Apple is immune from antitrust

By | March 28, 2010, 4:58pm PDT

Summary: The hottest consumer electronics company is Apple. Is it safe from government litigation? Maybe Google should license iPAD killing future litigation.

The hottest consumer electronics company is Apple. It has a strong developer eco-system for iPhone and iPad. Sales forecasts for these products will surpass analyst expectations. Apple is financially healthy and current stock market darling. Is Apple safe from government anti-trust litigation? Some argue they should be a target. I suspect it would be a very weak case and never pursued.

There has been some consumer and developer backlash of its policies, but most drink and love the company Kool-Aid. Some developers are mad and feel abused. There is excitement because of the launch of the Android phone OS and the Nexus One along with Google’s book service; maybe they’ll leave Apple, except the damned roll out of the iPad is so tempting and worth putting up with Apple’s dictatorial behavior. Apple is betting on it. Since the market offers developers and consumers choice, no monopoly exists. The titans will clash creating healthy competition. Google is consistently on the defensive in court, while Apple consistently attacks.

Microsoft lags (OK, let’s be honest, it’s dead last) in the phone and ‘reader’ markets. Some suggest the company will never be a serious player in consumer smart / multi-function device space. They need to build a decent product before complaining. When Microsoft announced the Windows 7 phone killing Windows 6.5 / CE, it forced developers into catch-up mode. Google and Apple pulled farther ahead. Microsoft can’t blame anyone but itself, end of story. Zune is a cool product, but lacks a cult like following that Amazon Kindle and Apple have with its customers. Kindle may crumble as reported by Jason Perlow. Microsoft will never be a threat to Apple unless it unleashed a serious price war. Doing so would have Apple filing a FTC suit the moment it did so. Zune products starting at $99.00 ? Nahhh….

Google has tentatively settled the book copyright infringement case. Google settled privacy and information sharing in Europe and Canada. It will be distracted for the next month or so in China, maybe longer. Still reeling from poor execution of Buzz and Wave is flat lining. Both have lots and lots of money. Spend it on lawyers?

Financial Comparison of Apple and Google

Apple (furnished by NASDAQ)

Period Ending: 9/26/2009 9/27/2008 9/29/2007 9/30/2006
Current Assets
Cash and Cash Equivalents $5,263,000 $11,875,000 $9,352,000 $6,392,000
Short Term Investments $18,201,000 $12,615,000 $6,034,000 $3,718,000
Net Receivables $4,496,000 $6,151,000 $4,811,000 $3,452,000
Inventory $455,000 $509,000 $346,000 $270,000
Other Current Assets $3,140,000 $3,540,000 $1,413,000 $677,000
Total Current Assets $31,555,000 $34,690,000 $21,956,000 $14,509,000

Google (furnished by NASDAQ)

Period Ending: 12/31/2009 12/31/2008 12/31/2007 12/31/2006
Current Assets
Cash and Cash Equivalents $10,197,588 $8,656,672 $6,081,593 $3,544,671
Short Term Investments $14,287,187 $7,189,099 $8,137,020 $7,699,243
Net Receivables $3,846,121 $2,928,297 $2,376,312 $1,352,053
Other Current Assets $836,062 $1,404,114 $694,213 $443,880
Total Current Assets $29,166,958 $20,178,182 $17,289,138 $13,039,847

Apple controls its apps store with an iron fist. Every app is put under intense scrutiny and what is offered on their iPhone platform and similarly how and what books publishers are displayed on its iPad. That will change as the company develops future versions. Argue all you want about how the company controls developers, design of apps and the timing (read as delay) of update scheduled, it is what it is. It’s unlikely to feel the wrath of the DOJ. Apple sues software and hardware vendors and has a strong winning percentage. Don’t mess with them is the message. I can not find a single filing of Apple being sued by any government agency or department. It’s a very comfortable position to be in. Apple is considered small in corporate size while Microsoft and Google are viewed as mega conglomerates, even though Apple’s stock value is worth $70 Billion  more than Google.

Information (via NASDAQ)

Apple Inc.

