[quackyodata]

>Apple's in very deep shit in this lawsuit and losing this will open a can of worms.

For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed? All iOS browsers are required to use Safari's WebKit under the hood, despite the appearance of choice in the app store. This cripples the features and performance of 3rd-party browsers like Firefox.

And unlike this spat with Epic, there might be some strong precedence on that question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

[simondotau]

> For example, is it okay to bundle a default web browser with an OS and forbid any other browsers from being installed?

There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.

> there might be some strong precedence on that question

This precedent isn't analogous. Microsoft had an initial marketplace monopoly over desktop computer operating systems, which was not ideal, but legally fine. They then illegally buttressed and extended their monopoly by arm-twisting the largest OEMs to lock competitive operating systems out of the open market. Finally they used this illegal monopoly to force their way into an existing competitive market of commercial[0] web browsers. Had alternative operating systems such as OS/2 and Linux not been illegally suppressed, or had the question been asked in the iOS/Android era, Microsoft's actions around Internet Explorer wouldn't have justified the same level of scrutiny.

For the analogy to hold, you'd have to show that Apple has used their market dominance to illegally suppress market access from its competitors.

[0] It's often hard for us to remember in 2021, but web browsers weren't always entirely free. Netscape was commercial software; initially free for evaluation purposes only, then later free for non-commercial purposes only. Netscape was set to be a very successful company through commercial web browser sales.

[anoncake]

> There are hundreds (or depending on how you count them, thousands) of products where exactly this is the case. Try installing an alternative web rendering engine on your LG smart TV, or your Toyota, or your Playstation.

Sure, and that's problematic, but let's focus on the bigger fish for now.

[simondotau]

It's not problematic. Just because Toyota happens to sell a product that contains a multi-purpose computer with a display, Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units. Having such a requirement would be insane, not to mention impossible given the existence of copyright laws[0]. Toyota's software is proprietary; if they don't want to release tools and libraries, that's their prerogative.

[0] And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL. Without the protection of copyright, GPL software cannot exist—everything becomes de-facto public domain, with none of the benefits of copyleft rules.

[anoncake]

> Toyota is not suddenly obligated to release free tools and libraries to allow third parties to port Firefox to their cars' head units.

Who argued for that? No one, it's a strawman.

> And before you start arguing in opposition to intellectual property rights, remember that copyright law is necessary to enforce the GPL.

Ordering companies not to lock down the customer's hardware does not require abolishing copyright.