4 ms·

And by what legal authority did you just state that? Microsoft was forced to ship competitive browsers in the OS to avoid monopoly claims, but Apple - unlike M

And by what legal authority did you just state that? Microsoft was forced to ship competitive browsers in the OS to avoid monopoly claims, but Apple - unlike Microsft, they won't even allow 'un-blessed' apps to RUN on the phone. Seems patently illegal

rayiner 8y ago
Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop PC OS. Apple has no monopoly on any product category. (Defining "iOS" as a "market" and saying Apple has a monopoly over that is absurd; it would turn every platform into a monopoly. By that reasoning, Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
The same legal authority you've used to make your argument. And Microsoft's situation was quite different from this one. For one, they had an overwhelming monopoly in desktop operating systems (something like 95% marketshare), and they had several times been caught intentionally breaking competitors' offerings.
Jtsummers 8y ago
Microsoft did a lot of shit to warrant their anti-trust suit. The browser thing was one bit. How about how they spent $1 billion to market IE (a free product) in order to cut into a potential (though indirect) competitor's product (Netscape). Netscape's browser was reaching the point (as early as this was in the WWW days) of being a potential host for cross-platform software applications. This terrified MS as it would eliminate a lot of their foothold in the business market, in particular. How about how when Compaq and others wanted to sell non-Windows OSes, Microsoft threatened them with increased Windows licensing fees. They had access to OEM rates which meant they could participate in the cut-throat and very low margin PC business. Without those rates, they would have to raise their prices. Even an extra $100-200 would price them above their competitors. This was done to eliminate the OS competition (or constrain it). What has Apple done that is equivalent to these actions? And how has Apple's (minority) marketshare enabled them to do these things?
- mankash666 8y ago
  All you've started here is that you dislike Microsoft. There's zero moral difference in Apple's actions on the app store and Microsoft from yesteryears
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    Moral and legal are different things and you keep conflating the two. Additionally, you're the one that brought up Microsoft's anti-trust issues. If you're going to make a comparison, make it correctly. And if you're going to talk about moral and legal, make sure you distinguish between the two concepts.
simonh 8y ago
There is no specific law, or legal precedent disallowing a platform owner from exclusively controlling software distribution for their platform. In fact it’s been going on for a lot longer than the App Store. Several early smartphones before the iPhone were locked down in similar ways. Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right. If n fact since you mention Microsoft, don’t they have an exclusive online store for XBox games? This sort of arrangement has been common practice for decades and never been legally barred that I’m aware of.
- mchahn 8y ago
  > Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right[?] That must not be true. Atari had to patent a mechanical mechanism that its cartridges used in order to prevent others from developing for their system.
  - simonh 8y ago
    And doing so was not illegal. That's exactly what I'm talking about - platform owners legally putting in place restrictions to control access to their platform, often because that's the primary way in which they make revenue.

rayiner 8y ago

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop PC OS. Apple has no monopoly on any product category. (Defining "iOS" as a "market" and saying Apple has a monopoly over that is absurd; it would turn every platform into a monopoly. By that reasoning, Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

s73v3r_ 8y ago

The same legal authority you've used to make your argument. And Microsoft's situation was quite different from this one. For one, they had an overwhelming monopoly in desktop operating systems (something like 95% marketshare), and they had several times been caught intentionally breaking competitors' offerings.

Jtsummers 8y ago

Microsoft did a lot of shit to warrant their anti-trust suit. The browser thing was one bit. How about how they spent $1 billion to market IE (a free product) in order to cut into a potential (though indirect) competitor's product (Netscape). Netscape's browser was reaching the point (as early as this was in the WWW days) of being a potential host for cross-platform software applications. This terrified MS as it would eliminate a lot of their foothold in the business market, in particular. How about how when Compaq and others wanted to sell non-Windows OSes, Microsoft threatened them with increased Windows licensing fees. They had access to OEM rates which meant they could participate in the cut-throat and very low margin PC business. Without those rates, they would have to raise their prices. Even an extra $100-200 would price them above their competitors. This was done to eliminate the OS competition (or constrain it). What has Apple done that is equivalent to these actions? And how has Apple's (minority) marketshare enabled them to do these things?

mankash666 8y ago
All you've started here is that you dislike Microsoft. There's zero moral difference in Apple's actions on the app store and Microsoft from yesteryears
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Moral and legal are different things and you keep conflating the two. Additionally, you're the one that brought up Microsoft's anti-trust issues. If you're going to make a comparison, make it correctly. And if you're going to talk about moral and legal, make sure you distinguish between the two concepts.

simonh 8y ago

There is no specific law, or legal precedent disallowing a platform owner from exclusively controlling software distribution for their platform. In fact it’s been going on for a lot longer than the App Store. Several early smartphones before the iPhone were locked down in similar ways. Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right. If n fact since you mention Microsoft, don’t they have an exclusive online store for XBox games? This sort of arrangement has been common practice for decades and never been legally barred that I’m aware of.

mchahn 8y ago
> Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right[?] That must not be true. Atari had to patent a mechanical mechanism that its cartridges used in order to prevent others from developing for their system.
- simonh 8y ago
  And doing so was not illegal. That's exactly what I'm talking about - platform owners legally putting in place restrictions to control access to their platform, often because that's the primary way in which they make revenue.