Microsoft Corporation

Google Inc.

$209B $260B $137B

While the debate rages on as to what products are better, faster, superior, Apple is small enough that it can double in size and probably not attract the attention of regulators or DOJ for years to come.  Apple has a reputation for being rigid in its policies with respects to hardware and developer vendors. Some argue the company is as arrogant as Microsoft. So how can Apple get away with what others have not? The simple answer is market share. Apple is not the dominant player in the computer, consumer electronic / smart device market. There is not enough evidence for a case to be made against Apple implying it is violating antitrust law. There’s no fight over Digital Rights Management (DRM), availability of content (independents are whining a little bit) or distribution options (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Google) available or competitive product offerings.

David Gewirtz highlights the fact that Apple will control iPad content. Lots of vendors of have similar policies. At least DRM content will be easy to port between a Kindle and a iPad reader, or so we’ve been lead to believe. Blocked content - drum roll please… maybe an issue for the FTC? If iPad owned 90% of the e-reader market, an investigation would be a no-brainer. Exclusive agreements are legal, just don’t tell Jason Perlow that. I noticed that you don’t mention a cancellation process for those that pre-order a iPad. With smart phones and laptops that can ‘read’ books, Apple is again safe from any federal laws. Apple’s lawyers could use Steve Ballmer’s CNET Conversations interview as part of its defense:

CNET (Fried): Obviously we’re asking questions on the Kindle. You know, what about this e-book notion? Is that something that’s interesting? Again, that’s a market you guys were in. You had Microsoft Reader and protected books for compact devices a long time ago. Is it a market that you think is serious? What’s the best device for it?

Ballmer: Obviously the number one reading device on the planet is the PC. The PC has passed print I would say probably. You know, for books probably people still more read on paper. For the things formerly known as newspapers, magazines, people primarily read documents, work documents, homework. People do a lot of reading on the PC screen. And we need to continue to improve the PC as a place to read, including making sure that content types, which are still primarily read on paper, can be read on the PC. And I think we’ll see a number of the players who are doing dedicated devices take that as an interesting opportunity.

All three CEO’s understand legal warfare and know each other well. Anyone know what happens next? I don’t think DOJ, USITC or the FTC are hearing any complaints. Of course, who knew about Intel in advance? Perhaps the boys are dividing up the consumer space while putting on a show to keep the justice department away avoiding big court battles.  Is there a future deal in the making that eliminates litigation? Maybe Google strikes a deal to license iPad or Google E-Book App on iPad? Apple would not be too far off the reservation with that concept; after all, Macs run Microsoft Office products - except the iPad which only loads iWork. Apple has room to maneuver and push the limits. Gizmodo published pictures last Friday that suggest Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt are still willing to have coffee together. I would have loved to have been a fly on the table during that conversation.

Additional resources:

Young Steve Jobs and why 2010 might be like 1984

Five lessons Apple can learn from Amazon

Apple vs HTC: Battle for control of patents, wireless apps - or both?

iPad Killed Kindlenomics

Apple, help me… help YOU.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Doug Hanchard

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=5774

Biography

Doug Hanchard

Doug is the principal of Rapid Response Consulting, an advisory group that integrates ICT solutions. He has worked at some of the largest telecommunications firms in Canada, including Bell Canada, Telus and AT&T and is a guest lecturer for several universities and associations. He serves on several advisory boards in Canada and the United States.

Starting with a new national ISP in 1993 in sales, positioning internet access, web sites and network services began the path of telecommunications technologies from the early Bulletin Board Services (BBS) to the first web pages for commercial clients.

Became the National Data Network Service Manager for Frame Relay and Internet access for AccTel Enterprises which was acquired (after 3 mergers already) by AT&T Canada. Interested in how marketing could expand service availability, he moved to Telus to become the Frame Relay / ATM Product Manager and expanded the network across Canada. In 2002 he went to Bell Canada becoming a Solution Architect to get back to his passion for technology working with enterprise clients. In 2006, became the Director of R&D and Senior Solution Architect for Bell Canada Security Solutions Inc, developing I.P. based physical and logical security platforms and ICT services.

