It applies to game consoles as well, nintendo/sony/microsoft selling a hardware, and require to pay THEM when I want to run something on it, is outrageous.
I don't really understand this argument. There are tons of alternatives. If I want to build and design a product a certain way, and you don't like it, simply don't buy it? This is a genuine question because I realize I am probably in the minority on HN, so please don't downvote just because of that.
I just think that regulations in general should be applied only when necessary, and then be applied with great force.
The user experience for game consoles largely falls back on the manufacturer. If Xbox had loads of unvetted buggy games and malware swimming in the ecosystem, people might be less inclined to buy an Xbox. So Microsoft sets about establishing some control over the ecosystem. Apple's App Store was really the first time that your average Joe could download an application from the internet and not have to worry about viruses. It was a big deal that added a lot of value to the user experience.
It's particularly annoying that those who either don't understand or actively dislike a product Maker's core values or principles poured into that Maker's product, keep trying to tear apart people's choice to buy a product built that way.
Apple doesn't control an entire industry. You can buy an Android phone and fully participate in the mobile phone world never talking to Apple. You cannot participate in the AI world without NVIDIA.
You don't need to control the entire industry to cause anti-competitive damage. You just need to have enough leverage that your influence can't be ignored.
Examples of Apple doing that is banning competing browsers on iOS and then pushing W3C and developers in the direction they want due to "you can't ignore us". There was a whole list of bad examples. Touch events, fighting against SPIR-V in WebGPU, fighting against adoption of Media Source Extensions (to benefit their video solutions) and etc. and etc.
They very clearly cause a ton of damage to the market by slowing down and sabotaging the progress of interoperable technology to harm competition.
Apple is the only competitor to Google's 65% (direct) plus reskinned Chromium dominance of the browser market.
Meanwhile, I'm happy with the direction they push W3C and developers. Without them, Google would just push the web to whatever they want (more than they already do).
That doesn't excuse all the garbage Apple doing for the sake of their lock-in. They totally should have been blasted by anti-trust years ago for banning competing browsers on iOS. And many other things.
Seems like EU finally started getting the point before US regulators did.
Apple doesn't prevent competing browsers. Just different engines.
And just because they don't rush to incorporate every web feature doesn't make them anti-competitive. Especially when most of the time they are right to do because either (a) they impact security or battery life or (b) they are non-standard.
Case in point SPIR-V which unless I am mistaken is exclusively controlled by Khronos.
> Apple doesn't prevent competing browsers. Just different engines
And you should know well it's the same thing, since above listed issues are defined by the engine. Whatever label you put on top doesn't change the essence of what the problem is.
And why can’t you just use an AMD GPU? Is it because stores don’t sell them? Is it because motherboards don’t support them? Is it because you can’t rent one from a cloud provider? No, it’s because they don’t fucking work when you try to use them for ML.
That's not really relevant. Antitrust laws tend to focus on abusing your monopoly position, not having it. Microsoft was sued for using its Windows monopoly to force IE on people, not for having the monopoly by itself.
