8 ms·

Microsoft 1998 = Apple 2024

75 points by cdme 2y ago

echelon 2y ago
Gatekeeper companies whose platforms are all-reaching and all-encompassing (ie. not just toys or games) should be forced to surrender default status to choice. Default search, default payments, default messaging, default email, default browser, and default app store shouldn't be first party options thrust on the user. Defaults are something 99 out of 100 users will stick with, making them one of the most powerful forms of platform monopolization. Ending defaults is the only way a competitive gradient can exist. Otherwise, these gatekeeper companies are forever entrenched and can feast off of all economic activity forever. They can furthermore choose to enter tangential markets and snuff out the incumbents.
- iamkonstantin 2y ago
  Just earlier today, I read this post on Techrunch, of course not only because of Apple, but the size and weight of the FAANGs is just too much even for a free market: > While these companies are definitely benefiting from embracing new trends, there are other factors at play as well — in particular, investors don’t have many places to park their money to make bets on new technology. > “There’s minimal competition as we are in oligopolies and duopolies,” Wang told TechCrunch. “We used to have hundreds of software companies, but decades of mergers and acquisitions have whittled down the options to a few companies in every geography, category, market size, and industry.” https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/29/sap-and-oracle-and-ibm-oh-my-cloud-and-ai-drive-legacy-software-firms-to-record-valuations/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/29/sap-and-oracle-and-ibm-oh-...
- paulmd 2y ago
  > Gatekeeper companies whose platforms are all-reaching and all-encompassing (ie. not just toys or games) stopped reading. You can instantly tell when someone’s being disingenuous when they pull out the “this device has been so successful at branding itself as an appliance that I’m making a special exception for why it shouldn’t have to obey user freedom”. Why shouldn’t I be able to plug a kb into my console and browse the web, or write an email or a word document, or do my taxes? Can science not yet provide an App Store with a web browser in it?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Why shouldn't I be able to download an app store in the App Store or a web browser with its own engine? Where is my freedom?
  - echelon 2y ago
    > You can instantly tell when someone’s being disingenuous I'm being entirely serious, and I write my legislators about it. Apple and Google are unfair monopolies that happened to be at the right place and right time. They now get to lock every single other player out of an entire domain of economic activity. What's more, they get to relentlessly tax all other technological innovations in perpetuity because they're wedged in as the only two options. Have you ever had to pay extortion money to place ads for your own product's name? Have you ever had to schedule unplanned product development to jump through platform changes? Have you ever had your customer relationship severed completely on a whim? You're one decision away from having your business demolished with these two titans. Apple and Google aren't freedom. They're totalitarian dictatorships that tax us into subsistence living and make us dance to the beat of their drum. We are harmed by the fact that they've usurped so much control over technology. The DOJ ought to split them into ten different companies apiece, but absent that, their control over mobile and search should be a liability, not a forever enslavement. Computing should be as competitive as the automotive sector. Smartphones haven't seen advances in half a decade, and yet these companies are forever entitled to the most important device category on the planet. There isn't a way for any other company to come in and compete. It's absolutely impossible. Regulation is the only path.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Why shouldn’t I be able to plug a kb into my console and browse the web, or write an email or a word document, or do my taxes? Do you want to know the truth? The cold, hard, glaring truth? It's because Night Trap and DOOM existed. The ESRB got made and now nobody can ship games without the direct and glaring oversight of an entertainment commission. It sounds stupid because it is, but it also has bipartisan support so everyone can say "think of the kids!" and stop 17-year-olds from renting GTA for their PS2. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony love this. These are regulations they can exploit, because they more or less give them a legal imperative to root out bad actors and create the sort of walled garden Apple struggles to justify. Does it make sense? No. You should be able to legally unlock your Nintendo Switch bootloader, Nintendo be damned. But Nintendo is perceived to exist in regulated competition with their peers; Apple is running a free-for-all where everyone but them loses.
dagmx 2y ago
