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.

	▲	raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s called “No duty to deal” https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
	▲	bigyabai 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You don't get to demand that the server support your endpoint, period. There is no precedent for that ever happening in US antitrust law, because it's not anticompetitive. If you think otherwise, make your case to Google's lawyers instead of spinning hypothetical case law.

▲

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.