This position created new commercial concepts such as Crisis and Disaster technology solutions required for emergency use after an event occurred. He designed interoperable technologies and application combinations allowing any to any I.P. service through landline, broadband, satellite and wireless technologies to be deployed anywhere

40
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple is immune from antitrust
birumut Updated - 3rd May 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
seslisohbet seslichat
0 Votes
+ -
It's 9% vs. 90%
still not nice 28th Mar 2010
Same old story.

It's pretty easy to avoid buying or using Apple products.

Too bad I can't say the same for the Wintel Redmond junk.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
John Zern 29th Mar 2010
alot of people would point out how idiotic a statement you just made.

You can go and do whatever you want with Linux, so you can get that.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, really
still not nice Updated - 29th Mar 2010
Another troll dribble from John without any substance.

You can go and do whatever you want with Linux, so you can get that.

Not in the workplace I can't...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple is immune from antitrust
IssacS 28th Mar 2010
I do hate saying this, but it might be best if the mobile market manages to sort itself out on this one. Still I would not be please if DOJ, USITC or the FTC didn't invest some resources to making sure that happens, and an arms-length approach at the lease. But at least insure that Apple isn't "Stacking the deck" too much, so to speak.
But it would be best if the iPhone is toppled from natural cause in the marketplace, if only to seek that well can be done with form factor and avoid the legal mess. If the gavel swings on Apple, there are quite a few things that would have to be considered in such a judgement... I would HATE to put a Judge in that position.
0 Votes
+ -
Immune is the wrong word, try inapplicable.
matthew_maurice 28th Mar 2010
Steve is, aside from an incredibly gifted marketer, an
astute businessman. He learned a long time ago that the
key to success in business is making money, and Apple
decided back in the 80s that the best way for them to
do it is by making products that have strong desirability
and high margins. That philosophy got lost when
Jobs was ejected, but it returned when he did. Apple
intentionally doesn't go after controlling market share
(however they do protect what they consider is their
IP), they endeavor to maximize their profit on each sale.
They do this by making products that look and work in
such a way as to command a premium. Perhaps not from
everyone, but that is their plan. Apple shoots for the
cream floating on the top, makes a hefty profit there,
and leaves the rest for everyone else. Not only does this
help them avoid a "race to the bottom", but it also gives
them a "get out of Anti-Trust free" card. Like it or not, it's
a very successful, at every level, strategy.
The iPhone being one of them. OSX being another.

It isn't just monopoly type activities that fall under anti-trust law..... it is OTHER activities as well, which some of them both Microsoft and Apple do a heck of a lot.
0 Votes
+ -
You forgot...
hill60 28th Mar 2010
...Google, fast approaching a monopoly in online advertising and whose
purchase of AdMob is currently being examined.

Their relationship with Apple with shared board members etc was also
being examined but that is no longer the case.

Any OSX monopoly issues were dealt with in the Psystar case.

Maybe they should look into Adobe's attempts to enforce their
proprietary software onto every Internet accessing device on earth.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm....
IssacS 28th Mar 2010
> ...Google, fast approaching a monopoly in online advertising and whose purchase of AdMob is currently being examined.

True, and that is the type of thing that should go checked.... Considering the size of Google, and the depth of influence it has in the Internet ad market.


> Their relationship with Apple with shared board members etc was also being examined but that is no longer the case.

I wonder if this is still ongoing. It reminds me of the outright FEAR IBM had when there was rumors that the DOJ was going to look into them for monopoly abuse practices.... and the moves IBM made to avoid it.

> Any OSX monopoly issues were dealt with in the Psystar case.

Ummmm, NO! Psystar had alot more to do with licensing termanology than it with monopoly abuse practices for OSX. Psystar tried to make a case based on this, it failed miserably.


