[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Where's your brain? It has been proven in court that Apple used doctored photos and Apple has been called out on this in court already.[/citation]
Firstly, you're gonna need to evidence this.
Secondly, if it was pointed out in court, then the legal system dealt with it, so the proper consequences will have happened.
Thirdly, once again I ask, where's your brain. Whether they did or did not doctor documents, as I already told you, that has nothing to do with being a monopoly.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]As for how Apple handles their app store? It's not entirely wrong because it helps keep apps that would have been damaging (such as malware being passed as an app), but Apple uses their app store to keep a lot of competition out such as that of many of the large companies. For example, quite a few companies have made/tried to make an app for their customers, but Apple didn't like them, so Apple deprived their customers of said app.[/citation]
Why did you write this massive lecture of irrelevant drivel? How does Apple doing what you describe constitute anything even remotely resembling a monopoly? It's simply them deciding what they want to offer their customers on their app store. The customers don't seem to mind, as I already explained, since the app store is the most popular. Please provide an example of a functionality the customers have been 'deprived of' for which there isn't an equivalent alternative? And even if you have one, once again, where's your brain? Even if Apple was depriving it's millions of very happy customers of certain apps - that has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Are you sensing a pattern here?
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Apple does not support non-Apple hardware running an Apple OS (Apple even sues some people who do this if they make certain mistakes. For example, some of the Hackintosh sites have been taken down repeatedly by Apple)[/citation]
Apple suing a site for whatever reason has nothing to do with suing people who install Mac OS, for example, on their PC's. There is nothing preventing you installing Mac OS on a normal PC, I know because I tried it myself. So you're simply wrong. And once again, I have to ask, where's your brain? Even if your lie about Mac OS being specific to Apple devices were true, that wouldn't have anything to do with whether they are a monopoly or not. Are you seeing the pattern yet?
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]
.Google's Android Market is less *profitable* because it contains far more free apps. How profitable something is does not mean it is better. [/citation]
There are more free apps on Android, just like there are more viruses. This is because Apple has quality control in their store, whereas Android does not. I don't know why you think your point has any relevance to a monopoly (the subject of this discussion, in case you forgot), but I also wonder where you believe anyone here said that iOS is better due to being profitable. It's better due to having more, higher quality apps, many of which Android doesn't have. The fact iOS is more profitable is probably related to this. Clearly, the number of free apps on Android isn't doing anyone any favours, since it still has fewer apps, less security, and has less profitability which means developers will always prioritise iOS first. This has been widely documented.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]
You know what? Just because it is the responsibility of a company to choose to do something does not mean we can't call them out on making an amoral choice. Whether or not the person calling them out has a point is not a given, but in this case, biggiebody was right[/citation]
Firstly - lets try and learn the pattern here. When you are (mistakenly) accusing a company of making an 'amoral' choice, you are not accusing said company of being a monopoly. So 'biggiebody' was clearly NOT correct (exactly as you are now mistaken). Secondly, how ridiculous to try and attribute any moral rules regarding what a company decides is best for its customers. Is it moral to let your users download apps containing viruses and have their personal information stolen? Or is it more moral to offer them at least a degree of security by checking code before it's approved. As for the OS, as discussed you can perfectly easy install it on any PC but it again is perfectly logical for Apple not to support 'any pc' that they didn't create, if that's what they believe they can do. Again, there is no moral obligation for them to support their own software on other products, you just have a delusion there. As for number of free apps vs paid apps, that's down to the developers, not the marketplace. Higher quality apps for which people are prepared to pay more for are far better than a bunch of useless free apps, and once again this has nothing to do with any moral issues on the part of Apple. Doctoring photos, as discussed, you will need to provide evidence that this was found to be true in court. While, if true, it would be a moral faux pas, the far worse 'amoral' action was Samsung in that case who were found guilty of copying Apple and ordered to make changes.
So all in all, you're defending a completely irrelevant point (in the context of monopolies), and your irrelevant point is wrong anyway. Exactly like the original poster. So now, I conclude with 'where are your brains?'
;-)