> Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service

MacOS isn't sold anymore, it's a free download for all supported Macs - meaning Apple is not "selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product", regardless of which product you think is being tied to the other (hardware or software).

I can see where you're coming from, but Apple wouldn't necessarily be in trouble due to the wording of the law. Maybe in some countries where the spirit of a law matters more than the specific wording, but we're quoting US legal definitions here, and my mental model of the US legal system has the phrasing mattering more than the intention

▲

Joel_Mckay 18 hours ago | parent [-]

You may have missed the context of the conversation, and the sales-funnel of the app store installed along with the "OS". =3

▲

AnthonyMouse 16 hours ago | parent [-]

It's also missing the condition. macOS is only "free" after you buy their hardware, i.e. acquiring it is still tied to buying the hardware. If it was actually independently available for free then you wouldn't be prohibited from running it on other hardware.

See also Windows and Internet Explorer.

▲

carlosjobim 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Neither MacOS nor iOS are anywhere near being dominant in their markets in the same way Microsoft was with Windows.

Ford isn't getting sued either for only selling cars with Ford motors inside.

▲

AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Neither MacOS nor iOS are anywhere near being dominant in their markets in the same way Microsoft was with Windows.

A market is the set of goods or services that are fungible substitutes for one another. If Ford and Chevy use the same kind of battery as each other but Honda and Toyota use a different kind then "battery for Ford or Chevy" is a market and "battery for Honda or Toyota" is a different market. If they each require different kinds of battery then "battery for Ford" is a separate market from "battery for Chevy", but even within those markets there can be multiple competitors, i.e. Ford isn't necessarily the only company that makes batteries compatible with Ford vehicles.

Whereas if Ford vehicles use a different kind of battery than other vehicles and there is only one company who makes that kind of battery, "battery for Ford vehicles" would be a market in which that supplier has a monopoly, regardless of whether the one supplier is Ford or someone else.

Which one of these looks like what Apple is doing?

> Ford isn't getting sued either for only selling cars with Ford motors inside.

Ford isn't only selling cars with Ford motors inside. They offer them that way, and it's a popular purchase option, but they'll also sell anyone essentially any part of the car by itself. They also don't prohibit you from taking the engine out of your Ford and putting it in a Chevy or vice versa.

▲

carlosjobim 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This argument is always being made on HN and is always wrong. And it becomes more wrong every time it is repeated.

Because with that logic, every company in the world is a monopoly because every company in the world has their own niche and their own products which are different from others.

> Ford isn't only selling cars with Ford motors inside.

Ford would never sell you a car with an engine in it which isn't from them.

> They also don't prohibit you from taking the engine out of your Ford and putting it in a Chevy or vice versa.

Apple doesn't prohibit you either from ripping out the motherboard from the chassis of whatever device and putting your own stuff in there. People change batteries etc.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Because with that logic, every company in the world is a monopoly because every company in the world has their own niche and their own products which are different from others. There are numerous companies that make bleach or wheat or ceramic bowls. Their products are completely fungible with their competitors. None of them has a monopoly on any of that. Whereas the ones that have no viable substitutes for a particular use... have a monopoly. That's what a monopoly is. It's when you can't get something from anyone else. That's not the same thing as having a vendor-specific part. It's pretty common that the brake pads for a particular vehicle won't fit on a car from any other make. However, that doesn't mean the OEM is the only one who makes that part. You can get Ford-specific brake pads from Duralast or Powerstop or others in addition to getting them from Ford. > Ford would never sell you a car with an engine in it which isn't from them. Ford has sold millions of cars with engines in them from Mazda and others. > Apple doesn't prohibit you either from ripping out the motherboard from the chassis of whatever device and putting your own stuff in there. People change batteries etc. They expressly prohibit you from running macOS or iOS on anyone else's hardware, and likewise prevent you from running any other OS on an iPhone.

▲

piltdownman 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The dominance benchmark is usually around 70% market share. Apple's iOS holds a 52% to 58% market share in the United States. It's not terribly far off tbh.

More to the point, the EU have already slapped them with two separate $500m fines having repeatedly found that Apple used iOS and the App Store to break antitrust laws.

The US have a similar case hinging on all sorts of things ranging from green text message bubbles to heavily restricting access to the NFC API and affording to itself the privilege of host-card emulation via Apple Wallet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)

▲

solyin 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ford has been, however, sued multiple times over the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, for trying to void the warranty if you made aftermarket changes. Because you bought the Ford and the laws say it's yours, you are free to rip out the Ford engine and put in a Honda engine if you so please. (Emissions laws notwithstanding.) If Ford was saying you cannot tear out the engine on a car you own and put in a different one, and they welded the hood shut, then it would be a better comparison. Neither Ford nor Apple would be so foolish though. It's just that the metaphorical hood welds in the iPhone's case havent been broken recently.

▲

carlosjobim 12 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a different subject matter. But how is Ford supposed to be able to guarantee the functioning of a car that they didn't make? Since you made it yourself by making changes? It makes sense that they would challenge such warranty claims all the way to the court.

A lot of things on cars are welded or otherwise very difficult for the customer to modify, and I don't think any court would have a big problem with that.

▲

zchrykng 8 hours ago | parent [-]

They have to prove that the changes you made is what caused the failure. If they can't and/or the changes are unrelated to the warranty claim, they have to honor it.

	▲	carlosjobim 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's very reasonable. And the warranty should of course get voided if it is evident that the user customization could have caused whatever problem.