Microsoft into OS and other software and cloud.
Amazon into cloud and web store(s).
Google into ads and web software that serves ads.
Apple hardware should be incentivized to make great hardware for any operating system.
Apple software should be incentivized to sell to many manufacturers and also to not obey apple hardware's demands for locks to prevent things like the replacement of batteries.
Their union could be a great thing, but apple decided to use it to be a bunch of monopolists, so your break them up like all the others.
People buy apple hardware for the integrated experience. e.g. I am not gonna buy a Dell running macOS or a Mac running Windows11.
There are cheap ones too, but that's the whole point of choice.
But they do lil bro/sis
Lenovo Thinkpad, Dell Presicion/Latitude or HP Elitebook for companies aint cheap. Gaming laptops. Android phones, the top ones.
etc
i prefer just being able to say "buy an iphone/macbook" whenever i think what has quality rather than having to research options for 3 hours on what's the current state of the art in tech.
Right. Just buy a Macbook...
Except, don't get the 12". That one was an overheating flop, should have never made it to market (nor the i9 16" Pro). Also, avoid the 2016-2019 ones with the butterfly keyboard. While you're at it, don't get the 13" Pro either, since it's a bit of a scam for the touchbar that wasn't that big of a hit. For all of these machines you'll want to upgrade them from the base memory to 16gb to make them last longer, and if you don't upgrade the storage then there's a good chance you'll only get single module speeds, which is significantly limited.
Simple!
Ive seen plenty of people buy a current Mac just for Apple to relesase something new 2 weeks later.
Also, for phones atleast, Samsung Galaxy has been pretty consistent in quality.
society has decided that some behaviors are in and of themselves bad, whether or not said threshold of yours is surpassed (for example monopolistic behaviors)
in the amount equal to how much you like any such benefits, other people dislike the downsides of monopolistic behavior, so we decided that it's bad even if maybe some good comes with the bad
> having or trying to have complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share: She did not consider the fine a sufficient deterrent against monopolistic practices by big producers. The company is accused of monopolistic behavior.
Apple has completely control over Apple products and services, but not of the entire market, since there are plenty of other choices available in every market category they operate in. People who say they dislike Apple for its monopolistic behavior tend to seem to dislike Apple in general, and would rather not anyone buy their products, rather than just making the personal choice to not buy their products (because they indeed have many other choices and so can avoid buying Apple products and services).
as for like vs dislike, the company isn't important enough for me to form such personal opinions about it, they're simply a company engaging in monopolistic behavior just like any other company engaging in monopolistic behavior
the same goes for your personal opinions as to the meaning of such a conclusion -- while I'm sure you are a great person, and appreciate you respectfully commenting, such opinions are neither convincing nor relevant to the topic at hand: whether this one company in question (Apple) is engaging in monopolistic behavior (they are)
> I get really nervous when people say [...] I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.
Well, that's the problem with walled gardens. If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems. A money-ocracy is not a solution to these problems, it's a clever guise to drain your wallet and make you think that life is improving because you spend money and buy products.
Huh? I'm only referring to the Apple 2 (when Apple first changed the personal computing industry) and the 00s, when macs finally became fast and stable enough to be considered a decent value (one can argue it was the original iMac, but OS/X and then the first intel macbooks is when Macs really started making sense value wise). Apple silicon, a recent innovation, hasn't really changed the personal computing industry much.
> If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems
I don't think Apple is doing this. They are selling a decent product, which for some inexplicable reason other hardware/software producers can't seem to replicate. They seem to have a monopoly on "not sucking" but that's about it.
How can you be showing “monopolistic behavior” when you’re neither the only player in the game, nor the biggest?
In fact, splits almost always happen when it’s actually a monopoly not some vague hand-wavy goal-shifting “monopolistic behaviors”.
Our antitrust over the last few years is crazy lacking.
Wouldn't you want the burst of innovation and competition before the five to ten years of status quo monopoly if you wait to act?
That would also extend to practically every company out there unless we can somehow accurately predict the future.
Is there any money in writing operating systems? I don't see a world where people suddenly start paying for Operating Systems
Products being - for example products being iPhone and iOS and services being iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, etc.
App Store would also likely end up in Services, which would also open up multi-app store compatibility. It's almost too good of a solution.
And search would probably make more money if they could sell ad space to other companies. And by selling information on popular search terms for particular links.
Think of everything that Apple (Meta, Google) do, think on which components would benefit from having startups replace and distrupt them and then break them up on those seams while forcing them to allow competition between their fragments (e.g. iPhone with Android OS, iOS on Microsoft phone platform, MacBook M1 with ARM Windows, iOS iPhone with Google Pay, etc. etc.).
Which of them will own Apple trademark?
Which of them will own Apple logo?
But a judge can, and will (if asked to), because - as I said - it's hardly an unprecedented situation. Just to mention one, AT&T still exists as a brand but was once broken up.
For Alphabet and Meta, I would likely pursue criminal charges for conspiracy to fix prices in online ad auctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue
Easy! Hard part: Who gets Occulus?
Who can reasonably be broken up? On what reasonable basis?
Well,
Perhaps Meta?
Maybe Microsoft?
Alphabet definitely.
Apple? They'll laugh us out of court.
If we want these changes, we're going to have to advocate for changes in the fundamental ideas behind antitrust itself. Technology has outstripped the current regulatory environment's ability to keep it in order. And we don't seem to want to admit that. We just keep crying that the law won't act. Well, that's because no laws are being broken. And the politicians and the tech bigs are desperate to ensure that no one figures that out. They'll keep feeding us crumbs so that we don't do the dangerous thing and ask for changes in law.
> The U.S. should continue investigating splitting up Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.
It’s not clear China’s government actions are “really” for the purposes as that comment indicates…
And frankly the list of companies is borderline nonsensical.
If you force government to be smaller and less powerful than corporations then corporations become government.
If there is no subsidy or special grant, it’s not a monopoly.
Often these days there are subsidies or unfair grants given in some way, and the solution is to eliminate the subsidy or grant.