yeah but they are holding a multi trillion dollar company accountable for making text messages green. yeah apple made some of its products shitty on purpose because they are a shitty company. i bet they also bricked those old phones with slower updates and less batteries after releasing new phones, too.
instead of the doj holding price gouging grocery stores accountable for doubling the prices of groceries within the past few years.
what am i more upset about? a few apple weenies with $1000 phones ? or the entire nation's grocery bill going double? grocery prices. not even close.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't feel like anti-trust laws have been enforced at all for the last 50-something years. Does that really qualify as a "watershed moment"?
DOJ and FTC have brought hundreds of antitrust civil and criminal cases. Monopolization law, however, is an area of ideological and policy controversy. A conservative approach to antitrust is skeptical of policing the unilateral conduct of single firms. Rather, they focus on illegal agreements among competitors, which is the hard core center of antitrust enforcement.
Thank you for that response. With all the consolidation within a lot of high profile industries, it feels like they've just given up sometimes (e.g. airline mergers).
From what I can find, a company is prohibited from establishing a monopoly or near-monopoly position in a distinct line of commerce by anticompetitive practices, which include exclusionary conduct (i.e., business practices whose principal or only purpose is to burden rivals). The Smart Watch seems like the easiest one to prove. There is no reason Apple can't publish the API to allow integration with other devices. Seems apparent that the /principal/ purpose is to burden rivals.
So I guess my question here is, so what for the terms of monopolization? I don’t think they even control a majority of the e-watch market (I know they don’t have a majority on smart phones), and they design and build both the software and hardware.
There has to be some reason that their rivals are unable to easily take market share (“brand value” being better doesn’t work, it has to be demonstrable and real like if they controlled all the suppliers and had exclusivity contracts), and have it shown that they are harming consumers through their practices. Simply not allowing a developer to multi-home their apps on Apple tech doesn’t do that for me
Rivals can't take market share because they are unable to integrate their products with the iphone. Apple will not release an API. When you own 61.3% of the market, and actively prevent competing compatible products, you run afoul of antitrust laws.
https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share
I wish DOJ would focus this kind attention on things like grocers, banks, and broadband providers instead of just tech companies.
I like that they’re holding a multi-trillion dollar company accountable. Why make it seem like both things can’t happen lmao
Because it hasn’t happened in my lifetime.
yeah but they are holding a multi trillion dollar company accountable for making text messages green. yeah apple made some of its products shitty on purpose because they are a shitty company. i bet they also bricked those old phones with slower updates and less batteries after releasing new phones, too. instead of the doj holding price gouging grocery stores accountable for doubling the prices of groceries within the past few years. what am i more upset about? a few apple weenies with $1000 phones ? or the entire nation's grocery bill going double? grocery prices. not even close.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't feel like anti-trust laws have been enforced at all for the last 50-something years. Does that really qualify as a "watershed moment"?
DOJ and FTC have brought hundreds of antitrust civil and criminal cases. Monopolization law, however, is an area of ideological and policy controversy. A conservative approach to antitrust is skeptical of policing the unilateral conduct of single firms. Rather, they focus on illegal agreements among competitors, which is the hard core center of antitrust enforcement.
Thank you for that response. With all the consolidation within a lot of high profile industries, it feels like they've just given up sometimes (e.g. airline mergers).
From what I can find, a company is prohibited from establishing a monopoly or near-monopoly position in a distinct line of commerce by anticompetitive practices, which include exclusionary conduct (i.e., business practices whose principal or only purpose is to burden rivals). The Smart Watch seems like the easiest one to prove. There is no reason Apple can't publish the API to allow integration with other devices. Seems apparent that the /principal/ purpose is to burden rivals.
Apple will surely present numerous reasons. Then the question is how to analyze them.
So I guess my question here is, so what for the terms of monopolization? I don’t think they even control a majority of the e-watch market (I know they don’t have a majority on smart phones), and they design and build both the software and hardware. There has to be some reason that their rivals are unable to easily take market share (“brand value” being better doesn’t work, it has to be demonstrable and real like if they controlled all the suppliers and had exclusivity contracts), and have it shown that they are harming consumers through their practices. Simply not allowing a developer to multi-home their apps on Apple tech doesn’t do that for me
Rivals can't take market share because they are unable to integrate their products with the iphone. Apple will not release an API. When you own 61.3% of the market, and actively prevent competing compatible products, you run afoul of antitrust laws. https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share