Vincent Fernando

Apple, Microsoft, Google: Far from Coercive Monopolies

Jon T: That's the problem with horribly vague and easily politicized anti-trust laws, you can take what are fair business practices from a free markets stand point and make them illegal just because the spotlight of public hatred shines on an unlucky company. The point here is to help people understand the different ways companies can be dominant, and that there is a big difference to the kind of position a Microsoft builds up vs. those who manipulate the regulatory system (coercive monopolies). So sure Microsoft's practices can be shown to be against the anti-trust law, but that is usually because the anti-trust laws are horribly vague and should be done away with.

John Watkins: I am not asking you to simply blindly believe the writing based on your esteem for the person, but to rather analyze what they say. Most people conflate monopolies formed as a matter of regulatory manipulation with temporary high market share positions achieved by companies who simply build killer business positions on an open playing field. That's the point of showing the quote. Not quite sure how making the distinction is pathetic.

Apple, Microsoft, Google: Far from Coercive Monopolies

Jon, they simply used their business position. Most large companies use their scale to defend their turf. It's fair game, it's part of the advantages of scale and breadth of product offering. It's far different from manipulating the laws to lock in your business. There is nothing wrong with putting other companies out of business using your strong business position as long as you aren't manipulating laws to make it happen. The problem Microsoft had was that while it was simply doing business, and competing vigorously as it should, the spotlight of public ire happened to fall on them. But it's standard business to try and use your size to your advantage. Upstarts have to figure out a way around it, not whine to the government to force change. Actually, we are witnessing MSFT under a pretty serious assault on many fronts and it's from angles regulators didn't even consider when attacking MSFT as a "monopoly".

Should the FCC Force Apple to Stock Competitive Products in Its Own Store?

jmmx: thanks for the comment, but again, it's their store right? What you are implying is that the government (FCC) has the right to dictate what someone must sell in their own store, or how someone should design their product. If someone doesn't like the iPhone's lock-in, they shouldn't buy one. I actually hate the way iTunes sells me mp3's which I can't use universally. Thus I don't shop from iTunes. But I don't feel I have the right to force iTunes to change their way.

If they aren't following the marketing spin they use, with an "open mobile computing platform", then they are failing at matching their product with the marketing spin. But it doesn't mean we can force them to change their design, we simply must note that maybe part of their marketing is BS and decide if we still want to buy their products. So I think it's in their best interest to keep customers happy and satisfied with the iTunes, but we can't force them. It's their product, their design, their app store. I agree they *should* probably allow google's apps, but it's a dangerous leap to go from what I think they should do and what the government is able to *force* them to do.

Should the FCC Force Apple to Stock Competitive Products in Its Own Store?

I think many of the comments also miss the key issue- rights. You may wish Apple had some of google's apps, heck it might even make sense for Apple that they stock them. But you have no right to force Apple to do it. It's their product, their design, their app store. The same goes fro MSFT. You may wish they didn't block certain competing software products, but you have no right to poke holes in a product someone else built and you (and I, the consumers) simply went and used. You have a right to say what would make you a happier customer, and if they are smart they'll try to accommodate you, but you don't have the right to force change on them. That's the issue.