> Maybe they should look into Adobe's attempts to enforce their proprietary software onto every Internet accessing device on earth.
No, since Adobe is one... not really trying to force that it's "proprietary software onto every Internet accessing device on earth". And two, it's YET to ABUSE it's monopoly.
As it turns out in US law, you can have monopoly and not be dragged into court, since that happens to be legal. Abusing one's monopoly is not... and that usually when you need the DOJ to step in.
0 Votes
+ -
Monopoly is a problem when trade is involved
Uralbas Updated - 29th Mar 2010
The way Google share's its profits with others will prevent this, as others will not have the global access and capabilities that Google does.

Apple on the other hand obtaining patents that should not be awarded is coming into someone's legal cross hairs. Specially when the crossed the 200B mark.

Lets wait and see how it plays out.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer of any kind, I base my comments on the fact of how monopoly is defined in the dictionary:


a) Exclusive control of a commodity or service in the market that allows you to dictate prices (wow Apple rings a bell here) .

b) Exclusive control to carry a service, business or traffic in a market (iPad cha ching!)

c) Exclusive possession/control of something. (yeah yeah, you all will say android, but its free so there is no possession or control!, just see how ATT pushed Yahoo and China's Android devices. But Apple's OS?? now we have a winner).

For monopoly to exist some type of commerce and compensation must exists along with the exclusive control of the service or product. When its free, how is that a monopoly??
0 Votes
+ -
Apple shares profit with anyone...
hill60 29th Mar 2010
...who contributes to iTunes and the App store.

70/30 split.

Nokia has more smartphone market share than Apple.

RIM has more smartphone market share than Apple.

You are free to develop your own version of OSX using Darwin.

Google, Nokia and others are free to develop browsers based on
webkit.

I don't understand this psychotic hatred of all things Apple.

Nobody is forced into using ANY of their products if they don't
want to, the thing is in a free market lots of people are making a
choice to use Apple products and that's their decision to make not
some geeky, disgruntled tech pundit's.
"Ummmm, NO! Psystar had alot more to do with licensing termanology
than it with monopoly abuse practices for OSX. Psystar tried to make a
case based on this, it failed miserably."


To tell the truth, Psystar did try, several times, to claim OS X was a
monopoly, and the argument got thrown out of court every time. So yes,
the precedent is set. OS X won't be a monopoly until Apple holds
Microsoft's share of the computer market.
0 Votes
+ -
You said it better than me...
IssacS 29th Mar 2010
That was was I was trying to say... but I just leave it to this.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
matthew_maurice 29th Mar 2010
And exactly which parts of Title 15 of the United States Code apply
here? Myself, Apple Counsel and, especially, the US DOJ and FTC would
be very interested in hearing. So, by all means-please enlighten us with
your mastery of US jurisprudence.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong on so many levels
Rick_K 29th Mar 2010
Where to start, let?s see.

iPhone: THere is no monopoly there, you can buy one of the many
Android based phone. You also have the option to buy a window 7
knock off based phone, when they commie out. That one in a no
brainer, Fail

OS X: This one has potential, but since it is not the dominant OS, you
might have a hard time proving your case. Here?s the rub, the
Playstation 3 OS is limited to the PS3, same goes for the Wii OS and
the box 360, which are limited to the respective consoles. To date
Apple has not used the Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish,as well as
other predatory practices that got Microsoft into hot water. Second
Fail.

Intelectual Property (IP): Apple does nothing that is unusual here. If a
company does not defend it?s patents, the patents become void. So
there is no case here either. the worst one can complain is that the
patent should not have been issued, but the same is probably true of
half of the patents issued to other large companies. The complaint
should be against the system, not the company, This is an Epic Fail.
Fortunately, the courts understand this, even if you don't.
0 Votes
+ -
You post seems to have some vague accusations
Pete "athynz" Athens 29th Mar 2010
perhaps you could be more specific with this:

Actually, anti-trust law is very applicable in some areas

The iPhone being one of them. OSX being another.


Specifics please - this is very vague. How does anti-trust law apply to the iPhone and OS X?

It isn't just monopoly type activities that fall under anti-trust law..... it is OTHER activities as well, which some of them both Microsoft and Apple do a heck of a lot.


