4 ms·

but the central issue in US vs. Microsoft at the time was the bundling of their own browser with their operating system. i'm not saying that there weren't other

but the central issue in US vs. Microsoft at the time was the bundling of their own browser with their operating system. i'm not saying that there weren't other anticompetitive practices going on at the time. but apple essentially does the same thing with safari, and there are some instances with OSX where one can't override the default browser with another. it's curious that the US gov't isn't going after apple for predatory practices in this case. i guess it's due to the fact that OSX still has a very small market share, overall. but consider another case where it doesn't ... iOS. apple is essentially guilty [to a larger extent] of the same thing microsoft was convicted for. last time i checked, there were no alternate browsers available in iOS because apple's licensing terms strictly prohibit it. the closest anyone has come is opera. am i mistaken?

WalterBright 15y ago
I never understood what was wrong with bundling the browser with the OS. Every OS comes with a bundled browser, including Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OS X, the iPod, the Kindle, darn near everything. I'm annoyed that there's no bundled browser in my Roku box.
- blrgeek 15y ago
  They were not convicted for giving a browser free with their OS. They forced their OEMs to supply with only IE, and not with Netscape. If the OEMs supplied with Netscape they would lose volume discounts & mktg money. Since no OEM could sell without MS, and losing the discounts would be death in a super price competitive market, this essentially meant Netscape couldn't use the same OEM channel to market. That's misusing a monopoly to enter a different market. And that's what they were convicted of.
beagle3 15y ago
"Predatory practices" or whatever you want to call bundling stuff with the operating system - is not against the law. UNLESS you are using a monopoly you have in one field, to further a monopoly in another. Which is what Microsoft were doing (as decided by courts). Lookup "antitrust" and "sherman act" for the US legislature, but similar laws exist in all western countries. Apple never had such a monopoly position. Some "smart" people claim that apple has 100% monopoly on selling Apple products, and should thus be subject to similar antitrust provisions. Apple now has ~10% market share of personal computers. Microsoft at the time had >90% market share. That's why they they were regulated. Not just because they were anticompetitive.

WalterBright 15y ago

I never understood what was wrong with bundling the browser with the OS. Every OS comes with a bundled browser, including Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OS X, the iPod, the Kindle, darn near everything. I'm annoyed that there's no bundled browser in my Roku box.

blrgeek 15y ago
They were not convicted for giving a browser free with their OS. They forced their OEMs to supply with only IE, and not with Netscape. If the OEMs supplied with Netscape they would lose volume discounts & mktg money. Since no OEM could sell without MS, and losing the discounts would be death in a super price competitive market, this essentially meant Netscape couldn't use the same OEM channel to market. That's misusing a monopoly to enter a different market. And that's what they were convicted of.

beagle3 15y ago

"Predatory practices" or whatever you want to call bundling stuff with the operating system - is not against the law. UNLESS you are using a monopoly you have in one field, to further a monopoly in another. Which is what Microsoft were doing (as decided by courts). Lookup "antitrust" and "sherman act" for the US legislature, but similar laws exist in all western countries. Apple never had such a monopoly position. Some "smart" people claim that apple has 100% monopoly on selling Apple products, and should thus be subject to similar antitrust provisions. Apple now has ~10% market share of personal computers. Microsoft at the time had >90% market share. That's why they they were regulated. Not just because they were anticompetitive.