4 ms·

I don't understand why Apple seems to get a pass for anti competitive behavior. Microsoft lost that anti trust lawsuit for merely including IE in Windows. Appl

I don't understand why Apple seems to get a pass for anti competitive behavior. Microsoft lost that anti trust lawsuit for merely including IE in Windows. Apple not only bundles safari, but they don't let you use any other browser.

orev 4y ago
Antitrust applies only to companies in a monopoly position. Microsoft is/was a monopoly at the time. Apple is not a monopoly, even today.
- robgibbons 4y ago
  Being anti-competitive does not require a monopoly. That said, iOS accounts for 57% of the US market. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, and is a market leader by any measure
  - orev 4y ago
    dahfizz is comparing Apple’s (allegedly) anti-competitive behavior to Microsoft’s anti-trust violations, drawing a false equivalency between to two (possibly by misunderstanding the difference). I’m clarifying the difference. Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly. It doesn’t matter if Apple is a “rich market leader”. 57% does not make them a monopoly, and therefor the legal level of criminal anti-competitive behavior doesn’t apply.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      > Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly But as the person you are replying to was trying to explain this is not true. Being anticompetitive is always a crime. Regulators don’t go after small players because it’s hard to show they significantly harm the market but it is illegal at any size.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Apple has monopoly power, and engages in anticompetitive behavior. Being a monopoly in the US is not illegal. Abusing your market power and being anti-competitive in a way that harms consumers is illegal. Apple is one of the world's largest companies. They shouldn't get a pass to be anti-consumer just because they don't own 51% of a certain market. I would argue that "iphone users" instead of broadly "cellphone users" is its own market, but that is really besides the point. A monopoly in the academic sense is not needed for monopoly power to exist.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Fortunately, we have real judges and real lawyers who have argued the case in a real court of law during the Epic trial. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly according to the judge. It definitely doesn’t have a monopoly in the phone market with 60% share. Epic lawyers tried your argument that Apple had a monopoly on their own hardware and she immediately threw the argument out as nonsensical. Every manufacturer has a “monopoly” on their own product. No one would argue that Spotify is monopolistic because they own their own platform.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  The bar to cross to be liable to being sued for anticompetitive behaviour is far lower than being a monopoly. The EU has charged Apple with anticompetitive behaviours multiple times regarding IAP and Apple Pay.
snowwrestler 4y ago
Microsoft did not lose "for merely including IE in Windows." They lost because they were a supplier to computer manufacturers and tried to interfere with other suppliers. Bundling IE was a tactic in service of the crime but not the crime itself.
alluro2 4y ago
Opened comments to ask exactly that - not only they bundle the browser with an OS and make it hard to choose another one, that "other one" can only be a skin atop their limited and completely controlled and proprietary engine, if that skin wants to have access to OS install base. It's definitely much worse than Microsoft / IE. Does anyone have insight into why is Apple excluded from legal scrutiny here?
- scarface74 4y ago
  There has never been a case where a manufacture couldn’t have what they wanted on their own hardware. That’s like saying TVs can’t bundle their pen apps and must allow any third party app. There is a gross misunderstanding of what the MS case involved and how little came out of the case.
  - colonwqbang 4y ago
    "Their own hardware" as in the hardware that is owned by the customer who purchased it, or by the manufacturer who sold it? You're writing almost as if you believe the latter.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Their own platform I guess would be a better way of putting it. No one is going to say that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox), Sony, smart TV manufacturers etc what they can and can’t bundle with the operating system they ship with the hardware.
scarface74 4y ago
They did not “lose” based on bundling the browser. They lost because they forced third party OEMs to pay for Windows licenses even for computers that weren’t shipped for windows. They no more lost for bundling a browser than they lost for bundling Solitaire.
Jasper_ 4y ago
They lost the antitrust lawsuit bad... and then got it reduced to a minor settlement a few months later once the Bush presidency came in. The DOJ now knows that even the most spectacular fireworks display won't make a damn difference, and haven't bothered trying since.
thefz 4y ago
Because they can buy the law. What's a couple hundred thousand fee for them? Pay and keep on doing the same.
bee_rider 4y ago
It could be that legislators and regulators are stuck in the 10 years ago framing, where Apple is basically an also-ran and Microsoft is the big tech company. Or it could be that the fact that Apple presents their product as "a device" rather than software somehow messes with the mental model.

orev 4y ago

Antitrust applies only to companies in a monopoly position. Microsoft is/was a monopoly at the time. Apple is not a monopoly, even today.

robgibbons 4y ago
Being anti-competitive does not require a monopoly. That said, iOS accounts for 57% of the US market. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, and is a market leader by any measure
- orev 4y ago
  dahfizz is comparing Apple’s (allegedly) anti-competitive behavior to Microsoft’s anti-trust violations, drawing a false equivalency between to two (possibly by misunderstanding the difference). I’m clarifying the difference. Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly. It doesn’t matter if Apple is a “rich market leader”. 57% does not make them a monopoly, and therefor the legal level of criminal anti-competitive behavior doesn’t apply.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > Being anti-competitive is not a crime unless one is doing it as a monopoly But as the person you are replying to was trying to explain this is not true. Being anticompetitive is always a crime. Regulators don’t go after small players because it’s hard to show they significantly harm the market but it is illegal at any size.
dahfizz 4y ago
Apple has monopoly power, and engages in anticompetitive behavior. Being a monopoly in the US is not illegal. Abusing your market power and being anti-competitive in a way that harms consumers is illegal. Apple is one of the world's largest companies. They shouldn't get a pass to be anti-consumer just because they don't own 51% of a certain market. I would argue that "iphone users" instead of broadly "cellphone users" is its own market, but that is really besides the point. A monopoly in the academic sense is not needed for monopoly power to exist.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Fortunately, we have real judges and real lawyers who have argued the case in a real court of law during the Epic trial. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly according to the judge. It definitely doesn’t have a monopoly in the phone market with 60% share. Epic lawyers tried your argument that Apple had a monopoly on their own hardware and she immediately threw the argument out as nonsensical. Every manufacturer has a “monopoly” on their own product. No one would argue that Spotify is monopolistic because they own their own platform.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
The bar to cross to be liable to being sued for anticompetitive behaviour is far lower than being a monopoly. The EU has charged Apple with anticompetitive behaviours multiple times regarding IAP and Apple Pay.

snowwrestler 4y ago

Microsoft did not lose "for merely including IE in Windows." They lost because they were a supplier to computer manufacturers and tried to interfere with other suppliers. Bundling IE was a tactic in service of the crime but not the crime itself.

alluro2 4y ago

Opened comments to ask exactly that - not only they bundle the browser with an OS and make it hard to choose another one, that "other one" can only be a skin atop their limited and completely controlled and proprietary engine, if that skin wants to have access to OS install base. It's definitely much worse than Microsoft / IE. Does anyone have insight into why is Apple excluded from legal scrutiny here?

scarface74 4y ago
There has never been a case where a manufacture couldn’t have what they wanted on their own hardware. That’s like saying TVs can’t bundle their pen apps and must allow any third party app. There is a gross misunderstanding of what the MS case involved and how little came out of the case.
- colonwqbang 4y ago
  "Their own hardware" as in the hardware that is owned by the customer who purchased it, or by the manufacturer who sold it? You're writing almost as if you believe the latter.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Their own platform I guess would be a better way of putting it. No one is going to say that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox), Sony, smart TV manufacturers etc what they can and can’t bundle with the operating system they ship with the hardware.

scarface74 4y ago

They did not “lose” based on bundling the browser. They lost because they forced third party OEMs to pay for Windows licenses even for computers that weren’t shipped for windows. They no more lost for bundling a browser than they lost for bundling Solitaire.

Jasper_ 4y ago

They lost the antitrust lawsuit bad... and then got it reduced to a minor settlement a few months later once the Bush presidency came in. The DOJ now knows that even the most spectacular fireworks display won't make a damn difference, and haven't bothered trying since.

thefz 4y ago

Because they can buy the law. What's a couple hundred thousand fee for them? Pay and keep on doing the same.

bee_rider 4y ago

It could be that legislators and regulators are stuck in the 10 years ago framing, where Apple is basically an also-ran and Microsoft is the big tech company. Or it could be that the fact that Apple presents their product as "a device" rather than software somehow messes with the mental model.