So I guess there will be no outcry when Microsoft starts charging the alleged "industry rate" to allow programs to run on Windows.
If Microsoft introduces wiOS (Or OS W?) in which you can only run applications you install through an app store, then users and developers will decide whether that's an experience they want and if it is, then an ecosystem will develop around it just as happened with Apple. If not, it will just be an expensive lesson for Microsoft while everyone remains on their preferred OS.
If it turns out all major OSes lock their users into app stores and there remains a significant market for users who don't want that experience, the market will be primed for another OS competitor to take that share.
Of all people, Microsoft could do it. They have before. A Windows X with a appstore only would be a trivial variant for them.
Either way, it’s irrelevant to the parent comment: if you agree to the terms, they willfully defy them... well, you’re violating your commercial agreement.
What next, I sue amazon for discontinuing my AWS services when I start running spambots on it or some other willfull violation of their avceptable use policy [1]?
Its ridiculous.
The only ones winning here are lawyers.
[1] - yes, they do have one, and you will get suspended if you violate it. https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
Early market movers have an advantage and that will keep growing.
Another reason why many hospital systems, military, etc department pays microsoft to support XP. Those OS aren't "better". Most people using them won't choose them over windows 10 or Mac if given the option.
Windows Phone was already reaching 10% mark when they gave up, and were the Android alternative to many Europeans.
The proof being that in what concerns tablets, most people around here not carrying iPads, are carrying 2-1 Windows laptops with detachable keyboards, not Android tablets.
As long as Linux can be installed on desktops you technically have a choice.
You have open source Android or Linux to start with.
No.
There are massive barriers to entry for some markets, particularly platforms, and it's naive to indicate that 'some competitor will come along'.
Many markets are 'locked down' to the point wherein there is very little competition among them, and high tech gives us many examples of that.
Ed Colligan, CEO of Palm: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone, PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”
Those were fundamental market disruptions and it doesn't happen very often.
Some markets do that every 'generation' (gaming consoles) but usually not.
Laptops may have presented such an opportunity, but they were slowly differentiated from the desktop.
So 'new markets happen' and during that time, yes, there's opportunity for new participants ...
But who 'won' the 'new smartphone wars'?
Apple and Google. Literally the two richest companies in tech. (Or close to).
That 'new market opportunity' was championed by none other than the giant gorillas of tech (and business) says something about the nature of power and competition.
I'm curious to know what they plan to do with iPad OS though... the MacCatalyst and Swift UI strategy will be interesting to watch evolve in light of these challenges.
But Microsoft doesn't make hardware that's the only target for their desktop OS, so they don't have the market lock-in Apple does, nor could they claim the app store and the hardware they don't make are part of the same product for PCs running Windows.
In contrast? They already do this for the XBox Live store, where they are the sole online distribution channel for software running on the console they manufacture.
Second, why break up AT&T in 70s/80s, you know what you are getting into when you sing up a contract with them.
Didn't US have a mail service at that time?
I think that is an alternative "platform" for communication (just like Android to Apple), a bit of a stretch but not much.
Of course you have alternative hardware+os that you can use, just like in case of telephony you had alternative hardware (paper) that you could use, which didn't stop US goverment to split AT&T up.
ETA: Fixed wrong link.
Or
You can read the interpretation in this specific case from the judge who is presiding over it.
So this case should be a slam dunk, huh? But you know the actual judge in the case must not have read the website. You should send her a link.
No thats not what I said. I don't think that you haven't actually paid attention to anything that the judge said, or the opinions of the supreme court.
Instead the important question in this trial is based on what the market is defined as, and not the irrelevant stuff that you are bringing up.
That is the important question here.
But it is not at all controversial, that a company does not need to be a singular firm, in order to break anti-trust law.
Thats not controversial. The judges agree with me. The supreme court agrees with me. You are disagreeing with the multiple pieces of case law.
Instead, the question that matters, is what the market is defined as.
So, for example, if the market is defined as "smartphones", then that means that Apple has 50% of the US smartphone market, and therefore there is a good chance that Apple falls under anti-trust law.