I’m confused by this post. Formatting aside, it’s drawing a comparison between something Gruber said and something Microsoft said. Beyond that, there’s not much substance to the post around the assertion of the title? They may very well be correct or not, but the post itself has no real content to it. It also erroneously claims that the browser changes were after the European commission rulings but their own graph ends at 2009 when that commission ruling happened. The prior one for that time frame was around media player. However the quote they point to is around the DOJ investigation which again, does not actually lead to what they claim. Microsoft won the appeal and the later settlement didn’t affect Internet explorer significantly. The loss in browser market share was imho inevitable as a result of the growing Internet and growing competition, as IE6 lagged greatly behind.
- blueelephanttea 2y ago
  I also don't think the comparison makes sense for a number of other reasons: Microsoft had a real market share monopoly. Apple has a vertically integrated platform that tends to include the most monetarily valuable users. Microsoft was regulated using long standing antitrust law and a court settlement outlining specific compliance steps. Apple is being regulated by a brand new, extraordinarily massive law that is untested with tons of unclear requirements. Certainly, innovation might survive in the EU. But nothing about this post or comparison seems well reasoned.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes, great point on the nature of the laws at hand. I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too. The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine. The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.
julianeon 2y ago
Why is the title not Microsoft 1998 = Microsoft 2024? I don't see Apple mentioned once. It's Microsoft both times.
detourdog 2y ago
This over looks the fact that no white box pc vendor could sell a box without paying a license fee to Microsoft. That is it didn’t matter what OS the buyer wanted to run on the generic PC a license fee was paid To Microsoft.
- chihuahua 2y ago
  This is incorrect. White box PC vendors could sell as many PCs as they wanted with Linux or any other non-Microsoft OS, and not pay anything to Microsoft for those PCs. But if they did that, they would miss out on certain discounts for Windows Licenses if they also wanted to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. "Missing out on discounts" is not the same thing as "having to pay a license fee for every machine no matter what".
  - paulmd 2y ago
    Now do this one for AMD - “intel didn’t force you to only dell intel chips, but doing so would lose certain discounts on intel processors if you also wanted to sell pcs with intel processors included.” Anticompetitive or no?
  - detourdog 2y ago
    Sorry I must have forgotten that subtle detail. Neither of which Apple is currently doing.
hpen 2y ago
Hot take: Apple is keeping app quality high by pushing out PWAs (which are just a way for developers to have an easier time, but not a better product).
- leptons 2y ago
  Apple pushes out PWAs because they can't make 30% revenue from them, and would rather developers write apps for their platform where Apple can make more money. It's a total money grab, which is why they forbid any other browser engine on iOS and force Safari on every browser app.
  - hpen 2y ago
    That may be the primary reason but I'm referring to a side product
- talldayo 2y ago
  And Microsoft was improving the quality of web-content with ActiveX! How dare we shun their positive influence, all they ever wanted was developers to pay them money to sign their software for them.
  - hpen 2y ago
    Ha, I mean as a user the native iOS app is far superior to whatever Microsoft was pushing
    - talldayo 2y ago
      As a user, I don't think you have the right to say that for certain unless the two platforms actually compete with each other. iOS does not offer PWAs a good-faith opportunity to compete. On Mac, where PWAs and Electron apps are also very common, there are still native Mac apps getting made. They're usually expensive, outdated, and left to die on the App Store, but they do exist. Most of them are a testament to how fragile and unsustainable native app development is, given the choice.
einpoklum 2y ago
Interesting how that browser user share chart doesn't go past 2009... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://i.imgur.com/kVocSvo.png https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://i.imgur...
ramesh31 2y ago
Do we really want the App Store to become the rotten cesspool that is Google Play? Do we really want to open the floodgates to thousands of third party web browsers crawling with malware and zero days? Personally I will never use Android because of this, and I thank god that Apple has held the line here. They have extremely good reasons for maintaining the policies they do, and the average user of an iPhone simply cannot be protected any other way.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Do we really want the App Store to become the rotten cesspool that is Google Play? Perhaps a more apt comparison is wanting the App Store on iPhone to become like the App Store on MacOS. Which is to say, empty, filled with expensive scam apps, and struggling to justify itself when every major software provider makes you download their app as a DMG off their website. Maybe Apple's iPhone aspirations aren't compatible with what the market actually wants. It certainly seems that way on Mac.
