There's Something Wrong With a World Where Apple Has a Monopoly on Anything

The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are in the preliminary stages of an antitrust investigation of Apple Inc. regarding app development for the iPhone.

The two agencies divide up antitrust prosecutions. The Wall Street Journal's Thomas Catan and Yukari Iwatani Kane report:

People familiar with the matter said the latest interest from regulators was triggered by complaints from Apple competitors and application developers over the terms of company's agreement with iPhone and iPad app developers...

Apple recently revised the terms to forbid developers from using software tools other than Apple's tools to build their programs. It also banned apps from transmitting certain technical iPhone data to third parties.

Adobe Systems Inc., whose software can't be used by developers under the revised agreement, has recently escalated a public-relations war over the issue. An Adobe spokeswoman declined to comment.

Apple's new language forbidding apps from transmitting analytical data could prevent ad networks from being able to effectively target ads, potentially giving Apple's new iAd mobile-advertising service an edge, executives at ad networks say.

As an Apple apostate since the late 1990s and a strong believer in the limitations of the company's cult, I am confident that in ten years CEO John Sculley III will be announcing a new plan to take Apple's share of the smartphone market from 3 percent to 3.1 percent. In the meantime, the antitrust investigation makes very little sense. Apple has a dominant position in smartphone apps, but it only controls about a fourth of the smartphone market. The playing field for app developers could not be more level, nor could developers realistically expect to enjoy more options; competitive devices are available with Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and other carriers, all of which have been scientifically proven to be (slightly) less evil than iPhone carrier AT&T.

You might make the case that developing an app for the Droid is a lot less attractive than developing one for the iPhone. But that's a result of Apple's immense first-mover advantage and the widely recognized excellence of its product. This raises the same question that arises when people complain (every damn day) about all the outrages Facebook has perpetrated against them, or warn that the Google Books agreement will turn Planet Earth into an info-dictatorship: At what point does something you invented become everybody's property?

There is a precedent for this question in a generally accepted area of government-mandated monopolies: patent and copyright law. Assuming for the sake of argument that antitrust laws should exist in the first place, shouldn't there at least be a reasonable period of exploitation for the inventor? The iPhone has yet to celebrate its third birthday. Even if it had 100 percent of the app market, why should Apple not be free to call the shots in app development?

Related: Last year, Apple kiboshed the Google Voice deal, missing a chance to fix the iPhone's biggest weakness: its subpar performance as an actual phone. (Allowing inventors tight control of a product, after all, entails the possibility that they'll screw it up.) Peter Suderman looked at the Federal Communications Commission's hysterical reaction.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Shannon Love||

    I develop for the iPhone and the Apple contracts and the API itself are very restrictive but that is just a tradeoff like everything else in life. Honestly, I don't understand why people think the government can somehow let them eat their cake and still have it.

    If you want a viable software ecosystem that people can trust, you have to have some restrictions on who can write software for it. You have to have some mechanism for holding software authors responsible. You have to have some way of ensuring that the authors get paid. You have to viable business model such that the hardware and OS makers can make enough profit to keep the entire thing going.

    It is the very restrictions that people kevitch about that make the iPhone such an attractive platform to begin with. You can download apps without having to worry they've been written by the Russian mob. The phone function always works and no app writer can accidentally cripple it with bad software. The interface across apps is consistent. All this is made possible by Apple draconian monitoring of every facet of the hardware and software.

    People just think that the government can hold a gun to people's heads and force them to magically come up with a system that is (1) completely utterly open to every possible software and gadget ever imagined and (2) completely reliable and security.

    We'll you can't.

    If you don't like the way that Apple handles all this, you have other choices. I don't see why people feel compelled to resort to violence to handle technical issues.

  • Warty||

    Is there anyone who posts here who's not a programmer?

  • ||

    Yeah, the ones who are lawyers. Then of course there is Episiarch and Sugar Free who are professional excons.

