Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
“But but but… they’ e got just a small minority market share, so should get a free pass on antitrust & competition regulation”

That is a legit criticism of Apple that is being thrown around here - that Apple has so small a market share that they run the risk of irrelevancy any day now.

Maybe you and the other guy could get together and trash out your takes to come out with a single, more internally consistent narrative, IMO. Apple is somehow perennially one flop away from failure, while also being large enough to warrant regulation.

Schrodinger’s Apple?
 
That is a legit criticism of Apple that is being thrown around here - that Apple has so small a market share that they run the risk of irrelevancy any day now.

Maybe you and the other guy could get together and trash out your takes to come out with a single, more internally consistent narrative, IMO. Apple is somehow perennially one flop away from failure, while also being large enough to warrant regulation.

Schrodinger’s Apple?

One of Bill Gates' arguments in the 1990s was that Microsoft was one bad Windows/OS release away from potential failure and therefore didn't deserve antitrust scrutiny. However, that didn't mean then nor does it mean today that a company with significant market power, control, influence, etc. should be immune to regulation or be allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior. Just because a company may fail or become irrelevant in the future doesn't mean they should be exempt from laws in the present.

Apple currently has significant market power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS and app store markets and deserves antitrust/competition law scrutiny.
 
“But but but… they’ e got just a small minority market share, so should get a free pass on antitrust & competition regulation”
Yes, because there’s only 2 billion people in the world and with a few of them owning multiple devices, that’s a monopoly on all people that own devices in the world!! Wait, you mean there’s more than 8 billion people in the world?

Hmm, 2 billion devices, 8 billion people… carry the one…
By EU maths, (which is essentially, “because I want it to be”) that’s a controlling marketshare right there! NO don’t talk to me about what the other 6 billion folks are using, that’s immaterial to defining how much market power a company has. (and no, it doesn’t matter to me that it’s literally how one defines market power) /s
 
One of Bill Gates' arguments in the 1990s was that Microsoft was one bad Windows/OS release away from potential failure and therefore didn't deserve antitrust scrutiny. However, that didn't mean then nor does it mean today that a company with significant market power, control, influence, etc. should be immune to regulation or be allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior. Just because a company may fail or become irrelevant in the future doesn't mean they should be exempt from laws in the present.

Apple currently has significant market power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS and app store markets and deserves antitrust/competition law scrutiny.
Nor does it mean they should be targeted because they are popular and have a lot of influence with their customers and set trends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BugeyeSTI
Active device is anything that you can sign with your Apple account on it.
AirPods and AirTags are not included.
HomePods are.

You can see what is included, going to Settings either on Mac, iPad, iPhone, then Apple Account > Devices.
It must be more complicated than that. My iPad does not even show the Devices item under Apple Account. The laptop shows the Devices item but that says "Failed to load devices." It should show the iPad, the stereo cabinet mini, and the laptop.

There is also the matter of the G4 desktop I resurrected a few days ago (the 22 year old disk finally died) and the 2010 Mac Pro that still runs Mohave (or Linux).

So does Apple automatically erase anything on the obsolete list? Or do you need to have it signed into Find My Mac for it to count?
 
Nor does it mean they should be targeted because they are popular and have a lot of influence with their customers and set trends.

They absolutely should be "targeted" due to their significant market power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS and app store markets. That's what antitrust/competition laws are about. The laws and regulations aim to prevent large/popular companies/products from using their market dominance, power, control, influence, etc. to stifle competition, engage in anticompetitive behavior, etc. that can potentially harm smaller/less popular companies/products, limit consumer choice, etc.
 
They absolutely should be "targeted" due to their significant market power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS and app store markets. That's what antitrust/competition laws are about. The laws and regulations aim to prevent large/popular companies/products from using their market dominance, power, control, influence, etc. to stifle competition, engage in anticompetitive behavior, etc. that can potentially harm smaller/less popular companies/products, limit consumer choice, etc.
Just a word salad of hypotheticals.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: rmadsen3
However, that didn't mean then nor does it mean today that a company with significant market power, control, influence, etc. should be immune to regulation or be allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Microsoft’s issues stemmed from their unlawful control over their OEM’s. Apple has no OEM’s, so the two aren’t even remotely related.
 
Microsoft’s issues stemmed from their unlawful control over their OEM’s. Apple has no OEM’s, so the two aren’t even remotely related.

My main point was that just because a company may be one bad release away from failure or becoming irrelevant does not make the exempt from laws in the present.

Also, just because Apple may not have OEMs doesn't make them exempt from antitrust/competition laws.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.