51–60 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.
There is LOTS of competition in the market place.
This is linkbait because it suggests that Apple is rejecting any app that uses Dropbox. That's patently untrue. For example: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts/id502385074 It looks like Apple is rejecting apps that use the Dropbox SDK in a way that violates the TOS. But then the headline may as well read, "Apple rejecting applications which use code."
I had a simliar rejection because of my app's Rdio integration. If the user had Rdio installed, my app would open the song in the Rdio native app. If the user didn't have the app installed, my app would open the song on the Rdio web site in MobileSafari. Apple didn't like this since you could purchase an Rdio subscription on that webpage bypassing the IAP and Apple's 30% cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.
An example of an antitrust case for someone with market share similar to Apple's in phones would be helpful. To head you off at one unproductive pass: it is unlawful to collude with other companies to fix prices even if you have a minority market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An example of an antitrust case for someone with market share similar to Apple's in phones would be helpful. To head you off at one unproductive pass: it is unlawful to collude with other companies to fix prices even if you have a minority market share.
Note though that it is an open question whether the relevant market is "phones" or "smartphones".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[I have a zillion snarky type replies that itch to be free, but we'll keep that monster in the box today.] "Way to far" is an interesting characterization. Apple has rules about their playground, they like their rules, they make Apple very profitable. So the question becomes can Google leverage this liability to increase the penetration or market share of Android tablets? Once these tactics hurt Apple in the market t…
I don't think people characterizing this as "too far" are ignorant of that fact that Apple is within its rights to enforce whatever they want to. I think the thread is more about "is Apple being a dick here?"... Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either.
I'd love to hear more about that.
This is my reasoning on why I think there is an opportunity there:
Lets say (patent issues not withstanding), you created an exact clone of the iPad and iOS and sold it at the same price but without the 30% 'apple tax' on purchases. It seems reasonable to assume that if that were the only differentiating feature you would get more developers (they get to keep more of the money) and so it would get more apps, and the platform would outsell Apple's iPad with its constraints.
Now granted that is a hell of a hypothetical, but if you can accept the claim that given two otherwise identical products, but one with more developer friendly policies, would allow the developer friendly one to be more successful, then we can talk about at what point the 'value' represented by that can overcome the fact that the product is not an iPad. Does that make sense?
The Android tablet ecosystem is currently horrible. Between the device diversity, the user experience diversity, and the release diversity, and the app experience diversity it is a wild and woolly place which has not been able to compete well with iPad. Contrast that to the Kindle Fire which started with Android, locked down a lot of stuff that Google doesn't, and that has gained more traction than any other Android based tablet.
To me, that shows a market for a non-iPad but with Apple like quality control and predictability. Depending on Amazon's success, Google might just wake up and fix their world (and of course they might not, it would not be the first time a large organization just didn't 'get' it)
But you also claim that nobody can exploit these resentments, and certainly Amazon is going to try and seem to have some modest success in that regard. Love to hear the counter point of view.
This is really going over the line. People are content in the walled garden, but if it starts getting too stuffy in there people will want to leave. Unfortunately it makes "business sense" (read: nonsense) for Apple to raise the walls of their walled garden as high as they can make them. Hopefully at some point there will be enough discontent to remove things like this.
Pretty sure most people don't care.
What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no matter how much money they make.:wq
Did you even read what you linked to ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to name any proprietary product platform, from cars to KitchenAid mixers, which would not run afoul of this common nerdly definition of "antitrust". In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here. To go further with this argument, you will need to venture beyond Wikipedia summaries.
sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that here. Probably not enough to make a legal case but enough to add another example to the "Some times Apple can be a real dick" list.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/
Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde
(b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient
demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from
hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is
efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital
services. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of
two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not
make the contract illegal. Only if patients are forced to purchase the
contracting firm's services as a result of the hospital's market power
would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing
is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use
another anesthesiologist instead of the firm.