4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's "bundling" when you add features to your product. The contention in the Microsoft case was that they forced OEMs to "bu

by yanw 14y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's "bundling" when you add features to your product. The contention in the Microsoft case was that they forced OEMs to "bundle" IE and block Netscape. There is also the small matter of Google being free, and the lack of any meaningful lock-ins (this being the web and all) and the matter of Facebook being the leading social network, and other such subtleties that make these cases very dissimilar. There is also the discussion of whether or not the DOJ was wise in pursuing that case which they subsequently lost, seeing as last I checked IE still ships with Windows.

daeken 14y ago
> the matter of Facebook being the leading social network Netscape was the leading browser when IE started being bundled. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think that argument makes a lot of sense.
- yanw 14y ago
  Windows was the only viable OS at the time, and when Microsoft forced OEMs to include IE and blocked them from making deals with Netscape it triggered that whole thing. Here Google is just a website on the internet, granted it's a significant website but so is Facebook, and you don't have to go through Google to reach Facebook. My point is that Facebook is a large entity that exists alongside Google, and so does Twitter and many others so it's not a one vendor market.