4 ms·

Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not se

Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors. Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration. Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.

zug_zug 3y ago
I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.
- Spivak 3y ago
  You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  They did address it by explaining why it's not only not worse, but different. Microsoft to OEMs: you can only put our OS on the devices you sell if you make IE the default. Without Windows, PC makers knew they had no market to sell to because there was no viable alternative OS being demanded by consumers (hence the asserted monopoly position of Microsoft). They were restraining other business from engaging alternatives from competing browser makers. Apple: we build our messaging product, in our OS, on our devices There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers How do you install Android or some other OS competitor on an iPhone, or install iOS on a Samsung or Google device? > and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc. Only with Apple's blessing, which they then deny for competing payment systems, browser engines, app stores etc. And iMessage is still the default.
    - mckn1ght 3y ago
      > How do you install Android or some other OS competitor on an iPhone, or install iOS on a Samsung or Google device? You don’t, you either choose to buy an Android or an iPhone. This is like asking why I can’t go to Princeton but have my favorite Stanford professor come teach my class, or why I can’t play CS:GO inside Mario Party. Life is full of tradeoffs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too all the time.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > This is like asking why I can’t go to Princeton but have my favorite Stanford professor come teach my class You can do that. You just convince them to teach the class at Princeton. Professors move from one school to another all the time. You can also go take a class at one school while attending another if you want to do that, and the other school will not only not stand in your way, you'll generally get transfer credit. > or why I can’t play CS:GO inside Mario Party. These are two different games. The example you're looking for is that you can't play Mario Party on a PlayStation. But that's barely even an analogy, it's just the same situation -- why shouldn't you be able to play Mario Party on a PlayStation except for nefarious anticompetitive BS? This is distinct from technical capability. If you can't play Mario Party on a Sega Genesis because it only has 64KB of RAM, too bad. But if you can't play it on <whatever device> even though you paid for it solely because of some anti-competitive lock-in even if the hardware is capable and you're willing to e.g. create a compatibility layer, that's something else.
- sbuk 3y ago
  You may have a point with regards to Webkit, however even that is potentially tenuous. The difference that you are missing, and that was addressed is how Microsoft levereged their market postion in the OS market (>85% in the late 1990's) to stop vendors and OEM pre-packaging an alternative browser; USA vs Microsoft was never about IE being bundled - that came later and that was the EU - it was always about how they killed the main competitor to their browser with threats. * Edited for spelling
- matwood 3y ago
  Not even remotely the same with the biggest difference being that MS was telling other business to shut out competitors or lose access to Windows, which at the time was pretty much required for computing. If MS had its own hardware, they would have been free to do what they wanted with it. In fact, Apple will like argue (and has successfully already in the Epic case) that it's the entire ecosystem that the courts have to look at and not any single feature. And at an ecosystem level there is a huge competitor in Android. Apple forcing webkit for example is Apple's choice as they control the entire platform. If they licensed iOS, then it would become harder to make that claim.

zug_zug 3y ago

I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.

Spivak 3y ago
You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
mckn1ght 3y ago
They did address it by explaining why it's not only not worse, but different. Microsoft to OEMs: you can only put our OS on the devices you sell if you make IE the default. Without Windows, PC makers knew they had no market to sell to because there was no viable alternative OS being demanded by consumers (hence the asserted monopoly position of Microsoft). They were restraining other business from engaging alternatives from competing browser makers. Apple: we build our messaging product, in our OS, on our devices There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers How do you install Android or some other OS competitor on an iPhone, or install iOS on a Samsung or Google device? > and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc. Only with Apple's blessing, which they then deny for competing payment systems, browser engines, app stores etc. And iMessage is still the default.
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    > How do you install Android or some other OS competitor on an iPhone, or install iOS on a Samsung or Google device? You don’t, you either choose to buy an Android or an iPhone. This is like asking why I can’t go to Princeton but have my favorite Stanford professor come teach my class, or why I can’t play CS:GO inside Mario Party. Life is full of tradeoffs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too all the time.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > This is like asking why I can’t go to Princeton but have my favorite Stanford professor come teach my class You can do that. You just convince them to teach the class at Princeton. Professors move from one school to another all the time. You can also go take a class at one school while attending another if you want to do that, and the other school will not only not stand in your way, you'll generally get transfer credit. > or why I can’t play CS:GO inside Mario Party. These are two different games. The example you're looking for is that you can't play Mario Party on a PlayStation. But that's barely even an analogy, it's just the same situation -- why shouldn't you be able to play Mario Party on a PlayStation except for nefarious anticompetitive BS? This is distinct from technical capability. If you can't play Mario Party on a Sega Genesis because it only has 64KB of RAM, too bad. But if you can't play it on <whatever device> even though you paid for it solely because of some anti-competitive lock-in even if the hardware is capable and you're willing to e.g. create a compatibility layer, that's something else.
sbuk 3y ago
You may have a point with regards to Webkit, however even that is potentially tenuous. The difference that you are missing, and that was addressed is how Microsoft levereged their market postion in the OS market (>85% in the late 1990's) to stop vendors and OEM pre-packaging an alternative browser; USA vs Microsoft was never about IE being bundled - that came later and that was the EU - it was always about how they killed the main competitor to their browser with threats. * Edited for spelling
matwood 3y ago
Not even remotely the same with the biggest difference being that MS was telling other business to shut out competitors or lose access to Windows, which at the time was pretty much required for computing. If MS had its own hardware, they would have been free to do what they wanted with it. In fact, Apple will like argue (and has successfully already in the Epic case) that it's the entire ecosystem that the courts have to look at and not any single feature. And at an ecosystem level there is a huge competitor in Android. Apple forcing webkit for example is Apple's choice as they control the entire platform. If they licensed iOS, then it would become harder to make that claim.