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 4 days 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 4 days 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 4 days 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?

▲

scott_w 4 days ago | parent [-]

There’s no such thing as “having a monopoly on iPhone” in law. You have to have a monopoly in a market, of which iPhone is part of the “smartphone” market. It is not a monopoly in the smartphone market, to the best of my knowledge.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> You have to have a monopoly in a market, of which iPhone is part of the “smartphone” market. Products and markets are not a one to one mapping. For example, if you sell low-background steel, that's part of the broader "steel" market because anyone who needs ordinary steel could buy it from you and use it for the same purposes as ordinary steel. But low-background steel is also its own market, because the people who need that can't use ordinary steel. Likewise for sellers of products with higher purity levels, products that satisfy particular standards or regulatory requirements, etc. It's only the same market if it's the same thing. Clorox bleach is the same as other bleach; Microsoft Windows is not the same as MacOS. And iOS is not the same as Android. I mean this really isn't that hard: Are they substitutes for each other? If you have a GE washing machine, can you use any brand of bleach? You can, so they're in the same market. If you have an app that exists for iOS and not Android, can you use an Android device? No, so they're not in the same market. Likewise, if you've written a mobile app and need to distribute it to your customers who have iOS devices, can you use Google Play? Again no, which is what makes them different markets. They're not substitutes, any more than a retailer in Texas is a substitute for a retailer in California when you have customers in both states -- or only have customers in California.