Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes
They faced the suit because they were a Monopoly in x86 OS market and used that monopoly to crush other competitors by creating barriers of entry to would be competition by strong arming OEM manufacturers into not offering competing products and punished them if they did.
|
I didn't say that the two situations were completely analogous, just that you can be seen as a monopoly without actually being one. Apple can be seen as a monopoly in the mobile app market, otherwise any anti-competitive legislation never would have got off the ground.
Also, Microsoft's relationship with OEM manufacturers was only one pieces of the puzzle in the anti-trust that they've faced. The bundling of IE with Windows and creating APIs that benefited IE over other browsers was another piece. The API manipulation is much more similar to what's going on with Apple than the OEM relationships, but, again, I stress NOT
identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes
Apple is not keeping people from developing for other platforms. There are ways to create cross platform applications for use on multiple platforms. It is not a God given right that it be easy and cheap.
|
They're not keeping other people from developing from other platforms, and I never claimed otherwise. What I said is that they're making it much more difficult. And if you're seen as a monopoly by the FTC or DoJ, then that's anti-competitive.
No one is claiming is a God given right to develop cross-platform applications cheaply and easily. But the fact is that there are already ways to do it cheaply and easily and Apple is banning these ways with a legal clause, not a technical requirement. And when you use legalities to potentially hurt your competitors business, the FTC may step in.