| |
| ▲ | TheDong 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It depends how you define the market. In the 2001 microsoft case [0], the courts ruled Microsoft had a monopoly over the "Intel-based personal computer market". Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store. They have a monopoly over the driver market on macOS. Like, Microsoft was found guilty of exploiting its monopoly for installing IE by default while still allowing other browser engines. On iOS, apple bundles safari by default and doesn't allow other browser engines. If we apply the same standard that found MS a monopoly in the past, then Apple is obviously a monopoly, so at the very least I think it's fair to say that reasonable people can disagree about whether Apple is a monopoly or not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... | | |
| ▲ | hilsdev 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wouldn’t say it is obvious. Apple does not have the monopoly of ARM based PCs. Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel. It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware. They had a monopoly on a market where you effectively had to use their software to use the hardware you bought from a different company. Because Apple is selling their own hardware and software as a single product, the consumer is not forced into restricting the hardware they bought by a second company’s policies. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Labeling it as a monopoly of M chips is not fair or accurate when comparing to MS on Intel. The relevant thing here isn't the chips, it's tying things to the chips, because those would otherwise be separate markets. If you could feasibly buy an iPhone and install Android or Lineage OS on it or use Google Play or F-Droid on iOS then no one would be saying that Apple has a monopoly on operating systems or app stores for iOS since there would actually be alternatives to theirs. The fake alternative is that you could use a different store by buying a different phone, but this is like saying that if Toyota is the only one who can change the brake pads on a Toyota and Ford is the only one who can change the brake pads on a Ford then there is competition for "brake pads" because when your Toyota needs new brake pads you can just buy a Ford vehicle. It's obvious why this is different than anyone being able to buy third party brake pads for your Toyota from Autozone, right? > It’s also probably relevant that MS was not selling PCs or their own hardware. This is the thing that unambiguously should never be relevant. It can't be a real thing that you can avoid being a monopoly by owning more of the supply chain. It's like saying that Microsoft could have avoided being a monopoly by buying Intel and AMD, or buying one of them and then exterminating the other by refusing to put Windows on it. That's a preposterous perverse incentive. | | |
| ▲ | Affric 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It can't be a real thing that you can avoid being a monopoly by owning more of the supply chain. Move the most important aspects of your software to hardware. Hard for MacOS but for a Chromebook style thing you could write the browser into its own pice of wafer. Google should pay me to be this evil. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Move the most important aspects of your software to hardware. So now you have a piece of silicon with a two year old version of Chrome with seventeen CVEs hard-coded into it, and still have all the same antitrust problems because the device still also has an ordinary general purpose CPU that you're still anti-competitively impeding people from using to run Firefox or Ladybird. |
|
| |
| ▲ | SvenL 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well “had to use” is a strong phrase here. Linux was already around and you could have used it too with your hardware. I think you can always bend an argument to fit your point. | | |
| ▲ | detourdog 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The PC manufacturers had to pay MS for a license no matter what operating system was installed. | | |
| ▲ | SvenL 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn’t knew that, but only if they also sold windows pc? Like, if a company would only sold blank PCs without any offering associated to MS they wouldn’t need to pay MS anything. | |
| ▲ | LocalH 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed. Pepperidge Farm remembers Microsoft's campaign against "naked PCs" |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Underphil 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think any of what you're describing are legal "monopolies". I don't have a single Apple product in my life but I'm fairly sure there's nothing I'm prevented from doing because of that. | | |
| ▲ | TheDong 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | And back in the "Microsoft has a monopoly on IE6" ruling's days, I did not use Windows or Internet Explorer, and I was not prevented from doing anything because of that. Netscape Navigator on Linux worked fine. Sure, I occasionally hit sites that were broken and only worked in IE, but I also right now frequently hit apps that are "macOS only" (like when Claude Cowork released, or a ton of other YC company's apps). Microsoft was found guilty, so clearly the bar is not what you're trying to claim. | | |
| ▲ | selectodude 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Microsoft was found guilty of using their market power to do product bundling, which is illegal. The fact that they had dominance in the market is not what they got popped for, nor is it illegal. | | |
| ▲ | longislandguido 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Let me know how I can unbundle Safari from macOS or iOS. Go ahead, I'll wait. | | |
| ▲ | chongli 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's possible on the Mac, but it's not easy. Apple uses an immutable system volume on macOS, so you can't just delete the Safari app like you would a user-installed app. To actually delete Safari you need to disable System Integrity Protection and reboot. There are plenty of Linux distributions that use immutable root volumes. They protect the user in a huge number of ways by preventing the system from getting hosed (either by accident or by malicious unauthorized users / malware). Apple made the decision to do this for their users, and it has prevented a HUGE amount of tech support calls, as well as led to millions of happy users with trouble-free computers. It also hasn't stopped users from installing Chrome and/or Firefox on their Macs, and millions of ordinary users have. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It also hasn't stopped users from installing Chrome and/or Firefox on their Macs, and millions of ordinary users have. You seem to be ignoring the part where you can't install the Chome and/or Firefox browser engines on iOS and the apps with those names on that platform are just skins over Safari. Notice in particular that the iOS version of "Firefox" can't support extensions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sroussey 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You just described Apple. | | |
