3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market only in the consumer market... it is not the same argument people use right now for Apple? "Buy Android" they say People could buy Sun, SGI, IBM with OS/2, Macintosh computers etc. etc. in 1993 even Amiga was a viable option The point is that the alternative is not really an alternative if switching is expensive or straight impossible (it's very hard to switch from iOS to Android) > 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. Microsoft in 1995 was ranked below place 250 in Fortune's 500 list Apple is 3rd in 2020 and the company with the highest capitalization in the history of the stock market I think that makes for pretty important key differences too ...
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Market power is a specific term used in economics relating to how much control a company has over the price of a good or service. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power) It does not have anything to do with stock market rankings. Microsoft had a very large amount of market power in the operating system market, high enough that it was considered monopoly power, and that is why they lost their case.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      Thanks for the mainsplaining What you fail to understand is that money is power Especially when money can be used to - buy competitors - put them out of business - sue them on the most insignificant detail - sue other small companies just because they use a different fruit in their logo. Why? Because you have money and you can! (see prepear logo fight for reference) - stall job market to keep workers from going to competitors (see Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees) - abuse your market position, fines in the range of billions are peanuts for you (see French antitrust authority fined Apple for 1.2 billions) etc etc - did we forget that they have a monopoly in a luxury brand used mainly by managers and very powerful people that involves handling their private data and can exactly "control the price of good and services" on that platform at their will? Companies that make yachts have no monopoly on means of transport, but they make boats for people like Paul Allen and have much more power than Fiat/Chrysler Last but not least You are wrong again Microsoft lost their case because they ABUSED of their dominant position, that's exactly what Apple is doing in the iOS market And it's much worse because MS was an outsider at the times, Apple is the richest company in the World US is not dominating the World because they are better - the contrary is probably true - or have a larger market influence, but because they have more money than anybody else and spend more than anybody else on military budget (also used to spy on allies on civil matters, see USA spying Angela Merkel)

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.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market only in the consumer market... it is not the same argument people use right now for Apple? "Buy Android" they say People could buy Sun, SGI, IBM with OS/2, Macintosh computers etc. etc. in 1993 even Amiga was a viable option The point is that the alternative is not really an alternative if switching is expensive or straight impossible (it's very hard to switch from iOS to Android) > 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. Microsoft in 1995 was ranked below place 250 in Fortune's 500 list Apple is 3rd in 2020 and the company with the highest capitalization in the history of the stock market I think that makes for pretty important key differences too ...
- nodamage 6y ago
  Market power is a specific term used in economics relating to how much control a company has over the price of a good or service. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power) It does not have anything to do with stock market rankings. Microsoft had a very large amount of market power in the operating system market, high enough that it was considered monopoly power, and that is why they lost their case.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    Thanks for the mainsplaining What you fail to understand is that money is power Especially when money can be used to - buy competitors - put them out of business - sue them on the most insignificant detail - sue other small companies just because they use a different fruit in their logo. Why? Because you have money and you can! (see prepear logo fight for reference) - stall job market to keep workers from going to competitors (see Apple and Google's wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees) - abuse your market position, fines in the range of billions are peanuts for you (see French antitrust authority fined Apple for 1.2 billions) etc etc - did we forget that they have a monopoly in a luxury brand used mainly by managers and very powerful people that involves handling their private data and can exactly "control the price of good and services" on that platform at their will? Companies that make yachts have no monopoly on means of transport, but they make boats for people like Paul Allen and have much more power than Fiat/Chrysler Last but not least You are wrong again Microsoft lost their case because they ABUSED of their dominant position, that's exactly what Apple is doing in the iOS market And it's much worse because MS was an outsider at the times, Apple is the richest company in the World US is not dominating the World because they are better - the contrary is probably true - or have a larger market influence, but because they have more money than anybody else and spend more than anybody else on military budget (also used to spy on allies on civil matters, see USA spying Angela Merkel)