[brokencode]

I don’t think so. Apple is not a monopoly in any of those spaces, and has plenty of competition on all fronts.

One of the big things that makes Apple products so compelling is the integration and shared engineering between them.

For instance, Apple made some of the best processor cores over the course of a decade for the iPhone. Now, variants of those cores are used in everything from the Apple Watch to the Mac.

Also, when you buy an iPhone app, it will often also work on the iPad and Apple Watch with tight integration and syncing.

To break the company up on product lines would significantly worsen the products. It would make the products less competitive worldwide and likely hurt the US economy. I think this would be a nonstarter for regulators.

If regulators want to go after anticompetitive practices, they would more likely force Apple to make changes to App Store policies, which are in many cases incredibly unfair.

[mschuster91]

> For instance, Apple made some of the best processor cores over the course of a decade for the iPhone. Now, variants of those cores are used in everything from the Apple Watch to the Mac.

Regulators could force Apple to sell their CPUs (if as hardware or as IP license) under fair conditions to willing buyers, or to open up macOS, iMessage, Facetime and Find My iDevice to competitors' products.

That way Apple could still enjoy the benefits of having tightly integrated hardware and software, but the rest of the world could enjoy high performance ARM systems as well, thus finally providing some actual competition to Intel and AMD.

[scarface_74]

Why should Apple be forced to sell their IP? The Mac has less than 15% market share? Should Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Amazon also be forced to sell their IP?

Intel has 80%+ of the computer market. Should they be forced to license their IP? Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?

[mschuster91]

> Intel has 80%+ of the computer market. Should they be forced to license their IP?

You can walk into any computer store you want and pick up a top of the line Intel or AMD CPU, and buy parts from all kinds of vendors to assemble a computer from them. With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand. The only problem is that anything x86 is an utter pain in performance-per-watt because Intel doesn't care, AMD doesn't have the resources and the patent situation means that there can't reasonably be competitors for these two. Having actually performant Apple components available on the open market would be the kick for Intel to finally do something. Competition would be working again. (BTW, I'm an Apple user myself, but the way that Apple gouges you on storage and memory is beyond ridiculous)

> Should Google be forced to license their search algorithms?

At least to open them up. Google is incredibly powerful thanks to its market share, and its decisions (or not-decisions) have serious economic impacts upon individual people and small businesses unable to afford the millions of dollars that you need to get a personal Google account representative.

[scarface_74]

> Apple components available on the open market would be the kick for Intel to finally do something. Competition would be working again. (BTW, I'm an Apple user myself, but the way that Apple gouges you on storage and memory is beyond ridiculous)

There is plenty of competition but for making ARM chips - Qualcomm, Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung and Google all make ARM offshoots and none of them are exactly little companies. Whose fault is it that they can’t compete?

You chose to buy a MacBook unlike 80%+ of the PC buying population. Apple must have had something that you valued to make it worth the price.

[lotsofpulp]

> With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand

How is this different from Intel or AMD? There might be a retailer middleman between you and Intel/AMD, but just like any other business, you are paying whatever they are willing to sell at.

[AnthonyMouse]

Intel and AMD compete with each other and are essentially fungible. It's not as if you can only run Windows on Intel and Linux on AMD, they both run on both. Substantially all software that runs on one will run on the other. They're even widely compatible with the same memory DIMMs, PCIe devices, screens and other peripherals. Neither company requires you to buy an entire system from them instead of just the processor, restricts what software you can run or tries to wall up a troll bridge between third parties and the end user.

You're not in any sense locked in, because it's so easy to switch.

[scarface_74]

What type of “troll bridge” does Apple impose on installing software on a Mac?

[robertlagrant]

> With Apple, you're locked in into paying whatever they demand

People being allowed to charge a price they'd like to for a product or service they provide is a good idea.

[zirgs]

> One of the big things that makes Apple products so compelling is the integration and shared engineering between them

That's also the biggest reason why I avoid their products. Their compatibility with non-Apple products is limited. And Apple doesn't care.