5 ms·

Would this be considered anti-competitive today? Let's say you control a major internet browser (or have good knowledge to believe that your iPhone's Safari wi

Would this be considered anti-competitive today? Let's say you control a major internet browser (or have good knowledge to believe that your iPhone's Safari will become a major internet browser) and specifically exclude support for a competitor's platform (forcing people to the App Store/Apple ecosystem to create similar experiences). On its face, and outside the technical considerations of Flash as a platform, it seems like a move to directly subsume a huge market share. I'm surprised this angle hasn't gotten more discussion. Personally, I think the bar for anti-trust in tech is very, very high and this doesn't meet it (and neither would current shenanigans du jour) but interested to hear what others think, or how they think it's different. It's kind of nuanced since it's more like one vendor not developing support for a competitor, rather than impeding them after-the-fact.

clairity 6y ago
it's clearly anti-competitive, then and now. whether it's an abuse of monopoly power or an anti-trust violation is open for debate (particularly, how you define markets for analytical purposes).
- bdcravens 6y ago
  Given the high percentage of Android phones, there was no monopoly to abuse.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  They had legitimate cause to keep a bloated, buggy, resource hog off of iPhone 1. Adobe had plenty of time to clean up their act and never has.
- simonh 6y ago
  Do you think companies should always be expected adopt and implement the proprietary products and technology of other companies in their products? That seems like an extremely broad expectation. For example cars nowadays have computerised entertainment systems. If your a car manufacturer and I bring out a service for use in cars with a free client app, should I be able to sue you if you don't put my client app in your car and integrate it into your infotainment systems at no cost to me? If I bring out a new proprietary internet technology, should I be able to sue all the phone manufacturers that don't build in support for it into their phones at their own expense? I'm having difficulty seeing how this ability for companies to unilaterally impose obligations on other companies, enforceable on anti-trust grounds is practical.
sosborn 6y ago
> Would this be considered anti-competitive today? I think it would have been different if they were allowing other plug-ins to work on mobile Safari. They weren't anti Adobe, they were anti plugins. Flash just happened to be the most visible one in addition to being the most egregious example of what can go wrong with plugins.
jefftk 6y ago
On the other hand, are you going to say that creating a new platform gave them the obligation to design its browser in a way that allowed plug-ins?
hannob 6y ago
> Would this be considered anti-competitive today? Disallowing a technology that is controlled by one company in favor of a technology that is standardized and can be and is implemented by many companies? I can't see how you even begin to think this is anti-competitive. (I do think that there's a lot problematic about apple's lockdown approach to devices. I think you can make an argument that the whole approach of device lockdown is problematic and should face some regulation. But picking out the flash deprecation seems like an odd way to highlight that.)
macspoofing 6y ago
>Would this be considered anti-competitive today? No. Apple STILL has insane restrictions on creating your own HTML rendering engine. That is, neither Mozilla, nor Google, nor Microsoft can ship their browsers on iOS. Apple is still getting away with it, and that's probably because they aren't seen as a monopoly by regulators.

clairity 6y ago

it's clearly anti-competitive, then and now. whether it's an abuse of monopoly power or an anti-trust violation is open for debate (particularly, how you define markets for analytical purposes).

bdcravens 6y ago
Given the high percentage of Android phones, there was no monopoly to abuse.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
They had legitimate cause to keep a bloated, buggy, resource hog off of iPhone 1. Adobe had plenty of time to clean up their act and never has.
simonh 6y ago
Do you think companies should always be expected adopt and implement the proprietary products and technology of other companies in their products? That seems like an extremely broad expectation. For example cars nowadays have computerised entertainment systems. If your a car manufacturer and I bring out a service for use in cars with a free client app, should I be able to sue you if you don't put my client app in your car and integrate it into your infotainment systems at no cost to me? If I bring out a new proprietary internet technology, should I be able to sue all the phone manufacturers that don't build in support for it into their phones at their own expense? I'm having difficulty seeing how this ability for companies to unilaterally impose obligations on other companies, enforceable on anti-trust grounds is practical.

sosborn 6y ago

> Would this be considered anti-competitive today? I think it would have been different if they were allowing other plug-ins to work on mobile Safari. They weren't anti Adobe, they were anti plugins. Flash just happened to be the most visible one in addition to being the most egregious example of what can go wrong with plugins.

jefftk 6y ago

On the other hand, are you going to say that creating a new platform gave them the obligation to design its browser in a way that allowed plug-ins?

hannob 6y ago

> Would this be considered anti-competitive today? Disallowing a technology that is controlled by one company in favor of a technology that is standardized and can be and is implemented by many companies? I can't see how you even begin to think this is anti-competitive. (I do think that there's a lot problematic about apple's lockdown approach to devices. I think you can make an argument that the whole approach of device lockdown is problematic and should face some regulation. But picking out the flash deprecation seems like an odd way to highlight that.)

macspoofing 6y ago

>Would this be considered anti-competitive today? No. Apple STILL has insane restrictions on creating your own HTML rendering engine. That is, neither Mozilla, nor Google, nor Microsoft can ship their browsers on iOS. Apple is still getting away with it, and that's probably because they aren't seen as a monopoly by regulators.