6 ms·

So a question I have for some people more knowledgable than me in the iOS system: Now that we have an apple maps program, and various competitors including and

by robbiep 14y ago

So a question I have for some people more knowledgable than me in the iOS system: Now that we have an apple maps program, and various competitors including and not limited to google; we also have a chrome (and other) iOS browsers to compete with safari (and yes, I understand it's really just skinned web kit) and a new default video player, Is this situation not akin to the anti-trust wars that threatened to consume Microsoft a decade ago? For instance, they (the apple defaults) are all installed by default, and they remain the default option: for example if you receive an address (either physical or web) in messenger or whatsapp or whatever, iOS will attempt to recognise it and make it a hyperlink, but it will then open in the apple default app - if you want it to open in say chrome or google maps you have to copy and paste it. So- is this the same as the anti-trust case against Microsoft? Will apple ever change the default program? Or will my next phone be an android..

mintplant 14y ago
The primary difference is that it's Apple's software going on Apple's own hardware, rather than Microsoft requiring that manufactures installing Windows on their systems include their web browser as well.
- tambourine_man 14y ago
  And Apple doesn't have 95% of the phone market.
wmeredith 14y ago
Apple's market share in smartphones also pales in comparison to the Microsoft's dominance in desktop computing during that era.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  This is something that can be surprisingly hard to grok for someone immersed in the SF startup crowd, where everyone uses an iPhone and a MacBook.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  And indeed next to Android's in smartphones. Isn't the more apt question about what Android ship as defaults for mail and browsing as an anti-trust question? After all, the MS issue wasn't about IE being the only browser so it's not about the ability to change it, it was about it being the default browser and therefore what many unsophisticated users will use by default.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > Isn't the more apt question about what Android ship as defaults for mail and browsing as an anti-trust question? There is no "Android default". It varies according to carrier and OEM.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      Is that true? Doesn't Google's Android agreement to get the apps outside the core OS demand certain things? I'm certainly struggling to think of an Android phone I've seen that doesn't ship with a Google browser. (Edit: I take that back. Obviously the Kindle's don't and nor do most of the Android phones sold in China - an estimated two thirds not running Google apps suggested recently).
gkoberger 14y ago
I have no legal basis for this, but my theory is that as long as Apple keeps up a high level of quality, nobody will care enough to fight it. This is probably why there was no drama with Google releasing maps: Apple knew they were beat, so they did nothing to stop it.
- jakejake 14y ago
  Google pretty much kills it with map apps. Unless Apple keeps up people will eventually complain that they want to change their default map app. I think already there are companies making better mobile browsers, mail, calendar, etc. As people become aware of them, or Apple slips like they have with maps, I think they'll start getting more pressure to allow users to change their default apps.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  I agree with the first part. If Mobile Safari had the reputation to be a security nightmare - with public attention rivaling the iOS6 Maps release, or IE in its worst days - then people would probably ask for a system-wide alternative. But I don't think that Apple ever considered to cause drama about the Google Maps release, just like they didn't cause a drama about YouTube, or Nokia Maps, or whatever. That seemed more like Google trying to take a cheap shot at Apple's approval process.
lambda 14y ago
Just buy an Android. You can configure what browser opens links. You can configure what map application opens maps. You can configure what video player opens videos. Yes, this is much like Microsoft a decade ago; in fact, it's worse, the iOS offers significantly less choice than Windows did back then; you could develop your own software for your own computer without joining a restrictive developer program from Microsoft. If you don't like it, my recommendation is that you don't buy into it. Get an Android. I've been perfectly happy with mine.
- __abc 14y ago
  <<nothing related to what you said, just a general comment>> If more people just bought what they liked, shut the hell about it, and didn't rage jihad against the opposite platform, the internet would be WAY better.
  - piyush_soni 14y ago
