4 ms·

Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Or do you only feel this way beca

Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Or do you only feel this way because it's Apple's sandbox? At least with Microsoft you _could_ install Netscape. What's your choice here? Buy an Android? I don't know you; this is a legitimate question. I don't actually know that I have an opinion on the underlying issue (I'm quite libertarian but also hate Safari). That said, I don't see how this is different from other bundling case law. But IANAL.

Angostura 10y ago
Microsoft had a functional monopoly on the desktop at the time of the IE wars. Android phones are currently outshipping iOS about 4 to 1 http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
FussyZeus 10y ago
> Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Not a comparison. Windows was effectively a monopoly at the time where iOS is a strong but far from dominating force in mobile. However if you want to make this comparison, honestly? Yes. I think the suit against Microsoft was justified simply because of how blatantly obvious their practices were designed to squeeze out other browser makers after the fact. However it's a different situation here: Safari has always been the defacto browser for iOS since the first publicly available version. There is no significant competition for Safari because there's no way to change iOS to utilize it in the same ways, and the Apple TOS for developers specifically states you cannot create apps that directly reproduce functionality of Apple's built-in applications. Ergo, they are not decreasing the competition or being anti-market because there was no competition in the first place, and they made no secret of that.
- sturgill 10y ago
  Hard to argue they are not decreasing competition and not being anti-competitive when the TOS you quote specifically disallows competition. They literally prevent people from creating apps that compete with their own system apps. Again, at least you had the option of installing Netscape on Microsoft. And I'm writing this from my iPhone. I don't love or hate Apple. But I don't think what they're doing is different than Microsoft.
- amluto 10y ago
  This is a strange claim you're making. Squeezing out competition is bad, but banning competition in the first place is okay? Would it have been okay if Microsoft had charged a 30% tax on all sales of anything (software and content) consumable on the Windows platform on day one? Or what if the very first iPhone had a provision that for the rest of your life you were not permitted to buy a competing smartphone or participate in the development of one? If enforceable, Android might never have happened. Would that make it okay?
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    > banning competition in the first place is okay? Yes. Anti-market behavior is the usage of monopoly (or near monopoly) to destroy competing companies after the fact with underhanded tactics and is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing. Apple's behavior when setting up iOS could be construed as anti-market, but the fact is that market never existed. Ergo if you setup a company to make a web browser for iOS, you can't claim anti-market behavior because the policy in question predates your company. You effectively attempted to enter a market that does not exist.
    - gtirloni 10y ago
      Anti-competitive practices do not apply solely to monopolies. If it's proven there isn't a technical reason why iOS can't support other browser engine (like there wasn't in the Windows vs. Netscape case), a judge could rule the artificial ToS terms should be lifted. This happens every time a platform becomes too important/powerful. If Apple smartphones were niche devices with a very small user base, nobody would care. But they now have millions of users and are clearly a general purpose computer, so they will go under increased scrutiny. It's the price of success and they will sooner or later have to play by the (EU) rules. That or they improve Safari so few people have a reason to engage in lawsuits with them.
      - FussyZeus 10y ago
        I feel like "You as a company must allow your products to run X software" is a terrible, terrible precedent to set.

Angostura 10y ago

Microsoft had a functional monopoly on the desktop at the time of the IE wars. Android phones are currently outshipping iOS about 4 to 1 http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp

FussyZeus 10y ago

> Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Not a comparison. Windows was effectively a monopoly at the time where iOS is a strong but far from dominating force in mobile. However if you want to make this comparison, honestly? Yes. I think the suit against Microsoft was justified simply because of how blatantly obvious their practices were designed to squeeze out other browser makers after the fact. However it's a different situation here: Safari has always been the defacto browser for iOS since the first publicly available version. There is no significant competition for Safari because there's no way to change iOS to utilize it in the same ways, and the Apple TOS for developers specifically states you cannot create apps that directly reproduce functionality of Apple's built-in applications. Ergo, they are not decreasing the competition or being anti-market because there was no competition in the first place, and they made no secret of that.

sturgill 10y ago
Hard to argue they are not decreasing competition and not being anti-competitive when the TOS you quote specifically disallows competition. They literally prevent people from creating apps that compete with their own system apps. Again, at least you had the option of installing Netscape on Microsoft. And I'm writing this from my iPhone. I don't love or hate Apple. But I don't think what they're doing is different than Microsoft.
amluto 10y ago
This is a strange claim you're making. Squeezing out competition is bad, but banning competition in the first place is okay? Would it have been okay if Microsoft had charged a 30% tax on all sales of anything (software and content) consumable on the Windows platform on day one? Or what if the very first iPhone had a provision that for the rest of your life you were not permitted to buy a competing smartphone or participate in the development of one? If enforceable, Android might never have happened. Would that make it okay?
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  > banning competition in the first place is okay? Yes. Anti-market behavior is the usage of monopoly (or near monopoly) to destroy competing companies after the fact with underhanded tactics and is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing. Apple's behavior when setting up iOS could be construed as anti-market, but the fact is that market never existed. Ergo if you setup a company to make a web browser for iOS, you can't claim anti-market behavior because the policy in question predates your company. You effectively attempted to enter a market that does not exist.
  - gtirloni 10y ago
    Anti-competitive practices do not apply solely to monopolies. If it's proven there isn't a technical reason why iOS can't support other browser engine (like there wasn't in the Windows vs. Netscape case), a judge could rule the artificial ToS terms should be lifted. This happens every time a platform becomes too important/powerful. If Apple smartphones were niche devices with a very small user base, nobody would care. But they now have millions of users and are clearly a general purpose computer, so they will go under increased scrutiny. It's the price of success and they will sooner or later have to play by the (EU) rules. That or they improve Safari so few people have a reason to engage in lawsuits with them.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      I feel like "You as a company must allow your products to run X software" is a terrible, terrible precedent to set.