4 ms·

It’s odd that today Google (in this case) but others as well, can get away with more than Microsoft did in the late ‘90s but the DoJ doesn’t make a peep.

• otherotherchris 5y ago
  ChromeOS currently has a 3% market share. Microsoft had 95% during the end of the Clinton administration. Google's consumer hostile behavior is kneecapping any chance they have at future market dominance, it's entirely self correcting.
  • santoshalper 5y ago
    I hope you're right. It feels like Google has an awful lot of power over the future of the internet a the moment.
    • jimbokun 5y ago
      Yes, but ChromeOS is a relatively minor part of that power. Controlling search, Android, Chrome as the dominant browser, and YouTube are much bigger parts of their power over the Internet than ChromeOS.
      • opan 5y ago
        ChromeOS also appears heavily at school where kids are now growing up being forced to use it. (Not going for a "think of the children" thing, more like imprinting) I think there's a Google Classroom thing as well.
  • mc32 5y ago
    Much of the case rested on how tightly the browser was woven into Windows —that MS was preventing competition in the browser space (via the strong arming tactics) but the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration.
    • jimbokun 5y ago
      That was only an issue because it was used as a deliberate tactic to prevent Netscape Navigator from competing with Internet Explorer. Which was challenged because of Microsoft's monopoly position. Tight browser integration was not illegal in and of itself.
    • mason55 5y ago
      > the “bad thing” they did was the tight browser integration. It's true, but it was only "bad" in the eyes of the law because of their monopoly. If Microsoft hadn't had a monopoly then their strong arm tactics would have been fine. No one would care if I went to Dell and said "you can only sell computers with my OS on them if you also include my browser." In the US you can be anti-competitive if you don't have a monopoly and you can have a monopoly as long as you don't engage in anti-competitive behavior. It's only when you have a monopoly AND engage in anti-competitive behavior that you get in trouble.
• coldtea 5y ago
  Well, in this case they don't get away with anything of the same nature. Microsoft: abuse market monopoly status () to force and scare OEMs into special bundling deals (*). () Chrome OS, iOS: not monopoly status - "monopoly for this brand+device" doesn't count, unless the device has the monopoly of its market. Microsoft had aroun 98% of the desktop (*) Google, Apple: don't do that. And even if they did it, they're not monopolies in laptops/tablets, so they could just as well did it, and it wouldn't be the same legally as what MS did.
  • emodendroket 5y ago
    How meaningful is the distinction, honestly? What are you going to do, buy the tablet that's totally open? Is there one?
    • jimbokun 5y ago
      I don't think "totally open" is an enforceable legal concept, so what do you expect the courts to do to fix this problem? Anti-trust law is long standing with lots of precedent to work off of, so it had a natural application to the Microsoft case.
    • powersnail 5y ago
      It's a fairly meaningful distinction in the context of grandparent comment which talks about DOJ not pursuing Google/Apple for this specific fault, since the Microsoft case was one about abusing their monopoly position.
      • emodendroket 5y ago
        Sure, it's more that I think antitrust is not really that meaningful a remedy.
  • newhotelowner 5y ago
    Tablet market - One could argue that apple has monopoly in the tablet market, and you can't install any other browser.