5 ms·

Apple has no problem with bundling Safari with the OS because: * Apple isn't close to being dominant as a platform. * Allows the default browser to be changed.

Apple has no problem with bundling Safari with the OS because: * Apple isn't close to being dominant as a platform. * Allows the default browser to be changed. * Hasn't demonstrated any evidence that they want to stop a competing browser. * Hasn't actively took measures to coerce users to Safari. Microsoft violated all of these.

munchor 9y ago
Note: Apple does not allow the default browser to be changed on iOS.
icebraining 9y ago
Hasn't demonstrated any evidence that they want to stop a competing browser. Eh, more or less. Forcing browsers to use Apple's engine prevents real competition. The things that made Chrome innovative, for example - multiprocess and V8 - wouldn't be possible on iOS.
toyg 9y ago
You are talking about desktop, but the problem is on mobile. On iOS, 3 of your 4 points are patently incorrect (there is plenty of evidence). They get away with it only because Apple is nowhere near dominant in terms of units sold, despite hoovering up almost all market profitability.
- HatchedLake721 9y ago
  They’re NOT getting away because they’re nowhere near dominant. This doesn’t apply to them at all, because they don’t license iOS or make deals with manufacturers to push Safari as a default choice. Apple builds their own hardware, so they can ship whatever they want on it. Microsoft on the other hand, dictated hardware manufacturers what software should be installed on it.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    There have been cases where you can't tie products together if you're considered to have a dominant market position. See e.g. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/908/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/908/ In this case, a minicomputer manufacturer was deemed to be prohibited from refusing to sell an OS to a clone manufacturer. Long time ago and I suspect it would not go the same way today if Apple were to refuse to sell its OS to a clone maker. (And, yes, Hackintoshes etc. but they've never reached this level of the legal system.)
taysic 9y ago
You can't delete certain apps on an iPhone and they remain on the first page of your phone. This means for it to be worth it to download a competitor it has to be a big advantage. I see it as the same thing.
millstone 9y ago
The key difference is that Microsoft prohibited these things on hardware sold by other OEMs. Microsoft tried to control what Dell and HP could install on their computers - and not just those running Windows. Apple controlling what Apple installs on Apple hardware is a completely different ballgame. Honestly I think Google is more likely to run afoul of this with their "anti-fragmentation" clauses. Google requires that OEMs that want to ship Android may not also ship products that run Android forks. That's not too far off from Microsoft's "per-processor" licensing.

munchor 9y ago

Note: Apple does not allow the default browser to be changed on iOS.

icebraining 9y ago

Hasn't demonstrated any evidence that they want to stop a competing browser. Eh, more or less. Forcing browsers to use Apple's engine prevents real competition. The things that made Chrome innovative, for example - multiprocess and V8 - wouldn't be possible on iOS.

toyg 9y ago

You are talking about desktop, but the problem is on mobile. On iOS, 3 of your 4 points are patently incorrect (there is plenty of evidence). They get away with it only because Apple is nowhere near dominant in terms of units sold, despite hoovering up almost all market profitability.

HatchedLake721 9y ago
They’re NOT getting away because they’re nowhere near dominant. This doesn’t apply to them at all, because they don’t license iOS or make deals with manufacturers to push Safari as a default choice. Apple builds their own hardware, so they can ship whatever they want on it. Microsoft on the other hand, dictated hardware manufacturers what software should be installed on it.
- ghaff 9y ago
  There have been cases where you can't tie products together if you're considered to have a dominant market position. See e.g. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/908/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/908/ In this case, a minicomputer manufacturer was deemed to be prohibited from refusing to sell an OS to a clone manufacturer. Long time ago and I suspect it would not go the same way today if Apple were to refuse to sell its OS to a clone maker. (And, yes, Hackintoshes etc. but they've never reached this level of the legal system.)

taysic 9y ago

You can't delete certain apps on an iPhone and they remain on the first page of your phone. This means for it to be worth it to download a competitor it has to be a big advantage. I see it as the same thing.

millstone 9y ago

The key difference is that Microsoft prohibited these things on hardware sold by other OEMs. Microsoft tried to control what Dell and HP could install on their computers - and not just those running Windows. Apple controlling what Apple installs on Apple hardware is a completely different ballgame. Honestly I think Google is more likely to run afoul of this with their "anti-fragmentation" clauses. Google requires that OEMs that want to ship Android may not also ship products that run Android forks. That's not too far off from Microsoft's "per-processor" licensing.