[hyko]

These aren’t Apple’s rules–they’re ours. It’s the parameters of a free marketplace and flows from the idea of legal ownership of property. Apple has a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply. Antitrust a specific remedy to prevent monopolistic abuses.

If I build a high end hotel and the fee is $10,000 a night to stay there, you can’t apply to the Supreme Court to have your bill reduced. It’s my hotel and I can set the price to whatever I damn well please because it’s a free market.

[take_a_breath]

This analogy makes no sense. It’s not a business to consumer issue. The problem is Apple running their own marketplace and inconsistently applying the rules they have created for that marketplace.

If the hotel opened a food court and treated the vendors like this, it might be an apt analogy.

[hyko]

Well, let’s use the food court analogy then: whoever owns the food court is permitted by law to set whatever rental prices they choose for their tenants (provided they aren’t discriminating against people based on certain characteristics). They don’t have to be consistent, because the food court is their property and they have very wide discretion over how it is used. Fair? No. Legal? Yes!

[take_a_breath]

I think it’s legality is up for discussion (that’s the discussion people are currently having). Because your analogy still falls short because the hotel now opened their own stall in the food court and is competing in the marketplace.

What are they doing with the proprietary data from other marketplace competitors?

[belltaco]

The consumer owns the phone, not Apple, so that's a bad analogy.

[IncRnd]

>> Apple has a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply.

That's literally an Apple to Oranges comparison. Market share is not a requirement for illegality under the Sherman Act, as an example.

[hyko]

This made me smile :D

[IncRnd]

:)