I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
The evidence that Apple is not a monopoly is overwhelming.
Legally, there is no such thing as "an overwhelming evidence not being guilty". Either there is evidence being guilty, either there is no evidence. The latter is sufficient to be declared not guilty by the judge.
From a end user perspective Apple is indeed not a monopoly. The end user has a choice between a lot of smartphones.
But from an app developer perspective (and I own an app developing company), the app store is definitely a monopoly. I am forced to use the App Store to distribute my iOS apps. As such this is not an issue if the monopoly is not abused. But Apple is abusing its monopoly by imposing very unfavorable conditions to the app developer. Not being allowed to make a link to the website of the app developer, is perhaps the most known rule, but there are others that are also impacting: no cross selling, no temporary discounts, ...
Are you serious? By your definition Corning should complain too, right? I mean, if they want to sell cover glass cut exactly to the dimensions iPhones happen to utilize, it’s only Apple that they can sell to. But wait, Corning can cut their glass to other dimensions, to sell to other manufacturers. Just exactly like you can compile your apps for Android or for Windows phone or for whatever remains of Symbian phone manufacturers. You compile your app for a very specific end market controlled by one vendor, knowing beforehand that one vendor is all that exists to access that sub market, and then you complain that the vendor doesn’t allow you access to its customer base around its back?
Go ahead and argue. I’ll come up with example after example of where your thinking makes zero sense.
The evidence that Apple is not a monopoly is overwhelming.
Legally, there is no such thing as "an overwhelming evidence not being guilty". Either there is evidence being guilty, either there is no evidence. The latter is sufficient to be declared not guilty by the judge.
From a end user perspective Apple is indeed not a monopoly. The end user has a choice between a lot of smartphones.
But from an app developer perspective (and I own an app developing company), the app store is definitely a monopoly. I am forced to use the App Store to distribute my iOS apps. As such this is not an issue if the monopoly is not abused. But Apple is abusing its monopoly by imposing very unfavorable conditions to the app developer. Not being allowed to make a link to the website of the app developer, is perhaps the most known rule, but there are others that are also impacting: no cross selling, no temporary discounts, ...
Are you serious? By your definition Corning should complain too, right? I mean, if they want to sell cover glass cut exactly to the dimensions iPhones happen to utilize, it’s only Apple that they can sell to. But wait, Corning can cut their glass to other dimensions, to sell to other manufacturers. Just exactly like you can compile your apps for Android or for Windows phone or for whatever remains of Symbian phone manufacturers. You compile your app for a very specific end market controlled by one vendor, knowing beforehand that one vendor is all that exists to access that sub market, and then you complain that the vendor doesn’t allow you access to its customer base around its back?
Go ahead and argue. I’ll come up with example after example of where your thinking makes zero sense.
What a ridiculous comparison. People buy iPhones and they buy apps , but they don't buy Corning glass; which is only a component. If you would come up with a decent argument, I would be happy to argue.
I’d seriously question the motivation behind this investigation. Who complained? Competitors? Those who may or may not be politically disadvantaged? I don’t like it. None of these companies are monopolies.
I'd love to hear GOOD alternatives for Facebook and Amazon. Whatever the outcome, antitrust laws haven't been updated in ages. Every time the US Gov has broken up huge noncompetitive corporation it has proven to be positive for consumers and the industries for the most part.
"GOOD" alternatives? That's not a goal nor guaranteed, when an anti trust violation suit breaks up a company. Anti trust laws are not meant to penalize a company for being good, better than its competitors or the best, at what they do. So long as the company don't use any illegal practices to prevent any alternatives, from fairly completing with them, GOOD alternatives will find its way into the marketplace. Who would have thought that a company with barely any telecommunication background could come up with a GOOD alternative to dethroned Nokia, which was by far the largest mobile phone maker in the World at the time? But Apple did just that with their iPhone and without the help of any anti trust suits.
I remember when they broke up ATT (in the early 80's) into all the "baby bells". Before the break up, my ATT land line made local, toll and long distance calls and conveniently billed me every month. After the break up, my now local "baby bell" no longer had long distance calling using ATT. I had to either paid a monthly fee to have a long distance carrier always attached to my land line or enter in (before the number) some 8-10 digit code of the long distance carrier that I wanted to use, every time I needed to make a long distance call and my local "baby bell" will collect the charges for them on my monthly bill. Even if long distance call charges dropped a, any savings didn't make up for the monthly fees of consumers that didn't make a lot of long distance calls nor any inconvenience. Plus local and toll calls became more expensive because the local "baby bells" could no longer count on the revenue from the very profitable long distance calls. ATT still owned all the network infrastructures for making long distance calls.
I'm now paying almost 3 times as much for what is now an ATT land line again, (because SBC bought out my PacBell, which in turn bought out the original ATT corp. but kept the ATT name.) as I was before the break up. And it still doesn't have any long distance calling ability, unless I pay a monthly fee for the option or enter in the code of a third party long distance carrier every time I need to make a long distance call.
If cellular phones hadn't come along and became as cheap to use as they are now, most consumers that would still be depending on a land line, would not consider the break up of ATT, as a positive. Though one can't consider what ATT might have become, if they weren't broken up.
" In its defense the company has claimed developers are buying a package of services with the revenue split, such as marketing."
Sorry Apple but it is impossible for every app available on your App Store to benefit from such "marketing". We know a relative handful of developers' apps get featured and or promoted in a meaningful way which leaves the remaining developers with fees and little to no profits. It's time to change this.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
Wouldn't it be easier to just open up iOS to third party app stores (with appropriate user permissions) than face an anti-trust investigation? Most iPhone/iPad users would probably not use a third party app store on their primary devices but but with no software restrictions and unlimited hardware access they could find uses for a lot of older devices that are currently sitting in draws. Think of it as recycling.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
There is what we call a technical lock-in to the platform once you have entered which is a combination of financial investment in hardware and software, in addition there might be carrier lock-in and financing lock-in (such as purchasing the hardware on a monthly payment plan via a bank, credit card, store financing etc).
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
There is what we call a technical lock-in to the platform once you have entered which is a combination of financial investment in hardware and software, in addition there might be carrier lock-in and financing lock-in (such as purchasing the hardware on a monthly payment plan via a bank, credit card, store financing etc).
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
Under any other administration, I would welcome this.
Under the *current* administration, however, I feel this is extremely suspicious. Why? It’s pretty obvious: this is a super-anti-regulation administration. Every kind of regulation is being slashed and burned. Regulating departments are manned by people who have a history of declaring these departments targets for destruction.
It wouldn’t be at all surprising to find it is a plot to suppress or punish powerful media-related companies which have “liberal political influence”... where “liberal political influence” is actually the willingness to promote facts that the current administration calls “fake”, and suppress and challenge the egregiously fake nonsense in which this administration wants people to believe.
How do you figure that? If, from your point of view, Republican administrations have no interest in investigating potential monopoly abuse, the last thing they would do is start an anti-trust inquiry. They would seek to bury it and not put the issue front and center in the media.
But that’s not what is happening, which is another indication that Trump ain’t no classical Republican (and believe me, I’m not a fan). I think you’re seeing what you want to see, and not what is.
The evidence that Apple is not a monopoly is overwhelming.
Legally, there is no such thing as "an overwhelming evidence not being guilty". Either there is evidence being guilty, either there is no evidence. The latter is sufficient to be declared not guilty by the judge.
From a end user perspective Apple is indeed not a monopoly. The end user has a choice between a lot of smartphones.
But from an app developer perspective (and I own an app developing company), the app store is definitely a monopoly. I am forced to use the App Store to distribute my iOS apps. As such this is not an issue if the monopoly is not abused. But Apple is abusing its monopoly by imposing very unfavorable conditions to the app developer. Not being allowed to make a link to the website of the app developer, is perhaps the most known rule, but there are others that are also impacting: no cross selling, no temporary discounts, ...
Honestly, as a long-time iOS app developer ( and other traditional non-Apple software), you don't know how good you have it being on the iOS app store and having Apple manage so much for you. The 30% cut is an amazing bargain.. your complaints are just minor PITA's that you can lobby Apple to change. Without the walled-garden approach to app distribution it would be Android like chaos.
Not sure why the fuck Apple is grouped with companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google in these cases. I guess cause it falls under the general umbrella of "big tech company"? It's such horse-shit, and intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. There are numerous and massive differences between Apple and how these other companies operate.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
There is what we call a technical lock-in to the platform once you have entered which is a combination of financial investment in hardware and software, in addition there might be carrier lock-in and financing lock-in (such as purchasing the hardware on a monthly payment plan via a bank, credit card, store financing etc).
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
Is Ford required to sell Chevy trucks at their dealerships?
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
There is what we call a technical lock-in to the platform once you have entered which is a combination of financial investment in hardware and software, in addition there might be carrier lock-in and financing lock-in (such as purchasing the hardware on a monthly payment plan via a bank, credit card, store financing etc).
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
Is Ford required to sell Chevy trucks at their dealerships?
Ford is not a content carrying platform that censors political opinions and cultural views.
The analogy would be Ford limiting their trucks to only carry load from manufacturers of a certain political standpoint, or their cars to only carry passengers discussing leftist views and opinions.
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Even though my own political views might be adversely affected, I just disagree Apple should be forced to carry anything they don’t want in their App Store. That’s a violation of private property rights.
The they (and the other big tech companies) cannot claim Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protection, and at the same time block a large section of political and cultural expression access to their platform. If they do they are per definition a publisher and hence responsible for anything published on their platform. The app store would shrink to a few titles in matter of days with such a limitation imposed.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
There is no app monopoly. People are free to move to Android and if they don’t like Android, they can write their own apps!
