25 ms·

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and

by mard 5y ago

In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. 20 years later, Apple and Google bundle not only their browsers, but whole irreplaceable app stores with no legal consequences. I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.

agloeregrets 5y ago
The law sees it as they have been paid and blackmailed to see it. There was a report yesterday that showed Apple's lawyers threatening to pull out funding of a minority education school if the state considered any sort of App store laws.
- mercora 5y ago
  do you have a source available?
  - wayneftw 5y ago
    https://www.imore.com/apple-used-intimidation-and-lot-money-kill-georgia-app-store-bill-says-sponsor https://www.imore.com/apple-used-intimidation-and-lot-money-...
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Wouldn't that be Apple's prerogative? There's no reason to do business in a state that's hostile to your interests or pursuits. That's not blackmail anymore than the attempted Hollywood boycott over Georgia's abortion laws a few years ago. There are plenty of well-documented violations of integrity to accuse Apple of, but using its philanthropic investments as a leverage isn't one of them.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    "Leverage" doesn't go along with "philantropic".
ekianjo 5y ago
> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. Regulatory capture.
alex_young 5y ago
Not only does Apple include its own browser, it forces other browsers to use Safari under the hood on iOS.
- JCWasmx86 5y ago
  Ironically this is the only thing preventing a chromium monopoly with probably >90% of marketshare (Although this restriction is still not that great for the user)
  - Xelbair 5y ago
    so if this restriction was gone, it would make everything more sane for customer, while finally dealing with chromium monopoly. sounds like a win-win to me.
    - dividedbyzero 5y ago
      How would a chromium monopoly be a win (for anyone but Google)?
      - tyingq 5y ago
        I think the poster was thinking it would make Google a clear monopoly, making an anti-trust case easier to pursue.
        Xelbair 5y ago
        exactly this.
tpush 5y ago
The tying claim eventually got dropped from the case, though, since the govt couldn't prove that the harm to competition outweighed the benefits of having a browser built in to the OS.
- darkwater 5y ago
  Not in Europe though. We had a WinXP version without IE and a prompt at first install to choose the desired browser
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    I was really excited about the "browser ballot" when that judgement came through. In the end though it appeared on tragically few installs. I never even saw it in the wild. It was a mess for other reasons too, but it felt at the time like it represented a turning tide against anti-competitive behaviour in software.
intricatedetail 5y ago
You can only explain this by corruption. I think three letter agencies slept on that one... Edit: Not sure why accusation of corruption is downvoted? It's a very difficult crime to prove and requires resources to pursue, so there is no appetite to prosecute. Big companies and civil service know that. If these companies pay off developers, they would have no reason to pay anyone else in their way and that would unlikely result in any consequences.
woofie11 5y ago
Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  In this very document you have Google and Apple claiming that they effectively do not compete in terms of app store pricing policies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 5y ago
  What is Apple's market share for tablets in the US?
- realusername 5y ago
  > * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. [source needed]. The only tariff change Apple ever made was ... due to a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. And Google followed straight away. I can't recall any competition between both companies, they just have their own distinct market.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.
    - realusername 5y ago
      In theory I do agree, competition between both could exist. In practice though it does not happen. There's some pretty clear market collusion.
jasode 5y ago
>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocumented Windows API functions to cripple Netscape and forcing computer manufacturers to avoid other software when licensing DOS/Windows. All of that is in the long document: https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
- NorwegianDude 5y ago
  His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Does it make a difference that Apple is the hardware manufacturer, whereas Microsoft just provides the OS for PCs in general?
    - H8crilA 5y ago
      You mean Apple's monopoly position is even stronger because they can put roadblocks at the hardware level? :)
      - roenxi 5y ago
        The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat. In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.
wslh 5y ago
> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. In these cases, generally, the law acts when other parties push it. Mainly big actors. The app stores are generally build by those major actors. May be regulations will happen in several years.
dekhn 5y ago
you're mixing up the details of the MSFT lawsuit. Also, there's nothing antitrust about bundling web DLLs in an OS, or using the web shell for applications. That's what a Chromebook did. What MSFT did was abuse its monopoly position to take advantage of other companies and customers.
- mard 5y ago