If, instead, the "market" is defined as the game console market, as Apple is trying to claim, then the argument gets much harder that Apple would fall under anti-trust law.
So, the question at hand, is, is the market "iPhones", "smart phones", "game consoles", or maybe even "general computing devices".
And depending on which of these market, the iPhone falls under, then apple court either be breaking anti-trust law, or not. But the fact that they don't have a literal, singular monopoly is not the question at hand that matters.
I would really recommend that you read up more on anti-trust law. Because I am not saying anything controversial here.
> But you know the actual judge in the case must not have read the website.
The judge actually agrees with me, not you. She agrees with me, that the important question that matters, is how we define the market. I would recommend that you listen to the trial hearings yourself, if you are able to find them online. You'd understand what I am saying to be true, if you had actually listened to the judge.
I know this, because I listened to the judge, live, say this in the court hearing, that the important part of the case is how the market is defined.
It is really funny that you are not aware of that, that the judge agrees with me on this, and is aware that one of the most important question at hand, which requires the trial, is how to define the market.
There are ways that you can attack this idea that Apple is breaking anti-trust law. But the ways that you are attacking it are not supported by the law, the supreme court, or the judges.
You should read up on the actual important questions at hand, in this case. Because there really are some interesting questions here. Specifically, the question is how the market is defined, which is the important part. But none of the stuff that you brought up are the things that the judges or lawyers care about.
Really not sure why you think that you know more than the supreme court, or the judge in this case. I got my information by listening directly to the judge, live.
If you would actually like to learn what the supreme court has said on the matter (Instead of just trolling, when it is clear that you haven't actually done any research on this issue), then I would recommend you read this link:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
This link has actual references to specific supreme court decisions.
But I guess if you are not going to care what the courts says on the matter, which are the literal, ultimate authority on the issue, then I am not sure what to tell you.
You can physically go read the opinions of the courts on this yourself. They agree with me, not you. I am going to trust the opinion of this from actual judges the matter, myself.
But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS" and "Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant"
These cases the judges found that a "party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%". In another one they rejected "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"
Those are directly from the court cases. They are directly from the judges.
> But, the judge in this particular case
The judges have specifically agreed with me on the issue that I brought, which is that the important issue in the case is the market definition. Please do not try misdirect from what I am specifically saying here.
So, to restate, the important issues in the case are the market definition, and not anything that you brought up. And the judge agrees with me on this, regarding what the important issues are in this case, and do not agree with you on that.
But now we have something better - a real judge hearing arguments about the facts on the ground. Not just a laymen’s interpretation.
Especially in this particular case, the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market and didn’t buy its attempt at defining the market in a way that was convenience.
The real judge agrees with me, and not you, and agrees with me that the important question about this case is what the market is defined as.
> the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market
So you are now completely agreeing with every single point that I was making, and admiting that you were entirely wrong, and now recognize that I was correct for pointing out that the judge thinks that the important question for this case is how the market is defined?
That is what you are doing for pointing that out, lol. The judge agrees with me that the important points about this case are how the market is defined, and not anything that you brought up.
Have you actually read through these cases yourself? None of these are Supreme Court cases, and none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power.
The first case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant actually held monopoly power, but it doesn't look like anything further actually happened (perhaps it was settled out of court).
The second case found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant actually held monopoly power and the court therefore affirmed the judgement for the defendant.
The third case found that the defendant only held 20% market share in the correct relevant market and therefore did not have monopoly power.
The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power, not that courts have actually ruled that way before. Furthermore, even if they had, it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit because Epic is not alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the smartphone market. Instead, they are alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the specific sub-market of "distribution of apps on iOS devices" which they by definition have 100% control over.
This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power.
> The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power
Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that.
The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power.
And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect.
And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed.
> it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit
It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else.
I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts.
At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.
Unless something has changed, we don't actually know that yet. Epic specifically requested a bench trial and Apple has until 5pm today to decide whether they want a jury or not.