What activities? This far this seems to be a bunch of anti-Apple FUD with a bit of anti-MS FUD mixed in...
0 Votes
+ -
I have to say.
Rick_K 29th Mar 2010
This is a well thought out, and reasoned post. It is refreshing to see a
post like this, when the usual fanboys are ranting and spewing hate. You
bring a breath of fresh air, as well as improve the intelligence level of
this discussion. Well done.
0 Votes
+ -
He's not that smart, look at his comments about the iPhone
Gen1. MS CEO Said "Obviously the number one reading
device on the planet is the PC." Come on now , what are you
thinking. When was the last time you read a book on your PC,
never.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: PCs
branchman67 29th Mar 2010
Y'know, if you want to get technical, you could call all e-readers, iPhones, etc. "PCs". Technically all PC means is Personal Computer. By common usage now, PC means something that sits on your desk running Windows or Linux, but technically all Apple computers would qualify under the original definition of PC (actually Apple was the original mass-marketed PC). So, in a roundabout way, he's actually right, or will be shortly, as many people move to some form of electronic reading.
0 Votes
+ -
PC ebook reader here
BrewmanNH 29th Mar 2010
When was the last time you read a book on your PC,never.

I read books on my PC all of the time. I don't have an ebook reader because they are a cost I'm not willing to spend just to read a book.

The great thing about using a PC to read an Ebook is that I can buy them in any format that I want, and if I don't have the software to read it, I can find software to convert it to something I can read it with.

I've never had any of the problems with eyestrain or headaches or anything like it by reading on my PC. I don't need a light on to read the books. Also, I can use it for more than just an electronic book.

From all of that, I think that the statement probably isn't that far off. PC's are much more versatile and available than any ebook reader. You might want to check into the software that Amazon just released that lets people read Kindle book formats on a PC, obviously people would rather spend their money on something other than a 1 trick pony device.
0 Votes
+ -
I too read ebooks on my PC
Pete "athynz" Athens 29th Mar 2010
I use the Kindle app for PC to read ebooks on my laptop, my desktop, and occasionally my iPhone - since I have this functionality across devices and platforms I refuse to buy ANY e-reader... including the iPad. And I'm going to say that it is much, much easier to read an ebook on my 24" HD monitor than any of the above but to me the number one reading device on the planet is a good old fashioned book - one that one can turn pages, one that the batteries never run out, one that can be read via candlelight if needed if the power goes out.

But what does any of this have to do with Apple being immune from anti-trust? Not one thing.
0 Votes
+ -
last week i read the wizard of oz....
dougogd@... Updated - 31st Mar 2010
You can do anything you can on a computer for free that you have to pay to do on an ipad. I just need a pdf reader to open books on the pc. You also can do many other things on a pc using open source software that you have to pay for using the ipad. You can find them anywhere.
0 Votes
+ -
Google needs to watch out
gjafg 28th Mar 2010
All predictions are that Google's Android OS will rise up and become more popular than iPhone in the next few years. Added to that, an army of Android Pads are also on their way this year. It's more likely that Google will dominate the smartphone market, and the market for pads and slate devices that are based on smartphone components. This puts Google in the sights of the DoJ more than Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Lol. Android.. its FREE!
Uralbas Updated - 29th Mar 2010
Monopoly is an issue when trade and monetary gain are involved. This is where it becomes and issue. That's why Google's purchase of AdMob needs to be approved.

But Android being a monopoly, ROFL, it may become one huge FREE monopoly. Because it works for FREE. FTC would have a hard time regulating this. It may work in the US. Though the World will continue on, and it would evolve, those not involved would end up being "left behind".

Look at Palm, take a look at Apples frustration and you'll understand what I mean.

Its a matter of "human computing power".

This is why Apple's only defense is IP. And that is only limited.

In less than a decade, China, India and Brazil will be the largest economic markets, not so the US. This will dwarf any market dominance Apple currently has.

Controlling these markets would be inpossible. Maybe India, but China or Brazil would be futile.

