Question by guitarfreak2105: Do you think that Apple Inc. is breaking the law with the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad?
Now before I begin, let me say that I love Apple products, however Apple seriously limits the functionality with all three of their touch devices.
Back in the day, I believe with windows 95 or 98 a lawsuit was filed against Microsoft because it only allowed the Internet Explorer browser on their computers. It was ruled that it was unlawful for that to happen. Is Apple not doing almost the same thing now? You are not allowed to install any software not “approved” by Apple itself, and to do that you must jailbreak your device and “void” your warranty. Apple constantly updates its iOS software to patch “security loopholes” that allows people to jailbreak their devices. But that is aside from the point. If you make a device that is mass produced, don’t you have to allow the consumer to install whatever software their heart desires? It seems as if Apple is censoring out any application that it does not like or does not “approve”. And along with that, AT&T and Apple are creating a sort of a monopoly with its iPhone exclusivity contract. Apple and AT&T know that the iPhone is just about the most popular phone on the market, and it is understandable to use it as a selling point, but I think that it has gone too far. It would be different if AT&T created its own phone and used it as a selling point and did not allow it onto other carriers, but to pay another company for exclusive rights to its products is a monopolistic move. Do you think what I am saying is true? Leave your answer and feedback.
Best answer:
Answer by schlitzkrieg
It’s totally different because Apple not only provides the operating system, it also manufactures the products. From what I understand, the Microsoft case was illegal because attempting to remove Internet Explorer crashed the computer, which essentially meant that Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging another company’s product.
Give your answer to this question below!
The MS case was based on its share of the market. That does not apply to Apple as it is a much smaller share of the overall market.
It’s different. Different companies such as Dell, HP, Sony, etc. all had Microsoft as their operating system on their computers. Microsoft created a monopoly on PCs through only allowing people to use IE. Apple uses their own operating system, but besides that, iPhone, POd andiPad are not considered computers.
I think the main difference between Apple and the Microsoft lawsuit is that at the time Microsoft was in court they controlled, like, 97% of the operating system market. It was virtually impossible to buy a computer without Windows. As it stands now there are plenty of Apple like devices out there and Apple does not have a lock on the market. I just purchased a touch screen music device for my daughter and I had the choice to buy an Apple product or not. You can also buy plenty of other phones not made by Apple. That is where the delta is I think.
No. Furthermore, you have misunderstood the ruling in the Microsoft case. The case involved bundling in which MS would not license its windows alone but would require manufacturers who bought the license to buy licenses for a whole host of other products.
You can put whatever software you want on your iPhone, just if you mess it up, Apple isn’t going to pay to fix your mistake. Apple can put whatever software they want on their phones. Jail breaking is legal. [1]
Exclusivity contracts are not monopolies. Nearly every phone has them. It just says that Apple is only going to sell iPhones to AT&T. They can sell to whomever they like. If you don’t like the iPhone, there are dozens of other smartphones you can choose from, so it is far from a monopoly in any sense. Of course patents/copyrights help to keep small businesses down and stifle innovation, but some still gets through.
[1] http://www.spiritjb.org/2010/07/us-courts-jailbreaking-and-unlocking.html