4 ms·

Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. I don't think t

Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Behavior which Google also practices?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Behavior which Google also practices? If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer, whether you like it or not, being tame compared to Google's voracity for the same behavior, forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services. Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API. And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year. (Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer The actual basis was illegal protecting their existing desktop PC OS monopoly by tying, and illegally extending their existing desktop PC OS monopoly to the browser market by tying. Both the existing monopoly context and the purpose were important parts of what made the tying problematic.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market to try to grow monopolies over other major online industries like movies and music by requiring those apps be shipped aboard.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market Are you asserting: (1) That the market for apps sold via the Play Store is a "market" as that term is used in antitrust analysis, and one over which Google has a monopoly, or that (2) The Play Store itself, as a product, represents a Google monopoly within some market as that term is used in antitrust analysis (And, if #2, what "market")?
      - Oletros 12y ago
        > forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA. Perhaps, instead of crying for downvoting you have to inform better.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Yes, one spelling issue. Sorry, the MADA isn't discussed frequently (because Google's pretty good at keeping it out of the public eye), so I spelled it wrong. The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
- legohead 12y ago
  Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE. Yes, the case was bigger than just that, but now you are just nitpicking my comment.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE. Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows in response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on desktop OS's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly, and simultaneously for attempting to monopolize the internet browser market by leveraging their existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got in trouble. They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.
- Estragon 12y ago
  If MS hadn't explicitly said things like "We're going to cut off their air supply" in reference to the bundling, they might even have gotten away with it.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Behavior which Google also practices?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Behavior which Google also practices? If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer, whether you like it or not, being tame compared to Google's voracity for the same behavior, forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services. Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API. And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year. (Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer The actual basis was illegal protecting their existing desktop PC OS monopoly by tying, and illegally extending their existing desktop PC OS monopoly to the browser market by tying. Both the existing monopoly context and the purpose were important parts of what made the tying problematic.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market to try to grow monopolies over other major online industries like movies and music by requiring those apps be shipped aboard.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > And similarly, Google is extending it's monopoly over the Play Store app market Are you asserting: (1) That the market for apps sold via the Play Store is a "market" as that term is used in antitrust analysis, and one over which Google has a monopoly, or that (2) The Play Store itself, as a product, represents a Google monopoly within some market as that term is used in antitrust analysis (And, if #2, what "market")?
    - Oletros 12y ago
      > forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA. Perhaps, instead of crying for downvoting you have to inform better.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Yes, one spelling issue. Sorry, the MADA isn't discussed frequently (because Google's pretty good at keeping it out of the public eye), so I spelled it wrong. The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
legohead 12y ago
Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE. Yes, the case was bigger than just that, but now you are just nitpicking my comment.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE. Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows in response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on desktop OS's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly, and simultaneously for attempting to monopolize the internet browser market by leveraging their existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got in trouble. They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.
Estragon 12y ago
If MS hadn't explicitly said things like "We're going to cut off their air supply" in reference to the bundling, they might even have gotten away with it.