7 ms·

"It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint." It's nowhere near fair.

"It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint." It's nowhere near fair. It's extremely anticompetitive. This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC.

exelius 11y ago
It's also ultimately shitty for consumers, which will drive people away from Apple's products. Microsoft pulled this shit for years with MS Office, and it opened the door for Google. This behavior may get them in trouble with the FTC, but it's also not likely to be very popular in the market. I get if they want a "premium" experience with the Apple Watch, but they shouldn't block other devices. The Apple Watch should be able to win on its own merits; the wearables space is still small enough that IMO any competition should be welcomed as it drives the whole market forward.
- kbenson 11y ago
  That assumes an informed consumer, and what we are discussing is actually Apple's attempt to restrict consumer information.
sspiff 11y ago
Exactly. Business isn't a no-holds-barred anything goes anarchy. It's not because we have some free trade that there are no rules what so ever. Abusing a stranglehold or monopoly will eventually draw the ire of regulators. Just ask Microsoft or the EU. What is and isn't OK is something that will probably be decided in court. I hope this kind of anti-competitive measures do get some kind of regulation in the app-stores/ecosystems space that large mobile players have crafted over the past few years, because they could easily stiffle competition from their current dominant positions.
- runjake 11y ago
  Apple doesn't need to ask Microsoft. Apple being convicted monopolists, they are no stranger to litigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrus...
  - asr 11y ago
    I upvoted you as you make a good point. But a quick note: you can't be a convicted monopolist. "Monopolization" is illegal, but that requires both monopoly power and anticompetitive conduct. Monopoly power on its own is not illegal (at least theoretically).
- ahallock 11y ago
  Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean there are no rules. Maybe eventually it will if people keep perverting the meaning. > Abusing a stranglehold or monopoly Apple has a "stranglehold" on what exactly? I think you're just using hyperbolic words. > I hope this kind of anti-competitive measures do get some kind of regulation How about a little patience instead? How about not buying Apple products? Let's get the pitchforks out and demand the government punish these companies because they're inconveniencing us, or give it enough time and let consumers sort it out. Look what happened with Internet Explorer. Does it dominate the market anymore?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- enjo 11y ago
  They did exactly the same sort of thing with Jobs running things. You can find hundreds of examples. This sort of thing is business as usual at Apple.
- kbenson 11y ago
  What, now we're supposed to give a pass to people and companies that behave horribly and/or illegally just because they have a better product?
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    "Better" being debatable, of course.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I agree, I just didn't feel like debating it was worthwhile for the point.
LordKano 11y ago
This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC. Indeed but Apple is aware that the FTC isn't likely to punish them enough that the behavior will be a net negative. If only the Federal Government would be as serious about "Sending a message" on antitrust as they are about low-mid level drug dealers, this kind of thing would be a lot more rare.
- Artemis2 11y ago
  I feel that Google/Apple should have been hit with an antitrust policy already some time ago.
  - 31reasons 11y ago
    I am curious why would Google be in trouble with antitrust ?
    - nilliams 11y ago
      The EU announced antitrust charges against Google a couple of weeks ago [1]. tl;dr - '[T]he company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service ...' [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/european-commission-antitrust-charges-google http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/european-c...
      - tsunamifury 11y ago
        No charges were filed and likely never will be. This is merely a list of complaints.
    - hellbanner 11y ago
      Because they dominate search with their PageRank algorithm, they are a huge email provider, online calendar provider, among other services.
      - bionsuba 11y ago
bryanlarsen 11y ago
You're allowed to do things like this; you're also allowed to be a de-facto monopoly. You're not allowed to do things like this AND be a monopoly.
baddox 11y ago
I will never understand how "competitive" and "anticompetitive" came to be used interchangeably.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Cutting your prices is competitive. Cutting your competitor's throat is anti-competitive.
  - reallyRaoul 11y ago
    dumping
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      It took me a little while to figure out that your one-word post meant the practice of selling below cost to gain market share, with the intent to force marginal competitors out of your business and gain pricing power to be used later to make up for the losses. I am not convinced that this practice is worthy of concern. I don't think that a short-term predatory pricing loss incurred by a dumper can ever be recovered. This opinion is based mostly on the personal belief that the substitution effect is far greater than most economists care to admit, particularly when the potential substitution is to not buy anything at all. You can't dump alfalfa to bankrupt existing hay growers and then make a killing by raising alfalfa prices once you dominate the market. Why? Farmers will feed their livestock gummy bears[0]. And then they will plant their own damned hay crops at the very next available opportunity. The net result is that you go bankrupt, too, because you took a huge loss right before killing your own market. [0]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/23/us-usa-cattle-candy-idUSBRE88M05N20120923 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/23/us-usa-cattle-cand... http://www.naturalnews.com/037351_cattle_candy_marshmallows.html http://www.naturalnews.com/037351_cattle_candy_marshmallows.... http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/news/economy/farmers-cows-candy-feed/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/news/economy/farmers-cows-ca...
- _yosefk 11y ago
  A great point. Perhaps because if "competitive behavior" means striving to win in a competition, and "anti-competitive behavior" means breaking the rules of the competition, hoping to win unfairly, then the former will tend to transform into the latter?