  • The Gobbler||

    And me. A man of leisure.

    Thanks again Grandpa!

  • ||

    I'll have you know that I am a professional raconteur and NutraSweet is a professional hair stylist.

  • ||

    I'll have you know that I am a professional raconteur

    Every night you fly around with my jetpack and fight Nazis?

  • ||

    After NutraSweet styles my hair in the latest fashion.

  • ||

    Interesting. I wasn't aware using a Sham-wow drenched with semen to glisten your alopecic cradle cap was considered hairstyling.

  • Pip||

    The phrase "styles my hair" is gay code for...well...let's just say it's too disgusting to post on H&R and leave it at that.

  • ||

    Nothing is too disgusting for an H&R post. You have read NutraSweet's little stories, haven't you?

    You just don't have the guts.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I used to program, but I suck(ed) at it. Does that count?

  • ||

    I have some programming knowledge, but it isn't my profession.

    Semi-related: I just spent four hours trying to remove a dell caps lock indicator that steals mouse focus. Eventually I just decided to delete Quickset, which fixed the problem.

  • T||

    I'm an engineer designing big chunky steel things. No programming involved.

  • Corduroy||

    Recovering engineer.

  • ||

    I only code when i'm unemployed.

  • thenino85||

    I'm technically a physicist.... who does a lot of computational work. Does that count?

  • Joshua||

    I'm a clerk!

  • ||

    Oooh is this the shout out your job thread?

    I'm a molecular biologist!

  • ||

    Actually, I wouldn't say that Apple's restricting who can write software for the iPhone at all. What they're doing is setting a standard for apps they'll carry on the app store. If someone wants to write code with flash or mono or whatever for use in their own organization, they can still do that.

    -jcr

  • johnl||

    But please don't because Flash sucks.

  • Kevin Deros||

    JCR works for Apple, i would say he has a better understanding of their policy than you do.

  • Chris Grayson||

    EXACTLY!

    Anyone can develop for the iPhone, with any software development tools they please. But Apple is not obliged to sell them in their store unless they are compliant with their rules.

    NOTE: The is a big navel gazing exercise, as few outside-the-inside even know that this issue is news.

  • ||

    I'm actually surprised it took this long. Nothing will happen, though. Like all the others, they'll pay a bribe to Obama and go on their merry way.

  • Xeones||

    There's a certain social cachet attached to the name "Apple iPhone," so it's not fair that only Apple gets to use it, or something.

  • ||

    I thought that to. Basically the government is saying that all your i-phones belong to them. The I-phone is pretty much public property if the makers of it can't have a monopoly on who develops aps for it.

  • Xeones||

    @Warty: i dabble, but programming's not, like, my thing.

  • ||

    I don't see what the problem is. Apple can do anything they want with the douchePhone and I'm free not to buy it.

    I have a Blackberry now and will most likely get either an Android or Windows 7 phone when the contract is up. How am I harmed by Apple's actions, no matter how dickheaded they are?

  • ||

    It's called a jerkPhone, you jerk, not a douchePhone, you douche.

    I have a Droid Incredible it's pretty fucking cool, with none of the jerkPhone drawbacks.

  • ||

    You say to-may-toe...

    See? Now I'd have a hard time owning *anything* named "Incredible," unless we're talking about ElastiGirl in her younger days.

    I've read the "Incredible" is pretty bad ass, equivalent to the Motorola Droid in terms of specs, but that name...

  • ||

    I have a 1GHz Snapdragon processor. It blows the jerkPhone, and every other smartphone I've seen, away for speed. Plus an 8 megapixel camera, great display, and all the other little perks it has.

  • Jordan Elliot||

    "Now I'd have a hard time owning *anything* named "Incredible," unless we're talking about ElastiGirl in her younger days."

    Yes, yes, and yes. Though, older, big butt ElastiGirl would work very well for me too.