  Fair enough. Merely bundling some software was not a violation by itself, but that bundling was also additionally reinforced with "concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications barrier to entry", which caused "consumer harm by distorting competition" [1]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact#vii https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
dalbasal 5y ago
>>I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. Let's make a point of starting here. There's room for the legalistic standpoint, especially if we're trying to understand legal processes... but this isn't a law forum. It's near impossible to discuss antitrust usefully from a mostly-legalistic perspective. The laws, precedents, legal doctrines and economic doctrines they relate to are extremely patchy, flimsy and often barely exist. I think a core part of the problem is a weak, badly grounded antitrust framework in the first place. Key definitions like "monopoly" use contradictory conceptual frameworks, from different eras. Generalizing from one instance to another is difficult. A lot of key concepts don't have definitions at all, or really wishy washy ones. I think the nature of monopolies has a lot to do with this. One possible definition of monopoly is an singular market entity... IE not generalizable, by definition. Are courts supposed to be punishing violations, or structuring markets and doing industrial policy? Are they supposed to be regulating monopolies, preventing them, or declaring their existence so that a different set of regulations kick in? Is monopoly a normal occurrence in market maturity, or market failure? At some point, Peter Thiel gave away the game when he said that "monopoly is the goal." If you read microeconomics basics, but conceptualize it as software companies instead of a auto manufacturing... you tend to think of monopoly, rather than commoditization as the equilibrium point that's never quite reached. Successful tech companies don't try to make money by competing in a level field with lots of competitors. That's for appstore app developers, salesforce plugin consultants, spotify artists and such. The whole premise of the tech miracle is that monopolies are the bull case. How else to expect/justify/realize tech company valuations. Imagine pitching an investor like Thiel on your idea to spend a billion dollars making youtube content for ad revenue? That's all wrong. Your bull case is that you'll temporarily profitable, if successful. Even if you're very profitable, its temporary. There are zillions of youtubers and squillions who could be. They'll copy you, or maybe your content will just get stale over time. A youtube policy change could wipe you out. In the turbulence of youtube's free market for online videos, profits don't last at scale. To get Thiel's attention, you need to go for your own monopoly. "Commoditize your compliments" has long been a tech motto. Well... what's the corrolorary? Monopolize your market segment. Commoditize PCs. Monopolize the OS. Commoditize smartphones. Monopolize the OS. Monopolize consoles, Commoditize games. Platform/Content. Market/Vending. Users/Advertising. Data/Advertising.
Andrex 5y ago
The MS decision got gutted on appeal, which merely emboldened the monopolistic practices which developed since the dot-com boom.
crazygringo 5y ago
The different is crystal clear. Microsoft was considered a monopoly. You really had no good choice but Windows. Apple and Google aren't. You have a choice between iOS and Android, both vibrant and thriving. It really is that simple. And it's not just the legal but common sense definition of monopoly too -- do you control the market or not? Now you might have other criticisms of app stores, but basing them on the Microsoft-monopoly-argument isn't going to be helpful or useful. You're going to need a different legal foundation for that.
- bobmaxup 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly
- titzer 5y ago
  The monopoly criterion is so outmoded. Anti-trust laws were enacted to counter organizations that cornered basic things like steel, railroads, power, communications, etc. 100 years ago, almost everything they could imagine was a commodity that was easily replaceable. But app platforms are not commodities. There is considerable vendor lock-in, by design. It's not like one just takes an iOS app and instantly ports it over to Android when Apple's terms no longer suit; there is considerable sunk cost. Platforms cleave the market into captive audiences that can and are abused. And what to do if you are little guy who invested everything in one of those two platforms and didn't have the foresight to write your app in a way that it was easily ported? Well, screw you. So these platforms actually compete with each other to offer "value adds" which are really just like traps for vendor lock-in. Anti-trust laws are full of flawed and antiquated reasoning that is unable to deal with the realities of the 21st century marketplace. And there is precious little understanding of these technological issues in courts and legislatures.
- paganel 5y ago
  An oligopoly (i.e. a business cartel) it's just as bad as a monopoly. Even worse, I would say, because on the outside it gives you the illusion of business competition, while with a monopoly you kind of know loud and clear what you're dealing with.
newacct583 5y ago
> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. Microsoft got out of that, though. They barely paid a fine. I don't disagree that there are antitrust concerns with all sorts of big company behavior. But this is the world we live in. If you want the government to regulate this stuff for you you need to elect a government willing to do that (or rather, willing to appoint judges willing to do that).
Jasper_ 5y ago
> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. You're forgetting how that ended. Remember, the DOJ threw the book at Microsoft. It was an intensely publicized trial, with pretty much all the country hating Microsoft and Bill Gates. Waffling over the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email, the Halloween documents and Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. That all came out as part of the DOJ antitrust suit. It's hard to remember how visceral the hate for this was. During the height of that, The Simpsons decided to portray Bill Gates on the show, not positively [0]. A game developer released a title called "Microshaft Winblows 98" to positive reviews and very good sales [1]. The judge makes their final verdict. Microsoft clearly stepped over the line, there were no easy answers. They were too big a company, the only possible remedy is to break them up. Into at least two companies, but probably more; at the very least, the apps and OS needed to be split up into the "Baby Bills", they were going to be called. Then George W. Bush comes in, guts the DOJ to a fifth of their size, and basically all but tells them "never do that again, please". The case quickly and silently went to appeal, where it was reduced from "Microsoft needs to be broken up" into a small fine [2]. And after other tragedies in the early 2000s, the nation quickly forgot. So, no, despite the fanfare, despite the judgement and ruling, the DOJ antitrust case had very limited effect on reality. And the message from above seems to be "try that again, and get your budget demolished even more". That's, uh, why antitrust isn't a thing anymore. Except, well, it did have one effect. In the midst of everything, Bill Gates was basically forced to resign and go into philanthropy to clear their image, resulting in Ballmer taking over. Some believe that was the true punishment for Microsoft. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_SZRhWr1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_SZRhWr1s [2] https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/bush-administration-abandons-court-fight-for-microsoft-breakup-seeks-lesser-penalty/ https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/bush-administration-a...
- macintux 5y ago
  People both inside and outside the company have also asserted that Microsoft was quite gunshy, both during and after the trial. It seems to have had a pretty dramatic impact on their behavior.
- 5y ago
giantrobot 5y ago
A sibling comment pointed out that you're wrong about the Microsoft case. You're also seemingly under informed about monopolies. One of the core issues in the Microsoft case was that they're a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly affects all players in the market because a majority of the players use Microsoft's OS. They used that leverage against Netscape and many other companies. Apple on the other hand has a vertical monopoly, they control the whole stack from hardware to software. While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors. Also while popular iPhones don't have a majority of really any phone market. Antitrust considerations are different for different monopoly types. Unless a company with a vertical monopoly also had a market monopoly position and used that position to actively influence/harm other companies it's really hard to legally pursue them. You can't fault a company for building their own products and trying to make money from selling them. If a Samsung washing machine has some cool feature when paired with a Samsung dryer, just because Samsung has a monopoly on Samsung appliances doesn't mean they're violating some antitrust laws. If anything Google is in bigger danger of antitrust suits since they have a more horizontal position in the phone market. While they have token entries in the hardware market they're an OS and service provider. Which is likely why they're supportive is sideloading and alternate app stores, if they behaved like Apple but with a horizontal monopoly the DoJ would be all over them.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Apple and Google control almost everything. Horizontally.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Yes, HN has had to constantly remind itself that a monopoly doesn't mean literally 100% control of the market and is legally defined in terms of market power.
- radley 5y ago
  > While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors Apple isn't exclusively a hardware/OS company. They compete horizontally with digital media services like Amazon (books), Spotify (music), Netflix (video), etc. They use their OS and APIs to squeeze out weak competitors and suck up to stronger competitors. They make more money from apps than hardware. Keep in mind, it's not just current competitors. It's also the potential competitors that don't even bother to start due to Apple's predatory practices.
Mikeb85 5y ago
You can definitely replace Google's app store, see Chinese phone providers, Samsung App store, sideloading, etc... You can also make any browser the default. Apple I agree with.
AlexCoventry 5y ago
Maybe intent matters. Until now, maybe, there's been nothing demonstrating intent like the "cut off Netscape's air supply" quote the DOJ used in the Microsoft antitrust case.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Look I'm fine punishing Google too, but it has to happen either after Apple or at the same time. Apple literally has banned competitors. Google at least allows them, even if they make every effort to keep them out, it's still possible to install them without hacking your phone (which hasn't really been possible on iPhone for years). I just hate that they're grouped together as if it's equivalent.
agumonkey 5y ago
It's a lot more damning than the MS case because internet impact and integration in ones life was minimal. Today society is hybrid and appstore/googleplay are the digital interface to a boatload of public and private services.