    No, it won't be. Bad things must be criticized (or boycotted), to force them to become good. Your use of Apple is affecting my life badly - it's just like passive smoking. No one promoted the culture of ridiculous patent law exploitation as much as Apple did. They are not just doing their own work, but indulging in UGLY competition killing tactics(like they don't want anyone to make rectangular phone with rounded corners). To give you some insight of your own logic, if everyone "not killing someone" will just not kill people as they like it, and didn't say a word to the 'opposite party' - who kill (as they like it as well), according to your logic the world would be WAY better. Jihad is a bad word, but I'll fight against the injustice to my world of technology that Apple is doing.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      Remind us how snarky zealotry tells Apple to stop (ab)using the patent system. If that's the problem you have with them, I think the world would be improved if you directed your energy at patent reform. And comparing IP litigation to murder is just ridiculous, not that you didn't already know that. Among all the other problems, you can fix a bad call from a judge. Murder, not so much.
chestercheetaz 14y ago
no, this is not the same. Microsoft never made computers, just operating systems.
augustl 14y ago
Just for your information, we don't have a "real" Chrome on iOS, we have UIWebViews with Chrome branding. So Google can only innovate in the UI surrounding the web pages, not the rendering and interaction of the websites themselves.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Chrome and Safari already share the rendering engine, the only difference is that experimental stuff gets released much earlier in Chrome.
- robin_reala 14y ago
  Not 100% true: iOS Chrome bundles its own networking stack which is a differentiator (it supports SPDY for a start). They are hampered by UIWebView’s slower JS engine though.
  - augustl 14y ago
    Thanks! Was not aware of the networking part, nice to know. The rendering engine is also much more than "just rendering". When I click two small links close to each other on Android Chrome, a small clickable popup containing a zoomed in portion of that part of the page will appear. Very useful for avoiding misclicks!
jakejake 14y ago
Microsoft was sued simply for bundling IE with Windows, which sounds crazy when you think about it. But at the time it seemed like selling browsers was going to be huge and Microsoft basically killed Netscape. With Windows, though, you were always free to install other browsers and set them as the default unlike iOS. In the end the case kinda fizzled out as the times were changing so fast. Browsers kinda became an accepted "default" application to go along with an operating system. I have to admit with all of the lawsuits in the software industry, I'm kinda surprised that Apple hasn't gotten more heat.
- russgray 14y ago
  There was a lot more to it than that. Microsoft actively threatened to withdraw licenses from OEMs that preinstalled/bundled rival software as defaults. Given the Windows monopoly, OEMs had to comply or die. Given the massive inertia against the average non-technical user installing an alternative to IE, this effectively equated to Microsoft using their Windows monopoly to dominate an unrelated market. Apple are nowhere near close to this until they own 95% of the global cellphone market and start making credible threats to destroy HTC or Samsung if they dare to sell an Android phone, or an iPhone with Chrome preinstalled.
thefreeman 14y ago
I think the difference is apple makes all the hardware which this runs on. Microsoft software was essentially the only option for pc's made by anyone.
ghshephard 14y ago
As one who worked for Netscape, and was 12' away from Marc Andreessen when the ruling was handed down, the ENTIRE case against Microsoft was predicated on them (A) Being a Monopoly (that was critical) and (B) Trying to leverage said monopoly into another line of business. Nobody is going to suggest Apple has a Monopoly in the mobile phone, nor even the Smart Phone industry. In fact, I think Eric Schmidt publicly said that "Android had Won" today - so that kind of puts an end to that thread.
dirtyaura 14y ago
No, it's not a similar situation because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile OS market. Microsoft was accused of abusing it's monopoly on the PC operating system market to prevent competition on the web browser market. Today, the situation is different: if you as a customer don't like iOS you can go and easily buy a smartphone with Android or Windows OS. This is an important distinction. Otherwise for example every car manufacturer could be accused with similar grounds because they use their propriety software or custom parts instead of providing totally configurability.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  That's right. The key point is that the rules for running a business change when you have a monopoly. Having a monopoly isn't illegal but the government doesn't want you abusing that special power with anticompetitive tactics.
sbuk 14y ago
If Apple have 98% of the mobile phone market and threatens OEM's that they will have licenses taken away if they include competitors products, then we'll talk anti-trust.
pohl 14y ago
Read the "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law" documents from that case. The big missing piece is a monopoly in the relevant market. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm

by robbiep 14y ago

mintplant 14y ago

The primary difference is that it's Apple's software going on Apple's own hardware, rather than Microsoft requiring that manufactures installing Windows on their systems include their web browser as well.

tambourine_man 14y ago
And Apple doesn't have 95% of the phone market.

wmeredith 14y ago

Apple's market share in smartphones also pales in comparison to the Microsoft's dominance in desktop computing during that era.

w1ntermute 14y ago
This is something that can be surprisingly hard to grok for someone immersed in the SF startup crowd, where everyone uses an iPhone and a MacBook.
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
And indeed next to Android's in smartphones. Isn't the more apt question about what Android ship as defaults for mail and browsing as an anti-trust question? After all, the MS issue wasn't about IE being the only browser so it's not about the ability to change it, it was about it being the default browser and therefore what many unsophisticated users will use by default.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Isn't the more apt question about what Android ship as defaults for mail and browsing as an anti-trust question? There is no "Android default". It varies according to carrier and OEM.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    Is that true? Doesn't Google's Android agreement to get the apps outside the core OS demand certain things? I'm certainly struggling to think of an Android phone I've seen that doesn't ship with a Google browser. (Edit: I take that back. Obviously the Kindle's don't and nor do most of the Android phones sold in China - an estimated two thirds not running Google apps suggested recently).

gkoberger 14y ago

I have no legal basis for this, but my theory is that as long as Apple keeps up a high level of quality, nobody will care enough to fight it. This is probably why there was no drama with Google releasing maps: Apple knew they were beat, so they did nothing to stop it.

jakejake 14y ago
Google pretty much kills it with map apps. Unless Apple keeps up people will eventually complain that they want to change their default map app. I think already there are companies making better mobile browsers, mail, calendar, etc. As people become aware of them, or Apple slips like they have with maps, I think they'll start getting more pressure to allow users to change their default apps.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
I agree with the first part. If Mobile Safari had the reputation to be a security nightmare - with public attention rivaling the iOS6 Maps release, or IE in its worst days - then people would probably ask for a system-wide alternative. But I don't think that Apple ever considered to cause drama about the Google Maps release, just like they didn't cause a drama about YouTube, or Nokia Maps, or whatever. That seemed more like Google trying to take a cheap shot at Apple's approval process.

lambda 14y ago

Just buy an Android. You can configure what browser opens links. You can configure what map application opens maps. You can configure what video player opens videos. Yes, this is much like Microsoft a decade ago; in fact, it's worse, the iOS offers significantly less choice than Windows did back then; you could develop your own software for your own computer without joining a restrictive developer program from Microsoft. If you don't like it, my recommendation is that you don't buy into it. Get an Android. I've been perfectly happy with mine.

__abc 14y ago
<<nothing related to what you said, just a general comment>> If more people just bought what they liked, shut the hell about it, and didn't rage jihad against the opposite platform, the internet would be WAY better.
- piyush_soni 14y ago
  No, it won't be. Bad things must be criticized (or boycotted), to force them to become good. Your use of Apple is affecting my life badly - it's just like passive smoking. No one promoted the culture of ridiculous patent law exploitation as much as Apple did. They are not just doing their own work, but indulging in UGLY competition killing tactics(like they don't want anyone to make rectangular phone with rounded corners). To give you some insight of your own logic, if everyone "not killing someone" will just not kill people as they like it, and didn't say a word to the 'opposite party' - who kill (as they like it as well), according to your logic the world would be WAY better. Jihad is a bad word, but I'll fight against the injustice to my world of technology that Apple is doing.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    Remind us how snarky zealotry tells Apple to stop (ab)using the patent system. If that's the problem you have with them, I think the world would be improved if you directed your energy at patent reform. And comparing IP litigation to murder is just ridiculous, not that you didn't already know that. Among all the other problems, you can fix a bad call from a judge. Murder, not so much.