Making clone copies is a professional endeavor in China, just see how many Iphone clones China's has made already and a couple in Brazil.
0 Votes
+ -
WTF???
hill60 Updated - 29th Mar 2010
Google makes monetary gain from advertising, all the "free" beads and
baubles they "give" to people are a means to Google selling more
advertising based on information they gather on people using their
"free" services, hence the need to look into the AdMob acquisition.

But what the hey, how can a multi billion dollar advertising empire
whose motto is "Don't be evil", be evil?

"Look at Palm, take a look at Apples frustration and you'll
understand what I mean."


You mean the way the Pre swept in, killed the iPhone and now
dominates the market?

Is that what you mean by "Apple's frustration"?

"Making clone copies is a professional endeavor in China, just see
how many Iphone clones China's has made..."


What HTC, you mean?
0 Votes
+ -
iPhone clones
vulpine@... 29th Mar 2010
"Making clone copies is a professional endeavor in China, just see
how many Iphone clones China's has made..."

"What HTC, you mean?"


No, he means literal iPhone clones; devices that look exactly like the
iPhone, even with the Apple logo on the back--or a very close
facsimile; but it doesn't run the iPhone OS.

In case you didn't know, there's a MacBook Air being sold in China for
$245. It looks like an MBA, it says MacBook Air right beneath the
display, but it runs Windows.

There is also rumor that an iPad clone has also been sold in China
now... though not running the iPhone OS.
0 Votes
+ -
Not true at all
John Zern 29th Mar 2010
Monopoly is an issue when trade and monetary gain are involved

Not so: so if MS gave out their Zune HD (just an example) for free (or slightly below cost), along with 25 cent downloads or 4.99 a month Zune Pass, and the device saturated the market, they gained nothing in terms of money, but it would cripple the income from Apple to the point where the iPod could disappear from no sales.

They would be the monopoly in that market, and no one else could compete because of the pricepoint of free.

This is known as dumping, and a few flat screen manufacturers where charged with doing it in the past, so the fact that something is free does not save it fron the FTC in any way shape or form.

A monopoly is any company or product that controls the market in a particular segment.
If android grows because it's free, then it's affecting trade, and could be subject to fines and litigation from the FTC.
0 Votes
+ -
Spin doctor at work
still not nice 29th Mar 2010
Not so: so if MS gave out their Zune HD (just an example) for free (or slightly below cost), along with 25 cent downloads or 4.99 a month Zune Pass, and the device saturated the market, they gained nothing in terms of money, but it would cripple the income from Apple to the point where the iPod could disappear from no sales.

Which you know will never happen, so your argument is pie-in-the-sky. It still boils down to marketshare and money, which doesn't invalidate his statement you quoted.

They would be the monopoly in that market, and no one else could compete because of the pricepoint of free.

Then there would be nothing to gain, now would there. Or would there...

But then, it doesn't even have to be 'free'. You can also create an environment whereby the prices are so ridiculously low that you would create a future lock-in and make up for those earlier 'losses'.

Gee, I wonder who's done that before... wink

This is known as dumping, and a few flat screen manufacturers where charged with doing it in the past, so the fact that something is free does not save it fron the FTC in any way shape or form.

That statement is true.

A monopoly is any company or product that controls the market in a particular segment.

Like Micro$oft.

But being a good shill, you'll deny that of course.

If android grows because it's free, then it's affecting trade, and could be subject to fines and litigation from the FTC.

Theoretically possible, but we don't know and that hasn't happened yet. And it may never happen.
growing extra crops for his family to eat because it affected the interstate price because he now didn't have to buy that.

so if the feds decide that redhat should have to pay a fine because i don't have to buy an OS and that depresses the market, nothing will stop them.

the feds are going to try to apply that logic to health insurance too.

where will it stop?

will i be forced to buy an OS or pay a fine?

will the feds make me buy monthly phone service to keep the economy going?

you know they'll try.

let's fire 'em all and start over.