exelius 11y ago

It's also ultimately shitty for consumers, which will drive people away from Apple's products. Microsoft pulled this shit for years with MS Office, and it opened the door for Google. This behavior may get them in trouble with the FTC, but it's also not likely to be very popular in the market. I get if they want a "premium" experience with the Apple Watch, but they shouldn't block other devices. The Apple Watch should be able to win on its own merits; the wearables space is still small enough that IMO any competition should be welcomed as it drives the whole market forward.

kbenson 11y ago
That assumes an informed consumer, and what we are discussing is actually Apple's attempt to restrict consumer information.

sspiff 11y ago

Exactly. Business isn't a no-holds-barred anything goes anarchy. It's not because we have some free trade that there are no rules what so ever. Abusing a stranglehold or monopoly will eventually draw the ire of regulators. Just ask Microsoft or the EU. What is and isn't OK is something that will probably be decided in court. I hope this kind of anti-competitive measures do get some kind of regulation in the app-stores/ecosystems space that large mobile players have crafted over the past few years, because they could easily stiffle competition from their current dominant positions.

runjake 11y ago
Apple doesn't need to ask Microsoft. Apple being convicted monopolists, they are no stranger to litigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrus...
- asr 11y ago
  I upvoted you as you make a good point. But a quick note: you can't be a convicted monopolist. "Monopolization" is illegal, but that requires both monopoly power and anticompetitive conduct. Monopoly power on its own is not illegal (at least theoretically).
ahallock 11y ago
Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean there are no rules. Maybe eventually it will if people keep perverting the meaning. > Abusing a stranglehold or monopoly Apple has a "stranglehold" on what exactly? I think you're just using hyperbolic words. > I hope this kind of anti-competitive measures do get some kind of regulation How about a little patience instead? How about not buying Apple products? Let's get the pitchforks out and demand the government punish these companies because they're inconveniencing us, or give it enough time and let consumers sort it out. Look what happened with Internet Explorer. Does it dominate the market anymore?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

enjo 11y ago
They did exactly the same sort of thing with Jobs running things. You can find hundreds of examples. This sort of thing is business as usual at Apple.
kbenson 11y ago
What, now we're supposed to give a pass to people and companies that behave horribly and/or illegally just because they have a better product?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  "Better" being debatable, of course.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I agree, I just didn't feel like debating it was worthwhile for the point.

LordKano 11y ago

This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC. Indeed but Apple is aware that the FTC isn't likely to punish them enough that the behavior will be a net negative. If only the Federal Government would be as serious about "Sending a message" on antitrust as they are about low-mid level drug dealers, this kind of thing would be a lot more rare.

Artemis2 11y ago
I feel that Google/Apple should have been hit with an antitrust policy already some time ago.
- 31reasons 11y ago
  I am curious why would Google be in trouble with antitrust ?
  - nilliams 11y ago
    The EU announced antitrust charges against Google a couple of weeks ago [1]. tl;dr - '[T]he company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service ...' [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/european-commission-antitrust-charges-google http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/european-c...
    - tsunamifury 11y ago
      No charges were filed and likely never will be. This is merely a list of complaints.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Because they dominate search with their PageRank algorithm, they are a huge email provider, online calendar provider, among other services.
    - bionsuba 11y ago

bryanlarsen 11y ago

You're allowed to do things like this; you're also allowed to be a de-facto monopoly. You're not allowed to do things like this AND be a monopoly.

baddox 11y ago

I will never understand how "competitive" and "anticompetitive" came to be used interchangeably.

logfromblammo 11y ago
Cutting your prices is competitive. Cutting your competitor's throat is anti-competitive.
- reallyRaoul 11y ago
  dumping
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    It took me a little while to figure out that your one-word post meant the practice of selling below cost to gain market share, with the intent to force marginal competitors out of your business and gain pricing power to be used later to make up for the losses. I am not convinced that this practice is worthy of concern. I don't think that a short-term predatory pricing loss incurred by a dumper can ever be recovered. This opinion is based mostly on the personal belief that the substitution effect is far greater than most economists care to admit, particularly when the potential substitution is to not buy anything at all. You can't dump alfalfa to bankrupt existing hay growers and then make a killing by raising alfalfa prices once you dominate the market. Why? Farmers will feed their livestock gummy bears[0]. And then they will plant their own damned hay crops at the very next available opportunity. The net result is that you go bankrupt, too, because you took a huge loss right before killing your own market. [0]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/23/us-usa-cattle-candy-idUSBRE88M05N20120923 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/23/us-usa-cattle-cand... http://www.naturalnews.com/037351_cattle_candy_marshmallows.html http://www.naturalnews.com/037351_cattle_candy_marshmallows.... http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/news/economy/farmers-cows-candy-feed/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/news/economy/farmers-cows-ca...
_yosefk 11y ago
A great point. Perhaps because if "competitive behavior" means striving to win in a competition, and "anti-competitive behavior" means breaking the rules of the competition, hoping to win unfairly, then the former will tend to transform into the latter?