Re:Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1
by enjo on Monday May 03, 2010 @07:25PM
(#1316445)
Except that Apple owns a monopoly on iPhone application distribution. Just as in the Kodak case where Kodak had a monopoly on parts.
In the Wal-Mart case you can hardly argue that Wal-Mart owns a monopoly on consumer good distribution.
The key thing here is that there is no way to get a legitimate application (and web-apps hardly need apply) onto the iPhone without going through the Apple channel. It looks and smells like a monpoly (at least as defined in previous supreme court rulings) to me.
In the Wal-Mart case you can hardly argue that Wal-Mart owns a monopoly on consumer good distribution.
The key thing here is that there is no way to get a legitimate application (and web-apps hardly need apply) onto the iPhone without going through the Apple channel. It looks and smells like a monpoly (at least as defined in previous supreme court rulings) to me.