4 ms·

Microsoft didn't restrict what software you could install on Windows. That creates a different market. That's not the legal distinction. What got Microsoft in

Microsoft didn't restrict what software you could install on Windows. That creates a different market. That's not the legal distinction. What got Microsoft in trouble is that they told PC OEMs that they would lose their volume discount for Windows if they shipped another browser alongside Internet Explorer. This was troublesome because, at the time, Windows had a 99% marketshare of PC operating systems, which was judged by the courts to be a monopoly. Apple has nowhere near the same marketshare in phones. Therefore, Apple is free to do whatever it wants with regards to its OS, as consumers are free to switch to Android.

shmerl 10y ago
Why is this reverting to marketshare of phones? It's secondary to the problem. It's about influence on the market of browsers, which also affects tons of other things in result, because so many services today are Web based.
- realityking 10y ago
  (INAL so take this with the appropriate amount of salt) Because it's illegal to use a dominant position in one market (desktop operating system in Microsft's case) to gain an unfair advantage in another market (browsers). Since Apple does not have a dominant position in any market so they're free to do as they please. Note that the question what constitutes a market is not always easily defined. Apple obviously has a monopoly on iPhones or smartphones running iOS but I doubt you'll find a judge that sees that as a market distinct of the wider smartphone market.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    Well, Apple's ability to stifle the progress of the browser market, demonstrates that their position is mobile market (which is causing the above) is dominant enough. Not sure how you quantify that influence from perspective of the law though, but practically their current influence is very damaging for the whole Web.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> That's not the legal distinction. Market definition in antitrust? > What got Microsoft in trouble is that they told PC OEMs that they would lose their volume discount for Windows if they shipped another browser alongside Internet Explorer. What got Microsoft in trouble is that they had a monopoly in PC operating systems and tried to leverage it into a monopoly in browsers. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in PC operating systems. They have a monopoly in iOS app stores. It's like having a retail monopoly for washing machines in the state of California. It doesn't matter how many retailers there are in Florida when nobody in California is going to drive to Florida to buy a washing machine. It doesn't matter how many Android app stores there are when you can't buy an iOS app from them and you can't use Android apps on iOS.

shmerl 10y ago

Why is this reverting to marketshare of phones? It's secondary to the problem. It's about influence on the market of browsers, which also affects tons of other things in result, because so many services today are Web based.

realityking 10y ago
(INAL so take this with the appropriate amount of salt) Because it's illegal to use a dominant position in one market (desktop operating system in Microsft's case) to gain an unfair advantage in another market (browsers). Since Apple does not have a dominant position in any market so they're free to do as they please. Note that the question what constitutes a market is not always easily defined. Apple obviously has a monopoly on iPhones or smartphones running iOS but I doubt you'll find a judge that sees that as a market distinct of the wider smartphone market.
- shmerl 10y ago
  Well, Apple's ability to stifle the progress of the browser market, demonstrates that their position is mobile market (which is causing the above) is dominant enough. Not sure how you quantify that influence from perspective of the law though, but practically their current influence is very damaging for the whole Web.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> That's not the legal distinction. Market definition in antitrust? > What got Microsoft in trouble is that they told PC OEMs that they would lose their volume discount for Windows if they shipped another browser alongside Internet Explorer. What got Microsoft in trouble is that they had a monopoly in PC operating systems and tried to leverage it into a monopoly in browsers. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in PC operating systems. They have a monopoly in iOS app stores. It's like having a retail monopoly for washing machines in the state of California. It doesn't matter how many retailers there are in Florida when nobody in California is going to drive to Florida to buy a washing machine. It doesn't matter how many Android app stores there are when you can't buy an iOS app from them and you can't use Android apps on iOS.