crazygringo 2y ago
> Oddly enough, when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after the settlement of the DOJ and EU trials was Microsoft’s browser market share — a fact which some commentators would have you believe is a complete coincidence and nothing whatever to do with governments forcing Microsoft to stop being an abusive monopolist. Huh? I mean, it was a coincidence. Internet Explorer peaked in 2003, not because of the 2001 antitrust settlement, but because Firefox came out in 2004 and then Chrome came out in 2008. The government didn't create Firefox or Chrome, nor is there any reason to believe that Firefox or Chrome wouldn't have been developed or become popular absent action from the government. Or we might even say that if it wasn't coincidence, then that's because of a pattern where slow-moving governments often only try to regulate antitrust in the tech industry by the time the specific issue has ceased being relevant.
chairmanmow 2y ago
What a lazy comparison and article. No relevant facts, critical thinking, connective tissue or argument being made: it's "Hey kids you remember 1998, right? No? Well, it's just like 2024 but I can't tell you how." Perhaps the author is referring to being able to install a different browser on their iPhone or paying an Apple tax from their store. In 1998, smart phones didn't really exist nor did digital distribution. I can only guess we are comparing computers to phones - why? Shouldn't we be comparing phones to phones? 2006 is a good inflection point, before the iPhone came out, I could install apps on phone from the Verizon store over cell signal which were all around at least 30 bucks per app (there was no such thing as a "free" app). I could go on the internet, via cell tower and pay through the nose to get a slow stream of data on a small screen that was totally unoptimized and tested for my dumb phone. If there was antitrust issue then, it was the cell phone companies. When did Apple become Microsoft 1998, was it really just this year 2024? Where are the facts that give rise to the criticisms the author presumes can be levied at Apple? Because I think it was 2007 when the iPhone came out, but if you made the argument Apple 2007 = Microsoft 1998 you'd be laughed out of the room. The author needs to make an argument, I can't believe this is at the top of HN right now
behnamoh 2y ago
As Steve Jobs said: "If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rib3ye 2y ago
In 1998, Microsoft had >90% desktop OS marketshare. Even today the iOS is less than 40% mobile marketshare and the macOS is less than 10% on desktop. Wall Garden argument is frustrating, but the monopoly argument is confusing. I think it's more like: Microsoft 1998 = Bell Phone System 1982 Apple 2024 = Your local airport or sports arena vendors 1980s - Today
luna4151 2y ago
Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable. Contact him via @
luna4151 2y ago
Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable. Contact him via Techspymax @ gm ail com
BELLA_MANDY 2y ago
[flagged]
ein0p 2y ago
Uh, i wonder if the Betteridge’s law of headlines is applicable here. /s
- manmal 2y ago
  For context, the post is really by the author who brought us this law. There aren’t any question marks in the title though, so the law can’t be applied.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- talldayo 2y ago
  I'm not seeing a question-mark.
- dang 2y ago
  I am actively having to resist putting a question mark at the end.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
Why is the font so drastically massive on mobile? I have to scroll down a lot to read so little.
- pimlottc 2y ago
  It looks like they’re using a style meant for selected pull quotes, but since the quoted text is the majority of the article, it looks unbalanced.
  - giancarlostoro 2y ago
    Had to use Reader mode which helped.
samspenc 2y ago
From the article: "Microsoft making very similar arguments about how antitrust was going to stifle innovation" ... "when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after ... was Microsoft’s browser market share" Yup, this is what Apple is afraid of as well, and why they are fighting it so hard with very similar arguments.
- oceanstone 2y ago
  Safari is today's Internet Explorer.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    It is so annoying to have Apple blocking many features that would improve web components, service workers, PWAs.
    - Angostura 2y ago
      Safari supports PWAs and service workers
      - Dachande663 2y ago
        In name only. There are multiple frustrations encountered when actually trying to use them.
    - leptons 2y ago
      Not just that, but forbidding any other browser engine on iOS and forcing Safari as the only browser allowed on the platform is completely abusive and anti-competitive. It's one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
      - askonomm 2y ago
        iOS 17.4 and later allow using other browser engines, so this isn't true anymore.
enthdegree 2y ago
I think the writer's punchline is implied but I'm not plugged in enough to make the connection. >Microsoft's monopoly of browsers in the 90s = Apple's [?] What goes in the box? Edit: Smartphones. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple...

