Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
Yes, of course they can... because there are no other tablets, operating systems for tablets and content sources other than Apple and nobody can put anything on Apple equipment but Apple either...  
My Android tablet won't work now Apple have setup their software etc...  |
Well, I'm glad at least
you found your comments witty.
My question had to do with the aspect of whether Apple's move could be considered anti-competitive; nothing to do with making lawyers rich or buying an iPad (which I have no desire to do). And the existence of other OSes doesn't exclude the possibility of anti-competitive behaviour.
Microsoft wasn't the only company with an OS around, but they were sued because they were taking advantage of their market dominance.
That was the point I made; I assure you, you are by no means the only human on the planet who has brilliantly figured out that there are alternatives to the iPad. Thanks for not reading the post before replying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
On antitrust grounds it won't go far, though:
- Apple's 19% share of the smartphone market is hardly the stuff of monopolies.
- On the tablet side it is much too early to crown anybody, much less Apple. Their 60% market share is only going down as competitors get ther act together and the buying public gets a feel for what pads and tablets can and (especially) can't do.
Restraint of trade? Yes, that could fly and not depend on market share.
But it would have to be Amazon or B&N that sues and they actually benefit from the policy, or Kobo or the smaller ebookstores that are actually damaged by the Apple policy. However, the fact that Apple "merely" changed the interpretation of the rules makes success there far from likely.
|
A much more sensible response. Thanks, fjtorres. I must say I'm surprised by those figures. The 19% for iPhone makes sense, but I would have assumed the iPad had a much larger share.
Supposedly, they've sold over 25 million units as of June 2011; since no other tablet manufacturer has really bragged about significant sales figures, I figured they didn't have much to brag about. If I had been asked to hazard a guess, I would have said 85-90%. But you're right - a mere 60% share, particularly if it's declining due to increased competition, is not enough for it to be considered anywhere close to a monopoly.