5 ms·

Microsoft didn't make money on their free Internet Explorer web browser but they lost an anti-trust case for giving it away free with Windows. And before anyon

Microsoft didn't make money on their free Internet Explorer web browser but they lost an anti-trust case for giving it away free with Windows. And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.

scarface74 8y ago
They didn’t “lose” because of bundling. They lost because they forced exclusive third party OEMs not to bundle Netscape. Do you notice that MS never stopped bundling IE? Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store? And that’s not how monopolies are defined.
- wayneftw 8y ago
  Not allowing users to put competing third party apps on their own devices is exactly what Apple is doing. Should users have less rights on their devices than OEMs do e.g. in the Microsoft case? And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    So you want Apple to allow spyware on their phones? Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app? What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform? What exactly is Apple’s business motivation for not allowing third party spyware but allowing third party music streaming, video streaming, office apps, book stores, etc? When they make money off of their own services in the other areas? Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app? What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform? I think the argument is Apple has a little more market dominance (both smart phone hardware and OS) than a single smart tv maker or even Nintendo in the console market. Keeping the market dominance point in mind, Apple isn’t just deciding what is and isn’t allowed...you had a number of developers with successful apps not just have to contend with a copy cat app created by Apple but because of their control over the marketplace Apple killed their developers apps and took the entire market (rightly or wrongly). So yeah if you change your facts and the smart tv or Nintendo allowed apps/adult games, saw developers create a market and then the hardware maker launched their own software competitors and disallowed the initial apps/games...there would be blowback.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        You also had a number of developers who successfully were marketing fake “virus protection” including Kasperky that were kicked off the store. Should Apple have kept those on the store? Facebook bought a “successful” VPN product that it used to spy on users and figure out that WhatsApp was popular before it bought it. Should Apple have kept that? Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses? If Apple decides they wanted to ban loot boxes in games, would you be opposed to that?
        Phlarp 8y ago
        >Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses? Aren't apps with these same capabilities (and more) being marketed as a way to track and spy on a spouse? (regardless of their fidelity) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-app-women.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
        scarface74 8y ago
        Of course I don’t agree with the app. But from what I can tell, at least on iOS, the app is just a front end for a website and a set of services. The app itself doesn’t intercept communications on the phone or use any special phone permissions. From another site, I saw the Absher service will notify the husband via SMS. With NYT’s (usual) shallow technical reporting, I can’t tell what the app does. Just like the article for this post. The only reason we on HN suspect that the apps for this article must be using some combination of MDM API’s and a VPN is because we know how iOS works. But I can always throw the question back at you. How can you on one hand say that it would be okay if this app did do something similar (which I can’t tell) and Apple banned it for privacy reasons but not okay to ban other software that is spyware?
  - briandear 8y ago
    If those third party apps weren’t violating Apple’s policies, they’d be on the store. Should dangerous products be allowed on the App Store in the name of “competition?” That’s ridiculous. If Apple was trying to be uncompetitive, they would have removed all the third party calendar, reminders, notes and music apps. The only movie editing app would be iMovie. Yet they haven’t did that. They only removed screen time apps that violate user privacy in significant ways. App Store removals have never been because “Apple makes a competing product” — they are generally because of a privacy issue or some kind of content-based idea (such as removing InfoWars or not wanting yet another fart app.) If you don’t like it by an Android and develop for Android. Literally every single person on the planet with access to iPhone could alternatively use Android. In fact, iPhone is more expensive than cheap Androids, so there is even less reason for people to stay with iPhone. Yet, for some weird reason, people keep buying the phones. If I subscribe to the Disney channel, I suspect to not see porn. If I buy Apple, I expect that my privacy is being rigorously protected. For people who want porn or less secure devices, those things are readily available from other vendors. Just become Apple doesn’t sell “porn” doesn’t make them a monopoly. If your local movie theater doesn’t screen porn films, are they being anti-competitive? Are they considered a monopoly? Not allowing porn producers to screen their films at the local movie theater is analogous to Apple not allowing privacy dangerous apps on their store.
addicted 8y ago
MS did have to stop bundling IE in the EU.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Not for over a half a decade.... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/196170-microsoft-is-finally-allowed-to-once-again-set-ie-as-the-default-browser-in-windows https://www.extremetech.com/computing/196170-microsoft-is-fi...
briandear 8y ago
Having a market share if 80% among a demographic doesn’t make a monopoly. Even 100% market share among a demographic isn’t a monopoly. I might suggest a review of the definition of the term “monopoly.”

scarface74 8y ago

They didn’t “lose” because of bundling. They lost because they forced exclusive third party OEMs not to bundle Netscape. Do you notice that MS never stopped bundling IE? Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store? And that’s not how monopolies are defined.

wayneftw 8y ago
Not allowing users to put competing third party apps on their own devices is exactly what Apple is doing. Should users have less rights on their devices than OEMs do e.g. in the Microsoft case? And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.
- scarface74 8y ago
  So you want Apple to allow spyware on their phones? Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app? What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform? What exactly is Apple’s business motivation for not allowing third party spyware but allowing third party music streaming, video streaming, office apps, book stores, etc? When they make money off of their own services in the other areas? Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app? What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform? I think the argument is Apple has a little more market dominance (both smart phone hardware and OS) than a single smart tv maker or even Nintendo in the console market. Keeping the market dominance point in mind, Apple isn’t just deciding what is and isn’t allowed...you had a number of developers with successful apps not just have to contend with a copy cat app created by Apple but because of their control over the marketplace Apple killed their developers apps and took the entire market (rightly or wrongly). So yeah if you change your facts and the smart tv or Nintendo allowed apps/adult games, saw developers create a market and then the hardware maker launched their own software competitors and disallowed the initial apps/games...there would be blowback.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      You also had a number of developers who successfully were marketing fake “virus protection” including Kasperky that were kicked off the store. Should Apple have kept those on the store? Facebook bought a “successful” VPN product that it used to spy on users and figure out that WhatsApp was popular before it bought it. Should Apple have kept that? Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses? If Apple decides they wanted to ban loot boxes in games, would you be opposed to that?
      - Phlarp 8y ago
        >Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses? Aren't apps with these same capabilities (and more) being marketed as a way to track and spy on a spouse? (regardless of their fidelity) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-app-women.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
        scarface74 8y ago
        Of course I don’t agree with the app. But from what I can tell, at least on iOS, the app is just a front end for a website and a set of services. The app itself doesn’t intercept communications on the phone or use any special phone permissions. From another site, I saw the Absher service will notify the husband via SMS. With NYT’s (usual) shallow technical reporting, I can’t tell what the app does. Just like the article for this post. The only reason we on HN suspect that the apps for this article must be using some combination of MDM API’s and a VPN is because we know how iOS works. But I can always throw the question back at you. How can you on one hand say that it would be okay if this app did do something similar (which I can’t tell) and Apple banned it for privacy reasons but not okay to ban other software that is spyware?
- briandear 8y ago
  If those third party apps weren’t violating Apple’s policies, they’d be on the store. Should dangerous products be allowed on the App Store in the name of “competition?” That’s ridiculous. If Apple was trying to be uncompetitive, they would have removed all the third party calendar, reminders, notes and music apps. The only movie editing app would be iMovie. Yet they haven’t did that. They only removed screen time apps that violate user privacy in significant ways. App Store removals have never been because “Apple makes a competing product” — they are generally because of a privacy issue or some kind of content-based idea (such as removing InfoWars or not wanting yet another fart app.) If you don’t like it by an Android and develop for Android. Literally every single person on the planet with access to iPhone could alternatively use Android. In fact, iPhone is more expensive than cheap Androids, so there is even less reason for people to stay with iPhone. Yet, for some weird reason, people keep buying the phones. If I subscribe to the Disney channel, I suspect to not see porn. If I buy Apple, I expect that my privacy is being rigorously protected. For people who want porn or less secure devices, those things are readily available from other vendors. Just become Apple doesn’t sell “porn” doesn’t make them a monopoly. If your local movie theater doesn’t screen porn films, are they being anti-competitive? Are they considered a monopoly? Not allowing porn producers to screen their films at the local movie theater is analogous to Apple not allowing privacy dangerous apps on their store.

addicted 8y ago

MS did have to stop bundling IE in the EU.

scarface74 8y ago
Not for over a half a decade.... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/196170-microsoft-is-finally-allowed-to-once-again-set-ie-as-the-default-browser-in-windows https://www.extremetech.com/computing/196170-microsoft-is-fi...

briandear 8y ago

Having a market share if 80% among a demographic doesn’t make a monopoly. Even 100% market share among a demographic isn’t a monopoly. I might suggest a review of the definition of the term “monopoly.”