Apple included.

happy
.
0 Votes
+ -
Your point?
still not nice 30th Mar 2010
Or is this just an another unrelated rant...
0 Votes
+ -
Palm?
Pete "athynz" Athens 29th Mar 2010
Palm? Oh you mean that company run by a former Apple exec. that is spending far too many resources trying to hack iTunes so that it recognizes the Pre as an iPod so it can sync with iTunes rather than work on their own sync software? That Palm? Funny thing about Palm and Apple's "frustration" - Apple has the second highest marketshare for smartphones... over WM, Android, and Palm being dead last in the top 5... Why would Apple be frustrated over Palm?
0 Votes
+ -
google market cap number is wrong
bannedfromzdnetagain 29th Mar 2010
it is 179 bn, not 137.
0 Votes
+ -
Monopoly != Antitrust
branchman67 29th Mar 2010
You can have a monopoly in a market, without being sued for antitrust violations. Antitrust violations arise from abusing market share specifically to drive out competition from a market place. For example, if iPhones made up 80% of the smartphone market, that would probably be ruled a monopoly, but that doesn't mean Apple would immediately be under antitrust suits. They'd probably have the government looking over their shoulder, but simply having market share means nothing by itself. If, on the other hand, Apple then saw Android as a challenger to the market, and dropped the prices of their phones to cost or below-cost, and made up the difference by making customers sign 5 or 6 year service agreements, then you might have an anti-competitive argument. If Apple bought Android (I realize not realistic, but go with me on it), then simply shelved it, that might be deemed anti-competitive. But simply having dominant market share in a field of business means you're doing something right. It's how you get there and especially how you stay there that causes antitrust suits to be filed.
very large players that includes Sony, the idea that Apple is
even at the fringes of needing antitrust attention is simply
the author's own bigotry on display.

He doesn't like Apple. He doesn't like Apple customers (as
proven by the kool-aid remark).

You can always tell someone who doesn't like Apple: they
insult the consumer.
0 Votes
+ -
How did a company that was bankrupt now rival Microsoft and Google?
provincialplace@... Updated - 29th Mar 2010
It is kind strange to say that they are not at risk because they fly under the radar. Yet they continue to create ROI out of this world.

Their markup could easily be construed as excessive. I wish I bought stock.

Their market cap is now in the same neighborhood as Microsoft and Google. To say they are not at risk to get sued for antitrust is to use the same logic that says they cannot get virus.

Success breeds contempt and jealousy. It is just a matter of time for Apple to get nailed/harassed for antitrust.

It is all political and now they have come of age. At some point a government lawyer somewhere will believe that the risk/reward equation is in their advantage and the games will begin. Rightly or wrongly...

It is pretty naive to think it has anything to do with technology or business practice.

Like they say, past performance is no indication of future gains...
0 Votes
+ -
Zune is a cool product, but lacks a cult like following
johnelberling@... Updated - 30th Mar 2010
really good article! but i couldn't let that side comment slip by.
actually, a cult following is ALL that Zune has! mainly XBox owners, i
suspect. total Zune sales? MS won't say, but likely well under 10
million. Apple's competing iPod line is a huge hit in many different
global market segments, definitely not a cult by any definition. even just
since the Zune was introduced, sales probably over 100 million.

AppleTV owners, ok, that could be a cult too.
0 Votes
+ -
Okay, I'll grant you that...
doug.hanchard@... 30th Mar 2010
MSNTV / Microsoft TV / Live TV is now gone too, but they will continue to support existing users. Now *that* is a cult following wink

I'm not a big fan of the Zune product, but then again, I'm not a fan of the Kindle either. Come to think of it, I really don't care for E-Readers period I already have a laptop, why do I want yet one more AC Charger, bag and screen that can get busted and stolen?

Apple TV as far as I know is still getting updates, support and is getting new features in a future release.

Thanks for writing.
Doug
What you want with it. I want to run office with it and play my music using itunes and i create home movies using Nero vision. can i really do anything i want or did i just point out some oops no you can'ts.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple is immune from antitrust
birumut Updated - 3rd May 2011
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
seslisohbet seslichat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix