So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
See, that is the thing.
I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.
From the Wiki article:
"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.
No, we don't agree. In fact, I'd have to say that your reply is utterly misrepresentative, once again.
Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?
I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?
do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
Agree completely. Antitrust law is a bitch. Arguing from the Sherman and Clayton acts is not going to enlighten things much. The case law is probably more important then the original legislation. Especially after the courts shifted during the Reagan era and the focus moved from 'how much real competition is there?' to 'did it harm the consumer?'.
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
The situation you describe is not in any way analogous to iPhone/mobile advertising.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
I don't think that there is any current allegation that Apple has a smartphone monopoly. I think the question is irrelevant. That is not the market in question.
Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?
I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?
do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.
No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.
The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.
No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.
The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.
Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.
1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.
You are totally wrong. What is the antitrust investigation? That Apple has a monopoly on its own hardware? You make no sense.
Apple has a device which occupies a tiny sliver of the global phone market. It is their device so they can decide what software runs on it. Apple has little influence over the entire mobile phone market. Apple's restrictions on its phone, has zero effect on other phone makers. Again, apple has a tiny sliver of the global phone market. If you do not like Apple's devices, there are many others to choose from which have a larger marketshare.
So, yes, this has everything to do with monopoly position in the market. Google fan boys just do not like to hear they pissed away 750 million.
Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.
Well, it does include some privacy protection, in addition to protecting trade secrets. However, I'd like to see them go further and require a specific protocol for advertisers to request permission, and users to grant it, as well as a system wide setting that, if set to "No, don't allow this." overrides any specific grants of permission.
A grant of permission should not happen through a simple modal dialog thrown up at app launch. This too easily results in accidental grants of permission as users trying to get something done just tap anywhere to get rid of the dialog. The request should have to be made with an explanation of exactly what information will be sent if permission is granted, and a confirmation required.
I would say that it's a first step in the right direction, but that Apple can and should do more to protect and give users better control over privacy. (On both iOS and Mac OS, although the latter is much more complicated.) However, just stopping Google from raiding iPhones for data is a good thing since they are the most egregious abusers of digital privacy on the planet.
This will become a much bigger issue in the coming years, and with Google squarely positioned on the wrong side, taking what really is the moral high ground here would be both an instance of doing the right thing, as well as a significant marketing advantage. Apple should definitely get out front of and push privacy protection, just as they are pushing HTML5 adoption. It's the right thing to do, and it will also be good business.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
From what I know, I think that's about right. You could continue to make perfect widgets and dominate the market that way, but if for example you began telling your suppliers that they had to deal with you only and not with your competitors, then you'd run afoul of the law. I think some of the proof of this is essentially self-evident. If you could get away with forcing exclusive dealing arrangements, then market/monopoly power and the abuse of it is made apparent. In a free and fair market, the suppliers would be able to tell you to go f- yourself if you tried to pull this kind of stunt.
Incidentally, this is essentially what Microsoft was doing with the CPU-tax. They made it automatically unprofitable for anyone to compete with them on the PC hardware platform. Because of their power in the market, this was an offer the OEMs could not refuse. So what penalty did Microsoft suffer? They had to sign a consent decree that said that they wouldn't do it again. So they moved on to equally nasty and illegal means to penalize uncooperative OEMs. The stuff of legend.
Anyhow, this is why I advise folks who are so up in arms about the FTC or DoJ looking into potential antitrust violations at Apple to take a long, cold shower. This is so far from being meaningful to Apple's business, it's not even funny.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
I think we're going to have to disagree here. The law really doesn't care about monopolies per se, it cares about abuse of the power they have. The definitions of the terms are the real problem here. The dictionary is going to tell you that a monopoly is defined as the exclusive control of a market. That's a state that rarely occurs. Abuse of monopoly power can occur at a much lower threshold of influence. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the laws would be rendered essentially meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
Maybe so, but I didn't see it as fighting. I'd say this has been an unusually civil discussion.
