4 ms·
As pointed out below 1) they don't have a monopoly. 2) It wasn't just the bundling of IE, but also the use of APIs to prefer and favor IE over third party brow
by dailyrorschach 14y ago
As pointed out below 1) they don't have a monopoly.
2) It wasn't just the bundling of IE, but also the use of APIs to prefer and favor IE over third party browsers, and restrictive agreements with OEMs.
Also part of the finding of fact in the case was the nature of how web browsers were obtained in that time period, long, slow downloads. Giving the bundled option a serious advantage. But again before we even get into the anticompetitive-ness of Apple, which no doubt many of their practices are, without a monopoly, it's fair play.
- stanleydrew 14y agoI know this is the obvious rebuttal that everyone trots out when asked about anticompetitive behavior from Apple. But I'm not sure it's actually true. I am not a lawyer, but I think you can be brought up on charges of anticompetitive behavior without "having a monopoly". Can someone with more knowledge in this area comment?
- dailyrorschach 14y agoIANAL either, but I have looked into this quite a bit. There are other ways anticompetitive behavior can be prosecuted, but they don't seem to apply to what Apple is doing here: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.pdf That PDF provides a pretty good summary of the FTCs scope, and under the current mobile market, it doesn't seem like they'd have any reason to involve themselves, especially when alternatives readily exist.