[zaarn]

Microsoft wasn't punished for bundling the browser with the OS.

They were punished because they did that while IE and MS both had major market positions.

The game consoles are split between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, you have choice there. OSX and iOS are only shipped on Mac devices which don't have major marketshares either.

When you have a majority marketshare then you can't do what you want, there is rules. Especially when it comes to abusing your major position to leverage other positions (Sony and Nintendo are hardly pushing their browser products)

[DiabloD3]

Except that is false.

Apple abuses its market position as being the only vendor authorized to ship devices with iOS and OSX. I cannot buy, say, an LG or Samsung iPhone. They abuse their market position by not allowing third party core functionality on their phone at all, nor third party devices at all.

Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony abuse their market positions via exclusive AAA titles that will never come to other platforms, without a valid technological limitation being available (Nintendo owns emulators for tons of past systems, that can work on x86 and ARM fine; Switch internally is 100% the same SoC as the Shield TV; XBOne and PS4 are both AMD APUs and involve no Microsoft or Sony magic in the core hardware).

Phones nor game consoles are not equivalent: when I buy them, I am not buying a device, I am buying a member of an ecosystem. Apple 100% dominates the Apple ecosystem, Microsoft 100% the Xbox ecosystem, Sony 100% the Sony ecosystem, Nintendo 100% of the Nintendo ecosystem.

They have committed far more sins against their own customers than Google has for not dominating the Android ecosystem (as they do not make any Android devices (Pixel does not count, it is an LG and HTC product line)), and the EU has fined Google for an unrelated domination in the search market (of which, Google has no realistic competitors, and not because Google somehow prevented the development of other search engines magically).

In comparison to Microsoft /w MSIE, the MSIE team did not abuse their customers by including a browser by default. They allowed people in the Windows ecosystem to connect to the Internet (a much larger ecosystem) with no additional software for free.

MSIE-era Microsoft and Google were fined for allowing choice, and by allowing choice their platforms (and thus ecosystems) became popular.

DoJ vs Microsoft and EU vs Google both have illustrated that the governments prefer Equality of Outcome over Equality of Opportunity. This tells big business, don't bother innovating, don't bother taking advantage of first mover strategies, don't bother doing anything that might benefit your customers; just lock them into little walled gardens, because you'll make a lot of money but not risk becoming popular enough to get fined.

Apple certainly learned from this, iPhones aren't popular, iMacs and MBPs aren't popular, but Apple will probably be the first company ever with a $1T market cap.

[zaarn]

>Apple abuses its market position

Apple does not have a major position in smartphones or search engines.

Their only monopoly is to sell their own devices, which is totally okay. You can compete by making a YouPhone that's better than the iPhone.

>Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony abuse their market positions

Again, neither has a major market position over the other and it does not prevent any of the other from competing. As you mention, each is capable of putting out exclusives just fine.

>when I buy them, I am not buying a device, I am buying a member of an ecosystem

You seem under the false impression that this is about you. This is purely about competition. As long as any of those vendors do not prevent the others from fairly competing on the market, the EU won't lift a finger.

>They have committed far more sins against their own customers than Google has for not dominating the Android ecosystem

Google is dominating the mobile browser and internet search markets, which, if you check the EU ruling, is the markets this is about.

The android market itself is irrelevant.

>They allowed people in the Windows ecosystem to connect to the Internet (a much larger ecosystem) with no additional software for free.

And google allows vendors to ship phones that can connect to the internet with no additional software for free.

>MSIE-era Microsoft and Google were fined for allowing choice, and by allowing choice their platforms (and thus ecosystems) became popular.

Completely false, they were fined for disadvantaging competitors who would not be able to compete on a fair market.

>DoJ vs Microsoft and EU vs Google both have illustrated that the governments prefer Equality of Outcome over Equality of Opportunity.

Atleast in the EU case, false again. The EU favors a market in which everyone has a level playing field, primarly enforced by having additional rules for any major players in a market. This doesn't tell business to not innovate or first mover advantage, both are allowed.

It's not disallowed to have a major market position but it's disallowed to abuse it to either disadvantage other competitors in the same or other markets.

Otherwise MS would have been fined for producing windows and selling it in the EU, which has not been the case to my knowledge.