So your argument here is "Apple isn't a monopoly. The Fairphone is always ab option"?

I'll keep pounding it in people's heads that 30 years ago Microsoft was hit over a web browser. It's a shame these days people would instead revert that and say "just download Netscape". If that worked, sure. But we have decades of market lock in showing it doesn't

▲

ericmay 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The flaw in the Microsoft comparison is that the web browser was installed in, what, 95% of actual computing devices? Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.

Today there are many phones to choose from. You can buy an iPhone, or a Pixel, or a Galaxy. You can even buy a more open-source style phone with open-source style stores just like any other generic product feature. There is a marketplace and there is competition, it's just that, unlike what so many people here seem to desire, locked-down stores are what the market prefers.

	▲	johnnyanmac 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist. I don't think phones and PCs compete against each other, though. A phone can act like a general computer, but a PC can't act like a phone. >Today there are many phones to choose from. We had Linux, mac, BSD and a few other OS's back in the day as well. If we're saying Windows is 95% of PCs back then, I don't think it's controversial saying Apple and Android are 95% of phones. Especially in a day and age where phones are now needed to act as verification for work and school and chat communications are expected to be snappy (so it's not like I can just opt out and go back to dumb phones). >locked-down stores are what the market prefers. That's why anti-trust isn't left to "what the market prefers". Yes, society will always waiver towards idyllic destruction if left ubchecked. People generally "like" monopolies. People yearn for that society on WALL-E where they do minimum work and get maximum dopamine. It's a quirk genes that benefitted us 1000 years ago that haven't adjusted to modern realities. Governments and non-monopoly businesses alike hate it, though. Don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. Don't want to have a single businessman hold the country hostage later and shift to a plutocracy as they abuse your citizens who work. That's why it's best to stop it much earlier and not when the company becomes a trillionaire. But now is the 2nd best time.

▲

samdoesnothing 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well they aren't a monopoly. They have what, ~50% market share?

MS had 97% market share and were abusing their market dominance to push others out. Apple isn't doing this, so there isn't a valid comparison here.

▲

johnnyanmac 2 days ago | parent [-]

Duopoly isn't a much better comparison here. It's big enough that both apple and Google should be addressed.

▲

samdoesnothing 2 days ago | parent [-]

Seems like there are a relatively large number of competitors to Apple and Google. Eg. Samsung, Motorola, Lenovo, OnePlus, LG, HTC etc. Not to mention Asian brands.

Duopoly might apply if those companies were using their combined dominance to collude and push other competitors out but that isn't really happening as evidenced by the amount of competitors that are in the market.

▲

johnnyanmac 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't think you're on the same frequency as the court proceedings here. Try to read those first to better understand the context here.

You're doing the equivalent of saying "but Dell and HP make PC's". When the case is about Internet explorer.

	▲	samdoesnothing 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You brought up the MS antitrust suite and I'm providing context as to why it's not relevant.