  • Jozef||

    The fact that Apple is restrictive is a well known fact, and anecdotal evidence from among my friends suggests that this plays a significant role in purchasing decisions for Apple products. Apple has every right to be as restrictive as they want to be, and we have every right to decide freely whether to decide their products. If anything, I appreciate that Apple has been so open about the extent of their restrictions, which allowed me to make my purchasing decisions.

  • The Gobbler||

    How dare GM dictate that only GM engines be used in their cars and trucks. Bastards!

  • TP||

    I put a Ford 9" rear in a Chevy once. In fact, I think those 9" rears are still a staple in circle track and dragsters, except for the occasional Dana 60. The GM 12 bolts aren't bad, but Ford is the king of rears.

    http://www.chevyhiperformance......index.html

  • ||

    Apple has a dominant position in smartphone apps

    No, they have a dominant position in the distribution of smartphone apps. There are thousands of app developers.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I'm holding out till Google becomes the new Apple of everything. Can't wait till we have Google OS.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Like Android?

  • ||

    Android is a software stack for smartphones. It isn't really an operating system, and you definitely can't use it on your laptop (nor would you want to).

  • ||

    On second thought, it is an operating system. A mobile operating system, that is.

  • cpc||

    While I don't appreciate the government sticking their nose in anyone's business. I don't understand how any libertarian can support Apple. The unreasonably tight restrictions they have on everything severely limits choice. Sure their products are attractive and functional but they basically just rent you hardware and tell you what you can and cannot run on it.

  • The Gobbler||

    Why shouldn't Apple have the right to limit choices? Let the Market decide, not DC.

  • cpc||

    I don't think my point was well taken. By no means am I advocating that DC decide anything. The market absolutely should decide. I just personally dislike Apple due to their need to control what users do with their products.

  • Joe_D||

    Sure Apple's products limit choice, but that's an advantage for some people. It's good for people who aren't technically savvy and want dumbed-down yet fairly functional gadgets.

    It's like those Keurig coffee-makers - not much customization available, but dead-simple to use and good enough for the non-snob.

  • Joe_D||

    Sorry, my point was that limited products like the iPhone are a good choice for certain people, and are a valuable part of the market. So, it's OK for a Libertarian to like them.

    That said, I do get the point about Apple being contrary to the Libertarian... sense of life.

  • cpc||

    Hell, it isn't my place to tell people what they should like and I'm happy that I was called out on it. That said, fuck Steve Jobs and his pompous attitude.

  • ||

    Right. Which is reason #26 of Why I Will Never Own an Apple Product.

    Again, I'm not harmed. I have plenty of other options to choose from, which I do with great zeal. And I get to mock my Apple using friends.

  • ||

    Also, this and every other story like it just reinforces my view that both anti-trust laws AND patent laws are unlibertarian. Ideas are not property!

  • The Gobbler||

    Sounds collectivist to me.

    From each according to his ideas, to each according to his need.

  • cpc ||

    I have read libertarian attacks on intellectual property. This is not a collectivist idea. The problem is that since intellectual property is simply the expression of ideas and since ideas are essentially infinite, expressions of ideas cannot be owned. If I have an idea but you are better at expressing my idea or producing a product based on my idea then the market will reward you instead of me.

  • The Gobbler||

    A car, is also the expression of an idea.

  • ||

    Yes, and you can own a car (meaning the specific matter of the car). You can't own the idea of a car, or the process that made the car. Neither of those things actually exist as something that can be owned in a material world.

  • ||

    What is collectivist about that? Ideas are not material. They can't be stolen. They can only be replicated.

  • ||

    Dumb question: is the inability to run Flash on my iPhone an Apple restriction thing, or a technical thing?

  • kinnath||

    yes

  • T||

    Apple restriction. Apple claims Flash will make their device unstable.

    I didn't have to buy an iPhone. But if all the previous Windows smartphones hadn't sucked in color, I wouldn't have.

  • ||

    I mostly love my iPhone, but that and the no simultaneous apps thing are major drawbacks.