I love how Steve presented iAds as a benefit to consumers. Something that they wanted to click on. Since the web is cluttered with ads the new Safari now has the Reader which can essentially block ads in certain cases, this appears to be two pronged offensive against Google. On one hand they serve quality experience ads, that people want, within apps and on the other hand offer a way to remove Google's ads from web pages and also exclude them from the iOS.
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...
It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.
You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)
But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?
Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.
Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry
So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].
Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.
Comments
So whatever words are used in the Sherman Act, I learned that monopolies themselves are not the thing which was made illegal. Abuse of monopoly power (or better yet, market power) is. That's the key. A company can have all the power in the world, so long as they don't abuse it.
See, that is the thing.
I now have the impression that certain monopolies are indeed illegal, no matter what they actually do or don't do, if they were formed in a certain manner.
From the Wiki article:
"A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[17]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
In a proper case, acquisition of the power seems to be illegal. That surprised me, and if my reading is correct, it seems to also be a surprise to you.
No, we don't agree. In fact, I'd have to say that your reply is utterly misrepresentative, once again.
Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?
I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?
do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
Agree completely. Antitrust law is a bitch. Arguing from the Sherman and Clayton acts is not going to enlighten things much. The case law is probably more important then the original legislation. Especially after the courts shifted during the Reagan era and the focus moved from 'how much real competition is there?' to 'did it harm the consumer?'.
Anyway, I begin to digress.
Digress more. Please.
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
The situation you describe is not in any way analogous to iPhone/mobile advertising.
Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
Not true. Only certain monopolies are illegal, and an express grant of authority is unnecessary.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
I don't think that there is any current allegation that Apple has a smartphone monopoly. I think the question is irrelevant. That is not the market in question.
Absent an express grant of authority, a monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not
I believe you are wrong but I am too tired now to tell you why. Read Dr Millmoss, most of what I would say is in there in bits and pieces.
Huh? Isn't that what I said? Monopolies are not illegal. Abusive Monopolies are illegal.
If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. I wasn't sure, since you also seemed to imply that monopolies could be seen to be illegal just for their existence. The clarification I was adding is that abuse is the critical ingredient.
I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
Wait a minute. In your last post, you said Apple owns certain of the information under discussion. Do you again maintain that instead, they own all of it?
I think we agree that Apple seeks to prevent dissemination of information that they do not own. Are you saying otherwise?
do we not agree about the owner of that information? That is what I was talking about.
No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.
The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.
I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
We aren't. Actually, we aren't even really disagreeing. Just some miscommunication.
No, we don't agree about anything since I don't accept your characterization of the situation.
The only important point in this discussion is that Google, a mobile OS and device company, wishes to use AdMob ads as a trojan horse to gain intelligence concerning a competitor's platform. The competitor, Apple, has said no, you can wheel the horse through the gates, toss pamphlets out of it, put a sign on the side of it, but we aren't going to let you out to run around the city looking for state secrets that you can send home.
Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.
Correct. That is why:
1. Nobody claims that Apple is in a monopoly position in the phone market.
2. Having a monopoly position in the phone market is totally irrelevant to the situation.
You are totally wrong. What is the antitrust investigation? That Apple has a monopoly on its own hardware? You make no sense.
Apple has a device which occupies a tiny sliver of the global phone market. It is their device so they can decide what software runs on it. Apple has little influence over the entire mobile phone market. Apple's restrictions on its phone, has zero effect on other phone makers. Again, apple has a tiny sliver of the global phone market. If you do not like Apple's devices, there are many others to choose from which have a larger marketshare.
So, yes, this has everything to do with monopoly position in the market. Google fan boys just do not like to hear they pissed away 750 million.
Wait a minute AdMob is google.
Thing is, at lot of people think the problem with the new iOS developer terms in question is either a privacy issue or restraint-of-trade issue when it's really a trade secrets issue. Privacy is the fig leaf that Apple hides behind, while Google has chosen antitrust.
