That's not how you define a market. If that were the case, then every manufacturer that ever existed could be said to have NO COMPETITION in the products they produce.
You seem to be telling me that hardware and software are one and the same market. That's total RUBBISH. That's like saying making printers and making printer paper are the same market because they function in the same machine.
See:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act
Look under "tying" (or search printer or paper). Just because software runs on hardware that does not make them the "same" market. Manufacturing hardware and writing software are two entirely different fields. If one company does both, they better not tie them together in an anti-competitive way.
Again, this is not novel or useful to point out. It is the way things work. What is your alternative to this?
It's the way things work? LOL. You've never heard of buying software and hardware separately? You've never heard of buying hardware from anyone you want and putting an operating system on later, including multiple operating systems? How is that different from putting different types of paper in a printer? It's not. They're two different markets. You cannot force sales in one market to those in another market. It's a violation of the Sherman/Clayton Anti-Trust Act TYING provision. No monopoly is required for this violation what-so-ever.
What does that mean? That makes no sense. And tieing has a very specific definition in anti-trust legislation that hasn't been established with Apple.
I just established it for you since you apparently cannot make the (obvious) connection. See the above link.
Again, there is a very specific definition of what extortion is, and this doesn't come close. One business is offering a contract to do business with another with specific terms. You know, the way the whole world works.
If you mean that it's normal for a company A to tell another company B that they must sell their product ONLY in company A's store and this will ONLY cost them 30% of their sale price or get out of the neighborhood, then yes, I guess that's how the world (or was it the Mob?) works....
The point is that it's NONE OF APPLE'S BUSINESS if someone wants to make a game for their operating system. We have free and open commerce in this country. Apple insisting you MUST use THEIR STORE and give them 30% of your profits or you're not allowed to write that software sure sounds like racketeering/extortion to me. I'm sure if you live in Communist China you probably think that's normal.
They have no problem with competing companies. They do have a problem with stealing. So should you.
What did Psystar "steal" pray tell? They legally purchased OSX. So no I don't have a problem with Psystar. I have a problem with companies that think they can violate anti-trust laws out of pure greed.
This is nothing like the health care industry.
Yeah, you backed that one up really well there with that line. I might as well just reply back "Oh yes it is!" LOL.
Actually, if there was only one insurance company in a state, and all hospitals and doctors were forced to deal with that company, it would probably result in better prices for customers. Doctors, pharma companies,
Several states are pretty close to that already. What you fail to comprehend about businesses is that they are GREEDY. They don't lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts! They raise them because there are no alternatives and dump high risk patients to maximize their profits!
and hospitals are better able to negotiatie high prices with weak insurance companies because there is so much competition.
Hospitals are out to rip both you and the insurance companies off. Or do you think an aspirin should cost $30 EACH?
Do you know what "leveraging" means? Bad for who? Isn't that up to the developers to decide if it's bad or not? When does it stop being bad? 25%? Who decides that? What are the better alternatives?
The alternative is just like regular OSX. You let the developer install their own software through an install process, not tie it to iTunes and then refuse to sell software they don't "like" or "approve of" and then charge 30% off the top because they know you have NO ALTERNATIVE. You ask what the alternative is. That's the point! There is NONE.
You state this like a fact, but it isn't even remotely true. Just because in the Windows PC market, hardware is sold by a different company than the OS doesn't make this an established fact that ALL hardware and software must be sold this way. Even Microsoft wouldn't agree when it comes to thier XBox hardware and software.
They are two different markets. Read the Sherman/Clayton Act I posted above. You CANNOT tie them together with a license like that to forbid competition. This is not rocket science to figure out that the consumer is getting screwed on choice for hardware if they cannot buy it from HP instead of Apple or that they cannot buy Microsoft Office for their iPad because Apple will not approve it because it competes with iWork and Apple wants you to buy iWork. You apparently think that's OK and Apple should be able to tell competing software companies to take a hike if they would rather the consumer buy Apple software (or in the case of Macs, HP hardware to run OSX on).
Sorry, but some of us believe in consumer protection laws, not laws that let corporations screw everyone over or do things like drive health care costs up artificially at 2-3x the costs of other countries because the government lets them get away with it. Why should Apple be allowed to dictate what software other companies are allowed to write for the computer you bought?
