4 ms·

Intel gives incentives to OEMs to lock out AMD. Google pays Mozilla to lock out other search engines on Firefox start page and search bar (and it does not allo

by leej 17y ago

Intel gives incentives to OEMs to lock out AMD. Google pays Mozilla to lock out other search engines on Firefox start page and search bar (and it does not allow customization at install time). Apple does not allow 3rd party apps colliding with Apple produced ones on App Store. Any comments on these other monopolies' actions? Every company does the same.

stepherm 17y ago
The difference is Mozilla and Apple don't have 9X% market share.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  And google doesn't have 9x% market share?
  - statictype 17y ago
    Well, no, actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. You'd be surprised at how many people still use Yahoo for search.
  - carussell 17y ago
    Is Google using that 9x% market share (in search engines) to decimate competition in other markets based solely on the tying occurring in the original market (i.e., what Microsoft was actually convicted of doing)? No.
jpcx01 17y ago
Intel is facing massive fines in EU for its business practices regardarding AMD.
protomyth 17y ago
I'll skip the Intel / AMD thing, it is already being looked at. It seems as though it would be considered anti-competitive. Google is buying a placement (they pay Mozilla and probably Apple). This really doesn't do much in the way of restricting the activities of other search players. Google is more likely to get themselves in trouble with the FCC over Google Voice. Apple does not have the market share to matter. There are plenty of phones and Apple's share is tiny compared to someone like Nokia. Restricting the types of apps for a closed system hasn't got anyone in trouble yet, since you have to do a lot of logic leaps / market segmenting to get to a monopoly position for Apple. Heck, the iPod and iTunes are nowhere near monopolies. Microsoft, in order to protect Internet Explorer (product A), charged higher prices on Windows (product B) to OEMs that wanted to include Netscape Navigator. This is an illegal tying of products. It is considered a restriction of trade. Given Microsoft's market share (and probably, sadly, Microsoft's at that time low contributions to political parties), this is major league anti-competitive behavior. Tying of unrelated products is the problem. As a side note, I get that you are trying to prove a point with the logic "everyone does it, so it is fine", but I am neither fond of that particular phrase nor do I believe it is true for that matter.

by leej 17y ago

stepherm 17y ago

The difference is Mozilla and Apple don't have 9X% market share.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
And google doesn't have 9x% market share?
- statictype 17y ago
  Well, no, actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. You'd be surprised at how many people still use Yahoo for search.
- carussell 17y ago
  Is Google using that 9x% market share (in search engines) to decimate competition in other markets based solely on the tying occurring in the original market (i.e., what Microsoft was actually convicted of doing)? No.

jpcx01 17y ago

Intel is facing massive fines in EU for its business practices regardarding AMD.

protomyth 17y ago

I'll skip the Intel / AMD thing, it is already being looked at. It seems as though it would be considered anti-competitive. Google is buying a placement (they pay Mozilla and probably Apple). This really doesn't do much in the way of restricting the activities of other search players. Google is more likely to get themselves in trouble with the FCC over Google Voice. Apple does not have the market share to matter. There are plenty of phones and Apple's share is tiny compared to someone like Nokia. Restricting the types of apps for a closed system hasn't got anyone in trouble yet, since you have to do a lot of logic leaps / market segmenting to get to a monopoly position for Apple. Heck, the iPod and iTunes are nowhere near monopolies. Microsoft, in order to protect Internet Explorer (product A), charged higher prices on Windows (product B) to OEMs that wanted to include Netscape Navigator. This is an illegal tying of products. It is considered a restriction of trade. Given Microsoft's market share (and probably, sadly, Microsoft's at that time low contributions to political parties), this is major league anti-competitive behavior. Tying of unrelated products is the problem. As a side note, I get that you are trying to prove a point with the logic "everyone does it, so it is fine", but I am neither fond of that particular phrase nor do I believe it is true for that matter.