4 ms·

That's a lot different than functionality being added to the OS. What Apple is doing is effectively what MS got in trouble for. Apple is adding functionality

That's a lot different than functionality being added to the OS. What Apple is doing is effectively what MS got in trouble for. Apple is adding functionality to the OS that exists as a standalone application out of the OS (this is probaby the main reason why antivirus doesn't ship in the box with Windows). The question MS had to answer was if this functionality was crucial to the operation of the OS. The TCP/IP stack apparently was deemed so. IE wasn't deemed crucial. The difference between MS and Apple is that MS had a desktop monopoly. Apple has no such monopoly in mobile devices. Although if Apple keeps touting their 90% tablet market share, they could inadvertantly put themselves in the middle of antitrust crosshairs again. I know Marco has said that he would not use legal means to stop Apple -- but he shouldn't rule it out forever. Because trust me, Apple would have no problem doing it to him.

tptacek 15y ago
You're engaging only a facsimile of Marco's argument, which he frames in terms of Starbucks and indie coffee houses: yes, Starbucks put a lot of coffee houses out of business, some times in a predatory fashion. But the good coffee houses often saw their sales increase, sometimes dramatically. Apple is educating Marco's market about deferred-reading. They are inevitably going to add far more people to the total market that they'll take from Marco. As the market expands, he needs to capture smaller and smaller fractions of it to remain successful. Meanwhile, Apple may have also done Marco a positioning favor, by establishing a low end market that he can position a niche against. He calls it the "deluxe" market now (which it is; the $5 I spent for iP is some of the best money I've spent on the app store), but that also leaves an opening for a "Pro" niche that commands an even higher price point. I'm sure this situation leaves Marco with a lot more teeth gritting than he hoped to have. I don't want to downplay the situation. But I think Marco's got as good a shot as ever to make something big out of iP; maybe an even bigger one, albeit with more alpha.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
> What Apple is doing is effectively what MS got in trouble for. Microsoft got in trouble for telling manufacturers not to ship Netscape.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  That was one aspect. Here's some notes from the Real antitrust lawsuit, note that a big part of this is "universal distribution" and "pricing" (since WMP is free). But here's a question for you -- do you think Verizon, Walmart, or AT&T can disable any Apple provided functionality and have Instapaper run on first use? If one of them found a way to do it Jobs would shut it down so fast that they didn't know what hit them. "Real's 64-page complaint accuses Microsoft of "tying" its Windows Media Player to its Windows operating system, shutting out competitors such as Real and instantly achieving "virtually universal distribution." From October 2001 to March 2003, for example, Microsoft's "tying" ensured that Windows Media Player was preinstalled on about 95 percent of PCs shipped, the suit reads. By contrast, it continues, RealNetworks' digital media player was preinstalled on less than 2 percent of the estimated 207 million new PCs shipped. RealNetworks said Microsoft has failed to share important information about the Windows code, thus hurting the performance of its RealPlayer product. For example, Microsoft refused to disclose details about certain security features, preventing Real from using them directly, according to the lawsuit. Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." According to the suit, PC makers told Real that their contracts with Microsoft kept them from removing or changing the status of a Windows Media Player; promoting RealOne subscription services during the first run of a new PC; and providing a desktop icon for Real Networks. "Microsoft's agreements with PC makers are exclusionary and anticompetitive," the suit concludes. The suit also says Microsoft's pricing practices stifle competition. It alleges that Microsoft effectively forced competitors to provide free versions of their software to compete with Windows Media Player--a practice that has resulted in significant losses for RealNetworks. "Microsoft's below cost pricing, separately or together with Microsoft's other exclusionary conduct, poses a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly in the digital media markets," RealNetworks said in the filing. "
  - Steko 15y ago
    Here's hoping Apple doesn't use their 95% market share in smartphones to force everyone to adopt their plain text website view as a standard.
thought_alarm 15y ago
You're confusing Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive actions with their defense. They tried to destroy Netscape through a number of illegal means. Their defense was to argue that IE was nothing more than a component of Windows, which was and is correct. If they had merely shipped IE with Windows they wouldn't have broken any laws, but that was never really the issue; it was only the issue MS wanted people to focus on.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Not correct. See my other response. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627487 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627487
  - thought_alarm 15y ago
    Microsoft had a very real monopoly on personal computers, and they engaged in illegal anticompetitive practices to maintain that real monopoly, illegal practices this simply wouldn't have worked in a fair market with real alternatives for consumers and manufacturers. The only monopoly Apple has is a monopoly on iPhones. Their only interest is to make their product as attractive as possible in a market jam packed with innovative alternatives, and history is filled with instances where features are added to an OS at the expense of a previous 3rd-party add-on. I don't think there is any comparison between Microsoft of the late 90s and any tech company today, when it comes to monopolies and anticompetitive behavior.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Wrong product. Apple itself states it has 90% marketshare in tablets. If I were Apple legal I would advise against explicitly stating tablet marketshare.
      - elithrar 15y ago
        Why? They have not engaged in any illegal practices—at least as far as anyone here knows—to secure this position, and the tablet market is in its infancy. If the market were years-old and Apple was buying out competitors and paying retailers to not stock alternative devices, then there would be a problem. But they're not.

