3 ms·

They have a monopoly for the iOS platform, at least. And in some jurisdictions you don't need a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior.

AlexandrB 12y ago
Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Twitter has definitely performed anticompetitively in the past like that. Legal or not, it's abusing their position.
- Alupis 12y ago
  If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).
  - mikeryan 12y ago
    If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. This is exactly what they've done.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      > This is exactly what they've done. I realize that. If you look at the parent, they were making the argument that it's not the same.
  - mikeryan 12y ago
    If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. This is exactly what they've done.
  - mason240 12y ago
    >If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. Don't they have long history of doing exactly that?
- pjc50 12y ago
  Twitter's stance of shutting down apps that get too many subscribers definitely looks bad to me - although it's a little different in that no money changes hands. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as-twitter-restrictions-claim-another-victim.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as...

AlexandrB 12y ago

Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?

Dylan16807 12y ago
Twitter has definitely performed anticompetitively in the past like that. Legal or not, it's abusing their position.
Alupis 12y ago
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).
- mikeryan 12y ago
  If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. This is exactly what they've done.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > This is exactly what they've done. I realize that. If you look at the parent, they were making the argument that it's not the same.
- mikeryan 12y ago
  If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. This is exactly what they've done.
- mason240 12y ago
  >If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. Don't they have long history of doing exactly that?
pjc50 12y ago
Twitter's stance of shutting down apps that get too many subscribers definitely looks bad to me - although it's a little different in that no money changes hands. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as-twitter-restrictions-claim-another-victim.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as...