    That said, I've seen the Droid Incredible and the interface just doesn't look as slick as the iPhone- which probably only means I've been brainwashed by the evil Apple empire.

  • ||

    which probably only means I've been brainwashed by the evil Apple empire.

    I have heard that nubile, svelte Canadian-ettes are prone to Stockholm Syndrome. Must be something in the water. Does the I-Store sell these too? Or is there just an app for it?

  • ||

    Steve Smith- there's no app for that.

    Or, for the Apple haters: Steve Smith- Droid Doesn't.

  • ||

    LOL, don't you mean Steve Jobs?

    STEVE SMITH MADE APP FOR RAPING, BUT REJECTED BECAUSE IT USE FLASH.

  • ||

    No one can accuse Steve Smith of being a luddite. In addition to his very informative Twitter account, he has been Flashing his victims intimate partners for years.

  • ||

    STEVE ALSO DECIDE HE NOT ENJOY OBJECTIVE C PROCEDURAL PROGRAMMING STYLE! WRITE .NET COMPACT FRAMEWORK APP FOR WINMOBILE 7 INSTEAD! BUT NO ONE BUY, BECAUSE WINMOBILE SUCK!

  • Rhywun||

    Ahem. Objective-C is called "objective" for a reason.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Depends on who you talk to. Apple fan boys will disparage Flash and Adobe and tell you that Apple has to deny them for security reasons.

    Adobe flacks will tell you that it is just pure cattiness on Jobs part.

    The truth is somewhere in between. Yes Flash does have a lot of security holes, and yes Adobe focuses its efforts primarily on Flash players for Windows (go figure they target the platform with the biggest market share).

  • Ted S.||

    Depends on who you talk to. Apple fan boys will disparage Flash and Adobe and tell you that Apple has to deny them for security reasons.

    I'm not an Apple fanboy, and I hate Flash with a passion. I generally surf the Internet with non-cached images, and plugins, turned off, and hate visiting pages that show up blank, which is almost always a sign that the web designer wants to force me to use GDF Flash to view the page. I had one page the other day where the Flash was simply an animation, and when you clicked on the "skip intro" link, it sent to you a different page.

    Also, I despise that you can't right click on links in Flash and have them open up in a new browser tab. Or selecting a font of your choice to read the text, or sizing the text conveniently.

  • Pip||

    Chicks...

  • ||

    Look, without chicks, who would the above mentioned fanbois impress with their fandom? I made the mistake of mentioning the Kindle app at the drugstore the other day, and was treated to a lengthy description of the checkout boy's iPad. Oh, Seattle.

  • T||

    It has been said that everything men do, they do in order to get laid. But things like Ubuntu and video games pretty much disprove that theory.

  • Warty||

    Not to mention libertarianism, dude.

  • Mike Laursen||

    It was a technical thing, but an engineer at Adobe wrote a cross-compiler that takes Flash code and turns it into iPhone-executable object code. When this cross-compiler was released with Creative Suite 5 a few days ago, Apple changed their developer license to prohibit using third-party tools.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Whoops, re-reading that I didn't fully explain. Apple never has and still doesn't allow a Flash player on the iPhone. So, it's never been able to run Flash applications.

    The Adobe tool for converting a Flash application to a native iPhone application, and subsequent change in the developer license agreement happened recently.

  • ||

    You might make the case that developing an app for the Droid is a lot less attractive than developing one for the iPhone. But that's a result of Apple's immense first-mover advantage and the widely recognized excellence of its product.

    This is what I don't understand. As a developer, you want to be first mover. So doesn't it make sense to code for the platform with a smaller market share and a smaller app universe? I mean, maybe I'm too influenced by malcolm gladwell here, but that's why *I* coded my app for the android.

  • mr simple||

    Not if the point is to make money. Then you want to be able to sell to the most customers.

  • ||

    remind me to short your company.