| ▲ | selectodude 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apple has not, to my knowledge, required OEMs to bundle Safari with macOS alongside threats to withhold macOS if they don’t comply expressly to put Firefox out of business. But hey, maybe some weird shit happened during the clone years that I’m not privy to. | | |
| ▲ | SvenL 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apple requires Developers to use AppStore with their App alongside threats to withhold their App if they don’t comply. Just an example… and yes, I know the EU ruling but it’s still fitting. | | |
| ▲ | pdpi 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The crucially important subtlety here is that Apple requiring developers to use the App Store doesn't leverage an existing monopoly (like what Microsoft had with Windows). Compare the games console market. Nintendo is allowed to say you have to go through them to sell games for the Switch, ditto Microsoft with the Xbox. Sony doing the same thing with the Playstation is exactly equivalent, but they're approaching the sort of market dominance where it might soon be illegal for them (and them alone) to do that in some markets. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The crucially important subtlety here is that Apple requiring developers to use the App Store doesn't leverage an existing monopoly (like what Microsoft had with Windows). Copyright (e.g. over iOS) and patent (e.g. over iPhone hardware) are explicitly government-granted monopolies. Having that monopoly is allowed on purpose, but that isn't the same as it not existing, and having a government-granted monopoly and leveraging into another market are two quite distinct things. > Compare the games console market. Okay, all of the consoles that require you to sell you to sell through their stores shouldn't be able to do that either. > but they're approaching the sort of market dominance where it might soon be illegal for them (and them alone) to do that in some markets. Wait, your theory is that a console with ~50% market share has market dominance but Apple with ~60% of US phones doesn't? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Underphil 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, but that was coupled with other factors like them strongarming vendors, already being hugely dominant on desktops and abusing that position et al. I don't see this as being the same. Maybe my bar here is wrong, but it doesn't change whether they are a monopoly or not. | |
| ▲ | pdpi 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The issue was never "Microsoft has a monopoly on IE6". That's obviously nonsense. The monopoly that Microsoft held was the home computer operating system market, first through DOS, then later through Windows. Holding a monopoly like that isn't illegal unto itself. What they were actually found guilty of was unfairly leveraging their monopoly on the OS market to gain the upper hand in a different market (the browser market). The subsequent range of issues we had with IE6 (compatibility, security, etc) was a result of Microsoft succeeding in achieving a monopoly on the browser market through illicit means. Likewise, "Apple has a monopoly on the App Store" is just the same amount of nonsense. What you could argue is that Apple has a monopoly on the home computer market, or the mobile phone market, and that the way they integrate the App Store should be considered illegal leveraging of that monopoly, but that argument simply doesn't hold water — Microsoft's monopoly on the OS market at the time was pretty much incontrovertible, you simply couldn't walk into a shop and buy a computer running something else (except maybe a Mac at a more specialised place). Today, just about any shop you walk into that sells computers will probably have devices for sale running three different OSes (macOS, Windows, ChromeOS). Any phone place will have iPhones and Android devices, and probably a few more niche options. Actual market share percentage is nowhere near the high 90s that Microsoft saw in its heyday. At most, Apple is the biggest individual competitor in the market, but I don't think it hold an outright majority in any specific product class. Mind you, I think that there is a good argument to be made that the Apple/Google duopoly on mobile devices does deserve scrutiny, but that's a very different kettle of fish. | |
| ▲ | jonhohle 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You were not prevented from doing anything, but that doesn’t mean others weren’t. For example, OEMs were not allowed to offer any other preinstalled OS as a default option. That effectively killed Be and I’m sure hindered RedHat. |
|
| |
| ▲ | SllX 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes. If you define the market in a ridiculous manner and convince a court to go along with it, anybody can be a monopoly. But the M series are an Apple product line designed by Apple with a ARM license and produced on contract by TSMC for use in other Apple products. Don’t assume the facts from another case automatically apply in other cases. Or as Justice Jackson once put it: “Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions” | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s not how monopoly definitions work. That makes about as much sense as saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo consoles or Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Apple has a monopoly over the "M-chip" personal computer market. They have a monopoly over the iOS market with the app store When a company is deemed an illegal monopoly, the DoJ basically becomes part of management. Antitrust settlements focus on germane elements, e.g. spin offs. But they also frequently include random terms of political convenience. I don’t think we want a precedent where companies having a product means they have an automatic monopoly on said product. | | |
| ▲ | ascagnel_ 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | More to the point: having a monopoly isn't de facto illegal (just look up natural monopolies), it's using the monopoly power in an anti-competitive way that's illegal. Microsoft wasn't charged with having a monopoly, they were charged because they used that monopoly to exclude Netscape Navigator and force bundling of IE. |
| |
| ▲ | brookst 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reductionism is so cringe. Intel sold chips to anyone. Anyone could make Intel computers. Apple does not sell chips to anyone. Nobody else can make m-series computers. Your argument is basically that Ford has a monopoly on selling mustangs because standard oil had a monopoly on selling oil. |
| |
| ▲ | latexr 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What’s that got to do with anything? Having a monopoly isn’t the only reason to be regulated. | |
| ▲ | thisislife2 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for. | | |
| ▲ | ssl-3 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It isn't just about monopoly or unfair competition. This can also be covered under consumer rights - the Right to Repair. If we have a right to repair (we broadly do not, AFAICT), then that doesn't necessarily mean that we have a right to modify and/or add new functionality. When I repair a widget that has become broken, I merely return it to its previous non-broken state. I might also decide to upgrade it in some capacity as part of this repair process, but the act of repairing doesn't imply upgrades. At all. > No OS provider should be allowed to dictate what software you can or not run on your own device and / or OS you have paid for. I agree completely, but here we are anyway. We've been here for quite some time. |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Courts have already ruled it does in the iOS app store market. You can disagree of course but then you'd be disagreeing with legal experts who know more about anti-trust law than you do. | | |
| ▲ | afavour 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But Apple’s share of the desktop/laptop market is very different than their share of the mobile one. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, however the parent's claim was that Apple does not have a monopoly in any market they're in which is legally demonstrably false. |
| |
| ▲ | hilsdev 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Credentialism to prevent discussion of political and government entities is incredibly dangerous | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can, but that doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as those who study the subject. Otherwise we might as well follow the sovereign citizen believers. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Internet Explorer Mobile is a YouTube client. You're describing a client-server disagreement when the user is talking about an entirely client-based conflict. | | |
| ▲ | realusername 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Google deployed custom code to actively block the clients so it went beyond just a disagreement | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's normal behavior when your server is being reverse-engineered or abused. Video bandwidth is not free. Apple's decision is not constrained by server logic or ballooning costs, it is entirely a client-based policy to not sign CUDA drivers. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > That's normal behavior when your server is being reverse-engineered or abused. Video bandwidth is not free. Microsoft rewrote their Windows Phone native client to pass through Google's ads. Google still blocked it. Was it normal behavior when Google blocked Amazon Fire devices from connecting to YouTube with a web browser during the Google/Amazon corporate spat? To be fair, Google did back down almost immediately when the tech press picked up on it. Not allowing a native client for your monopoly market share video service on Amazon devices while also blocking Amazon's web browser on those devices is making things a bit too obvious. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Again - servers are always offered at-will. If the service provider wants to boot you out, their TOS usually won't give you the right to renegotiate service. Clients are not offered at-will, they either work or they don't. Nvidia ships AArch64 UNIX drivers, Apple is the one that neglects their UNIX clients. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Using your monopoly market share video service as a weapon against companies offering platforms that compete with your own is textbook antitrust behavior. Google used YouTube as a weapon against both Windows Phone and devices running Amazon's Fire fork of Android. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > monopoly market share video service A "monopoly" "service"? What have they monopolized, laziness? It's not the App Store, you can go replace it with DailyMotion at your earliest convenience. You're still retreading why your original comment was not at all relevant to the critique being made. We have precedent for prosecuting monopolistic behavior in America, but it doesn't encompass services even when they're mandatory to use the client. It does have a precedent for arbitrarily preventing competitors from shipping a runtime that competes with the default OS, incidentally. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | When your product has a monopoly market share, you don't get to use it as a weapon against competitors in other markets, even if you claim there is some imaginary exception to antitrust law involving servers. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | realusername 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There hasn't been any abuse in this story as far as I know, it's not like mass downloads of videos happened with their client. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's besides the point, you don't own the server. You cannot expect the server to work forever, or demand a right to access it. You do own the client though. In the example upstream, the failure to support macOS clients can't be blamed on Nvidia because they already wrote AArch64 UNIX support. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You cannot use a monopoly market share product like YouTube as a weapon against companies who compete with you in other areas. This is as basic as antitrust law gets. | |
| ▲ | realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When you have a monopoly like YouTube, yes you can expect to have an access to the platform if it prevents competition. It's textbook antitrust laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