by mard 5y ago

agloeregrets 5y ago

The law sees it as they have been paid and blackmailed to see it. There was a report yesterday that showed Apple's lawyers threatening to pull out funding of a minority education school if the state considered any sort of App store laws.

mercora 5y ago
do you have a source available?
- wayneftw 5y ago
  https://www.imore.com/apple-used-intimidation-and-lot-money-kill-georgia-app-store-bill-says-sponsor https://www.imore.com/apple-used-intimidation-and-lot-money-...
Dracophoenix 5y ago
Wouldn't that be Apple's prerogative? There's no reason to do business in a state that's hostile to your interests or pursuits. That's not blackmail anymore than the attempted Hollywood boycott over Georgia's abortion laws a few years ago. There are plenty of well-documented violations of integrity to accuse Apple of, but using its philanthropic investments as a leverage isn't one of them.
- int_19h 5y ago
  "Leverage" doesn't go along with "philantropic".

ekianjo 5y ago

> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. Regulatory capture.

alex_young 5y ago

Not only does Apple include its own browser, it forces other browsers to use Safari under the hood on iOS.

JCWasmx86 5y ago
Ironically this is the only thing preventing a chromium monopoly with probably >90% of marketshare (Although this restriction is still not that great for the user)
- Xelbair 5y ago
  so if this restriction was gone, it would make everything more sane for customer, while finally dealing with chromium monopoly. sounds like a win-win to me.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    How would a chromium monopoly be a win (for anyone but Google)?
    - tyingq 5y ago
      I think the poster was thinking it would make Google a clear monopoly, making an anti-trust case easier to pursue.
      - Xelbair 5y ago
        exactly this.

tpush 5y ago

The tying claim eventually got dropped from the case, though, since the govt couldn't prove that the harm to competition outweighed the benefits of having a browser built in to the OS.

darkwater 5y ago
Not in Europe though. We had a WinXP version without IE and a prompt at first install to choose the desired browser
- Y_Y 5y ago
  I was really excited about the "browser ballot" when that judgement came through. In the end though it appeared on tragically few installs. I never even saw it in the wild. It was a mess for other reasons too, but it felt at the time like it represented a turning tide against anti-competitive behaviour in software.

intricatedetail 5y ago

You can only explain this by corruption. I think three letter agencies slept on that one... Edit: Not sure why accusation of corruption is downvoted? It's a very difficult crime to prove and requires resources to pursue, so there is no appetite to prosecute. Big companies and civil service know that. If these companies pay off developers, they would have no reason to pay anyone else in their way and that would unlikely result in any consequences.

woofie11 5y ago

Marketshare. The law sees marketshare. * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. * Microsoft had no effective competitors. You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.

throwaway2048 5y ago
In this very document you have Google and Apple claiming that they effectively do not compete in terms of app store pricing policies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
What is Apple's market share for tablets in the US?
realusername 5y ago
> * Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly. [source needed]. The only tariff change Apple ever made was ... due to a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. And Google followed straight away. I can't recall any competition between both companies, they just have their own distinct market.
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.
  - realusername 5y ago
    In theory I do agree, competition between both could exist. In practice though it does not happen. There's some pretty clear market collusion.

jasode 5y ago

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate. Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.) The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocumented Windows API functions to cripple Netscape and forcing computer manufacturers to avoid other software when licensing DOS/Windows. All of that is in the long document: https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

NorwegianDude 5y ago
His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut. This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Does it make a difference that Apple is the hardware manufacturer, whereas Microsoft just provides the OS for PCs in general?
  - H8crilA 5y ago
    You mean Apple's monopoly position is even stronger because they can put roadblocks at the hardware level? :)
    - roenxi 5y ago
      The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat. In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.

wslh 5y ago

> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. In these cases, generally, the law acts when other parties push it. Mainly big actors. The app stores are generally build by those major actors. May be regulations will happen in several years.

dekhn 5y ago

you're mixing up the details of the MSFT lawsuit. Also, there's nothing antitrust about bundling web DLLs in an OS, or using the web shell for applications. That's what a Chromebook did. What MSFT did was abuse its monopoly position to take advantage of other companies and customers.

