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.
Then explain it to us. How are developers locked into iOS dev platform? How is the coat so much more expensive than other dev platforms? Are you stating that iOS devs aren't allowed to develop for any other platform?
Generally, the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.
I see. So let's see if I understand your position.
You claim in other threads that Flash is such an easy development tool that anyone can use it - and that zillions of developers already know how to use Flash.
You can't use Flash on Apple's mobile platforms (largely because it's not available, but we can set that aside for a minute) and Apple is evil for not allowing people to use that magical, wonderful Flash that everyone already knows how to use, instead requiring them to use Obj-C and related languages.
Yet, somehow, Apple is preventing them from going back to that magical wonderful Flash that everyone knows how to use?
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.
I find this argument rather inane: until we become infinitely powerful beings, we're all limited by whatever choices we make.
By your argument my house must be a locked down prison as there are substantial switching costs should I choose to move to a different location.
The issue is whether Apple prevents developers from developing for other platforms not whether they have the means to do so.
I'm not prevented from owning several houses around the country but as I only have enough resource to maintain one I choose carefully.
Conversely, as Flash and Java are such fantastic programming tools why don't we see them everywhere there's a microprocessor and memory?
It'll be wonderful to write one program with one tool that'll run on everything, my laptop, smartphone, landline phone, TV, car, washing machine, microwave oven, aircraft, nuclear power station etc.
How much easier life will be for the programmers of this world, so why isn't Adobe pushing for Flash to run everything everywhere?
I think you are remembering that several high-profile developers of good software left the platform. It was a significant series of defections.
But that was just a relatively small number of excellent developers.
No, he's riffing on the Android communities hyperbole that developers were leaving iPhone en masse because of Ap Store policies. In actuality that mass exodus never happened, and you just missed the invisible <sarcasm> tags in Mac Voyeur's post.
If it's anticompetitive then it's illegal. If it's legal it's not anti-competitive.
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
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.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
You've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
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 .
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 .
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
You've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
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.
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.
Again, besting your competitor fairly is not anticompetitive. As dfiler stated, it the very defintion of competition. By your definition, every team in the World Cup is anticompetitive simply by being competitive. How can that make sense to you?
Note the prefixes, they hold all the answers. Also note that no matter what you do in business you can't make another company go out of business simply by being better. They make themselves go out of business by failing to adequately compete, providing you acted fairly.
Then explain it to us. How are developers locked into iOS dev platform? How is the coat so much more expensive than other dev platforms? Are you stating that iOS devs aren't allowed to develop for any other platform?
I am said that the term "locked in" refers to substantial switching costs. I said that in an attempt to demonstrate to the OP that he might be using the term incorrectly.
I see. So let's see if I understand your position.
You misunderstand completely. Read this:
In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs. Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
You claim in other threads that Flash is such an easy development tool that anyone can use it - and that zillions of developers already know how to use Flash.
Never have I said anything even remotely like that. If you need a cartoon character to use as a punching bag, use the one in your head.
I find this argument rather inane: until we become infinitely powerful beings, we're all limited by whatever choices we make.
By your argument my house must be a locked down prison as there are substantial switching costs should I choose to move to a different location.
The issue is whether Apple prevents developers from developing for other platforms not whether they have the means to do so.
I'm not prevented from owning several houses around the country but as I only have enough resource to maintain one I choose carefully.
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.
If it's anticompetitive then it's illegal. If it's legal it's not anti-competitive.
It is not generally illegal to employ anticompetitive tactics. You may want to look up the word in a dictionary, or better yet, an economics encyclopedia.
Here's some examples of anticomptative practices from Wikipedia. Some are legal, some are per se illegal, and some are illegal only if practiced by a firm with sufficient market power:
"Anti-competitive practices
These can include:
* Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.
* Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
* Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
* Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
* Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
* Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories.
* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
* Tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be purchased together.
* Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
* Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
o Government-granted monopoly - a private individual or firm to be the sole provider
o Government monopoly - the state is the sole provider
Also criticized are:
* Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.
* Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition
* Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement
* Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces
* Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.
* Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine."
I am so sick of arguing about the meanings of words.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
This is an example of effective competition. It is not an example of anticompetative behavior.
It is an example of the opposite.
Please look up the word in whatever source material you prefer, instead of parading your misunderstandings before us.
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 .
Comments
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.
Then explain it to us. How are developers locked into iOS dev platform? How is the coat so much more expensive than other dev platforms? Are you stating that iOS devs aren't allowed to develop for any other platform?
Generally, the question is not whether other choices exist. Instead, one is locked in if there exist substantial switching costs.
I see. So let's see if I understand your position.
You claim in other threads that Flash is such an easy development tool that anyone can use it - and that zillions of developers already know how to use Flash.
You can't use Flash on Apple's mobile platforms (largely because it's not available, but we can set that aside for a minute) and Apple is evil for not allowing people to use that magical, wonderful Flash that everyone already knows how to use, instead requiring them to use Obj-C and related languages.
Yet, somehow, Apple is preventing them from going back to that magical wonderful Flash that everyone knows how to use?
Let them eat Flash.
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.
I find this argument rather inane: until we become infinitely powerful beings, we're all limited by whatever choices we make.
By your argument my house must be a locked down prison as there are substantial switching costs should I choose to move to a different location.
The issue is whether Apple prevents developers from developing for other platforms not whether they have the means to do so.
I'm not prevented from owning several houses around the country but as I only have enough resource to maintain one I choose carefully.
Conversely, as Flash and Java are such fantastic programming tools why don't we see them everywhere there's a microprocessor and memory?
It'll be wonderful to write one program with one tool that'll run on everything, my laptop, smartphone, landline phone, TV, car, washing machine, microwave oven, aircraft, nuclear power station etc.
How much easier life will be for the programmers of this world, so why isn't Adobe pushing for Flash to run everything everywhere?
I think you are remembering that several high-profile developers of good software left the platform. It was a significant series of defections.
But that was just a relatively small number of excellent developers.
No, he's riffing on the Android communities hyperbole that developers were leaving iPhone en masse because of Ap Store policies. In actuality that mass exodus never happened, and you just missed the invisible <sarcasm> tags in Mac Voyeur's post.
What they are doing is certainly anti-competitive.......
Yep! In the same way that Usain Bolt is anti-competitive.
What they are doing is certainly anti-competitive, just like those others that you mentioned.
But that is not the question. The question is whether it is illegal.
If it's anticompetitive then it's illegal. If it's legal it's not anti-competitive.
If it's anticompetitive then it's illegal. If it's legal it's not anti-competitive.
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
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.
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
You've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
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 .
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've just described the exact definition of "competitive" not "anti-competitive".
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.
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.
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.
Again, besting your competitor fairly is not anticompetitive. As dfiler stated, it the very defintion of competition. By your definition, every team in the World Cup is anticompetitive simply by being competitive. How can that make sense to you?
Note the prefixes, they hold all the answers. Also note that no matter what you do in business you can't make another company go out of business simply by being better. They make themselves go out of business by failing to adequately compete, providing you acted fairly.
Yes, it does exist in law...
Then explain it to us. How are developers locked into iOS dev platform? How is the coat so much more expensive than other dev platforms? Are you stating that iOS devs aren't allowed to develop for any other platform?
I am said that the term "locked in" refers to substantial switching costs. I said that in an attempt to demonstrate to the OP that he might be using the term incorrectly.
Now do you understand?
I see. So let's see if I understand your position.
You misunderstand completely. Read this:
In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs. Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
You claim in other threads that Flash is such an easy development tool that anyone can use it - and that zillions of developers already know how to use Flash.
Never have I said anything even remotely like that. If you need a cartoon character to use as a punching bag, use the one in your head.
I find this argument rather inane: until we become infinitely powerful beings, we're all limited by whatever choices we make.
By your argument my house must be a locked down prison as there are substantial switching costs should I choose to move to a different location.
The issue is whether Apple prevents developers from developing for other platforms not whether they have the means to do so.
I'm not prevented from owning several houses around the country but as I only have enough resource to maintain one I choose carefully.
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.
If it's anticompetitive then it's illegal. If it's legal it's not anti-competitive.
It is not generally illegal to employ anticompetitive tactics. You may want to look up the word in a dictionary, or better yet, an economics encyclopedia.
Here's some examples of anticomptative practices from Wikipedia. Some are legal, some are per se illegal, and some are illegal only if practiced by a firm with sufficient market power:
"Anti-competitive practices
These can include:
* Dumping, where a company sells a product in a competitive market at a loss. Though the company loses money for each sale, the company hopes to force other competitors out of the market, after which the company would be free to raise prices for a greater profit.
* Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
* Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
* Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
* Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
* Dividing territories, an agreement by two companies to stay out of each other's way and reduce competition in the agreed-upon territories.
* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist at a level intended to discourage entry into a market.
* Tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be purchased together.
* Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
* Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
o Government-granted monopoly - a private individual or firm to be the sole provider
o Government monopoly - the state is the sole provider
Also criticized are:
* Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.
* Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition
* Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement
* Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces
* Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.
* Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine."
I am so sick of arguing about the meanings of words.
Not true.
Let's say I invent a new microprocessor that offers 20 times the performance of Intel's top processor, uses 5% as much energy and costs $10 each. That processor would put Intel, AMD and other processor manufacturers out of business in a heartbeat, so it would be anticompetitive.
It most certainly would not be illegal.
This is an example of effective competition. It is not an example of anticompetative behavior.
It is an example of the opposite.
Please look up the word in whatever source material you prefer, instead of parading your misunderstandings before us.
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 .
Right. And even that is not generally illegal.