chestercheetaz 14y ago

no, this is not the same. Microsoft never made computers, just operating systems.

augustl 14y ago

Just for your information, we don't have a "real" Chrome on iOS, we have UIWebViews with Chrome branding. So Google can only innovate in the UI surrounding the web pages, not the rendering and interaction of the websites themselves.

ricardobeat 14y ago
Chrome and Safari already share the rendering engine, the only difference is that experimental stuff gets released much earlier in Chrome.
robin_reala 14y ago
Not 100% true: iOS Chrome bundles its own networking stack which is a differentiator (it supports SPDY for a start). They are hampered by UIWebView’s slower JS engine though.
- augustl 14y ago
  Thanks! Was not aware of the networking part, nice to know. The rendering engine is also much more than "just rendering". When I click two small links close to each other on Android Chrome, a small clickable popup containing a zoomed in portion of that part of the page will appear. Very useful for avoiding misclicks!

jakejake 14y ago

Microsoft was sued simply for bundling IE with Windows, which sounds crazy when you think about it. But at the time it seemed like selling browsers was going to be huge and Microsoft basically killed Netscape. With Windows, though, you were always free to install other browsers and set them as the default unlike iOS. In the end the case kinda fizzled out as the times were changing so fast. Browsers kinda became an accepted "default" application to go along with an operating system. I have to admit with all of the lawsuits in the software industry, I'm kinda surprised that Apple hasn't gotten more heat.

russgray 14y ago
There was a lot more to it than that. Microsoft actively threatened to withdraw licenses from OEMs that preinstalled/bundled rival software as defaults. Given the Windows monopoly, OEMs had to comply or die. Given the massive inertia against the average non-technical user installing an alternative to IE, this effectively equated to Microsoft using their Windows monopoly to dominate an unrelated market. Apple are nowhere near close to this until they own 95% of the global cellphone market and start making credible threats to destroy HTC or Samsung if they dare to sell an Android phone, or an iPhone with Chrome preinstalled.

thefreeman 14y ago

I think the difference is apple makes all the hardware which this runs on. Microsoft software was essentially the only option for pc's made by anyone.

ghshephard 14y ago

As one who worked for Netscape, and was 12' away from Marc Andreessen when the ruling was handed down, the ENTIRE case against Microsoft was predicated on them (A) Being a Monopoly (that was critical) and (B) Trying to leverage said monopoly into another line of business. Nobody is going to suggest Apple has a Monopoly in the mobile phone, nor even the Smart Phone industry. In fact, I think Eric Schmidt publicly said that "Android had Won" today - so that kind of puts an end to that thread.

dirtyaura 14y ago

No, it's not a similar situation because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile OS market. Microsoft was accused of abusing it's monopoly on the PC operating system market to prevent competition on the web browser market. Today, the situation is different: if you as a customer don't like iOS you can go and easily buy a smartphone with Android or Windows OS. This is an important distinction. Otherwise for example every car manufacturer could be accused with similar grounds because they use their propriety software or custom parts instead of providing totally configurability.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
That's right. The key point is that the rules for running a business change when you have a monopoly. Having a monopoly isn't illegal but the government doesn't want you abusing that special power with anticompetitive tactics.

sbuk 14y ago

If Apple have 98% of the mobile phone market and threatens OEM's that they will have licenses taken away if they include competitors products, then we'll talk anti-trust.

pohl 14y ago

Read the "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law" documents from that case. The big missing piece is a monopoly in the relevant market. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm