Why do people keep bringing this up? The situations are completely different.
Microsoft bundled IE with Windows at a time where the internet was still painfully slow and it was difficult to download a different browser. They also allegedly put IE-specific APIs into Windows, giving it an unfair advantage.
However, neither of these would have been enough to convict, if Microsoft hadn't also had a monopoly over the PC. Back in those days, Windows was _the_ operating system. Linux was still new and unknown, and Macintosh wasn't a threat by any means. Bill Gates was sometimes compared to the president in terms of power and influence.
Bundling Windows and IE was an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market, in a successful attempt to take over the browser market.
Apple has no such monopoly. Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products. When you say they're being anti-competitive, you're implying that iOS and OSX are massive ecosystems which include meaningful competition in sub-markets that Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage in. No such sub-market exists.
> Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products.
And also like many others have said before, that's not a difference. You could choose not to buy Microsoft products in the '90s. I did it. The place I worked did it. Most people and places simply didn't make that choice because Microsoft seemed like a safer purchase.
Also, Apple has pretty much the same position in the tablet market that Microsoft did in the PC market. I can't remember the last time I saw someone holding a non-Apple tablet who wasn't trying to sell me one.
>Also, Apple has pretty much the same position in the tablet market that Microsoft did in the PC market. I can't remember the last time I saw someone holding a non-Apple tablet who wasn't trying to sell me one.
Rather than blindly speculating, we can look at actual facts.
Today Microsoft has 93% of the desktop OS market.[1] Considering the recent rise in popularity of both OS X and Linux I would guess that was higher in the 90s, but I have not done enough research to be sure
Apple's iOS today has 63% of the mobile market.[2] While that is still the majority it is not close to Microsoft's desktop dominance even today.
So maybe you only socialize with Apple fans but your circle does not represent the market as a whole.
You're saying that if (when) Microsoft will fall to some percentage (63%, for example) in desktop market, they can appeal anti-monopoly regulations and force IE within Windows again?
Yeah, but that's the mobile market. That includes phones as well as tablets. Android has clearly made great inroads in the phone market: I think it actually has a market share of over 50% in phones (well, smartphones, anyhow). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for tablets; for whatever reason, Apple still maintains a very strong position in the tablet market.
I'm too young to know for sure, but I bet Microsoft only ever had a monopoly in the desktop market and never in servers or the like.
Let me preface this with IANAL, just a very interested person.
It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly.
What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed.
What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store.
In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion.
The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.
> It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly.
Like not allowing third-party browsers to compete with your own on anything remotely resembling a level playing field? That's what we were talking about here, remember? Apple won't allow alternative browser engines at all, and if you decide to build a browser using the engine Apple provides for third-party devs, it's worse than the one Apple uses in its own browser.
> Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad.
Macs were not particularly less available than PCs in the '90s. I didn't know anyone who really wanted to buy a Mac, but just couldn't find one. They were just radically less popular and generally considered to be a bad choice (I liked them even then, but I didn't have a lot of company with that opinion). Much like non-iPad tablets.
Again though, Apple is one manufacturer. They make a device and supporting software for that device. Unlike the situation with Microsoft where they were licensing software to multiple device makers. It was the OEM agreements that led to them running afoul of antitrust.
Since Apple sells a hardware device with software they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. This is true of Android of course too, as we know device manufacturers often modify Android to suit their needs or the needs of their networks, why else do people speak of having to root their devices?
That's what makes it an non-abusive monopoly, they aren't dictating the rules for the vast majority of device makers, and doing so in a way to benefit their products unfairly.
Microsoft bundled IE with Windows at a time where the internet was still painfully slow and it was difficult to download a different browser. They also allegedly put IE-specific APIs into Windows, giving it an unfair advantage.
However, neither of these would have been enough to convict, if Microsoft hadn't also had a monopoly over the PC. Back in those days, Windows was _the_ operating system. Linux was still new and unknown, and Macintosh wasn't a threat by any means. Bill Gates was sometimes compared to the president in terms of power and influence.
Bundling Windows and IE was an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market, in a successful attempt to take over the browser market.
Apple has no such monopoly. Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products. When you say they're being anti-competitive, you're implying that iOS and OSX are massive ecosystems which include meaningful competition in sub-markets that Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage in. No such sub-market exists.