[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?

[AnthonyMouse]

The desire is to be able to freely install apps on device with an Apple CPU that fits in your pocket. You can't build your own phone with one, because they won't sell you the CPU by itself. You can't use the CPU in a Mac for that, because it's soldered to something that won't fit in your pocket. So you're left with an iPhone, with a troll bridge between the user and the app developer.

[scarface_74]

Or you can do like 80% of the rest of the world does and buy an Android phone and you can have all of the “freedom” that you want.

[AnthonyMouse]

Google is barely any better, using different methods to maintain Google Play at more than 95% market share for Android apps.

But how does an Android phone get you an Apple CPU? Or to put it another way, if your app customers want the Apple CPU, and they want your app, how do they get them both together without the troll bridge between you?

[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.