Mac immune to anti-trust laws?

[Dekkon]

Microsoft always gets these lawsuits and fines for anti-trust with there application like Internet Explorer and Media Center.

Why DOESNT Apple get any for there monopoly on Mac OS X with iTunes, Safari, Quicktime and other applications? Honestly, does the EU just go after the big boys for the big money? I honestly say this isn't fair practice.

[Seti]

Usually anti-trust suits are reserved for companies that actually have monopolies on some portion of the market.
Someone like Apple doesn't have any kind of software monopolies, so I'd say its a safe bet they won't be hit by any anti-trust suits anytime soon.

[LaRoza]

I think they have in the past.

[Dekkon]

Usually anti-trust suits are reserved for companies that actually have monopolies on some portion of the market.
Someone like Apple doesn't have any kind of software monopolies, so I'd say its a safe bet they won't be hit by any anti-trust suits anytime soon.

iPod and the iTunes Music store? I think its safe to say that the iPod is pretty focused on iTunes Music store only.

[Seti]

yeah and? There are lots of different portable media-players, and lots of places on the internet to find music.
how is iTunes and iPod monopolistic?

[Dekkon]

yeah and? There are lots of different portable media-players, and lots of places on the internet to find music.
how is iTunes and iPod monopolistic?

The new iPods can only be synced through iTunes(until they cracked it) leaving all Linux users S.O.L.

EDIT: Sorry didn't get your question at first but...heres another for ya.

"Theres alot of other operating systems out there, how is Windows Monopolist. Its a free market." Apple uses the same marketing as MS to push there products.

[LaRoza]

The new iPods can only be synced through iTunes(until they cracked it) leaving all Linux users S.O.L.

I don't think that is the same as a monopoly. There is no requirement that everything should be cross platform.

Apple's products may be locked tight (soddered batteries, limited options) but they are not monopolistic.

They, as far as I know, do not try to destroy competitors like some corporations.

[Seti]

Microsoft always gets these lawsuits and fines for anti-trust with there application like Internet Explorer and Media Center.

Why DOESNT Apple get any for there monopoly on Mac OS X with iTunes, Safari, Quicktime and other applications? Honestly, does the EU just go after the big boys for the big money? I honestly say this isn't fair practice.

OK, I'll do a little better in responding this time.

When Microsoft were hit with anti-trust suits for IE and Media Player, it was deemed unfair that they would bundle these software with the OS. This stiffled any possible competition from another browser, for example.

Does the EU just go after "the big boys for the big money?"
no they go after someone who has actually behaved in a monopolistic fashion.
Care to tell me how Apple have any kind of monopoly with Quicktime? Safari?!!

[SunnyRabbiera]

I think they have in the past.

Yes, they tried to claim that only they had claim on GUI... but microsoft won, it was the only good they ever done

[LaRoza]

Yes, they tried to claim that only they had claim on GUI... but microsoft won, it was the only good they ever done

There are many lawsuits, but few anti-trust suits:



Apple also has received criticism and two class-action lawsuits at both state and federal level about its iPhone product only being allowed service through a single mobile service provider in each country it has been released in (AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK), citing monopolistic and antitrust allegations between the two companies.[98] Software updates (maliciously or not) initially made unlocked iPhones unusable ("bricked"), however the most recent update revives the phone. Currently there is no official way to unlock an iPhone, and it cannot be bought unlocked for use on any network.

[phrostbyte]

It is because anti-trust laws don't apply unless the corporation is deemed to be a monopoly. Microsoft is considered to have a monopoly on desktop operating systems in the United States and Europe, and thus subject to anti-trust regulations. Microsoft probably won't lose this label until their marketshare on Windows falls to 70-80%.

In the USA, monopolies are not allowed to use their market leverage to destroy other businesses or stifle competition. So Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows was considered an anti-trust violation by the US government because it caused Netscape to lose considerable business in a way they couldn't overcome in any reasonable way.

Also, Microsoft has many exclusive deals with OEMs, in fact the majority of major OEMs, which in turn offer Windows exclusively on the desktop. At one point they could not reasonably offer any other option besides Windows. These types of business agreements (literarly "trust agreements") are exactly what anti-trust aims to prevent.

The EU is arguing Microsoft purposefully makes it difficult for competitors to create software that interoperates with Windows. Another claim is that the bundle of Media Player with Windows is unfair to other software competitors that lack Microsoft's kind of leverage.

Due to Microsoft inaction in complying with the EU's resolutions, they were fined over 1 billion euros so far.

So you have to ask, is Apple a monopoly? If they are, how are they abusing their monopoly to stifle competition in the market?

I don't think Apple can fit in this scheme. Clearly Apple do not have any huge marketshare on any of their products, so they can not be considered a monopoly of any market. And even their most successful product, the iPod doesn't even come close to Microsoft's desktop OS marketshare. So Apple can not violate anti-trust law.

