

dailyrorschach 14y ago
Let me preface this with IANAL, just a very interested person. It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed. What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store. In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion. The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.
- chc 14y ago
  > It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. Like not allowing third-party browsers to compete with your own on anything remotely resembling a level playing field? That's what we were talking about here, remember? Apple won't allow alternative browser engines at all, and if you decide to build a browser using the engine Apple provides for third-party devs, it's worse than the one Apple uses in its own browser. > Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. Macs were not particularly less available than PCs in the '90s. I didn't know anyone who really wanted to buy a Mac, but just couldn't find one. They were just radically less popular and generally considered to be a bad choice (I liked them even then, but I didn't have a lot of company with that opinion). Much like non-iPad tablets.
  - dailyrorschach 14y ago
    Again though, Apple is one manufacturer. They make a device and supporting software for that device. Unlike the situation with Microsoft where they were licensing software to multiple device makers. It was the OEM agreements that led to them running afoul of antitrust. Since Apple sells a hardware device with software they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. This is true of Android of course too, as we know device manufacturers often modify Android to suit their needs or the needs of their networks, why else do people speak of having to root their devices? That's what makes it an non-abusive monopoly, they aren't dictating the rules for the vast majority of device makers, and doing so in a way to benefit their products unfairly.
    - visarg 14y ago
      Technicalities. It still doesn't sit right to hog the default web browser handler. Safari for iOS is pretty rudimentary. I am mostly annoyed by the constant refreshes, even when I hit the back button.

I keep reading, there is no tablet market except for ipad. Why is that not considered monopoly?

by jbp 14y ago

I keep reading, there is no tablet market except for ipad. Why is that not considered monopoly?

Let me preface this with IANAL, just a very interested person. It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed. What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store. In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion. The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.

chc 14y ago
> It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. Like not allowing third-party browsers to compete with your own on anything remotely resembling a level playing field? That's what we were talking about here, remember? Apple won't allow alternative browser engines at all, and if you decide to build a browser using the engine Apple provides for third-party devs, it's worse than the one Apple uses in its own browser. > Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. Macs were not particularly less available than PCs in the '90s. I didn't know anyone who really wanted to buy a Mac, but just couldn't find one. They were just radically less popular and generally considered to be a bad choice (I liked them even then, but I didn't have a lot of company with that opinion). Much like non-iPad tablets.
- dailyrorschach 14y ago
  Again though, Apple is one manufacturer. They make a device and supporting software for that device. Unlike the situation with Microsoft where they were licensing software to multiple device makers. It was the OEM agreements that led to them running afoul of antitrust. Since Apple sells a hardware device with software they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. This is true of Android of course too, as we know device manufacturers often modify Android to suit their needs or the needs of their networks, why else do people speak of having to root their devices? That's what makes it an non-abusive monopoly, they aren't dictating the rules for the vast majority of device makers, and doing so in a way to benefit their products unfairly.
  - visarg 14y ago
    Technicalities. It still doesn't sit right to hog the default web browser handler. Safari for iOS is pretty rudimentary. I am mostly annoyed by the constant refreshes, even when I hit the back button.