(Not) installing things on my mac

That is not anti-competitive to me. That is a choice in how the operate their business (again let me say I don't agree). There is no law or requirement for a company to produce "open" products. Look at the game console world or the mobile phone world. Many of those are proprietary.

Just cause you want something to be "open" doesn't mean it's wrong or illegal.

And yes I posted links to that iAd thing in several forums. I hate it, but still there is nothing illegal, unethincal etc. about it. Yeah it's wrong in my mind, but the best I can do is keep warning people to stay away. I still have hope that eventually people will become aware and go elsewhere and Apple will die an natural death rotting on the ground pecked by birds and eaten by worms and bugs...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

]

Yes there are, anti-trust laws.

Microsoft got a court case stuck on them for giving software away for free FFS. They did no limit or prevent the use or installation of other web browsers on their OS's, nor did they make themselves the only way to acquire software for their OS's, not did they vet and reject software. Apple are FAR more culpable from an anti-trust pov. NOBODY can compete with Apple and set up an App store for the iPod. That is anti-competive, and Apple should have the crap sued out of them for it.

Arse. Total Arse. Of course companies that make consoles sell software for them. That is completely different from controlling and preventing others from doing the same. In the case of MS, they outsource a great deal of work and release titles as joint works.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is only true if the company is a monopoly or virtual monopoly or has made agreements with the other companies in the same line of business to restrict access or set prices or ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MS never had a real Monopoly, there was always consumer choice. Something that Apple deny consumers.

 

What do you not understand about "virtual monopoly?" - that is why they got in trouble and had to allow other browsers in Europe.

Apple is no where near that so the law(s) you reference don't apply any more than they do in the car example (must run on multiple fuels) I provided.

 

Other browsers were always allowed. The lawsuit was pure BS. There really was no case against Microsoft, just a bunch of whining pussies against free web browsers, and some smartass legal eagles smelling money.

Apple are more culpable than Microsoft ever were. Just because they a a pissant company doesn't excuse their actions.

 

I'm not claiming they aren't wrong, as I've said, just that they are not doing anything illegal in the eyes of the law. I am hoping it all catches up with them.