3 ms·

It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all. 2. They don't have the same operating system market share t

It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all. 2. They don't have the same operating system market share they used to either (specifically, they lost the mobile space - which is how majority of people in the world access the internet). 3. It's easier to use another browser now on Windows then back when it was at its worst in 00s (where IE was more or less part of explorer.exe / core of Windows). Above can make a huge difference legally. Specifically your reference to the previous court case, which was built on point 1-2 above. Key word here being monopoly and how it's defined. Apple lived (until a few weeks ago, still do outside EU) in a world where it's OK to have it basically impossible to install another (real) browser on it's biggest OS, or install any app of your choosing without their blessing (and a 10-30% cut on revenue!) for that matter. It's complex for sure. It's unfortunate imo that Mozilla/FF got squashed by Chrome, and also made some questionable strategic decisions in the last 10-15 years. Performance, simplicity, stability and keeping up with me web tech being key USPs of Chrome, compared to competition. Note that absent from that list is monopolistic abuse (even though Google has it's fair share of that as well). In other words, you don't win the browser war by simply using monopolistic abuse as a strategy, you need to primarily win on value to your end users. That's at least how it's been in the past.

hilbert42 3y ago
"It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all." That's essentially irrelevant because (a) Microsoft complied with the Court's ruling and allowed other browsers to be installed without hindrance, that's not the situation now; (b) you're painting a picture as if Microsoft was disadvantaged by the situation now and thus it's unfair to impose such restrictions again this time. To that I'd add that in case you haven't noticed Microsoft has just passed three trillion in value, it's only second to Apple in achieving this milestone. Thus the changed situation hasn't disadvantaged it one iota. I'd maintain that Microsoft has only managed this incredible feat because throughout its 48-year life it has consistently used unacceptable, bullyboy monopolistic practices at every opportunity. Essentially, Microsoft's growth has been at the expence of competitors who haven't had the size and finacial power to stand up to its market dominance no matter how good their products were. Such bad behavior has screwed both the market and product development for everyone—small and medium-sized developers, hardware manufacturers and end users. Just about the only entity that hasn't been screwed by its unacceptable business practices is Microsoft itself. The most significant reason for Microsoft's unfettered growth is that the regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades—no doubt encouraged to 'sleep' by millions plowed into lobbying. On the matter of Mozilla, I'm certainly not an apologist for the company, in fact over the years I've been very critical of Mozilla including here on HN. Yes, the dominance of Chrome from that other monopolist Google has had a lot to do with Firefox's downfall, but that said Mozilla has been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Why and how is pretty obvious and well known so I won't debate that here.
- cjblomqvist 3y ago
  I'm not arguing whether Microsoft's behavior is good or bad (that's a long, subjective, discussion) - I'm arguing that from a legal point of view it's not clear cut that it's the same situation, as was suggested. Company size is for example not considered (generally anyway) as relevant for whether a company has a monopoly/market dominance or not. This seems to be forgotten, and it seems few cares about why the definition is what it is (or even what it really is).
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    "I'm arguing that from a legal point of view it's not clear cut that it's the same situation, as was suggested" Sorting out technicalities is the job of regulators and government. It shouldn't matter a damn if the situation is different. What's common and ongoing is that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are still in place and small and medium businesses are still being hurt, and users are still being taken advantage of. We know what needs to be done to reign in Big Tech. If current laws aren't strong enough then it's Government's job to legislate to fix and strengthen them. It has yet to do that, and that it hasn't is the key problem. What's needed is new law that makes employees just as responsible as the corporation would be, they, after all, are the ones who make the decisions. If those who work for Big Tech knew their actions could easily land them in the slammer then we'd have a revolution in good behavior overnight.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      > Sorting out technicalities is the job of regulators and government. It shouldn't matter a damn if the situation is different. What's common and ongoing is that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are still in place and small and medium businesses are still being hurt, and users are still being taken advantage of. It should matter in this context because this entire thread chain was started with a reference to the 90s era monopoly challenges against MS. If the situation isn't the same then the old monopoly challenge really doesn't matter, sure it was the same corporation but it was different leadership with different employees working in entirely different industry and time. We won't fix big tech with regulations and laws. That's hard enough when you're going after large corporations with massive legal and lobbying teams, see the cigarette and oil industries for example. When its a tech industry that changes on the order or months or years rather than decades, regulators have no chance of predicting what coning innovations they need to plan for or closing loopholes in regulation written for a fairly unique industry. Sometimes it doesn't work for us to go crawling to big governments to drop the hammer and save us with yet more regulation that no one has time to read or comprehend. Big tech only has the power it does because we all choose to use their products. If we really cared, consumers could make real change without regulators by simply telling big tech to screw off and opting our of using their products.