  • mr simple||

    Why does that make sense? I think the point of first mover is to have a product that provides a service no one else provides. Now if you are first in the Google market, good for you. But if anyone else has an app like yours, or if you make money, someone will enter the market on your heels. Either market you're in you will have to make a better product than someone else. Why not sell it in both markets to have the most potential customers? Why does cutting yourself off from 25% of the market make sense?

  • Joshua||

    Unless you're GM, the more they sell, the more they lose.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Apple does have a leg up on competition right now. That is fast fading as Android phones are now hitting the market.

    Look at the number of new apps for Android phones. To me it indicates that the iPhone is no longer the only game in town.

    I like some Apple products. I am not willing to drink the Jobs Koolaid, though, and do wish they would open up their platform.

    My prediction is that in the future, the iPhone will dwindle down to 10% of the market. The remaining users will all swear that the iPhone is the best thing out there yadda-yadda. The rest of us will be using phones running an open platform like Android or WebOS. Why? Because we can use them with any carrier, because there will be more apps for those phones and because they will be cheaper.

    I don't, though, think that Apple should be forced to do anything they don't want to. If you don't like their terms, don't do business with them.

  • ||

    My prediction: Android phones do well among geeks, not so well among regular users. Android developers get frustrated at the many different models, with different screen sizes, ratios, features, etc. Users get frustrated because app X has a feature that doesn't work on model Y, or because model Y has a feature not used by app X. Apple continues to improve the iPhone, adding features and addressing some of the complaints, and continuing to grow sales and market share.

  • ||

    My current phone is an iPhone, and my next phone will probably also be an iPhone. I'm confident that Android phones will continue to sell very well, and probably eventually dwarf the iPhone market-share.

    Apple has carved a small, profitable niche in which they mostly sell expensive gadgets to extremely picky users of technology.

    Selling "good enough" gadgets at reasonable prices to everybody else is a superior business model, as all the retired millionaires who worked at Microsoft over the years are keenly aware.

  • hurly buehrle||

    I'm squarely in the middle of the demographic that Apple targets, so why can't I get over the impression that their products are nothing more than slick-looking, very expensive toys?

  • ||

    Because you haven't used them?

    Less snarkily, I've been using Macs since 1987. You can barely believe the advance they were over what existed at the time. Apple has faltered at times, but still have a commitment to design and usability like few other companies. Lots of people appreciate that.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Papaya,

    I've been an off/on user of Apple stuff for years too. I agree that my old Mac SE could do things at that time that no PC was capable of. I am currently use a mac pro as my primary laptop.

    Despite all that, I'm still someone who mightily wishes that Jobs would stop being such a control freak. My next laptop may or may not be a mac. If the max were more open, I'd be much more likely to go with Apple.

    My latest peeve with them is how they are continually trying to keep me from syncing my Palm Pre with iTunes. Why does Jobs care?

    I like Apple products, but the company's philosophy of being a closed system makes it hard for me to buy their products. The Apple Geniuses don't help either

  • Chris Grayson||

    Jobs "cares" because the App store was built to sell Apple hardware. Letting 3rd parties highjack their platform would take away part of the selling point of buying an iPhone/iPod. An advantage that Apple paid for and built. Anyone with any business sense at all should be able to understand that.

  • ed||

    I still don't own a cell leash. That makes me special. Special Ed.

  • ||

    I do like how the narrative quickly shifted from "why doesn't the US have cool phones like Japan and Europe?" to "why are you monopolizing this new market that you helped create?" (From the consumer end, as RIM had clearly captured a huge part of the business market.)

    Don't have an iPhone, looking at getting an Android based phone. I don't see how Apple's actions are hurting consumers.

  • ||

    One more point: I really don't understand a lot of the libertarian criticism of Steve Jobs. He's like the Howard Roark of computers (and now cellphones and tablets). I'm totally serious. He has an artistic and personal vision, and he's going to manifest that, regardless of opposition. I don't always agree with his choices, but good for him.

