5 ms·

Those rules apply in a monopoly - when a business is not a monopoly it has considerably more freedom.

by GrinningFool 12y ago

rando289 12y ago
Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.
- andor436 12y ago
  Hello from Windows on a MacBook!
- valarauca1 12y ago
  I don't think your understanding how a Monopoly applied in the situation with Microsoft. Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance, IE was during the anti-trust suite upwards of 95% of all browsers on the Internet, this was because of bundling and defaults. While other OS's may not execute on Apple's own hardware, other hardware exists (other smart phones) that directly compete with Apple. And by compete I mean neither Apple nor Andriod nor WindowsPhone 'owns' >90% of the mobile market. This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware, because its hardware was work station hardware. Which had to compete with Silicon Graphics, IBM, Apple, Next, etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware There is also the fact that Sun didn't prohibit other operating system or application vendors from making operating systems or applications for its hardware by locking the boot loader.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      No, that didn't come into play at all. Sun could have locked it whichever way they wanted, and still they wouldn't get involved in such litigation.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        "No" is not an argument.
        coldtea 12y ago
        The rest of the comment was though. No was just a TL;DR; of the previous non-fact.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        The rest of the comment was also not an argument, it was just a restatement of the statement you were denying. Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? That seems implausible. Once you're exercising gatekeeper control in that way, you would among other things for example have control over any downstream monopolies, such as any enterprise software vendors with a monopoly in their own market whose software ran only on Solaris/SPARC and could not easily be ported.
        coldtea 12y ago
        >Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? No, I'm claiming that under the circustances that you (or the OP) described in the previous comment it wouldn't lead to an antitrust violation. I can't talk for "under ANY circustances". >That seems implausible Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  - Someone 12y ago
    "Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance" I thought it was because it tried to use its dominance in the desktop OS market to get dominance in the we browser market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...: "The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars"
- afarrell 12y ago
  I've seen people run Ubuntu on a apple hardware.
- headShrinker 12y ago
  While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrect because the word 'monopoly' applies to all toilets in a geographic area specifically larger than my bathroom. There is some gray area in the definition. A more appropriate use of 'monopoly' is, "does Apple control software on all tablets?", no. 'Does Apple control all tablet software in the new york area?' no. 'Does Apple control all popup widgets on all Apple Tablets in the New York area?' Yes, but that is not by definition, "a monopoly".
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible. This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      > who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.

Those rules apply in a monopoly - when a business is not a monopoly it has considerably more freedom.

rando289 12y ago

Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.

andor436 12y ago
Hello from Windows on a MacBook!
valarauca1 12y ago
I don't think your understanding how a Monopoly applied in the situation with Microsoft. Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance, IE was during the anti-trust suite upwards of 95% of all browsers on the Internet, this was because of bundling and defaults. While other OS's may not execute on Apple's own hardware, other hardware exists (other smart phones) that directly compete with Apple. And by compete I mean neither Apple nor Andriod nor WindowsPhone 'owns' >90% of the mobile market. This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware, because its hardware was work station hardware. Which had to compete with Silicon Graphics, IBM, Apple, Next, etc.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware There is also the fact that Sun didn't prohibit other operating system or application vendors from making operating systems or applications for its hardware by locking the boot loader.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    No, that didn't come into play at all. Sun could have locked it whichever way they wanted, and still they wouldn't get involved in such litigation.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      "No" is not an argument.
      - coldtea 12y ago
        The rest of the comment was though. No was just a TL;DR; of the previous non-fact.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        The rest of the comment was also not an argument, it was just a restatement of the statement you were denying. Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? That seems implausible. Once you're exercising gatekeeper control in that way, you would among other things for example have control over any downstream monopolies, such as any enterprise software vendors with a monopoly in their own market whose software ran only on Solaris/SPARC and could not easily be ported.
        coldtea 12y ago
        >Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which Sun exercising control over what software could be run on the hardware of its customers could lead to an antitrust violation? No, I'm claiming that under the circustances that you (or the OP) described in the previous comment it wouldn't lead to an antitrust violation. I can't talk for "under ANY circustances". >That seems implausible Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
- Someone 12y ago
  "Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance" I thought it was because it tried to use its dominance in the desktop OS market to get dominance in the we browser market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...: "The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars"
afarrell 12y ago
I've seen people run Ubuntu on a apple hardware.
headShrinker 12y ago
While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrect because the word 'monopoly' applies to all toilets in a geographic area specifically larger than my bathroom. There is some gray area in the definition. A more appropriate use of 'monopoly' is, "does Apple control software on all tablets?", no. 'Does Apple control all tablet software in the new york area?' no. 'Does Apple control all popup widgets on all Apple Tablets in the New York area?' Yes, but that is not by definition, "a monopoly".
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable. This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible. This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    > who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service But it's not reasonable. A major selling point of iOS devices is that it's a walled garden. You knew that (or had a chance to learn it) when you bought your iOS device and you had a reasonable alternative (Android) without this limitation. You want to have your cake and eat it too. That's all well, but the fact that you can't doesn't make Apple a monopoly.