3 ms·

A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own?

A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) They refused to update Java -- Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. 'Pushing IE4 as a part of OS updates' -- wait, they're not supposed to promote their own software (notwithstanding the business with uninstalling Netscape, that was indeed evil). Trying to kill off the web? Okay, at this point you've lost it. Stop seeing things in purely black and white.

lukeschlather 14y ago
>Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) What's the loss leader in this analogy? Google makes money off both Chrome and Firefox. >They refused to update Java -- Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. I'd agree that this is exactly the same thing. Apple is hoping to replicate Microsoft's success, forcing businesses to choose which platform they develop for so that they can chase their competitors out of the market due to a dearth of choices.
ajross 14y ago
This is all missing the point. Context matters in antitrust issues. Google doesn't have a 97+% monopoly position in web browsers, nor are they using Firefox (or Chrome) to deliberately harm their competitors in search (quite the opposite in fact). Apple likewise is not using a monopoly to harm Adobe, who have access to a larger smartphone market than iOS already (and in fact are shipping out of the box on most of those devices). And you realize there's an important difference between "promoting one's own software" and deliberately installing (and making default) a free (!) equivalent to your biggest competitor's software on every single one of your monopoly-sized installed base?
- yawgmoth 14y ago
  But consider the alternative. Not shipping part of their software that fits on their platform just for the sake of making sure that the consumer's decision is purely unbiased? That'd be an awful business move, and they knew that.
mindcrime 14y ago
A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. True, but that still doesn't let Microsoft off the hook. "Everybody else is doing it," is about as good of a defense as "I was just following orders".
ajays 14y ago
Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) Oh come on. If you're going to argue here, at least have your facts straight. The Google deal with FF is only about the default search engine and homepage. Most people switch their homepage to something else anyways. And all the major search engine plugins ship with FF; it's just that Google is the default one. (Did MS ship Netscape with Windows?) Also, it's not "loss leader" for Google, unless you have radically redefined the meaning of "loss". Google makes a ton of money from FF searches; it just chooses to share a portion of the proceeds with Mozilla. Microsoft has deeper pockets than Google, and there's nothing preventing MS from buying out FF's search bar, _given_ that they have lots of money. > Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. .... and responsible for 97% of the malware out there. I, for one, am glad Apple took this stand. It allowed for HTML5 to blossom.

lukeschlather 14y ago

>Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) What's the loss leader in this analogy? Google makes money off both Chrome and Firefox. >They refused to update Java -- Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. I'd agree that this is exactly the same thing. Apple is hoping to replicate Microsoft's success, forcing businesses to choose which platform they develop for so that they can chase their competitors out of the market due to a dearth of choices.

ajross 14y ago

This is all missing the point. Context matters in antitrust issues. Google doesn't have a 97+% monopoly position in web browsers, nor are they using Firefox (or Chrome) to deliberately harm their competitors in search (quite the opposite in fact). Apple likewise is not using a monopoly to harm Adobe, who have access to a larger smartphone market than iOS already (and in fact are shipping out of the box on most of those devices). And you realize there's an important difference between "promoting one's own software" and deliberately installing (and making default) a free (!) equivalent to your biggest competitor's software on every single one of your monopoly-sized installed base?

yawgmoth 14y ago
But consider the alternative. Not shipping part of their software that fits on their platform just for the sake of making sure that the consumer's decision is purely unbiased? That'd be an awful business move, and they knew that.

mindcrime 14y ago

A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. True, but that still doesn't let Microsoft off the hook. "Everybody else is doing it," is about as good of a defense as "I was just following orders".

ajays 14y ago

Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) Oh come on. If you're going to argue here, at least have your facts straight. The Google deal with FF is only about the default search engine and homepage. Most people switch their homepage to something else anyways. And all the major search engine plugins ship with FF; it's just that Google is the default one. (Did MS ship Netscape with Windows?) Also, it's not "loss leader" for Google, unless you have radically redefined the meaning of "loss". Google makes a ton of money from FF searches; it just chooses to share a portion of the proceeds with Mozilla. Microsoft has deeper pockets than Google, and there's nothing preventing MS from buying out FF's search bar, _given_ that they have lots of money. > Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. .... and responsible for 97% of the malware out there. I, for one, am glad Apple took this stand. It allowed for HTML5 to blossom.