mard 5y ago
Fair enough. Merely bundling some software was not a violation by itself, but that bundling was also additionally reinforced with "concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications barrier to entry", which caused "consumer harm by distorting competition" [1]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact#vii https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

dalbasal 5y ago

>>I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint. Let's make a point of starting here. There's room for the legalistic standpoint, especially if we're trying to understand legal processes... but this isn't a law forum. It's near impossible to discuss antitrust usefully from a mostly-legalistic perspective. The laws, precedents, legal doctrines and economic doctrines they relate to are extremely patchy, flimsy and often barely exist. I think a core part of the problem is a weak, badly grounded antitrust framework in the first place. Key definitions like "monopoly" use contradictory conceptual frameworks, from different eras. Generalizing from one instance to another is difficult. A lot of key concepts don't have definitions at all, or really wishy washy ones. I think the nature of monopolies has a lot to do with this. One possible definition of monopoly is an singular market entity... IE not generalizable, by definition. Are courts supposed to be punishing violations, or structuring markets and doing industrial policy? Are they supposed to be regulating monopolies, preventing them, or declaring their existence so that a different set of regulations kick in? Is monopoly a normal occurrence in market maturity, or market failure? At some point, Peter Thiel gave away the game when he said that "monopoly is the goal." If you read microeconomics basics, but conceptualize it as software companies instead of a auto manufacturing... you tend to think of monopoly, rather than commoditization as the equilibrium point that's never quite reached. Successful tech companies don't try to make money by competing in a level field with lots of competitors. That's for appstore app developers, salesforce plugin consultants, spotify artists and such. The whole premise of the tech miracle is that monopolies are the bull case. How else to expect/justify/realize tech company valuations. Imagine pitching an investor like Thiel on your idea to spend a billion dollars making youtube content for ad revenue? That's all wrong. Your bull case is that you'll temporarily profitable, if successful. Even if you're very profitable, its temporary. There are zillions of youtubers and squillions who could be. They'll copy you, or maybe your content will just get stale over time. A youtube policy change could wipe you out. In the turbulence of youtube's free market for online videos, profits don't last at scale. To get Thiel's attention, you need to go for your own monopoly. "Commoditize your compliments" has long been a tech motto. Well... what's the corrolorary? Monopolize your market segment. Commoditize PCs. Monopolize the OS. Commoditize smartphones. Monopolize the OS. Monopolize consoles, Commoditize games. Platform/Content. Market/Vending. Users/Advertising. Data/Advertising.

Andrex 5y ago

The MS decision got gutted on appeal, which merely emboldened the monopolistic practices which developed since the dot-com boom.

crazygringo 5y ago

The different is crystal clear. Microsoft was considered a monopoly. You really had no good choice but Windows. Apple and Google aren't. You have a choice between iOS and Android, both vibrant and thriving. It really is that simple. And it's not just the legal but common sense definition of monopoly too -- do you control the market or not? Now you might have other criticisms of app stores, but basing them on the Microsoft-monopoly-argument isn't going to be helpful or useful. You're going to need a different legal foundation for that.

bobmaxup 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly
titzer 5y ago
The monopoly criterion is so outmoded. Anti-trust laws were enacted to counter organizations that cornered basic things like steel, railroads, power, communications, etc. 100 years ago, almost everything they could imagine was a commodity that was easily replaceable. But app platforms are not commodities. There is considerable vendor lock-in, by design. It's not like one just takes an iOS app and instantly ports it over to Android when Apple's terms no longer suit; there is considerable sunk cost. Platforms cleave the market into captive audiences that can and are abused. And what to do if you are little guy who invested everything in one of those two platforms and didn't have the foresight to write your app in a way that it was easily ported? Well, screw you. So these platforms actually compete with each other to offer "value adds" which are really just like traps for vendor lock-in. Anti-trust laws are full of flawed and antiquated reasoning that is unable to deal with the realities of the 21st century marketplace. And there is precious little understanding of these technological issues in courts and legislatures.
paganel 5y ago
An oligopoly (i.e. a business cartel) it's just as bad as a monopoly. Even worse, I would say, because on the outside it gives you the illusion of business competition, while with a monopoly you kind of know loud and clear what you're dealing with.

newacct583 5y ago

> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. Microsoft got out of that, though. They barely paid a fine. I don't disagree that there are antitrust concerns with all sorts of big company behavior. But this is the world we live in. If you want the government to regulate this stuff for you you need to elect a government willing to do that (or rather, willing to appoint judges willing to do that).

