>Apple has no such market position to abuse.

It depends how you want to measure things, in US iOS has more then 50% mobile market share but Apple fanboys will use only this numbers (or how many more purchases are on Apple sore) in the conversations about how cool Apple is, when we talk about the monopoly/duopoly then world wide numbers are used, maybe throw more type of devices in there...

I would say that Apple is clearly anti-competitive, not allowing other browsers, giving their own apps access to private APIs, their own apps ignoring the users firewall and security rules etc, but judges will have to decide on this and if they still consider is legal we might need to update some laws .

IMO the society is more important then a company, so if we decide that we no longer want this bullshit we will advocate and hopefully have the issue corrected.

The Apple situation looks to me similar to when mobile providers would lock phones to their network, then charge you to unlock them, this was made illegal , if you own your phone then the unlock should be possible for free, exception is if you are still renting/paying for the device so you are not owning it fully.

It seems you skipped preliminary hearing in September 2020. Judge already asked why Epic thinks Apple walled garden (closed platform) is illegal while such types of businesses were legal for decades.

Also judge rejected comparison of open and closed platforms. So she asked Epic lawyers what's the difference between Apple's closed platform and Xbox/PlayStation and Nintendo.

Epic lawyers failed badly without answering. Also failed to answer question when did Apple become monopoly.

Let's see what happens in EU. And FYI Sony and Nintendo are also wrong in my opinion for locking their devices though people don't complain as much since so far they found ways to bypass the locks.

I wonder if just business size can be used here rather than monopoly position. If your business is above a certain size, then more restrictions apply to what you can do. The reasoning is that the bigger you are the more people you impact, regardless of your market position and poor behaviors of smaller players to compete with larger players is also an issue. The current economic model of monopolies is very limited in scope (only looks at pricing) whereas there are many negative externalities a business may have beyond just consumer prices. Look at the consumer unfriendly business practices that take hold in industries (eg 24hr fitness famously making it really hard to Vance their service, poor competition on the part of ISPs, etc).

I think size may also be construed as "infrastructure." For example, Facebook now has a couple of billion users. It has reached the point where we often have to get Facebook accounts/pages, if we want to reach certain users. In short, Facebook has become necessary to "survive," in a sense.

That sort of puts it into the realm of a utility; like power or water.

The idea of a utility, is that it is deliberately allowed to become a monopoly, sometimes, with state enforcement. The flip side, is that it is now required to provide a lot of services.

For example, if some old folks can't pay their electric, in winter, the utility might be required to supply them with electricity anyway, and eat the cost, or claim it as a tax deduction.

That's the downside. The upside is...MONOPOLY, BABY! WOO-HOO! PAAAARTAAAY!

So there's a big carrot, as well as stick. People who own utilities tend to get pretty damn rich.

This all kinda breaks down, if the utility is already a monopoly, so the state assigning them monopoly status means nothing. No carrot; only stick. It also breaks down, if the utility manages to corrupt the regulators, thus eliminating the stick.

Facebook is already a monopoly. It doesn't need the state to give it anything; certainly not with a stick, attached. Thus, the "Standard Oil" remedy.

Apple isn't quite like Facebook, but it's getting there. The problem is that a lot of what gives its products value, is that iron-fisted control Apple has over their configuration. If that control is diluted, then it would also reduce the value of Apple products.

> For example, Facebook now has a couple of billion users. It has reached the point where we often have to get Facebook accounts/pages, if we want to reach certain users. In short, Facebook has become necessary to "survive," in a sense.

Not in any meaningful sense that I can understand. Seems hard to argue that all the people on HN who've plainly stated that they left Facebook can be considered dead or struggling to survive. That's not a sensible definition of survival. Also, Facebook cannot and does not prevent anyone from reaching its users. Facebook users often use other products and platforms as well.

It was a figure of speech. I was talking about a business, or other type of endeavor (note quotes around “survive.” Gives a clue).

I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway.

Then I set up a Facebook group for it.

Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over.

It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook presence was a big part of it. It’s the most active hub for that effort by far.

Also, due to the nature of that particular effort, I guarantee that there are people (probably many) that are alive today, because of Facebook.

It’s entirely possible to hop in a sailboat, and get to Hawai’i, but most people would prefer flying there.

It can be said that Hawai’i requires air travel to “survive” (but I suspect that there are a number of native Hawai’ian folks that feel as if this ease of access has been anything but a blessing).

My bad for being unclear, I know it's not literal survival, I was responding to the implication: because Facebook is needed for some kind of "survival", it follows that Facebook is a utility that cannot be controlled by a company. That may be true for actual survival of actual people, but you're not talking about that. Guaranteed utilities/things in most countries are classified as such because they are necessary for literal human survival in modern society - electricity, water, food stamps, shelter - but you use the word "survive" which suggests actual survival while disclaiming the meaning by putting quotes around it and saying it's just a figure of speech. Facebook is not even close to a utility, it may only seem so if "survive" is re-defined to mean something totally different than what we use when we talk about a public utility.

I appreciate your story but open source projects don't inherently deserve to survive. Businesses don't inherently deserve to survive.

More importantly, the fact that Facebook can and has saved lives doesn't make it necessary for survival either. I'm sure a Taylor Swift song has brought someone back from the brink of suicide and indirectly saved lives by some definition, but it would be absurd to consider Taylor Swift songs to be a public utility necessary for survival.

I understand. I suspect that we see things differently, and probably won't be able to find common ground.

But, the project I worked on is definitely not something to be compared to a Taylor Swift song, and I understand that this comes from a position of unfamiliarity. That's fine, but I'm happy to elucidate, offline, if you wish.

Fair enough, I appreciate the honesty & civility. I'd love to see a link to your open source project or related material in a reply, mostly out of curiosity.

No. I won't post it publicly. It's not a state secret, and can be figured out, by looking through my links, but it's easier to simply email me, and I'll send it.

It's the kind of thing that is best left relatively "uncredited," and is important only to a certain demographic; but within that demographic, it is very, very important.

Ah I didn't realize that. I've contacted you through the contact form in one of your company websites.

Do you actually believe this? I have a hard time thinking that anyone believes "Apple has no such market position to abuse.". It's absurd.

>It's only a problem when you abuse your monopoly position to restrict competitors.

Like what Spotify is suing them over, for example.

They do. They have a total monopoly on phones running iOS. Way stronger of a monopoly than PCs running windows in the 90s, given that every single iPhone is locked into this vertically integrated market.

By that logic, every company has a monopoly on its own products.