If you really believe that, you might be using the quoted term in some sort of unusual manner.
Generally, the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.
There are no effective switching costs.
Both platforms have free development tools. Both platforms can be learned in a few days by a competent programmer for basic platform competency. Both platforms can be developed on OS X machines. The Apple $99 Developer program cost is more than the free Android cost, which would actually be an anti-competitive "dumping" hit against the Android community if that made any sense at all.
There is no iOS lock-in by any stretch of the imagination or definition.
There's a good article on Wikipedia about the various meanings of the term, but in tech circles, it usually means the inability to switch to another vendor with out substantial switching costs.
is this before or after you edit the Wikipedia entry?
Are you muddling your understanding of the difference between developers for a platform and users of that platform?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
It is a term rich with meaning. Use a frigging dictionary to clear up your muddled understanding.
There is no man so blind as he who will not see.
As for muddled understanding I wish to clarify this point Stevie:
are you stating that developers who develop for iOS are locked into developing only for that platform?
If so, by your definition of "lock in", what do you see as the substantial switching costs for developing for an alternative mobile OS?
Both platforms have free development tools. Both platforms can be learned in a few days by a competent programmer for basic platform competency. Both platforms can be developed on OS X machines. The Apple $99 Developer program cost is more than the free Android cost, which would actually be an anti-competitive "dumping" hit against the Android community if that made any sense at all.
There is no iOS lock-in by any stretch of the imagination or definition.
Could be. I don't have any firm opinions on that topic.
Quite simply because today there are many chip manufacturers. If I were to develop the technology described, that would put them all out of business and there would only be ONE chip manufacturer (me). That would wipe out competition in the market - and would therefore be anticompetitive.
I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term. Doing something so much better than anyone else and putting them out of business would be anticompetitive because it would lessen competition in the market by putting all the competitors out of business, but is not per se illegal.
Inferior manufacturers being put out of business is not considered "anti-competitive". You're correct that the term is not meaningless when used in antitrust law, but it doesn't mean what you're describing.
2) This does not account for international, where iOS devices compete directly with Android (i.e., aren't locked to a carrier with about 1/3rd marketshare). iOS is killing Android internationally. I don't think anyone even really cares/knows what Android is outside the us.
Ah... Well for the tech-savvy crowd, HTC, etc and telcos are pitching Android phones as the iPhone alternative. Kinda like, everything the iPhone can't do? Android can! HTC is leading the way here in Malaysia, in terms of Android phones. But I think here people are only getting Android phones because it's like the anti-Apple and anti-BlackBerry. Also it will be months before any kind of reasonable stock levels of iPhone4 arrive so those with itchy fingers might be tempted to get a HTC, Android does have some hype internationally.
But at the end of the day in many parts of Asia iPhone and BlackBerry are the de facto status symbols.
On a side note, no sign of Google's phone and absolutely no sign of Droid in many parts of Asia.
Edit:
In any case Apple's problem is not marketshare of iOS. For 2010-2011 it's simply how many iOS devices they can sell and how fast.
Ummm...he's saying that the term IS meaningless, wherever it is used.
He's also saying that the term is NOT used in antitrust law.
"I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term. "
This forum. I love it.
Oops, I did misread his post.
But it would probably be better to stop bickering on that subject. It misses the point that the smart phone market is already the very definition of "competitive". Apple isn't being anti-competitive and isn't putting anyone out of business. There is no "lock-in" at all. Just look at how many companies have invested millions in new product and are continuing to grow in revenue and profit. Consumers and developers are capable and perfectly willing to switch platforms when a superior product comes along. Sales statistics make this abundantly obvious. Just look at android's growth.
If anything, we should be investigating the smart phone market as an example of how to foster competition.
The bad news is that this is more fuel for the fire for the FTC. More reasons why Apple's lock-in of developers will be hurting the mobile app market.
The FTC's case for anticompetitive behavior is becoming stronger every day, sadly.
Developers have a choice of platforms for which they can develop. How is this anti-competitive? I'm a (first time) dev and I'm not "locked in" to doing only work for iOS. What are you going on about?
