[Forge36]

Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.

[weare138]

Anti-trust cases aren't decided on binary terms. It's the overall act that's illegal. In other words just because the situation with Apple is different from Microsoft's anti-trust case doesn't mean Apple could not be violating the law. Paying or accepting money for the purposes of a company receiving an unfair competitive advantage is also covered under anti-trust laws such as the Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....

[techrat]

I would argue that makes it worse.

[IncRnd]

Are you saying that Safari requires hardware-level apis?

[pjmlp]

Nope, all PCs came with Windows and OEMs willing to sell alternative computers didn't had volume discounts.

It was a choice, but most decided to cave in and only sell PCs.

Here that isn't the case, most shops selling iPhones also have other brands available. Customers aren't forced into buying iPhones.

[IncRnd]

You raised the bar that is required. It is more appropriate to look whether iPhones are a dominant brand, not whether they are the only brand.

[pjmlp]

Which they are not.

[IncRnd]

As it turns out, they are. [1]

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

[pjmlp]

You have 45% phones to chose from.