4 ms·

The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and *unfair competition. It's Apple using its dominant po

The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and *unfair competition. It's Apple using its dominant position in the smartphone market to prevent others from competing on equal grounds in a different market. With iOS Apple owns the playing field where all accessory vendors compete, and Apple competes on the same field. There is no healthy competition possible if Apple puts the finger on the scale to ensure it always wins.

coldtea 1y ago
>The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and unfair competition.* That's not an answer, it's a decree. Others can make their own phones and headphones just for their own devices, did Apple stop them?
- const_cast 1y ago
  It's not a monopoly because if this other theoretical company which does not exist existed then there would be more than one option and it wouldn't be a monopoly. Not very convincing.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    There's Android which has even more market share, and several behemoths like Google, Samsung, Xiaomi making similar sets of devices, so not theoritical.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      But that's not even close to the argument you made. Also, you're confusing markets here. We're not talking about the smartphone market. We're talking about the market of apple accessories. Apple solely controls that market and also participates in it. Its a true monopoly.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  Well yes, that’s what laws are?
  - coldtea 1y ago
    That (a kind of decree) is what any law is, including unfair laws or Jim Crow. Doesn't mean it's an answer to the issue why that should be the case.
coldtea 1y ago
>The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and unfair competition. It's Apple using its dominant position in the smartphone market to prevent others from competing on equal grounds in a different market.* Was that an unearned position due to regulatory capture or something, or did people buy their stuff, even if it's more expensive? Is it even a dominant position with no recourse? (last I heard Android has more share in the EU and the world). Did they collude with Google and other smartphone vendors to not allow them to build and allow similar features themselves? >With iOS Apple owns the playing field where all accessory vendors compete, and Apple competes on the same field Isn't that playing field their own OS and device ecosystem, they build?
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  Again, this is not about the OS, it is about Apple USING the OS to secure a dominant position in ANOTHER market-segment (headphones, watches, payment, entertainment,...). > Isn't that playing field their own OS and device ecosystem, they build? That playing field is their own OS, and the entire ecosystem of all accessory brands.

coldtea 1y ago

>The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and unfair competition.* That's not an answer, it's a decree. Others can make their own phones and headphones just for their own devices, did Apple stop them?

const_cast 1y ago
It's not a monopoly because if this other theoretical company which does not exist existed then there would be more than one option and it wouldn't be a monopoly. Not very convincing.
- coldtea 1y ago
  There's Android which has even more market share, and several behemoths like Google, Samsung, Xiaomi making similar sets of devices, so not theoritical.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    But that's not even close to the argument you made. Also, you're confusing markets here. We're not talking about the smartphone market. We're talking about the market of apple accessories. Apple solely controls that market and also participates in it. Its a true monopoly.
digitalPhonix 1y ago
Well yes, that’s what laws are?
- coldtea 1y ago
  That (a kind of decree) is what any law is, including unfair laws or Jim Crow. Doesn't mean it's an answer to the issue why that should be the case.

coldtea 1y ago

>The answer is right in the text you quoted. Because it's a different market than the smartphone itself and unfair competition. It's Apple using its dominant position in the smartphone market to prevent others from competing on equal grounds in a different market.* Was that an unearned position due to regulatory capture or something, or did people buy their stuff, even if it's more expensive? Is it even a dominant position with no recourse? (last I heard Android has more share in the EU and the world). Did they collude with Google and other smartphone vendors to not allow them to build and allow similar features themselves? >With iOS Apple owns the playing field where all accessory vendors compete, and Apple competes on the same field Isn't that playing field their own OS and device ecosystem, they build?

rickdeckard 1y ago
Again, this is not about the OS, it is about Apple USING the OS to secure a dominant position in ANOTHER market-segment (headphones, watches, payment, entertainment,...). > Isn't that playing field their own OS and device ecosystem, they build? That playing field is their own OS, and the entire ecosystem of all accessory brands.