75 points by cdme 2y ago

Gatekeeper companies whose platforms are all-reaching and all-encompassing (ie. not just toys or games) should be forced to surrender default status to choice. Default search, default payments, default messaging, default email, default browser, and default app store shouldn't be first party options thrust on the user. Defaults are something 99 out of 100 users will stick with, making them one of the most powerful forms of platform monopolization. Ending defaults is the only way a competitive gradient can exist. Otherwise, these gatekeeper companies are forever entrenched and can feast off of all economic activity forever. They can furthermore choose to enter tangential markets and snuff out the incumbents.

iamkonstantin 2y ago
Just earlier today, I read this post on Techrunch, of course not only because of Apple, but the size and weight of the FAANGs is just too much even for a free market: > While these companies are definitely benefiting from embracing new trends, there are other factors at play as well — in particular, investors don’t have many places to park their money to make bets on new technology. > “There’s minimal competition as we are in oligopolies and duopolies,” Wang told TechCrunch. “We used to have hundreds of software companies, but decades of mergers and acquisitions have whittled down the options to a few companies in every geography, category, market size, and industry.” https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/29/sap-and-oracle-and-ibm-oh-my-cloud-and-ai-drive-legacy-software-firms-to-record-valuations/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/29/sap-and-oracle-and-ibm-oh-...
paulmd 2y ago
> Gatekeeper companies whose platforms are all-reaching and all-encompassing (ie. not just toys or games) stopped reading. You can instantly tell when someone’s being disingenuous when they pull out the “this device has been so successful at branding itself as an appliance that I’m making a special exception for why it shouldn’t have to obey user freedom”. Why shouldn’t I be able to plug a kb into my console and browse the web, or write an email or a word document, or do my taxes? Can science not yet provide an App Store with a web browser in it?
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Why shouldn't I be able to download an app store in the App Store or a web browser with its own engine? Where is my freedom?
- echelon 2y ago
  > You can instantly tell when someone’s being disingenuous I'm being entirely serious, and I write my legislators about it. Apple and Google are unfair monopolies that happened to be at the right place and right time. They now get to lock every single other player out of an entire domain of economic activity. What's more, they get to relentlessly tax all other technological innovations in perpetuity because they're wedged in as the only two options. Have you ever had to pay extortion money to place ads for your own product's name? Have you ever had to schedule unplanned product development to jump through platform changes? Have you ever had your customer relationship severed completely on a whim? You're one decision away from having your business demolished with these two titans. Apple and Google aren't freedom. They're totalitarian dictatorships that tax us into subsistence living and make us dance to the beat of their drum. We are harmed by the fact that they've usurped so much control over technology. The DOJ ought to split them into ten different companies apiece, but absent that, their control over mobile and search should be a liability, not a forever enslavement. Computing should be as competitive as the automotive sector. Smartphones haven't seen advances in half a decade, and yet these companies are forever entitled to the most important device category on the planet. There isn't a way for any other company to come in and compete. It's absolutely impossible. Regulation is the only path.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Why shouldn’t I be able to plug a kb into my console and browse the web, or write an email or a word document, or do my taxes? Do you want to know the truth? The cold, hard, glaring truth? It's because Night Trap and DOOM existed. The ESRB got made and now nobody can ship games without the direct and glaring oversight of an entertainment commission. It sounds stupid because it is, but it also has bipartisan support so everyone can say "think of the kids!" and stop 17-year-olds from renting GTA for their PS2. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony love this. These are regulations they can exploit, because they more or less give them a legal imperative to root out bad actors and create the sort of walled garden Apple struggles to justify. Does it make sense? No. You should be able to legally unlock your Nintendo Switch bootloader, Nintendo be damned. But Nintendo is perceived to exist in regulated competition with their peers; Apple is running a free-for-all where everyone but them loses.