Well, it does include some privacy protection, in addition to protecting trade secrets. However, I'd like to see them go further and require a specific protocol for advertisers to request permission, and users to grant it, as well as a system wide setting that, if set to "No, don't allow this." overrides any specific grants of permission.
A grant of permission should not happen through a simple modal dialog thrown up at app launch. This too easily results in accidental grants of permission as users trying to get something done just tap anywhere to get rid of the dialog. The request should have to be made with an explanation of exactly what information will be sent if permission is granted, and a confirmation required.
I would say that it's a first step in the right direction, but that Apple can and should do more to protect and give users better control over privacy. (On both iOS and Mac OS, although the latter is much more complicated.) However, just stopping Google from raiding iPhones for data is a good thing since they are the most egregious abusers of digital privacy on the planet.
This will become a much bigger issue in the coming years, and with Google squarely positioned on the wrong side, taking what really is the moral high ground here would be both an instance of doing the right thing, as well as a significant marketing advantage. Apple should definitely get out front of and push privacy protection, just as they are pushing HTML5 adoption. It's the right thing to do, and it will also be good business.
I think that if the widget manufacturer were to buy up all producers of raw materials, and refuse to sell raw materials to widget competitors, then their widget monopoly would violate the Clayton act. But if they made the best widget, and thereby gained their monopoly, no violation would exist.
The Clayton Act seems to be directed towards monopoly formation, making certain monopolies illegal, depending upon how they were formed.
But I'll gladly accept corrections and deeper insights.
From what I know, I think that's about right. You could continue to make perfect widgets and dominate the market that way, but if for example you began telling your suppliers that they had to deal with you only and not with your competitors, then you'd run afoul of the law. I think some of the proof of this is essentially self-evident. If you could get away with forcing exclusive dealing arrangements, then market/monopoly power and the abuse of it is made apparent. In a free and fair market, the suppliers would be able to tell you to go f- yourself if you tried to pull this kind of stunt.
Incidentally, this is essentially what Microsoft was doing with the CPU-tax. They made it automatically unprofitable for anyone to compete with them on the PC hardware platform. Because of their power in the market, this was an offer the OEMs could not refuse. So what penalty did Microsoft suffer? They had to sign a consent decree that said that they wouldn't do it again. So they moved on to equally nasty and illegal means to penalize uncooperative OEMs. The stuff of legend.
Anyhow, this is why I advise folks who are so up in arms about the FTC or DoJ looking into potential antitrust violations at Apple to take a long, cold shower. This is so far from being meaningful to Apple's business, it's not even funny.
This is a complex area of law. This debate is dependent on how the relevant market is defined. If one defined the relevant market as all iPhones sold, then Apple would have a monopoly of that defined market. But in court there is no way the market would be defined that narrowly. At best one could define the market as "smartphones" but even that is vague. One could define the market as"cellphones" but is the iPhone just a cellphone? It's these complexities that most bloggers overlook or are ignorant of when they comment on this topic. But let me be clear, once a court determines that a company has a monopoly is a defined market, unless otherwise exempted by law, that monopoly is illegal, whether abused or not. Apple does not have a monopoly, so we are counting angels on the head of a pin. Apple has no monopoly to abuse. Let competition decide.
I think we're going to have to disagree here. The law really doesn't care about monopolies per se, it cares about abuse of the power they have. The definitions of the terms are the real problem here. The dictionary is going to tell you that a monopoly is defined as the exclusive control of a market. That's a state that rarely occurs. Abuse of monopoly power can occur at a much lower threshold of influence. Which is a good thing, because otherwise the laws would be rendered essentially meaningless.
I interpreted the two of you to be saying the same thing. Stop fighting.
Maybe so, but I didn't see it as fighting. I'd say this has been an unusually civil discussion.
