3 ms·

But that's just not how it happened. That settlement was pretty much insignificant. First Amazon launched their online book store. Then Microsoft made a $150 m

But that's just not how it happened. That settlement was pretty much insignificant. First Amazon launched their online book store. Then Microsoft made a $150 million investment into Apple. Then Google launched its search innovation. Linux and Apache were already hugely successful with dominating the web. Java and PHP were kicking ASP's ass. https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2019/04/22/april-2019-web-server-survey.html https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2019/04/22/april-2019-web... Microsoft got so much distracted by certain market dominance they totally missed the uprising of the web players. Then Valve released their app store, Apple released the iPhone including its app store, Google released Android and Microsoft saw its dominance fall apart. The settlement didn't contribute to any of these developments. So what happened is - because Microsoft was so dominant - the competition needed to seriously up their innovative game to conquer their positions. If government would have intervened more strongly there wouldn't have been the need for stronger competition which would have resulted in less innovation. The market corrected itself.

blub 7y ago
That settlement tied their hands competitively, made them think thrice before playing dirty and took the wind out of their sails. The settlement is what permitted Apple and Google to exist in the first place, so that they could launch the iPhone and Android. Amazon was utterly irrelevant back then, they were a book store FFS. The investment into Apple was happening in the middle of the anti-trust fight, for crying out loud. And Google was invented also during that time and would have gone exactly nowhere with an IE monopoly. MS crushed Linux on the desktop and they use it just like anybody else on the server. They even included it in Windows, Linux for them is not a competitor, it's a tool.
- bartimus 7y ago
  > The settlement is what permitted Apple and Google to exist in the first place. How did it permit Google to exist? Google was running fine on IE. > Amazon was utterly irrelevant back then It was busy growing into the giant it is today. Nobody saw that coming back then. > And Google was invented also during that time and would have gone exactly nowhere with an IE monopoly. Why would an IE monopoly have prevented Google? Google came into existence exactly when Microsoft was dominating the browser market. Microsoft wasn't set out to dominate the web. They were pretty much embracing the dotcom boom (which included Google). They just wanted to make sure you would be browsing the web using their OS. > Linux for them is not a competitor, it's a tool. How is being a tool not a measure of success? We all use Windows as our tool. Linux was simply dominating its market. You paint a grim picture of a predatory company trying to dominate the world. Meanwhile Microsoft was exactly so successful because - on the one hand - they allowed other vendors to create hardware for their OS and - on the other hand - Windows was very much geared towards other companies building software on top of Windows. Sure, Microsoft was taking some protective measures to solidify their business. But what you're implying is that - without the antitrust case - they would've gone straight against their own business model that made them so successful. I will grant you the 150 million investment into Apple. That would perhaps not have happened without the antitrust case. Perhaps there wouldn't have been an iPhone. But what's often overlooked is how Steam was actually the first app store with auto-update features. Apple wasn't the only player in the mobile market. Android was already under development 4 years before the first iPhone came out. Google had already acquired Android 2 years before the first iPhone came out. It's all pure speculation. But the fact is there were plenty of corrective/competitive forces. Who knows what would've happened without the antitrust case. I'm not convinced it would have resulted in Microsoft being able to maintain its dominance.

blub 7y ago

That settlement tied their hands competitively, made them think thrice before playing dirty and took the wind out of their sails. The settlement is what permitted Apple and Google to exist in the first place, so that they could launch the iPhone and Android. Amazon was utterly irrelevant back then, they were a book store FFS. The investment into Apple was happening in the middle of the anti-trust fight, for crying out loud. And Google was invented also during that time and would have gone exactly nowhere with an IE monopoly. MS crushed Linux on the desktop and they use it just like anybody else on the server. They even included it in Windows, Linux for them is not a competitor, it's a tool.

bartimus 7y ago
> The settlement is what permitted Apple and Google to exist in the first place. How did it permit Google to exist? Google was running fine on IE. > Amazon was utterly irrelevant back then It was busy growing into the giant it is today. Nobody saw that coming back then. > And Google was invented also during that time and would have gone exactly nowhere with an IE monopoly. Why would an IE monopoly have prevented Google? Google came into existence exactly when Microsoft was dominating the browser market. Microsoft wasn't set out to dominate the web. They were pretty much embracing the dotcom boom (which included Google). They just wanted to make sure you would be browsing the web using their OS. > Linux for them is not a competitor, it's a tool. How is being a tool not a measure of success? We all use Windows as our tool. Linux was simply dominating its market. You paint a grim picture of a predatory company trying to dominate the world. Meanwhile Microsoft was exactly so successful because - on the one hand - they allowed other vendors to create hardware for their OS and - on the other hand - Windows was very much geared towards other companies building software on top of Windows. Sure, Microsoft was taking some protective measures to solidify their business. But what you're implying is that - without the antitrust case - they would've gone straight against their own business model that made them so successful. I will grant you the 150 million investment into Apple. That would perhaps not have happened without the antitrust case. Perhaps there wouldn't have been an iPhone. But what's often overlooked is how Steam was actually the first app store with auto-update features. Apple wasn't the only player in the mobile market. Android was already under development 4 years before the first iPhone came out. Google had already acquired Android 2 years before the first iPhone came out. It's all pure speculation. But the fact is there were plenty of corrective/competitive forces. Who knows what would've happened without the antitrust case. I'm not convinced it would have resulted in Microsoft being able to maintain its dominance.