[HNthrow22]

How is it dangerous? How are you able to equate "I was unfairly harsh in my judgement of X" with "X wasn't bad"? That doesn't follow, it's simply a comparison.

Gates and MS anti-trust violations are now standard operating procedure for today's tech giants, the behavior of MS in the 90s looks incredibly harmless when compared to the wildly irresponsible socially dangerous behavior of tech giants today. We seemed to have just collectively forgotten about anti-trust and decided that the natural monopoly of tech services will be the new status quo. But anti-trust is nothing compared to the perils and social consequences of the 'move fast and break things' approach of technology and software today. The Boeing 737max is one recent example, but we're just starting to unravel the social and cultural costs of allowing companies with unprecedented power to shape human behavior and public opinions, dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform in the name of quarterly growth. Seems like a reasonable comment and insight to me.

[Lowkeyloki]

You're right that the irresponsible behavior of tech giants today makes what Microsoft did in the 90s look harmless. But only by comparison. It's dangerous because in this case hindsight is not 20/20. What Microsoft was doing in the 90s wasn't harmless. It was, at the very least, a step on the path that led to the very behavior we're condemning from others now. And besides that, their behavior was objectively harmful.

[soup10]

It's strange that ms got busted partly for their handling of internet explorer, but at least on windows there was never any restrictions on what 3rd party software was allowed and no obligation to pay Microsoft a 30% tax on sales. Meanwhile Apple has 50 pages of App Store Review guidelines, routinely rejects apps for political reasons. And collects taxes on everything.

[WillPostForFood]

In the 90's Windows had > 90% marketshare of the desktop market and Internet Explorer had > 90% browser marketshare. Globally, iOS is < 25% marketshare. So while Apple holds an app store monopoly on their own phone, you have a comparable alternatives available. Microsoft lost because, "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." In retrospect, that looks questionable, but at the time Windows dominance looked pretty unstoppable.

[tokyodude]

Microsoft suits were not global. There is no global government. In the USA Apple is 50% +/- 5% in Mobile. Samsung is #2 at 24%, Lg 6%, Motorola 4%

On top of which Microsoft suit specifically calls out "Intel compatible PC operating systems"

From the ruling

> The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating systems in violation of 2; attempted to gain a monopoly in the market for internet browsers in violation of 2; and illegally tied two purportedly separate products, Windows and Internet Explorer ("IE"), in violation of 1.

In other words, Apple's market on Power PC machines at the time was not even taken into consideration.

Using the same logic we Apple has 100% market share on A-series based processors. ARM is not hardware it's a spec that any company can build hardware around and Apple is building their own.

Apple dictate the browser engine to 1.3billion devices. They use that monopoly to force browser standards since by disallowing browser engine competition on iOS they are able to lord those 1.3billion users over the any standard they want/don't want since other browsers are iOS are not allowed to provide their own engines and therefore can't support newer standards and so Apple prevents and real competition in browsers on iOS.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253...

Similar issues are coming up with Apple being the only store and only way to get software on iOS. Those issues are in the courts now in both the USA and EU.

[WillPostForFood]

On top of which Microsoft suit specifically calls out "Intel compatible PC operating systems"

They are talking about Companies like Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, who made intel hardware. What choices did those companies have for an OS for their computers? Windows effectively had a 100% monopoly. They aren't talking about consumer alternatives, where you could by a Mac.

55% isn't a monopoly, Android is a very good substitute, so not really comparable to the 90s where you needed a desktop and Office to get work done and Windows controlled 90-95% of the market.

[mceoin]

Why is this comment flagged? Seems reasonable and certainly not rude or inflammatory.

[pjmlp]

Maybe because some people on HN don't like to be reminded that their bias against Apple doesn't play out in what the law actually states about monopolies, and the factual market across the globe.

[anilakar]

Oh? From my international viewpoint HN is very pro-Apple biased.

[WillPostForFood]

You tend to have both vocal advocates and vocal detractors.

[lightedman]

Because people on HN are cowards who'd rather downvote and flag instead of discussing things rationally - much like the moderators of the site.

[analognoise]

You had me until in agreement until this: "dictate what is and is acceptable speech for their platform"

You build your own platform if you don't like it - free software people do, so can you.

[HNthrow22]

poor phrasing on my part and I think we're in agreement about this, of course companies should have control what goes on their platform, they're not public services - the issue today is they have the power but none of the consequences from potential fallout. Should we really be placing that power in the hands of for profit entities? Regulation is it's own bag of worms, but at least the government is in theory meant to be acting in the interest of the populace vs. shareholders - a key difference especially in dealing with influence/reach/impact of the likes of twitter, facebook, reddit etc

[analognoise]

Ah, so we are in agreement fully.

I appreciate the added nuance.