dagmx 2y ago

I’m confused by this post. Formatting aside, it’s drawing a comparison between something Gruber said and something Microsoft said. Beyond that, there’s not much substance to the post around the assertion of the title? They may very well be correct or not, but the post itself has no real content to it. It also erroneously claims that the browser changes were after the European commission rulings but their own graph ends at 2009 when that commission ruling happened. The prior one for that time frame was around media player. However the quote they point to is around the DOJ investigation which again, does not actually lead to what they claim. Microsoft won the appeal and the later settlement didn’t affect Internet explorer significantly. The loss in browser market share was imho inevitable as a result of the growing Internet and growing competition, as IE6 lagged greatly behind.

blueelephanttea 2y ago
I also don't think the comparison makes sense for a number of other reasons: Microsoft had a real market share monopoly. Apple has a vertically integrated platform that tends to include the most monetarily valuable users. Microsoft was regulated using long standing antitrust law and a court settlement outlining specific compliance steps. Apple is being regulated by a brand new, extraordinarily massive law that is untested with tons of unclear requirements. Certainly, innovation might survive in the EU. But nothing about this post or comparison seems well reasoned.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Yes, great point on the nature of the laws at hand. I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too. The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine. The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.

julianeon 2y ago

Why is the title not Microsoft 1998 = Microsoft 2024? I don't see Apple mentioned once. It's Microsoft both times.

detourdog 2y ago

This over looks the fact that no white box pc vendor could sell a box without paying a license fee to Microsoft. That is it didn’t matter what OS the buyer wanted to run on the generic PC a license fee was paid To Microsoft.

chihuahua 2y ago
This is incorrect. White box PC vendors could sell as many PCs as they wanted with Linux or any other non-Microsoft OS, and not pay anything to Microsoft for those PCs. But if they did that, they would miss out on certain discounts for Windows Licenses if they also wanted to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. "Missing out on discounts" is not the same thing as "having to pay a license fee for every machine no matter what".
- paulmd 2y ago
  Now do this one for AMD - “intel didn’t force you to only dell intel chips, but doing so would lose certain discounts on intel processors if you also wanted to sell pcs with intel processors included.” Anticompetitive or no?
- detourdog 2y ago
  Sorry I must have forgotten that subtle detail. Neither of which Apple is currently doing.

hpen 2y ago

Hot take: Apple is keeping app quality high by pushing out PWAs (which are just a way for developers to have an easier time, but not a better product).

leptons 2y ago
Apple pushes out PWAs because they can't make 30% revenue from them, and would rather developers write apps for their platform where Apple can make more money. It's a total money grab, which is why they forbid any other browser engine on iOS and force Safari on every browser app.
- hpen 2y ago
  That may be the primary reason but I'm referring to a side product
talldayo 2y ago
And Microsoft was improving the quality of web-content with ActiveX! How dare we shun their positive influence, all they ever wanted was developers to pay them money to sign their software for them.
- hpen 2y ago
  Ha, I mean as a user the native iOS app is far superior to whatever Microsoft was pushing
  - talldayo 2y ago
    As a user, I don't think you have the right to say that for certain unless the two platforms actually compete with each other. iOS does not offer PWAs a good-faith opportunity to compete. On Mac, where PWAs and Electron apps are also very common, there are still native Mac apps getting made. They're usually expensive, outdated, and left to die on the App Store, but they do exist. Most of them are a testament to how fragile and unsustainable native app development is, given the choice.

einpoklum 2y ago

Interesting how that browser user share chart doesn't go past 2009... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://i.imgur.com/kVocSvo.png https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://i.imgur...

ramesh31 2y ago

Do we really want the App Store to become the rotten cesspool that is Google Play? Do we really want to open the floodgates to thousands of third party web browsers crawling with malware and zero days? Personally I will never use Android because of this, and I thank god that Apple has held the line here. They have extremely good reasons for maintaining the policies they do, and the average user of an iPhone simply cannot be protected any other way.

talldayo 2y ago
> Do we really want the App Store to become the rotten cesspool that is Google Play? Perhaps a more apt comparison is wanting the App Store on iPhone to become like the App Store on MacOS. Which is to say, empty, filled with expensive scam apps, and struggling to justify itself when every major software provider makes you download their app as a DMG off their website. Maybe Apple's iPhone aspirations aren't compatible with what the market actually wants. It certainly seems that way on Mac.

