> I can’t use Tesla’s infotainment system in a Ford Mustang. Tesla ties their hardware together to make a complete product.

We keep having the same debate. You point out something that isn't anti-competitively tying to products together, like McDonalds having a trademark on Quarter Pounder, but that isn't the same thing, so it isn't a problem. You point out something that is anti-competitively tying products together, like game consoles requiring customers to use their store for games, which is the same thing, and is therefore also bad.

This is finally something which is at least ambiguous, but it's still not that interesting.

If the reason you can't use the infotainment system is that the software expects you to have an electric car and the Mustang isn't one and retrofitting it in there is a lot of work, you can still use it, it's just a lot of work.

By contrast, if they purposely lock the thing with DRM or contractual terms that prohibit you from transplanting it then it's clearly an anti-competitive practice that should be prohibited.

> Do you really think that those companies couldn’t afford to design a chip? Apple doesn’t have its own factory. TSMC is available to any company.

They not only have to design a chip, they have to outbid anyone else for use of TSMC's latest process, for which the company with the most money wins.

> Microsoft and Google definitely had more money when Apple first started building their own chips.

Apple started building their own chips in 2010, by which time they were already somewhat bigger than Google and the same size as Microsoft. And their chips from then were nothing special.

> Should all companies be required to sell their components separately?

They should if it's not a fungible component otherwise available in the market from someone else.

But also, why wouldn't they want to do this, if not for some kind of anti-competitive practice? Someone wants to give you money. Shut up and take their money.

The fact that they don't do it voluntarily is the argument for actually breaking them up, because just forcing them to sell the CPU is going to encourage compliance trolling like putting the same margin on the CPU by itself as they do on the entire iPhone.

> Most of the popular services are either already available as subscriptions inside and outside of the App Store or there is not even an option to subscribe through in app purchases.

How does that apply to apps?

> Before Spotify completely removed in app subscriptions, they in fact did have a cheaper price if you described directly than if you went through the App Store. For awhile CBS All Access (now Paramount+) does the same thing.

Originally that wasn't allowed. Then they allowed it, but you couldn't actually reference the lower price external option from the app. Then, as part of an antitrust settlement in Japan, they allowed it:

https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01/apple-will-let-developers-red...

Amazing the benefits of a little antitrust enforcement.

Now if only it applied to apps and not just subscriptions.

> Or they can choose to not be in that market and just sell on PCs.

So the problem is that the console maker is shaking them down for 30%. What a given developer's net margin is depends on the developer, but let's say it was 40%. Going from 40% to 10% is bad. Your proposed to solution is for them to go from 10% to zero. That doesn't solve the problem?

> Small companies also can’t build cars.

Well sure they can. They just can't design one from the ground up.

Being able to buy the individual components separately is what enables them to build cars. Your compatriot brought up the Chelsea Truck Company, which the internet says has two employees.

But that's how it starts. The original Tesla Roadster was based on a Lotus Elise. The ability to do that is critical for new competitors to enter the market, so you don't have to be a gorilla from the first day.

> Microsoft wasn’t a small company when it failed and neither was Nokia. Why blame on anti competitiveness when it’s clearly incompetence.

Microsoft's failure (irony be damned) was strongly attributable to anti-competitive practices. People actually liked their phones and their OS. But it had no apps, so it has no users, so it had no apps.

And Apple prohibits the sort of things one might use to overcome that, like cross-platform frameworks or languages.

Otherwise why has no one succeeded in establishing a third platform here? Not just Microsoft; Plasma, postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS, Ubuntu Touch, LuneOS, Tizen, /e/, CalyxOS, KaiOS, SailfishOS, FirefoxOS, Facebook Home etc. -- none of them has ever had more than trivial market share. It's not for lack of attempts. Several of these are from major corporations like Samsung and Facebook, or large communities like Mozilla and Debian/Ubuntu. Are they all incompetent, or is something else going on here?