A week after finding itself at the business end of a landmark lawsuit from the United States Department of Justice, Apple is staunchly denying any
You must log in or # to comment.
In 1998, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs criticized Microsoft’s monopoly and ‘dirty tactics’ in operating systems to target Apple, which prompted the company ‘to go to the Department of Justice’ in hopes of getting Microsoft ‘to play fair,’” the suit notes, heavily implying hypocrisy on Apple’s part. “But even at that time, Apple did not face the same types of restrictions it imposes on third parties today; Apple users could use their iPod with a Windows computer…
iPod launched in 2001. Am I missing something?
The Microsoft case was filled in 1998, but the actual trial was argued in 2001 and then supplemented throughout until 2004.
It’s hard to see how a court could rule against Apple given the facts. You can argue that the App Store rules are anticompetitive to software vendors, but to claim Apple holds anything resembling a monopoly on smartphones is asinine, and trying to reclassify it to “performance smartphones” is even worse.
The market for internal combustion engine production cars with over 600 horsepower is dominated by a handful of Italian car manufacturers. Do we then sue Lamborghini because my Toyota can’t use their proprietary wiper blades?
We need to change our mindset in regards to anti-competitive practices.
It shouldn’t be so much about monopoly.
What we need is to focus on anti-competitive behavior. Just because a company doesn’t have a monopoly doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely anto-competitive.
We need to fight against that and against consolidation leading to oligopolies.
I don’t disagree. I’m pointing out that under current conditions, I think the likelihood of this suit being successful in changing Apple’s operating model is low. What is doesn’t represent what should.
I got ya, totally agree
