AsGryffynn said:
JWeinCom said:
Uhhhh... ok? Whatever consumer rights argument you want to make has nothing to do with anti-trust law. I'm assuming you think it's wrong for a company to prevent sideloading whether they had 1% or 100% of the marketshare, so nothing to do with monopoly.
|
It does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission
Now apply the logic to the App Store. It's the same issue here: an OS controls distribution of what's usable/unusable on their OS. Said OS is in a dominant position and other alternatives are either unrealistic or unpalatable (note that not once was the party involved told "you can use Linux/OS2 and even though alternatives were available, MSFTs dominant position meant they had to comply).
MS released a version without WMP. Apple could be forced to release a version of iOS without the Apple App Store.
|
I can't apply that logic, because the article doesn't really explain the legal logic. Obviously it's not inherently legal to include a piece of your software with hardware or an OS you're selling, because that happens all the time, even if there is a competing product available. So, I'd need to know why exactly including Windows Media Player was deemed a problem. I'm fairly certain that Microsoft still includes plenty of other Microsoft software with windows in both the US and EU, so I don't know why specifically this one was an issue. I know a bit about US antitrust law but nothing about EU, so I'm not really going to argue about that.
But, if Apple only controlled 1% of the market would you be ok with them preventing sideloading? If no, then you object to this behavior regardless of market power, and you're not making an anti-trust argument.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 09 January 2021