3 ms·

> Microsoft’s case was about parlaying their monopoly in Windows to the browser space by making Internet Explorer an intrinsic part of Windows. Nope, they have

> Microsoft’s case was about parlaying their monopoly in Windows to the browser space by making Internet Explorer an intrinsic part of Windows. Nope, they have been accused and sentenced of abusing their dominant position by forcing OEMs to pre install IE on Windows, before the integration started. The way MS force them was with restrictive licenses that practically threatened OEMs to do what MS ordered or face legal consequences and risk to go out of business. The second accusation was that MS used internals secret API for their product not available to third parties giving MS an unfair advantage. Those API were also shared among few OEMs that helped MS secure its dominant position. > Law professor Eben Moglen noted that the way Microsoft was required to disclose its APIs and protocols was useful only for “interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product” The third of their anticompetitive behavior was to pay some OEMs to not install (or offer to customers) other operating systems on their hardware (including BeOS, for example) "Microsoft's true anticompetitive clout was in the rebates it offered to OEMs preventing other operating systems from getting a foothold in the market." Does it sound similar to what Apple does today?

parasubvert 6y ago
When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. The cases are not even close to being in the same league. Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 which was optional. IE shipped preinstalled on the OSR1 distributions in late 1995. OEMs couldn’t uninstall it. MS saw IE as a feature, nor a product. The DOJ disagreed. And yes, the API arguments were the other factor of the consent decree violation. Apple: - has no consent decree to violate - is not being anticompetitive by taking a retail cut on a store for its own platform (ISVs are free to go exclusively Android); Google is free to drop its retail cut, 3rd party stores on Android exist, and also the browser exists and is arguably completely unrestricted. - should be allowed the freedom to admit apps on its platform to better the consumer experience. Interfering with this collapses the whole security and curation value add of the App Store, or relegates it to a 3rd party with different incentives, or declares that Apple’s store is the only one where ISVs make money and therefore must become a utility because ISVs want more margin. Good luck with arguing this. It will take 5+ years or more to legislate properly, and I suspect parliaments have bigger problems to deal with. If one wanted to chase Apple for anticompetitive behavior it would be to do some amazing stuff in-browser with things like WASM, streaming, etc. and argue that Apple is blocking those innovations with its Safari mandatory policy to force people to use its App Store and native APIs. That’s the closest where I can see this argument holding water.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. > The cases are not even close to being in the same league. - MS was sentenced for making the software, not the hardware - MS was abusing the dominant position to be the only OS on the HW, just like iOS is the solely possible OS on Apple HW and Apple store is the sole possible distributor of iOS apps, because Apple is abusing of its dominant position in the Apple ecosystem market (which is IMO a separate market from Android). If there were OEMs there would be at least competition in the HW space, like there was in the pc that drove down the prices for end users. > Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 I firmly believed on HN arguments were not thrown around without backing them up with facts It all started before Win95 was even around... > In 1993, Novell claimed that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices. > The DOJ disagreed. That's the US case You know Europe has over 700 million citizens, you should remember that thing happens over here as well sometimes... > - is not being anticompetitive by taking a retail cut on a store for its own platform nobody has said that Apple is a monopolist on a closed platform that they refuse to open up to third parties while at the same time acting as gatekeeper by allowing or disallowing apps on the store at their whim that's clearly an unfair advantage for Apple the software company exactly like MS using secret OS Apis of their operating system to write their software had an unfair advantage (and was sentenced for that) > argue that Apple is blocking those innovations with its Safari mandatory policy It's the same circular argument [1] Apple is blocking third parties from distributing their software freely AND [2] is hindering user's freedom by not allowing to replace certain parts of their system (like for example the browser) even though they allegedly are a source of vulnerabilities because [1] That's the same thing MS did by making IE undeletable
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market and that is why they lost their case. Apple has less than 50% market share in the United States and it's unlikely the courts would view them as having monopoly power. The case is even weaker in Europe where Apple only has 25% market share. It does not make sense to point to Microsoft and declare "these situations are the same" when there is a key difference in the amount of market power each company wields.

parasubvert 6y ago

When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. The cases are not even close to being in the same league. Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 which was optional. IE shipped preinstalled on the OSR1 distributions in late 1995. OEMs couldn’t uninstall it. MS saw IE as a feature, nor a product. The DOJ disagreed. And yes, the API arguments were the other factor of the consent decree violation. Apple: - has no consent decree to violate - is not being anticompetitive by taking a retail cut on a store for its own platform (ISVs are free to go exclusively Android); Google is free to drop its retail cut, 3rd party stores on Android exist, and also the browser exists and is arguably completely unrestricted. - should be allowed the freedom to admit apps on its platform to better the consumer experience. Interfering with this collapses the whole security and curation value add of the App Store, or relegates it to a 3rd party with different incentives, or declares that Apple’s store is the only one where ISVs make money and therefore must become a utility because ISVs want more margin. Good luck with arguing this. It will take 5+ years or more to legislate properly, and I suspect parliaments have bigger problems to deal with. If one wanted to chase Apple for anticompetitive behavior it would be to do some amazing stuff in-browser with things like WASM, streaming, etc. and argue that Apple is blocking those innovations with its Safari mandatory policy to force people to use its App Store and native APIs. That’s the closest where I can see this argument holding water.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> When Apple starts OEMing iPhones, get back to me. > The cases are not even close to being in the same league. - MS was sentenced for making the software, not the hardware - MS was abusing the dominant position to be the only OS on the HW, just like iOS is the solely possible OS on Apple HW and Apple store is the sole possible distributor of iOS apps, because Apple is abusing of its dominant position in the Apple ecosystem market (which is IMO a separate market from Android). If there were OEMs there would be at least competition in the HW space, like there was in the pc that drove down the prices for end users. > Microsoft didn’t force OEMs to preinstall IE: it came with the Plus! pack in Win95 I firmly believed on HN arguments were not thrown around without backing them up with facts It all started before Win95 was even around... > In 1993, Novell claimed that Microsoft was blocking its competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices. The complaint centered on the license practices at the time which required royalties from each computer sold by a supplier of Microsoft's operating system, whether or not the unit actually contained the Windows operating system. Microsoft reached a settlement in 1994, ending some of its license practices. > The DOJ disagreed. That's the US case You know Europe has over 700 million citizens, you should remember that thing happens over here as well sometimes... > - is not being anticompetitive by taking a retail cut on a store for its own platform nobody has said that Apple is a monopolist on a closed platform that they refuse to open up to third parties while at the same time acting as gatekeeper by allowing or disallowing apps on the store at their whim that's clearly an unfair advantage for Apple the software company exactly like MS using secret OS Apis of their operating system to write their software had an unfair advantage (and was sentenced for that) > argue that Apple is blocking those innovations with its Safari mandatory policy It's the same circular argument [1] Apple is blocking third parties from distributing their software freely AND [2] is hindering user's freedom by not allowing to replace certain parts of their system (like for example the browser) even though they allegedly are a source of vulnerabilities because [1] That's the same thing MS did by making IE undeletable
- nodamage 6y ago
  Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market and that is why they lost their case. Apple has less than 50% market share in the United States and it's unlikely the courts would view them as having monopoly power. The case is even weaker in Europe where Apple only has 25% market share. It does not make sense to point to Microsoft and declare "these situations are the same" when there is a key difference in the amount of market power each company wields.