7 ms·

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disa

The vertical monopolies enjoyed by tech behemoths are absurd. Ever since the Internet Explorer antitrust case [1] it should be clear that things like Apple disallowing other browsers in iOS or Google promoting its own sites in search results are illegal and anticompetitive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

threeseed 4y ago
Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is available on all platforms and has such dominant market share. People really need to be more careful with this because it could make the web less private, less secure, less driven by a spec and more beholden to Google's interests at the time.
- abirch 4y ago
  I thought you could change your search engine. I just did it on my iPad: Setting > Safari > Search Engine https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/09/duckduckgo/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/09/duckduckgo/
  - coder543 4y ago
    The comment you replied to did not mention search engines at all. Yes, you can change your default search engine.
    - abirch 4y ago
      You're right. I misread browser engine as search engine.
  - richardsocher 4y ago
    That won't work for any up and coming search engine. They're not allowing you.com or any other smaller search engine that can't afford it.
- tehlike 4y ago
  Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast
  - gbear605 4y ago
    The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.
    - tehlike 4y ago
      Push notifications exists in app and it's easy to categorically disable it. I am absolutely happy that i have a few pwas installed on my phone that lets me do stuff on phone and desktop together. The fact that i had to/have to install an app (zoom, etc) to accept a conference call is sad.
    - tylerhou 4y ago
      I'd rather enable push notifications on a website than have to install a whole new app if I want them.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      If push notifications are so bad why does every mobile app spam me with them? All of these things "users don't want" are right there for use in App Store apps. They're only held back from the browser because they want you to give them 30%. In some cases they literally added features to Safari but restricted them for use in advertisements only (WebGL for one example, IIRC) because the features aren't the problem, the problem is developers accessing customers without paying 30%.
      - gbear605 4y ago
        Many push notifications are spam that developers want to send and users don’t actually care about. But more than that, the fact that you actually downloaded an app is much higher proof that you want to get notifications than just going to a site and clicking yes on a dialog. Dialogs basically mean nothing because users will just click yes without thinking about it.
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  If you believe the only reason people are using and developing for Safari is because of Apple's monopoly, then that's a real cost or harm to users and developers isn't it? Compared to a theoretical or possible cost of a Chrome monopoly that may not happen. And if it does, then that's what antitrust is for. I don't want to give Apple a monopoly to protect me from a different monopoly. I want to give power to antitrust to protect me from all monopolies, include Apple's and Google's.
huitzitziltzin 4y ago
I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  What do you prefer? Vertically bundling monopsonies?
  - gweinberg 4y ago
    A monopsony is something completely different. A monopoly is a single seller, a monopsony is a single buyer.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      ^oligopoly
- geysersam 4y ago
  Maybe the words as used in court don't reflect the generally understood meaning well. Controlling and overcharging use of (one of the few) roads to the market, even in the case there are other roads farther away, and you can build your own road at an incredibly unfeasible cost, is what most people understand as a monopoly situation. Arguably this is what Apple and Google are doing when they charge exorbitant fees from developers targeting their platform.
- Hellbanevil 4y ago
  When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. No not monopolies like we had like the Bell telephone, but we have 2-3 huge companies that collude and stifle competition. Proving collusion is hard these days though. Too many fresh faced MBA's who are atheists. (I'm a Watch Repairer. I can't buy parts from The Swatch Group, or Reichmont. Why do we even have The Sherman Anti-trust Act if it's never used? I'm not saying dissolve these obvious conglomerations, but let's not encourage them. Why was ATT and T-Mobile allowed to combine. To tired to go on, but tired of ogliopolyssssss.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dontbenebby 4y ago
Google literally positioned the Chrome team in the SF office building shared by Mozilla, then did PR stunts like baking cakes and crap to create pretext to poach key employees to cripple the org. Originally the intent was they were a search company, that would pay well, and folks could donate to charities... like Mozilla. Then they decided to start their own browser, and... well here we are today.

threeseed 4y ago

Apple allows other browsers. They don't allow other browser engines. And I actually don't see how cementing the Chrome engine's dominance on iOS as well as other platforms is good for the web. Because inevitably that is what will happen as just like in the IE days, websites will only work on that browser as it offers the most proprietary features. And why would you develop for multiple browsers when Chrome is available on all platforms and has such dominant market share. People really need to be more careful with this because it could make the web less private, less secure, less driven by a spec and more beholden to Google's interests at the time.

abirch 4y ago
I thought you could change your search engine. I just did it on my iPad: Setting > Safari > Search Engine https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/09/duckduckgo/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/09/duckduckgo/
- coder543 4y ago
  The comment you replied to did not mention search engines at all. Yes, you can change your default search engine.
  - abirch 4y ago
    You're right. I misread browser engine as search engine.
- richardsocher 4y ago
  That won't work for any up and coming search engine. They're not allowing you.com or any other smaller search engine that can't afford it.
tehlike 4y ago
Safari on mobile has lagged behind standards for a long time, because doing so wouldn't strengthen their app business. E.g. webrtc. Safari still lags behind many things. When you call people to be careful, you are missing the conflict apple has internally. Between the two, i choose chrome any day of the week because that's what allowed web to progress this fast
- gbear605 4y ago
  The web has been progressing too fast, and most of the things that Safari has held back on are features that developers want but users don’t, like push notifications.
  - tehlike 4y ago
    Push notifications exists in app and it's easy to categorically disable it. I am absolutely happy that i have a few pwas installed on my phone that lets me do stuff on phone and desktop together. The fact that i had to/have to install an app (zoom, etc) to accept a conference call is sad.
  - tylerhou 4y ago
    I'd rather enable push notifications on a website than have to install a whole new app if I want them.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    If push notifications are so bad why does every mobile app spam me with them? All of these things "users don't want" are right there for use in App Store apps. They're only held back from the browser because they want you to give them 30%. In some cases they literally added features to Safari but restricted them for use in advertisements only (WebGL for one example, IIRC) because the features aren't the problem, the problem is developers accessing customers without paying 30%.
    - gbear605 4y ago
      Many push notifications are spam that developers want to send and users don’t actually care about. But more than that, the fact that you actually downloaded an app is much higher proof that you want to get notifications than just going to a site and clicking yes on a dialog. Dialogs basically mean nothing because users will just click yes without thinking about it.
ThatPlayer 4y ago
If you believe the only reason people are using and developing for Safari is because of Apple's monopoly, then that's a real cost or harm to users and developers isn't it? Compared to a theoretical or possible cost of a Chrome monopoly that may not happen. And if it does, then that's what antitrust is for. I don't want to give Apple a monopoly to protect me from a different monopoly. I want to give power to antitrust to protect me from all monopolies, include Apple's and Google's.

huitzitziltzin 4y ago

I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. It doesn’t do anyone any good to call any of these firms “monopolies.” It’s not accurate, not for any of them. Nor was monopoly the issue in the Microsoft case (that was about bundling). There may be reasons to look at antitrust law and to change it with some of these firms and their behaviors in mind but “vertical monopoly” isn’t an accurate characterization of any of them.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
What do you prefer? Vertically bundling monopsonies?
- gweinberg 4y ago
  A monopsony is something completely different. A monopoly is a single seller, a monopsony is a single buyer.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    ^oligopoly
geysersam 4y ago
Maybe the words as used in court don't reflect the generally understood meaning well. Controlling and overcharging use of (one of the few) roads to the market, even in the case there are other roads farther away, and you can build your own road at an incredibly unfeasible cost, is what most people understand as a monopoly situation. Arguably this is what Apple and Google are doing when they charge exorbitant fees from developers targeting their platform.
Hellbanevil 4y ago
When a company can loose money on a competiting company just to drive the competing company out of business; I call that a monopoly. No not monopolies like we had like the Bell telephone, but we have 2-3 huge companies that collude and stifle competition. Proving collusion is hard these days though. Too many fresh faced MBA's who are atheists. (I'm a Watch Repairer. I can't buy parts from The Swatch Group, or Reichmont. Why do we even have The Sherman Anti-trust Act if it's never used? I'm not saying dissolve these obvious conglomerations, but let's not encourage them. Why was ATT and T-Mobile allowed to combine. To tired to go on, but tired of ogliopolyssssss.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dontbenebby 4y ago

Google literally positioned the Chrome team in the SF office building shared by Mozilla, then did PR stunts like baking cakes and crap to create pretext to poach key employees to cripple the org. Originally the intent was they were a search company, that would pay well, and folks could donate to charities... like Mozilla. Then they decided to start their own browser, and... well here we are today.