crazygringo 2y ago

> Oddly enough, when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after the settlement of the DOJ and EU trials was Microsoft’s browser market share — a fact which some commentators would have you believe is a complete coincidence and nothing whatever to do with governments forcing Microsoft to stop being an abusive monopolist. Huh? I mean, it was a coincidence. Internet Explorer peaked in 2003, not because of the 2001 antitrust settlement, but because Firefox came out in 2004 and then Chrome came out in 2008. The government didn't create Firefox or Chrome, nor is there any reason to believe that Firefox or Chrome wouldn't have been developed or become popular absent action from the government. Or we might even say that if it wasn't coincidence, then that's because of a pattern where slow-moving governments often only try to regulate antitrust in the tech industry by the time the specific issue has ceased being relevant.

chairmanmow 2y ago

What a lazy comparison and article. No relevant facts, critical thinking, connective tissue or argument being made: it's "Hey kids you remember 1998, right? No? Well, it's just like 2024 but I can't tell you how." Perhaps the author is referring to being able to install a different browser on their iPhone or paying an Apple tax from their store. In 1998, smart phones didn't really exist nor did digital distribution. I can only guess we are comparing computers to phones - why? Shouldn't we be comparing phones to phones? 2006 is a good inflection point, before the iPhone came out, I could install apps on phone from the Verizon store over cell signal which were all around at least 30 bucks per app (there was no such thing as a "free" app). I could go on the internet, via cell tower and pay through the nose to get a slow stream of data on a small screen that was totally unoptimized and tested for my dumb phone. If there was antitrust issue then, it was the cell phone companies. When did Apple become Microsoft 1998, was it really just this year 2024? Where are the facts that give rise to the criticisms the author presumes can be levied at Apple? Because I think it was 2007 when the iPhone came out, but if you made the argument Apple 2007 = Microsoft 1998 you'd be laughed out of the room. The author needs to make an argument, I can't believe this is at the top of HN right now

behnamoh 2y ago

As Steve Jobs said: "If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rib3ye 2y ago

In 1998, Microsoft had >90% desktop OS marketshare. Even today the iOS is less than 40% mobile marketshare and the macOS is less than 10% on desktop. Wall Garden argument is frustrating, but the monopoly argument is confusing. I think it's more like: Microsoft 1998 = Bell Phone System 1982 Apple 2024 = Your local airport or sports arena vendors 1980s - Today

luna4151 2y ago

Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable. Contact him via @

luna4151 2y ago

BELLA_MANDY 2y ago

[flagged]

ein0p 2y ago

Uh, i wonder if the Betteridge’s law of headlines is applicable here. /s

manmal 2y ago
For context, the post is really by the author who brought us this law. There aren’t any question marks in the title though, so the law can’t be applied.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
talldayo 2y ago
I'm not seeing a question-mark.
dang 2y ago
I am actively having to resist putting a question mark at the end.

giancarlostoro 2y ago

Why is the font so drastically massive on mobile? I have to scroll down a lot to read so little.

pimlottc 2y ago
It looks like they’re using a style meant for selected pull quotes, but since the quoted text is the majority of the article, it looks unbalanced.
- giancarlostoro 2y ago
  Had to use Reader mode which helped.

samspenc 2y ago

From the article: "Microsoft making very similar arguments about how antitrust was going to stifle innovation" ... "when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after ... was Microsoft’s browser market share" Yup, this is what Apple is afraid of as well, and why they are fighting it so hard with very similar arguments.

oceanstone 2y ago
Safari is today's Internet Explorer.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  It is so annoying to have Apple blocking many features that would improve web components, service workers, PWAs.
  - Angostura 2y ago
    Safari supports PWAs and service workers
    - Dachande663 2y ago
      In name only. There are multiple frustrations encountered when actually trying to use them.
  - leptons 2y ago
    Not just that, but forbidding any other browser engine on iOS and forcing Safari as the only browser allowed on the platform is completely abusive and anti-competitive. It's one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
    - askonomm 2y ago
      iOS 17.4 and later allow using other browser engines, so this isn't true anymore.

enthdegree 2y ago

I think the writer's punchline is implied but I'm not plugged in enough to make the connection. >Microsoft's monopoly of browsers in the 90s = Apple's [?] What goes in the box? Edit: Smartphones. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple...