7 ms·

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
        > 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. The OP was claiming that the reason Sun was not prosecuted for an antitrust violation despite the lack of OS competition for SPARC hardware was that other hardware existed in competition with SPARC. But the reason there was no competing OS to run on SPARC is not the same reason that there is no competing OS to run on iPhone. In the case of SPARC the lack of OS competition was not a result of any interference on the part of Sun. When Linux was subsequently ported to SPARC they made no effort to prevent it, I imagine they probably did most of the work. In the case of iPhone the lack of OS and app store competition is directly a result of Apple thwarting it. It is extremely likely that at least one of Android/Ubuntu/FirefoxOS/etc. would be ported to iPhone hardware in the alternative, and that Amazon or others would be operating competing app stores. So the existence of hardware competition was not the only thing saving Sun from an antitrust violation -- even if they had a strong hardware monopoly their behavior wouldn't have been an abuse of it. Apple is behaving differently. Its behavior is distinguishable from that of Sun in a way that makes an antitrust violation significantly more plausible. There is a much stronger argument that Apple exerts monopoly power over the market for iOS applications than Sun ever did over the market for Solaris applications. Which part of this do you deny? > Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles. I'm not sure how clear that is. Was there an antitrust case against a game console maker in which they were vindicated? Just because the government has never prosecuted anyone doesn't mean it isn't a violation. Antitrust law is about as clear as mud and they rarely prosecute anybody even in cases of much less nuanced violations.
- 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.

Hello from Windows on a MacBook!

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
        > 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. The OP was claiming that the reason Sun was not prosecuted for an antitrust violation despite the lack of OS competition for SPARC hardware was that other hardware existed in competition with SPARC. But the reason there was no competing OS to run on SPARC is not the same reason that there is no competing OS to run on iPhone. In the case of SPARC the lack of OS competition was not a result of any interference on the part of Sun. When Linux was subsequently ported to SPARC they made no effort to prevent it, I imagine they probably did most of the work. In the case of iPhone the lack of OS and app store competition is directly a result of Apple thwarting it. It is extremely likely that at least one of Android/Ubuntu/FirefoxOS/etc. would be ported to iPhone hardware in the alternative, and that Amazon or others would be operating competing app stores. So the existence of hardware competition was not the only thing saving Sun from an antitrust violation -- even if they had a strong hardware monopoly their behavior wouldn't have been an abuse of it. Apple is behaving differently. Its behavior is distinguishable from that of Sun in a way that makes an antitrust violation significantly more plausible. There is a much stronger argument that Apple exerts monopoly power over the market for iOS applications than Sun ever did over the market for Solaris applications. Which part of this do you deny? > Well, the low allows it and companies have been doing it for ages, e.g with game consoles. I'm not sure how clear that is. Was there an antitrust case against a game console maker in which they were vindicated? Just because the government has never prosecuted anyone doesn't mean it isn't a violation. Antitrust law is about as clear as mud and they rarely prosecute anybody even in cases of much less nuanced violations.
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.