  • Joe_D||

    I don't know... if Roark made a stove that could only cook 5 dishes, each in 'small', 'medium', or 'large' portions, while disallowing any fancy fiddling with the cooking instructions... he might not have been such an objectivist hero.

    I swear I am not exaggerating anything.

  • ||

    Mmmm, not quite apt. If you want the equivalent of a Viking range, get a Mac Pro, or even a MacBook. iPhones and iPads are more like camping stoves: less capable but very light and portable.

  • ||

    It's a little bit of both. Roark designed buildings that maximized function and compatibility with their environments, but he would also never allow compromises or changes to his design.

  • Ray Pew||

    Anti-trust has always been a political tool to be used by competitors. It DOES NOT benefit consumers. Read "The Case Against Antitrust" by Dominic Armantano.

    My take is that competitors have pandered to government to investigate Apple and the new administration has been itching to flex it's trust busting authority.

  • DRM||

    Apple . . . only controls about a fourth of the smartphone market.

    Sure. So that's not the monopoly they're trying to leverage, that's the market they're trying to monopolize by using their leverage in other markets.

    See, the iPod Touch and iPad aren't smartphones. And Apple does dominate the portable media player and whatever-we-call-the-iPad-segment (now that they've sold a million of 'em). Clearly, it's leveraging those monopolies to unfairly discourage the creation of smartphone apps for competing platforms, in order to give its smartphones an uncompetitive advantage against other smartphones.

    Since using Xcode to develop programs also requires a Mac, Apple is simultaneously using its monopoly in the iPod and iPad markets to try to force people to buy Macintoshes, and thus unfairly competing in the software developer workstation market.

    The logical structural solution, then, is to break Apple into two companies, one which sells smartphones and computers, and one which sells iPods and iPads.

  • ||

    "Sure. So that's not the monopoly they're trying to leverage, that's the market they're trying to monopolize by using their leverage in other markets."

    I think you need to look up the definition of monopolize.

    "Clearly, it's leveraging those monopolies to unfairly discourage the creation of smartphone apps for competing platforms, in order to give its smartphones an uncompetitive advantage against other smartphones."

    I don't see how dominating the iPod/iPad market (and there are successful competing musics players, like Zune) discourages the creation of apps for Android. That just doesn't make sense.

    "Since using Xcode to develop programs also requires a Mac, Apple is simultaneously using its monopoly in the iPod and iPad markets to try to force people to buy Macintoshes, and thus unfairly competing in the software developer workstation market."

    Again, there is no force here. No one is being forced to buy anything. If they want to use Xcode to make apps for Apple, they will buy a Mac. If they want to make apps for Android, they don't necessarily need a Mac. And you also still haven't shown, coherently, what the iPod and iPad have to do with any of this.

    The logical solution is simply to leave everyone in the market alone, since there is no problem that warrants the use of force here.

  • ||

    (and there are successful competing musics players, like Zune)

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    That was a hilarious comment.

    What? you were serious?

    The Zune was an utter failure, and not a great counter example.

  • ||

    Over 5 million sold, according to wikipedia.

  • ||

    Over 5 million sold, according to wikipedia. Also, this had nothing really to do with my argument, just a minor point about calling the iPod a monopoly.

  • kraorh||

    The Zune may not have achieved anything like the market penetration of the iPod, though I submit that if you read reviews of the product, you'd see that it's generally received very respectable, even adulatory marks. Of course, the fact that I'm a Zune owner has nothing to do with me making that observation just now.

  • ||

    I've owned both a Zune and an iPpod. The Zune kicks the iPod's ass in both hardware and ease of use in terms of a music/media player. Plus, no iTunes. That's a feature, a MAJOR feature, not a bug.

    Yes, the 30 gig ver. 1 was a joke, but gen 2 models kicked ass. I'll be getting a Zune HD or possibly a Windows 7 phone when the time comes.

