5 ms·

You're confusing Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive actions with their defense. They tried to destroy Netscape through a number of illegal means. Their defen

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.
      - kenjackson 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. This is something that people continously get wrong. What are perfectly legal practices for a non-monopoly may no longer be legal once you're a monopoly. For example, if Apple had a monopoly on mobile phones it might be illegal for them to block "replicated" functionality in their app store. Today its perfectly legal, but in a monopoly situation, its not. For example, one of the things that MS was accused of was not allowing OEMs to put Netscape shortcuts on the desktop. If Windows wasn't a monopoly that's a perfect fine requirement. And as it stands today, Apple has strict requirements for what can get preinstalled on their phone/tablet by carriers -- virtually nothing. Another thing MS was accused of by Netscape was withholding technical information. Apple does this today. In fact the Camera+ app, not only had to find technical information w/o docs, but once it did find the information, Apple removed their app from the app store. Imagine if MS removed Netscape once Netscape found the info they were looking for. MS was also accused of "Giving Internet Explorer Away". All of these new features in iOS are basically free. Again, giving away something at below "cost" is fine if you're not a monopoly, but might be illegal when you are one. MS was also accused of making it difficult (financially or technically) to remove IE. Again, you can't remove IE in WP7 or Safari in iPad, AFAIK. Both perfectly legal. Now I'm not saying MS was in the clear. They were in fact a monopoly and did these things. My point though is that Apple is treading this line with the iPad. With the iPhone they're too small of a market. But with the iPad being the dominant tablet (by a huge margin), they're behavior, which would be perfectly legal for the iPhone, is now questionable.
        tjogin 15y ago
        The point is that Apple isn't a monopolist. They like to inadvertently brag that they are, but they are not, thus any comparison with Microsoft's monopoly abuse is moot.
    - kayhi 15y ago
      Factors to consider would be how do you market your product and how markets are defined. Consumer end - we are the leaders in tablets Judicial end - we represent a very small percentage or personal computers which can come in tablet form
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        Absolutely. But the more they say things like "post-pc", having removed the word "Computer" from their company name, and that the tablet shares an OS with the phone, but not their PC, all together would begin to make a case. I just think they'd be prudent to be cautious.

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.
    - kenjackson 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. This is something that people continously get wrong. What are perfectly legal practices for a non-monopoly may no longer be legal once you're a monopoly. For example, if Apple had a monopoly on mobile phones it might be illegal for them to block "replicated" functionality in their app store. Today its perfectly legal, but in a monopoly situation, its not. For example, one of the things that MS was accused of was not allowing OEMs to put Netscape shortcuts on the desktop. If Windows wasn't a monopoly that's a perfect fine requirement. And as it stands today, Apple has strict requirements for what can get preinstalled on their phone/tablet by carriers -- virtually nothing. Another thing MS was accused of by Netscape was withholding technical information. Apple does this today. In fact the Camera+ app, not only had to find technical information w/o docs, but once it did find the information, Apple removed their app from the app store. Imagine if MS removed Netscape once Netscape found the info they were looking for. MS was also accused of "Giving Internet Explorer Away". All of these new features in iOS are basically free. Again, giving away something at below "cost" is fine if you're not a monopoly, but might be illegal when you are one. MS was also accused of making it difficult (financially or technically) to remove IE. Again, you can't remove IE in WP7 or Safari in iPad, AFAIK. Both perfectly legal. Now I'm not saying MS was in the clear. They were in fact a monopoly and did these things. My point though is that Apple is treading this line with the iPad. With the iPhone they're too small of a market. But with the iPad being the dominant tablet (by a huge margin), they're behavior, which would be perfectly legal for the iPhone, is now questionable.
      - tjogin 15y ago
        The point is that Apple isn't a monopolist. They like to inadvertently brag that they are, but they are not, thus any comparison with Microsoft's monopoly abuse is moot.
  - kayhi 15y ago
    Factors to consider would be how do you market your product and how markets are defined. Consumer end - we are the leaders in tablets Judicial end - we represent a very small percentage or personal computers which can come in tablet form
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Absolutely. But the more they say things like "post-pc", having removed the word "Computer" from their company name, and that the tablet shares an OS with the phone, but not their PC, all together would begin to make a case. I just think they'd be prudent to be cautious.