[erichmj]

If Microsoft can be sued over explorer integration, I think Apple should be sued over Finder integration. You just can't turn that piece of junk off.

[tubasoldier]

Wasn't Apple brought up on lawsuit charges in France because the ITMS was viewed as a monopoly?

[mcduck]

If Microsoft can be sued over explorer integration, I think Apple should be sued over Finder integration. You just can't turn that piece of junk off.

It's still not a question of simply including software with the operating system. They are called "anti-trust" laws exactly because they are made to protect against monopolies and monopoly-like situations.

As long as Apple is not in monopoly-like position they can integrate whatever they want with their operating system, there's nothing wrong with that.

[swoll1980]

What about the fact osx can only be installed on the macs extreamly over priced hardware that seems a little monopolistic if thats even a real word

[fatality_uk]

What about the fact osx can only be installed on the macs extreamly over priced hardware that seems a little monopolistic if thats even a real word

That's not a monopoly!

[swoll1980]

That's not a monopoly!

I don't know what it's called but it's shady like price fixing or something what ever it's called it doesn't seem right to me that they can charge $500 more for the hardware that would be $500 less in a pc equivalent

[mcduck]

What about the fact osx can only be installed on the macs extreamly over priced hardware that seems a little monopolistic if thats even a real word

That's meaningless. A Mac is still just a personal computer, and they compete from the same markets with other PCs. And on PC market Apple is nowhere close to getting a monopoly position. For that reason anti-trust laws have nothing to do with what Apple does.

Even when OS X can only be installed on a Mac, that doesn't limit your choice- You can get some other PC than Mac instead, and use some other operating system. Furthermore, if you get a Mac, you don't have to run OS X on it, you can use Linux, or these days even Windows, instead.

It's not "shady" to put high price on hardware, as long as people do not _have_ to buy that hardware. If you want a Mac, it's your choice.

It's like claiming Ferrari to have a monopoly on Ferrari cars and parts. Of course they are only ones selling Ferrari cars, it's their car and their trademark. And they can charge as high prices as they want from the cars and car parts,a s long as they are not the only car manufacturer in the world.

[akiratheoni]

They aren't immune. Lookie:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10428378

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/09/content_7389167.htm

It's outdated, but it shows that they have been a target of anti-trust regulations at least.

[kidux]

MS gets hit with Anti-Trust lawsuits because they use their considerable market power to skew it in their favor, i.e. forcing OEMs to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. Apple does not do this. OS X is made for Apple specific machines, not every computer, so there is no monopoly. Because MS had made the deals with OEMs to sell machines pre-loaded with Win, they effectively cut out the competition at the source, and then strangled any other 3rd party from developing software that would compete with MS specific ones, i.e. Internet Explorer vs. Netscape. Again, Safari runs on specific Apple hardware, not every computer. That is the difference.

[LaRoza]

MS gets hit with Anti-Trust lawsuits because they use their considerable market power to skew it in their favor, i.e. forcing OEMs to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. Apple does not do this. OS X is made for Apple specific machines, not every computer, so there is no monopoly. Because MS had made the deals with OEMs to sell machines pre-loaded with Win, they effectively cut out the competition at the source, and then strangled any other 3rd party from developing software that would compete with MS specific ones, i.e. Internet Explorer vs. Netscape. Again, Safari runs on specific Apple hardware, not every computer. That is the difference.

OS X is now built for the same processors as PC's. However, Apple has taken an odd "anti-monoply" by not allowing it to be installed on them.

Safari runs on Windows also, but interestingly, the license is the same so it can't be legally run on Windows if you take it literally. Oddly enough, if Apple makes the license that for a Windows only program that states it can be installed on an Apple labelled computer, does that mean that all Apple software which states that can be installed anywhere they can be?

[swoll1980]

to me not being able to legally install osx on a pc seems the same as not being able to put itune songs on a zune or not being able to choose your cellular company on an iphone

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Microsoft always gets these lawsuits and fines for anti-trust with there application like Internet Explorer and Media Center.

Why DOESNT Apple get any for there monopoly on Mac OS X with iTunes, Safari, Quicktime and other applications? Honestly, does the EU just go after the big boys for the big money? I honestly say this isn't fair practice.

They have been. The Norwegian government sued successfully over iTunes DRM and Creative won a £50m suit against Apple over patent infringements regarding the iPod... there were some others as well, mainly around the legality of iTunes and DRM. Its what prompted uber idiot Jobs to declare that he'd like to see DRM removed from all music... was that after you got a kicking in the courts Steve or before?

Oh wait, let me think, it was after.

[master5o1]

The Ipod/ Itunes Music store is verging on monopoly. The EU etc. have been looking in to that though.

Fortunately with those of us unfortunate to have ipod's, there are great FOSS developers who have made them work very well in Linux.

If you want a good Itunes clone to try (if Rhythmbox doesn't go far enough for you) Try songbird. It even syncs videos. It is still in development though.