Jasper_ 5y ago

> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system. You're forgetting how that ended. Remember, the DOJ threw the book at Microsoft. It was an intensely publicized trial, with pretty much all the country hating Microsoft and Bill Gates. Waffling over the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email, the Halloween documents and Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. That all came out as part of the DOJ antitrust suit. It's hard to remember how visceral the hate for this was. During the height of that, The Simpsons decided to portray Bill Gates on the show, not positively [0]. A game developer released a title called "Microshaft Winblows 98" to positive reviews and very good sales [1]. The judge makes their final verdict. Microsoft clearly stepped over the line, there were no easy answers. They were too big a company, the only possible remedy is to break them up. Into at least two companies, but probably more; at the very least, the apps and OS needed to be split up into the "Baby Bills", they were going to be called. Then George W. Bush comes in, guts the DOJ to a fifth of their size, and basically all but tells them "never do that again, please". The case quickly and silently went to appeal, where it was reduced from "Microsoft needs to be broken up" into a small fine [2]. And after other tragedies in the early 2000s, the nation quickly forgot. So, no, despite the fanfare, despite the judgement and ruling, the DOJ antitrust case had very limited effect on reality. And the message from above seems to be "try that again, and get your budget demolished even more". That's, uh, why antitrust isn't a thing anymore. Except, well, it did have one effect. In the midst of everything, Bill Gates was basically forced to resign and go into philanthropy to clear their image, resulting in Ballmer taking over. Some believe that was the true punishment for Microsoft. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_SZRhWr1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_SZRhWr1s [2] https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/bush-administration-abandons-court-fight-for-microsoft-breakup-seeks-lesser-penalty/ https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/bush-administration-a...

macintux 5y ago
People both inside and outside the company have also asserted that Microsoft was quite gunshy, both during and after the trial. It seems to have had a pretty dramatic impact on their behavior.
5y ago

giantrobot 5y ago

A sibling comment pointed out that you're wrong about the Microsoft case. You're also seemingly under informed about monopolies. One of the core issues in the Microsoft case was that they're a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly affects all players in the market because a majority of the players use Microsoft's OS. They used that leverage against Netscape and many other companies. Apple on the other hand has a vertical monopoly, they control the whole stack from hardware to software. While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors. Also while popular iPhones don't have a majority of really any phone market. Antitrust considerations are different for different monopoly types. Unless a company with a vertical monopoly also had a market monopoly position and used that position to actively influence/harm other companies it's really hard to legally pursue them. You can't fault a company for building their own products and trying to make money from selling them. If a Samsung washing machine has some cool feature when paired with a Samsung dryer, just because Samsung has a monopoly on Samsung appliances doesn't mean they're violating some antitrust laws. If anything Google is in bigger danger of antitrust suits since they have a more horizontal position in the phone market. While they have token entries in the hardware market they're an OS and service provider. Which is likely why they're supportive is sideloading and alternate app stores, if they behaved like Apple but with a horizontal monopoly the DoJ would be all over them.

Dylan16807 5y ago
Apple and Google control almost everything. Horizontally.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Yes, HN has had to constantly remind itself that a monopoly doesn't mean literally 100% control of the market and is legally defined in terms of market power.
radley 5y ago
> While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors Apple isn't exclusively a hardware/OS company. They compete horizontally with digital media services like Amazon (books), Spotify (music), Netflix (video), etc. They use their OS and APIs to squeeze out weak competitors and suck up to stronger competitors. They make more money from apps than hardware. Keep in mind, it's not just current competitors. It's also the potential competitors that don't even bother to start due to Apple's predatory practices.

Mikeb85 5y ago

You can definitely replace Google's app store, see Chinese phone providers, Samsung App store, sideloading, etc... You can also make any browser the default. Apple I agree with.

AlexCoventry 5y ago

Maybe intent matters. Until now, maybe, there's been nothing demonstrating intent like the "cut off Netscape's air supply" quote the DOJ used in the Microsoft antitrust case.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

Look I'm fine punishing Google too, but it has to happen either after Apple or at the same time. Apple literally has banned competitors. Google at least allows them, even if they make every effort to keep them out, it's still possible to install them without hacking your phone (which hasn't really been possible on iPhone for years). I just hate that they're grouped together as if it's equivalent.

agumonkey 5y ago

It's a lot more damning than the MS case because internet impact and integration in ones life was minimal. Today society is hybrid and appstore/googleplay are the digital interface to a boatload of public and private services.