tptacek 15y ago

You're engaging only a facsimile of Marco's argument, which he frames in terms of Starbucks and indie coffee houses: yes, Starbucks put a lot of coffee houses out of business, some times in a predatory fashion. But the good coffee houses often saw their sales increase, sometimes dramatically. Apple is educating Marco's market about deferred-reading. They are inevitably going to add far more people to the total market that they'll take from Marco. As the market expands, he needs to capture smaller and smaller fractions of it to remain successful. Meanwhile, Apple may have also done Marco a positioning favor, by establishing a low end market that he can position a niche against. He calls it the "deluxe" market now (which it is; the $5 I spent for iP is some of the best money I've spent on the app store), but that also leaves an opening for a "Pro" niche that commands an even higher price point. I'm sure this situation leaves Marco with a lot more teeth gritting than he hoped to have. I don't want to downplay the situation. But I think Marco's got as good a shot as ever to make something big out of iP; maybe an even bigger one, albeit with more alpha.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

> What Apple is doing is effectively what MS got in trouble for. Microsoft got in trouble for telling manufacturers not to ship Netscape.

kenjackson 15y ago
That was one aspect. Here's some notes from the Real antitrust lawsuit, note that a big part of this is "universal distribution" and "pricing" (since WMP is free). But here's a question for you -- do you think Verizon, Walmart, or AT&T can disable any Apple provided functionality and have Instapaper run on first use? If one of them found a way to do it Jobs would shut it down so fast that they didn't know what hit them. "Real's 64-page complaint accuses Microsoft of "tying" its Windows Media Player to its Windows operating system, shutting out competitors such as Real and instantly achieving "virtually universal distribution." From October 2001 to March 2003, for example, Microsoft's "tying" ensured that Windows Media Player was preinstalled on about 95 percent of PCs shipped, the suit reads. By contrast, it continues, RealNetworks' digital media player was preinstalled on less than 2 percent of the estimated 207 million new PCs shipped. RealNetworks said Microsoft has failed to share important information about the Windows code, thus hurting the performance of its RealPlayer product. For example, Microsoft refused to disclose details about certain security features, preventing Real from using them directly, according to the lawsuit. Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." According to the suit, PC makers told Real that their contracts with Microsoft kept them from removing or changing the status of a Windows Media Player; promoting RealOne subscription services during the first run of a new PC; and providing a desktop icon for Real Networks. "Microsoft's agreements with PC makers are exclusionary and anticompetitive," the suit concludes. The suit also says Microsoft's pricing practices stifle competition. It alleges that Microsoft effectively forced competitors to provide free versions of their software to compete with Windows Media Player--a practice that has resulted in significant losses for RealNetworks. "Microsoft's below cost pricing, separately or together with Microsoft's other exclusionary conduct, poses a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly in the digital media markets," RealNetworks said in the filing. "
- Steko 15y ago
  Here's hoping Apple doesn't use their 95% market share in smartphones to force everyone to adopt their plain text website view as a standard.

thought_alarm 15y ago

You're confusing Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive actions with their defense. They tried to destroy Netscape through a number of illegal means. Their defense was to argue that IE was nothing more than a component of Windows, which was and is correct. If they had merely shipped IE with Windows they wouldn't have broken any laws, but that was never really the issue; it was only the issue MS wanted people to focus on.

kenjackson 15y ago
Not correct. See my other response. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627487 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627487
- thought_alarm 15y ago
  Microsoft had a very real monopoly on personal computers, and they engaged in illegal anticompetitive practices to maintain that real monopoly, illegal practices this simply wouldn't have worked in a fair market with real alternatives for consumers and manufacturers. The only monopoly Apple has is a monopoly on iPhones. Their only interest is to make their product as attractive as possible in a market jam packed with innovative alternatives, and history is filled with instances where features are added to an OS at the expense of a previous 3rd-party add-on. I don't think there is any comparison between Microsoft of the late 90s and any tech company today, when it comes to monopolies and anticompetitive behavior.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Wrong product. Apple itself states it has 90% marketshare in tablets. If I were Apple legal I would advise against explicitly stating tablet marketshare.
    - elithrar 15y ago
      Why? They have not engaged in any illegal practices—at least as far as anyone here knows—to secure this position, and the tablet market is in its infancy. If the market were years-old and Apple was buying out competitors and paying retailers to not stock alternative devices, then there would be a problem. But they're not.