hilbert42 3y ago

"It's not the same situation as back then. 1. They don't have the same browser market share at all." That's essentially irrelevant because (a) Microsoft complied with the Court's ruling and allowed other browsers to be installed without hindrance, that's not the situation now; (b) you're painting a picture as if Microsoft was disadvantaged by the situation now and thus it's unfair to impose such restrictions again this time. To that I'd add that in case you haven't noticed Microsoft has just passed three trillion in value, it's only second to Apple in achieving this milestone. Thus the changed situation hasn't disadvantaged it one iota. I'd maintain that Microsoft has only managed this incredible feat because throughout its 48-year life it has consistently used unacceptable, bullyboy monopolistic practices at every opportunity. Essentially, Microsoft's growth has been at the expence of competitors who haven't had the size and finacial power to stand up to its market dominance no matter how good their products were. Such bad behavior has screwed both the market and product development for everyone—small and medium-sized developers, hardware manufacturers and end users. Just about the only entity that hasn't been screwed by its unacceptable business practices is Microsoft itself. The most significant reason for Microsoft's unfettered growth is that the regulators have been asleep at the wheel for decades—no doubt encouraged to 'sleep' by millions plowed into lobbying. On the matter of Mozilla, I'm certainly not an apologist for the company, in fact over the years I've been very critical of Mozilla including here on HN. Yes, the dominance of Chrome from that other monopolist Google has had a lot to do with Firefox's downfall, but that said Mozilla has been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Why and how is pretty obvious and well known so I won't debate that here.

cjblomqvist 3y ago
I'm not arguing whether Microsoft's behavior is good or bad (that's a long, subjective, discussion) - I'm arguing that from a legal point of view it's not clear cut that it's the same situation, as was suggested. Company size is for example not considered (generally anyway) as relevant for whether a company has a monopoly/market dominance or not. This seems to be forgotten, and it seems few cares about why the definition is what it is (or even what it really is).
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "I'm arguing that from a legal point of view it's not clear cut that it's the same situation, as was suggested" Sorting out technicalities is the job of regulators and government. It shouldn't matter a damn if the situation is different. What's common and ongoing is that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are still in place and small and medium businesses are still being hurt, and users are still being taken advantage of. We know what needs to be done to reign in Big Tech. If current laws aren't strong enough then it's Government's job to legislate to fix and strengthen them. It has yet to do that, and that it hasn't is the key problem. What's needed is new law that makes employees just as responsible as the corporation would be, they, after all, are the ones who make the decisions. If those who work for Big Tech knew their actions could easily land them in the slammer then we'd have a revolution in good behavior overnight.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    > Sorting out technicalities is the job of regulators and government. It shouldn't matter a damn if the situation is different. What's common and ongoing is that Microsoft's monopolistic practices are still in place and small and medium businesses are still being hurt, and users are still being taken advantage of. It should matter in this context because this entire thread chain was started with a reference to the 90s era monopoly challenges against MS. If the situation isn't the same then the old monopoly challenge really doesn't matter, sure it was the same corporation but it was different leadership with different employees working in entirely different industry and time. We won't fix big tech with regulations and laws. That's hard enough when you're going after large corporations with massive legal and lobbying teams, see the cigarette and oil industries for example. When its a tech industry that changes on the order or months or years rather than decades, regulators have no chance of predicting what coning innovations they need to plan for or closing loopholes in regulation written for a fairly unique industry. Sometimes it doesn't work for us to go crawling to big governments to drop the hammer and save us with yet more regulation that no one has time to read or comprehend. Big tech only has the power it does because we all choose to use their products. If we really cared, consumers could make real change without regulators by simply telling big tech to screw off and opting our of using their products.