71–80 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).
Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.
Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what features?
Funny you ask -- because boy do I have an answer. Last week I officially switched (reluctantly and with a bad taste in my mouth) from Spotify to Apple Music. Why? Simply because when I'm driving I want to dictate by voice command what song I want to play. I could not do this with Spotify, that's why I switched. Next time I won't get an iphone because of the bad taste this experience has left me (the worst part is app…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…
The app store itself is a monopoly. Apple then leverages its monopoly in app stores on Apple's platform into other business (Apple Music, eBooks, digital video, etc). This is anti-competitive behaviour and illegal. Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations.
No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices.
"Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations."
Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform.
Regardless of pricing, this is Windows/Internet explorer vs. Netscape all over. Easy to see Apple introduce features tied to Apple Music that Spotify can't because it doesn't have the same control over iOS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).
Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal. In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.
We're discussing competition law. Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment. As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. S…
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. - Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.) - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. The l…
Sibling comment covers this perfectly.
- Fast lanes for their services with ISPs.
I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this?
- Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music.
You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause? The kind that lots of goods are sold with? Or are you talking about getting rid of the right for Apple to undercut the price of the book and force the publishers to eat the loss?
It's not like Amazon had a ridiculous giant horrible stranglehold on the eBook industry right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?
I think they meant how Apple is able to update iPhones without first getting permission from the phone carriers, whereas on Android & Windows Phone the OS updates for devices can be delayed by the carrier imposing a certification process before it is released. For example, here's an Australian phone carrier / ISP blocking updates to Google Nexus devices on their network: http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-…
That's why iPhones get regular updates, the carriers are involved. That's why Google has been moving Android to have most things in a piece of software they can update without actual carrier approval, so the phones don't get stuck in the Stone Age.
Is there a single benefit to the carriers getting to choose if an update should be approved?