  • DRM||

    I don't see how dominating the iPod/iPad market . . . discourages the creation of apps for Android

    It's the App Store rules, man. People like Adobe have developed cross-platform development suites that create apps that run on both the iPhone OS and Android. Apple now says you can't sell those apps on the App Store, you can only use apps made with Xcode, apps which won't run on Android. So while before companies that wanted to sell apps could make them for the iPod/ad/one and Android simultaneously, now they have to write separate apps for the Apple and Android devices. That extra work required encourages them to support only one or the other . . . and Apple has overwhelming market share in the personal media player and who-knows-what-we-call-an-iPad markets. Monopoly in media players and whatever-they-ares! Leveraged to make there be fewer Android apps! To make iPhones more attractive in comparison to Android phones!

    If they want to use Xcode to make apps for Apple, they will buy a Mac. If they want to make apps for Android, they don't necessarily need a Mac.

    Sure, but using the Adobe tools, they could make apps for the iPod and iPad without a Mac. So now Dell is being locked out of the market to sell computers to make apps for personal media players and whatever the hell an iPad is.

    Again, there is no force here

    What? Can't you tell economic coercion when you see it? Look, if I have a hundred dollars, and the whore wants a hundred dollars, I'm raping her if I condition giving her the hundred dollars on a roll in the hay. Just like I'm stealing lemonade from kids when I give them a quarter for a glass. Or, like how when I sell bread to the hungry or massages to stressed out women, I'm stealing their money.

  • ||

    I still don't see why this is a problem. It's like if you were a farmer making one type of vegetable that you sold in two competing grocery stores. One grocery store decides it no longer wants that kind of vegetable, but another vegetable that the other grocer doesn't sell. Either the farmer can make both vegetables, or he can choose one. The grocery store that wants the new vegetable is newer and has been more popular lately. The farmer decides to make the new vegetable.

    This is just how business and competition work. This has nothing to do with monopolies.

    And then reading your last paragraph I could tell that you are a fake troll. Well I just feel like an idiot now...

  • Joe_D||

    Everyone knew you'd side with the regulators, DRM.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Since using Xcode to develop programs also requires a Mac, Apple is simultaneously using its monopoly in the iPod and iPad markets to try to force people to buy Macintoshes, and thus unfairly competing in the software developer workstation market.

    Plausible at first glance, but doesn't happen to be true.

    The developer license restriction was made in direct response to Adobe releasing a cross-compiler that could turn Flash applications into native iPhone OS applications.

    It would make no sense for Apple to bother amending their developer license just to sell a few Macs (relatively) to developers. Apple's concern is either (a) keeping Flash applications off their mobile devices, because they don't feel its up-to-snuff, (b) keeping Flash applications off their mobile devices so they can make more money through their App Store.

  • DRM||

    Since when does antitrust have anything to do with truth?

    Erm, I mean . . .

    Apple's motives are irrelevant! Unfair competition is unfair competition! Save Michael Dell from Steve Jobs!

  • ||

    Fake troll is fake.

  • IceTrey||

    Droid Incredible eats the iPhone for lunch.

  • kraorh||

    Ironically, if Apple were to become a monopoly in anything, its appeal would immediately fade. Its appeal comes almost entirely from the illusion that it's what hip people use - if everyone used it, it would no longer have that coolness factor. It'd be like alternative rock in the mid to late 1990's, and the posers who championed Apple would immediately try to find some other way to distinguish themselves from the masses they dislike.

  • Chris Grayson||

    "There is nothing superior or distinguishing about a BMW. It's all just an illusion. They only buy them so they can feel like they're more hip than Chevy drivers..." said the guy in the Chevy.

  • www.iphone-5-release.net||

    We Are The Top Source of Up To Date News, Information, and Rumors About the iPhone 5, iPhone 6. Our Team Updates You Hourly So You Are Always Informed.(http://iphone-5-release.net/) iphone 5

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement