4 ms·

I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but d

by aftbit 8y ago

I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling Media Player and IE with Windows?

rootusrootus 8y ago
I expect the substantial difference is that Microsoft's share of the PC market was far closer to a monopoly than Apple's share of the smartphone market is now (about 40% in the U.S.)
- EGreg 8y ago
  I never understood why 40% is too little to be considered free and clear from monopoly laws. Why not have a smooth gradient
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    I can't imagine how you would implement such a scheme. For example, forcing Apple to allow non-Safari browsers in the app store is a binary choice, not something you can implement on a gradient. On top of that, market share tends to move around, sometimes a lot, so you would be changing the rules of the game constantly. 40% definitely is low enough to escape scrutiny as a monopoly, in any case. More than half of everyone who buys a smartphone chooses something non-Apple.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      So if every top vendor did that, you'd have something like a cartel, except it wouldn't just be high prices, it would be "once you're in our ecosystem, no more interchangeable parts for you, we own the whole stack". It's a bit like feudalism!
meepmorp 8y ago
Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, and so pushing IE was anti-competitive. Apple isn’t anywhere near having a monopoly in phones, in the US or anywhere else. It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.
- MBCook 8y ago
  Plus at the time Netscape sold for $$$. MS basically dumped & devalued their market to $0.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    And thus set off the internet revolution without a $$$ barrier to entry.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      Other than the $2000 computer + ISP. I wasn’t making a judgement on the move, simply pointing out ‘undercut your competitor until they’re broke’ strategy is a classic the government goes after. It wasn’t just that MS had a higher market share.
wmobit 8y ago
Chrome is available on the App Store
- swsieber 8y ago
  And is Safari based on iOS
rand0mthought 8y ago
I just downloaded Firefox and Chrome from App Store. Do I miss something?
- swsieber 8y ago
  Those are both Safari based on iOS. Specifically, they can't use their real rendering engine - they have to use the safari one.
- brennankreiman 8y ago
  No PWAs
- pmontra 8y ago
  They are skins around Safari. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS > Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons. Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for submitting apps to the App Store. Search for safari, webkit or WKWebView in https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios and you'll see how the integration goes.
  - samat 8y ago
    Calling them skins is not correct at all. Being able to auto translate whole pages or sync all bookmarks and browsing history or passwords in iOS chrome is not merely a skin.
nickspag 8y ago
In addition to the argument others are suggesting, that their market share isn't high enough to qualify, I believe they have also made legal arguments in the past about the sandboxed nature of their platform. I imagine they could also make a convincing argument that it's a feature they sell their customer- one that is at the core of why this requirement exists. They could probably also point to macOS, where they do not have the requirements and the technical environment is different, as support that it's platform-specific related to the sandbox.
nradov 8y ago
Microsoft only got in trouble because they started selling IE as a separate product, then later added it to Windows. If they had just included it as a native Windows "accessory" from the beginning like Minesweeper or Calculator for no extra charge then it would have been tougher to make a case against them.

by aftbit 8y ago

rootusrootus 8y ago

I expect the substantial difference is that Microsoft's share of the PC market was far closer to a monopoly than Apple's share of the smartphone market is now (about 40% in the U.S.)

EGreg 8y ago
I never understood why 40% is too little to be considered free and clear from monopoly laws. Why not have a smooth gradient
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  I can't imagine how you would implement such a scheme. For example, forcing Apple to allow non-Safari browsers in the app store is a binary choice, not something you can implement on a gradient. On top of that, market share tends to move around, sometimes a lot, so you would be changing the rules of the game constantly. 40% definitely is low enough to escape scrutiny as a monopoly, in any case. More than half of everyone who buys a smartphone chooses something non-Apple.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    So if every top vendor did that, you'd have something like a cartel, except it wouldn't just be high prices, it would be "once you're in our ecosystem, no more interchangeable parts for you, we own the whole stack". It's a bit like feudalism!

meepmorp 8y ago

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, and so pushing IE was anti-competitive. Apple isn’t anywhere near having a monopoly in phones, in the US or anywhere else. It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.

MBCook 8y ago
Plus at the time Netscape sold for $$$. MS basically dumped & devalued their market to $0.
- belltaco 8y ago
  And thus set off the internet revolution without a $$$ barrier to entry.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Other than the $2000 computer + ISP. I wasn’t making a judgement on the move, simply pointing out ‘undercut your competitor until they’re broke’ strategy is a classic the government goes after. It wasn’t just that MS had a higher market share.

wmobit 8y ago

Chrome is available on the App Store

swsieber 8y ago
And is Safari based on iOS

rand0mthought 8y ago

I just downloaded Firefox and Chrome from App Store. Do I miss something?

swsieber 8y ago
Those are both Safari based on iOS. Specifically, they can't use their real rendering engine - they have to use the safari one.
brennankreiman 8y ago
No PWAs
pmontra 8y ago
They are skins around Safari. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS > Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons. Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for submitting apps to the App Store. Search for safari, webkit or WKWebView in https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios and you'll see how the integration goes.
- samat 8y ago
  Calling them skins is not correct at all. Being able to auto translate whole pages or sync all bookmarks and browsing history or passwords in iOS chrome is not merely a skin.

nickspag 8y ago

In addition to the argument others are suggesting, that their market share isn't high enough to qualify, I believe they have also made legal arguments in the past about the sandboxed nature of their platform. I imagine they could also make a convincing argument that it's a feature they sell their customer- one that is at the core of why this requirement exists. They could probably also point to macOS, where they do not have the requirements and the technical environment is different, as support that it's platform-specific related to the sandbox.

nradov 8y ago

Microsoft only got in trouble because they started selling IE as a separate product, then later added it to Windows. If they had just included it as a native Windows "accessory" from the beginning like Minesweeper or Calculator for no extra charge then it would have been tougher to make a case against them.