Nope. We are not talking about a manufacturer in this context. Apple is not the manufacturer here - the devs are the manufacturers.
But lets go with your example. If Coke had the dominant beverage distribution company, and refused to supply stores that also sell a competitor's beverage in store-owned coolers, the analogy would be vastly better, albeit still very imperfect.
Dude, I know; obviously you don't get all the subtle layers to some of these analogies. Whatever way you want to use any or all of these analogies, it's not that difficult...
It doesn't matter WHO the manufacturers are, Apple can basically stock its OWN vending machines, its OWN brick and mortar stores, its OWN virtual stores, its OWN hardware and its OWN platforms with ANYTHING it wants to. Apple owns the store AND the vending machine. They are not, however, trying to dictate someone else's store.
You are right that Coke might have a problem if they refused to supply other peoples' stores that stocked a competing beverage -- this is what MS did with Windows. (Although, restaurants seem to have exclusive deals, so anyhow.)
But you are still quite backward on this. It's APPLE'S OWN STORE / PLATFORM. If Coke had stores, they could refuse to stock Pepsi in them. So, must MS put Apple stuff in its stores (both of them [edit: it looks like 3 now])? Oh no, Radio Shack has a "monopoly" over its own stores -- better tell all the electrical goods producers to get in line to make sure their products are represented equally in all Radio Shack stores; the multinational tech companies better revolt against the oppressive overlord Radio Shack. Oh, wait a minute, the manufacturers can sell their products through Amazon, Walt Mart, Best Buy, or a million other places. It's irrelevant if no-one wants to patronize those other places due to the lax customer care and lack of vision. If consumers all flock to Radio Shack instead, there might be a good reason for it. Does it make a difference if Radio Shack makes good decisions and suddenly becomes a retail sensation overnight, with world's most profitable stores per square foot?
Devs also have somewhere else to go. If, for example, they insist on using Flash to "develop" apps, then there are countless places they can go -- why, didn't you know, Flash is welcomed everywhere as the most essential ingredient of the real internet. Flash developers haven't become dependent on Apple only to have Apple pull the rug out from under them. In fact, by a dev's insistence upon developing in Flash or using Admob, it signals they are using a one size-fits-all approach that was primarily developed for NON-Apple products. It signals that they are in it for the money and not to make a great app for the consumer; it signals that they obviously have somewhere else to sell their apps or to make money (such as through Google ads on their own websites -- surely they will get more eyes on their own websites than on that awful Apple app store that everyone despises). Devs can even sell their products from their own personal websites and still reach the same global market that Apple reaches -- Safari doesn't block the sites! But I guess they figure that Apple does them a service with the app store.
Sure, Apple cannot (probably) dictate to Best Buy to drop Dell products if Best Buy wants to carry Macs. That's an abusive MS tactic -- upon the "partners" that were dependent on MS. On the other hand, Apple doesn't have to sell Macs in Best Buy at all. Best Buy is not dependent on selling Macs in the same way that Dell and Acer are dependent on having Windows on most of their machines. Apple has not got that kind of hold over the computer industry
So, I take it that you think every Mom & Pop store should carry anything and everything the local protection racket (Google) comes around and tells them to carry? What happened to all this freedom Apple critics are supposedly in favor of? Last time I checked, store owners could carry whatever the heck they wanted to carry. If they didn't like the way a supplier did business, they switched suppliers. Google claims the whole internet as its private market and it wants to bully Apple for staking out its own little corner [paraphrased from an article I just read but can't find right now].
Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. Obviously, the Apple game isn't the only game in town. Even if it were, Apple is not holding a gun to anyone's head -- devs come because it is profitable and has great terms and Apple knows what it is doing.
... Hey, I just read another article in which Adobe announces they think Flash will be on some 200+ million mobile devices by 2012. ...
I think someone at Adobe got confused regarding the difference between flash, the LED kind, and Flash, the internet millstone and hackers friend.