How is such a chip preventing them from the choice to compete fairly? Anticompetitive has very specific meanings. You are confusing prefix meanings. 'Anti-' means 'opposed to' or 'against'; 'Un-' means 'lacking' or 'not'. What you are talking about is in your scenario are companies with worse products being uncompetitive not your product being against competing in the market.
Just look at the iPhone coming into the market and in 1.5 years generating more profit than anyone one else in the handset market, or look at the iPod's legally obtained monopoly position by beating the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
You've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Not true.
So long as you are making a profit by selling it at $10 a chip, you are competing.
It becomes anticompetitive if it cost you, say, $150. But you sell it at a lost for $10 to drive your smaller competitors out of business. Since you know you can take the lost because you have enough cash on hand .
You're all confusing the action with the result.
I agree that my development of a much faster, less expensive chip is a competitive action.
But the RESULT would be less competition - so my competitive action would have an ANTI-competitive result - no more chip manufacturers except me.
That's why anti-competitive results are not by themselves illegal.
No. You are hopelessly munging the logic, taking advantage of the over-flexibility of the english language.
Anticompetitive implies overt action taken outside of normal competitive processes to gain an unfair advantage. Normal competition explicitly creates winners and losers, the fact that there are losers to a competitive action does not make the action anti-competitive.
The only real question is whether a platform provider can control the content running on top of their platform and consider the whole on competitive terms with other platforms, or whether the platforms must necessarily be opened to no restrictions as to what is allowed to run on top of it to avoid being labeled anticompetitive?
It is totally a definition thing of where is it permissible to draw the line? Tech industry has lived for decades happily allowing the vertical market to control what software ran on the producers hardware. Personal computers and web technologies are exceptions to that paradigm, but it is almost universally a closed or controlled gateway vertical market in everything else. Mostly because those restrictions were part of the financial business model that even made it possible to create and market the devices in the first place.
Anyone who thinks it is time to force a definite line to be drawn in regulatory language had to be very careful because that line will necessarily effect the vastly larger tech industry and how the business case for new development is computed. If there is an explicit intention for iPhone "opener-uppers" to also do things like force Cisco routers and switches to support and run Juniper operating systems and performance management tools, or for T-Mobile and Sprint to be allowed to sell customer management applications on Verizon phones then go for it.
I really don't think those silly examples are the intention though, but they are exactly the kind of stupid result that can come from a less than well thought out application of faux righteous indignation to the regulatory process. I just don't see a way to cleanly legislate this one without breaking how the rest of the system works, and in reality the system works pretty well, despite the cries of "freedom-of-choice" is what the system needs. There is already plenty freedom-of-choice out there without opening a very ugly Pandora's Box of regulation.
No. You are hopelessly munging the logic, taking advantage of the over-flexibility of the english language.
Anticompetitive implies overt action taken outside of normal competitive processes to gain an unfair advantage. Normal competition explicitly creates winners and losers, the fact that there are losers to a competitive action does not make the action anti-competitive.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
YOU are considering only overt actions to be anticompetitive. As far as the English language is concerned, a result can be anticompetitive, too.
More importantly, you are arbitrarily considering only actions taken outside of normal competitive processes. There is absolutely NOTHING to support that distinction - except your bias.
In reality, anything which lessens competition can be considered anti-competitive -- whether you like it or not.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
YOU are considering only overt actions to be anticompetitive. As far as the English language is concerned, a result can be anticompetitive, too.
More importantly, you are arbitrarily considering only actions taken outside of normal competitive processes. There is absolutely NOTHING to support that distinction - except your bias.
In reality, anything which lessens competition can be considered anti-competitive -- whether you like it or not.
You keep saying that one is AGAINST competition if they CHOSE to compete. That can't possibly make any sense to you or anyone.
Please learn to comprehend what I am writing rather than making things up and pretending that I said them.
Anti means against. Your example of making a better product than your competitor at a lower price simply means that your COMPETITION is less or uncompetitive. Neither of those is being against competition.
lol, now we're getting into anti-un-competi-double-speak-isms.
Rest assured, making a superior product and putting inferior companies out of business is not considered "anti-competative". At least it isn't considered as such by the vast majority of people who deal with this subject regularly. Of course, language isn't black and white, and there will always be disagreement about what words mean.
But in general, to be considered anti-competative, a company must be doing something beyond simply making a superior product, even if they put another company out of business.
The company going out of business is"uncompetitive" while the superior company is "competitive" with other offerings on the market. To be anti-competitive, a company must be doing something that prevents another company from competing. Putting another company out of business means that the other company lost the competition because they weren't competitive. This in itself isn't consider anti-competitive.
But all of the above is merely an interesting red herring and is completely irrelevant in regard to Apple's behavior in the smart phone industry.
The smart phone industry is currently one of the most competitive markets in all of business. If anything, we should be looking at it as an example of how to foster competition. By getting side-tracked with bickering over the definition of anti-competitive, we lose sight of reality, we lose sight of the fact that it is already the epitome of a healthy and competitive market.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
It is only a paraphrase, not my made up definition.
The Sherman Antitrust Act was originally written in 1890 and the language of the day was "restraint of trade". Since then follow on laws and court precedents refer explicitly to anticompetitive practices repeatedly. Tort rulings are considered a part of the law, explicitly so. Get a clue, you are simply blowing it out your arse sideways on this one.
Comments
I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term.
It is a term rich with meaning. Use a frigging dictionary to clear up your muddled understanding.
There is no man so blind as he who will not see.
If you really believe that, you might be using the quoted term in some sort of unusual manner.
Generally, the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.
There are no effective switching costs.
Both platforms have free development tools. Both platforms can be learned in a few days by a competent programmer for basic platform competency. Both platforms can be developed on OS X machines. The Apple $99 Developer program cost is more than the free Android cost, which would actually be an anti-competitive "dumping" hit against the Android community if that made any sense at all.
There is no iOS lock-in by any stretch of the imagination or definition.
I'm sorry if you don't like what "lock-in" means.
There's a good article on Wikipedia about the various meanings of the term, but in tech circles, it usually means the inability to switch to another vendor with out substantial switching costs.
is this before or after you edit the Wikipedia entry?
Are you muddling your understanding of the difference between developers for a platform and users of that platform?
It is a term rich with meaning. Use a frigging dictionary to clear up your muddled understanding.
There is no man so blind as he who will not see.
As for muddled understanding I wish to clarify this point Stevie:
are you stating that developers who develop for iOS are locked into developing only for that platform?
If so, by your definition of "lock in", what do you see as the substantial switching costs for developing for an alternative mobile OS?
There are no effective switching costs.
Both platforms have free development tools. Both platforms can be learned in a few days by a competent programmer for basic platform competency. Both platforms can be developed on OS X machines. The Apple $99 Developer program cost is more than the free Android cost, which would actually be an anti-competitive "dumping" hit against the Android community if that made any sense at all.
There is no iOS lock-in by any stretch of the imagination or definition.
Could be. I don't have any firm opinions on that topic.
is this before or after you edit the Wikipedia entry?
Are you muddling your understanding of the difference between developers for a platform and users of that platform?
As for muddled understanding I wish to clarify this point Stevie:
are you stating that developers who develop for iOS are locked into developing only for that platform?
If so, by your definition of "lock in", what do you see as the substantial switching costs for developing for an alternative mobile OS?
I'm not saying any of that stuff. I am only commenting on the apparent misuse of the term "lock-in".
If you don't like Wikipedia's article, are there any others that you like better?
As for any muddled understanding between consumers and developers, that's entirely possible. In what way is my understanding muddled?
Developers are not "locked in" to the iPhone. They can develop for any platform they choose.
to which Stevie responded:
If you really believe that, you might be using the quoted term in some sort of unusual manner.
...the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.
then later:
As for muddled understanding I wish to clarify this point:
are you stating that developers who develop for iOS are locked into developing only for that platform?
to which Stevie responds:
I'm not saying any of that stuff. I am only commenting on the apparent misuse of the term "lock-in".
In what way is my understanding muddled?
Muddled understanding for all to see.
Quite simply because today there are many chip manufacturers. If I were to develop the technology described, that would put them all out of business and there would only be ONE chip manufacturer (me). That would wipe out competition in the market - and would therefore be anticompetitive.
I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term. Doing something so much better than anyone else and putting them out of business would be anticompetitive because it would lessen competition in the market by putting all the competitors out of business, but is not per se illegal.
Inferior manufacturers being put out of business is not considered "anti-competitive". You're correct that the term is not meaningless when used in antitrust law, but it doesn't mean what you're describing.
You're correct that the term is not meaningless when used in antitrust law,
Ummm...he's saying that the term IS meaningless, wherever it is used.
He's also saying that the term is NOT used in antitrust law.
"I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term. "
This forum. I love it.
Muddled understanding for all to see.
This is how we know that Stevie === tekstud
2) This does not account for international, where iOS devices compete directly with Android (i.e., aren't locked to a carrier with about 1/3rd marketshare). iOS is killing Android internationally. I don't think anyone even really cares/knows what Android is outside the us.
Ah... Well for the tech-savvy crowd, HTC, etc and telcos are pitching Android phones as the iPhone alternative. Kinda like, everything the iPhone can't do? Android can! HTC is leading the way here in Malaysia, in terms of Android phones. But I think here people are only getting Android phones because it's like the anti-Apple and anti-BlackBerry. Also it will be months before any kind of reasonable stock levels of iPhone4 arrive so those with itchy fingers might be tempted to get a HTC, Android does have some hype internationally.
But at the end of the day in many parts of Asia iPhone and BlackBerry are the de facto status symbols.
On a side note, no sign of Google's phone and absolutely no sign of Droid in many parts of Asia.
Edit:
In any case Apple's problem is not marketshare of iOS. For 2010-2011 it's simply how many iOS devices they can sell and how fast.
Ummm...he's saying that the term IS meaningless, wherever it is used.
He's also saying that the term is NOT used in antitrust law.
"I'm simply pointing out that 'anticompetitive' is not a term that is used in antitrust laws because it is a meaningless term. "
This forum. I love it.
Oops, I did misread his post.
But it would probably be better to stop bickering on that subject. It misses the point that the smart phone market is already the very definition of "competitive". Apple isn't being anti-competitive and isn't putting anyone out of business. There is no "lock-in" at all. Just look at how many companies have invested millions in new product and are continuing to grow in revenue and profit. Consumers and developers are capable and perfectly willing to switch platforms when a superior product comes along. Sales statistics make this abundantly obvious. Just look at android's growth.
If anything, we should be investigating the smart phone market as an example of how to foster competition.
The bad news is that this is more fuel for the fire for the FTC. More reasons why Apple's lock-in of developers will be hurting the mobile app market.
The FTC's case for anticompetitive behavior is becoming stronger every day, sadly.
Developers have a choice of platforms for which they can develop. How is this anti-competitive? I'm a (first time) dev and I'm not "locked in" to doing only work for iOS. What are you going on about?
How is such a chip preventing them from the choice to compete fairly? Anticompetitive has very specific meanings. You are confusing prefix meanings. 'Anti-' means 'opposed to' or 'against'; 'Un-' means 'lacking' or 'not'. What you are talking about is in your scenario are companies with worse products being uncompetitive not your product being against competing in the market.
Just look at the iPhone coming into the market and in 1.5 years generating more profit than anyone one else in the handset market, or look at the iPod's legally obtained monopoly position by beating the competition.
You've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
Not true.
So long as you are making a profit by selling it at $10 a chip, you are competing.
It becomes anticompetitive if it cost you, say, $150. But you sell it at a lost for $10 to drive your smaller competitors out of business. Since you know you can take the lost because you have enough cash on hand .
You're all confusing the action with the result.
I agree that my development of a much faster, less expensive chip is a competitive action.
But the RESULT would be less competition - so my competitive action would have an ANTI-competitive result - no more chip manufacturers except me.
That's why anti-competitive results are not by themselves illegal.
Anticompetitive implies overt action taken outside of normal competitive processes to gain an unfair advantage. Normal competition explicitly creates winners and losers, the fact that there are losers to a competitive action does not make the action anti-competitive.
The only real question is whether a platform provider can control the content running on top of their platform and consider the whole on competitive terms with other platforms, or whether the platforms must necessarily be opened to no restrictions as to what is allowed to run on top of it to avoid being labeled anticompetitive?
It is totally a definition thing of where is it permissible to draw the line? Tech industry has lived for decades happily allowing the vertical market to control what software ran on the producers hardware. Personal computers and web technologies are exceptions to that paradigm, but it is almost universally a closed or controlled gateway vertical market in everything else. Mostly because those restrictions were part of the financial business model that even made it possible to create and market the devices in the first place.
Anyone who thinks it is time to force a definite line to be drawn in regulatory language had to be very careful because that line will necessarily effect the vastly larger tech industry and how the business case for new development is computed. If there is an explicit intention for iPhone "opener-uppers" to also do things like force Cisco routers and switches to support and run Juniper operating systems and performance management tools, or for T-Mobile and Sprint to be allowed to sell customer management applications on Verizon phones then go for it.
I really don't think those silly examples are the intention though, but they are exactly the kind of stupid result that can come from a less than well thought out application of faux righteous indignation to the regulatory process. I just don't see a way to cleanly legislate this one without breaking how the rest of the system works, and in reality the system works pretty well, despite the cries of "freedom-of-choice" is what the system needs. There is already plenty freedom-of-choice out there without opening a very ugly Pandora's Box of regulation.
No. You are hopelessly munging the logic, taking advantage of the over-flexibility of the english language.
Anticompetitive implies overt action taken outside of normal competitive processes to gain an unfair advantage. Normal competition explicitly creates winners and losers, the fact that there are losers to a competitive action does not make the action anti-competitive.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
YOU are considering only overt actions to be anticompetitive. As far as the English language is concerned, a result can be anticompetitive, too.
More importantly, you are arbitrarily considering only actions taken outside of normal competitive processes. There is absolutely NOTHING to support that distinction - except your bias.
In reality, anything which lessens competition can be considered anti-competitive -- whether you like it or not.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
YOU are considering only overt actions to be anticompetitive. As far as the English language is concerned, a result can be anticompetitive, too.
More importantly, you are arbitrarily considering only actions taken outside of normal competitive processes. There is absolutely NOTHING to support that distinction - except your bias.
In reality, anything which lessens competition can be considered anti-competitive -- whether you like it or not.
You keep saying that one is AGAINST competition if they CHOSE to compete. That can't possibly make any sense to you or anyone.
You keep saying that one is AGAINST competition if they CHOSE to compete. That can't possibly make any sense to you or anyone.
I'm not saying any such thing.
Please learn to comprehend what I am writing rather than making things up and pretending that I said them.
I'm not saying any such thing.
Please learn to comprehend what I am writing rather than making things up and pretending that I said them.
Anti means against. Your example of making a better product than your competitor at a lower price simply means that your COMPETITION is less or uncompetitive. Neither of those is being against competition.
Rest assured, making a superior product and putting inferior companies out of business is not considered "anti-competative". At least it isn't considered as such by the vast majority of people who deal with this subject regularly. Of course, language isn't black and white, and there will always be disagreement about what words mean.
But in general, to be considered anti-competative, a company must be doing something beyond simply making a superior product, even if they put another company out of business.
The company going out of business is"uncompetitive" while the superior company is "competitive" with other offerings on the market. To be anti-competitive, a company must be doing something that prevents another company from competing. Putting another company out of business means that the other company lost the competition because they weren't competitive. This in itself isn't consider anti-competitive.
But all of the above is merely an interesting red herring and is completely irrelevant in regard to Apple's behavior in the smart phone industry.
The smart phone industry is currently one of the most competitive markets in all of business. If anything, we should be looking at it as an example of how to foster competition. By getting side-tracked with bickering over the definition of anti-competitive, we lose sight of reality, we lose sight of the fact that it is already the epitome of a healthy and competitive market.
No, that's simply YOUR definition - and is why 'anticompetitive' isn't used in the law.
The Sherman Antitrust Act was originally written in 1890 and the language of the day was "restraint of trade". Since then follow on laws and court precedents refer explicitly to anticompetitive practices repeatedly. Tort rulings are considered a part of the law, explicitly so. Get a clue, you are simply blowing it out your arse sideways on this one.