> However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market
A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power.
And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).
For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.
Edit:
Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit).
I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply.
And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply.
> yet Epic is still suing Google
Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)
I no longer find this discussion productive. I respect the process of learning for you and me, but the last few comments have had no new information. It doesn't seem like you have the right experience with these different companies/platforms/technologies for me to learn anything new. As such its no longer worth our time.
> So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
I have done my best to respond to you respectfully and with my best ability.
I have previously responded to your specific questions with, “If then yes. But it seems unlikely” and “It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.”, etc.
> We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
The entire discussion of all of this, is about anti-trust law....
Also, we can absolutely make reasoned judgements on things, based on the evidence.
I am not sure why people have a tendency to think that law, precedent, and court cases are somehow completely impenetrable to people who have not spent decades of their life studying it.
In fact, speaking as someone who has read the legal documents in this court case, as well as attended the public zoom call court case (The epic vs apple trial is public! You, yourself can listen in on it in a zoom call!), what I can tell you is that the arguments that people are making are not complicated legalese. Instead, the lawyers and judges are making reasonable, and understandable arguments, that are pretty easy to follow along.
In fact, our entire justice system is built on the concept of juries, which are full of people who are not legal professionals, just like you and I, who decide based on listening to the arguments, and making a judgement themself on who was right or wrong.
If a jury is entrusted with the legal power, to determine the outcome of our justice system, then I think it is ok for individuals, who have listened to the trials, read the court documents, and done research on the law, to make reasonable judgements themselves on the matter, when having casual conversations regarding the topic.
> But it seems unlikely
For which you provided poor supporting arguments.
> answer the questions I asked
You tried to ignore the main point that I was trying to make, regarding anti-trust law, for which I providing well reasoned arguments, and you tried to ignore it by engaging in what was effectively an implied ad hominem by trying to attack me based on perceived (and false!) notion regarding how much I may or may not use certain devices.
You even literally used the word "character" to describe this. Which was effective admitting that you were not attacking the substance of my comment, but were instead trying to investigate my "character".
I reject that. When you cannot respond to the substance of someone comments, I do not think it is valid to try and switch things up by interrogating someone's character, based on false perceived notions of their character or experience.
A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power.
And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).