There is what we call a technical lock-in to the platform once you have entered which is a combination of financial investment in hardware and software, in addition there might be carrier lock-in and financing lock-in (such as purchasing the hardware on a monthly payment plan via a bank, credit card, store financing etc).
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
Is Ford required to sell Chevy trucks at their dealerships?
Ford is not a content carrying platform that censors political opinions and cultural views.
The analogy would be Ford limiting their trucks to only carry load from manufacturers of a certain political standpoint, or their cars to only carry passengers discussing leftist views and opinions.
It is about inormation aggregation and AI. Yes they are at monopolistic practices now. Models of AI are skewed for political reasons and people do not have clue. Machine Learning probably runs unverified non-quality data in cycles and models are built on garbage that is conveneint to one side and not the other based on poor quality and classification.
How America screws itself. Look no further. By punishing it's own.Than, complain that China is advancing faster in tech supporting it's home grown companies, restricting outsider and investing in world resources and in process going to dominate the world.
An uneducated 3rd world country person with little common sense can tell you this.
Go and fix America.Yoy really do not know much about China, don't you? Just that you need that cheap device to live. Perhaps you need to study a bit more about China and it's methods. That is why America is different. I suggest you come out of home and drop that electronic smart device to learn a bit more about reality.
Comments
I hope they seek to cooperate very closely with the EU which has fined some of these companies multiple times on antitrust issues.
When it comes to Apple, either they have to open up the iOS app store for equal access by any developer regardless how much Apple management disagree with their personal or political standings.
If Apple want to continue to portray and market themselves as a global company, they also must learn to accept global views, cultures, customs and people even if it flies right in their face. If not, they will not be able to continue to grow in the global market. Their pricing structure is one inhibitor to global growth, but so is also the cultural marxism imposed on iOS customers by Apple management.
Go ahead and argue. I’ll come up with example after example of where your thinking makes zero sense.
I remember when they broke up ATT (in the early 80's) into all the "baby bells". Before the break up, my ATT land line made local, toll and long distance calls and conveniently billed me every month. After the break up, my now local "baby bell" no longer had long distance calling using ATT. I had to either paid a monthly fee to have a long distance carrier always attached to my land line or enter in (before the number) some 8-10 digit code of the long distance carrier that I wanted to use, every time I needed to make a long distance call and my local "baby bell" will collect the charges for them on my monthly bill. Even if long distance call charges dropped a, any savings didn't make up for the monthly fees of consumers that didn't make a lot of long distance calls nor any inconvenience. Plus local and toll calls became more expensive because the local "baby bells" could no longer count on the revenue from the very profitable long distance calls. ATT still owned all the network infrastructures for making long distance calls.
I'm now paying almost 3 times as much for what is now an ATT land line again, (because SBC bought out my PacBell, which in turn bought out the original ATT corp. but kept the ATT name.) as I was before the break up. And it still doesn't have any long distance calling ability, unless I pay a monthly fee for the option or enter in the code of a third party long distance carrier every time I need to make a long distance call.
If cellular phones hadn't come along and became as cheap to use as they are now, most consumers that would still be depending on a land line, would not consider the break up of ATT, as a positive. Though one can't consider what ATT might have become, if they weren't broken up.
Sorry Apple but it is impossible for every app available on your App Store to benefit from such "marketing". We know a relative handful of developers' apps get featured and or promoted in a meaningful way which leaves the remaining developers with fees and little to no profits. It's time to change this.
You can say that iOS is a separate platform, but the courts may think different in that Apple does not edit, stop or limit any content on macOS (although they seem to be trying to move in that direction with the mandatory notarization of Mac apps). So which is it?
If they don't want to carry content they as a company object to – fine. Do it in your own curated store, but you shall be extremely hard pressed to argue that the same store must be a monopol to protect the integrity of the company – particularly as not being a monopoly on their other platform does not harm them neither financially or reputation wise. Actually it also makes the Mac easier to market in many world geos. It also makes it less controversial and politicized.
So once you are in the platform there is clearly a monopoly inside of it that is unacceptable.
The other companies like Google, FB and Twitter have more or less established de-factor standards not only in the US but across the planet which are much harder to leave. iOS users have a possibility of leaving the platform, although in reality this can be harder than in theory.
So?
How do you figure that? If, from your point of view, Republican administrations have no interest in investigating potential monopoly abuse, the last thing they would do is start an anti-trust inquiry. They would seek to bury it and not put the issue front and center in the media.
But that’s not what is happening, which is another indication that Trump ain’t no classical Republican (and believe me, I’m not a fan). I think you’re seeing what you want to see, and not what is.
The analogy would be Ford limiting their trucks to only carry load from manufacturers of a certain political standpoint, or their cars to only carry passengers discussing leftist views and opinions.