[jasode]

>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system.

That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate.

Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.)

The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocumented Windows API functions to cripple Netscape and forcing computer manufacturers to avoid other software when licensing DOS/Windows. All of that is in the long document: https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

[NorwegianDude]

His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut.

This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

[adventured]

> This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.

Even more so when you consider how much larger these companies are set to get yet (Google will double in size again within ~5-7 years). It's the Microsoft case if Microsoft had been allowed to continue to build its power out for another 10-15 years unchecked. In the 1990s a parade of magazines ran stories about how Microsoft wanted to set up a toll road on the Internet, to position itself to take a bite out of all ecommerce. They were of course meant to be scare stories to garner attention as Microsoft wasn't close to accomplishing something like that at that point.

And yet, here we are two decades later, Apple and Google control two big Internet toll roads and are drastically larger and more powerful than Microsoft was in the 1990s. IBM was seven times larger than Microsoft in 1997. Microsoft of the 1990s looks downright quaint by comparison, an emerging big tech company playing at being giant (back then there were still far larger and more powerful corporations); today, Apple and Google - big tech broadly - are the most powerful and largest companies. Caterpillar, GE, 3M, General Dynamics, GM, Ford, Honeywell, etc look like sad jokes standing next to Apple or Google.

Google for its part has three monopolies which have amazingly been left entirely alone: search, YouTube, Android. They must have signed one helluva protection deal with the intelligence apparatus back when PRISM was getting set up, they got a ten year get out of jail free card (it's in the interests of the intelligence community to have these giant intel-hoovering companies that sprawl and span the globe).

[Forge36]

Based on this previous case Apple isn't violating the law because they also sold the hardware.

[weare138]

Anti-trust cases aren't decided on binary terms. It's the overall act that's illegal. In other words just because the situation with Apple is different from Microsoft's anti-trust case doesn't mean Apple could not be violating the law. Paying or accepting money for the purposes of a company receiving an unfair competitive advantage is also covered under anti-trust laws such as the Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....

[techrat]

I would argue that makes it worse.

[IncRnd]

Are you saying that Safari requires hardware-level apis?

[pjmlp]

Nope, all PCs came with Windows and OEMs willing to sell alternative computers didn't had volume discounts.

It was a choice, but most decided to cave in and only sell PCs.

Here that isn't the case, most shops selling iPhones also have other brands available. Customers aren't forced into buying iPhones.

[IncRnd]

You raised the bar that is required. It is more appropriate to look whether iPhones are a dominant brand, not whether they are the only brand.

[pjmlp]

Which they are not.

[hypertele-Xii]

Does it make a difference that Apple is the hardware manufacturer, whereas Microsoft just provides the OS for PCs in general?

[H8crilA]

You mean Apple's monopoly position is even stronger because they can put roadblocks at the hardware level? :)

[roenxi]

The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat.

In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.

[danShumway]

Keep in mind that the words "reasonable market" and "alternatives" are doing a lot of work here.

From the linked documents:

> If Android competed with iOS on app transactions, the market competition would make Android apps cheaper for users and attract developers to launch their apps first (or even only) on Android. [...] After a meeting involving senior executives of Google and Apple, notes of the meeting were exchanged between the two companies. The notes reflect: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."

Epic's lawsuits are alleging that both Apple and Google have engaged in anti-competitive behavior here, albeit sometimes in different ways. Even bolder, they're claiming that Google and Apple engaged cooperative anti-competitive behavior that benefited both companies. What consumer-ready alternatives exist for users outside of Apple and Android? If a developer announces that they're building a smartphone game, and that it won't work on Android or iOS, do you think it's reasonably possible for that developer to make money with that game?

Apple has massive amounts of competitive leverage over the smartphone ecosystem; they control the most profitable app store. And the vast majority of non-iOS phones are running the Google Play Store. In that context, locking down the hardware has much bigger implications than it would in a truly competitive market. I think the question is, do we actually have a competitive smartphone market when it comes to smartphone app stores and OSes?

[dylan604]

Non-sequitor: I hate that it's going to be Epic that really gets this to take hold. If it were anybody else. This is like watching a sports game where you want both teams to loose. There's a lot of Apple iOS policy I don't like, but I also don't like Epic (personal reasons). This would put Epic on a pedestal that I'd rather not see.

I do shudder at the day of seeing websites that only work on Chrome for iOS, an app that I will never use.

[howinteresting]

Often the measure used for market share is not a linear one but a squared one.

By that measure, there is very little competition in the smartphone segment—it is highly concentrated and so the major players (both Apple and Google) should face greater antitrust scrutiny.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman...

[stale2002]

> like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly.

A monopoly is not needed for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that is needed is significant market power.

Apple has 50% of the smartphone market. Which is around where courts have stated that anti-trust laws start to apply.

50% of a highly concentrated market is not a slam dunk anti-trust case, by any means, but it is within the realm where courts might rule against it, depending on numerous factors.

[judge2020]

> A monopoly is not needed for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that is needed is significant market power.

Have any references where someone was sued for antitrust while having <50% marketshare (of course, using the market determined by the court at the time)? If what you say is true, is the cutoff for antitrust action just "when media outlets report on it long enough to actually be put in sight of regulators/congress"?

[0x0nyandesu]

In the entertainment industry not having an iPhone literally hurts your career. If you can't use iMessage people look at you weird and you are literally excluded from social circles. I know someone that was in tech and went into music and even though she prefers Android she ended up caving and getting an iPhone.

[IncRnd]

You may not be aware, but you can send from imessage to an android. The other way works, too.

[techrat]

I work in the entertainment industry. You're full of shit.

[hypertele-Xii]

But the contrarian opinion would amount to forcing companies to interoperate, which is a massive endeavour of standards and committees - usually only undertaken for natural monopolies to avoid tragedy of the commons.

Are smartphones a natural monopoly? And at what levels? Hardware (including plugs and jacks, physical button locations and functions?), software, data federation? Like where do you draw the line?

If smartphones must allow alternatives, then why not gaming consoles? It's a similarily integrated device. Would Microsoft be forced to allow unlicenced 3rd party software on the Xbox?

[pyrale]

> If smartphones must allow alternatives, then why not gaming consoles?

One may argue that people rarely need a gaming console to pursue job opportunities, for instance. A smartphone, on the other hand, has become practically mandatory in many industries.

[overtonwhy]

Because the whole device and experience is the product. It's not just an OS.

[trhway]

yep, that was the argument against the rebates and disbundling Windows from laptops.

[laurent92]

It feels like I could find a line, to rationalize what happened or not to MS or Apple.

But in reality, in the wake of 9/11, USA thought it was more important to have extremely large companies, and it let them grow.

(And MS’ EU fine was related to not giving the API doc, and perhaps using fines as a political weapon).

Clearly, if US applied the anti-monopoly laws, it would shoot its own companies. In my opinion however, no single entity should dominate, govt or enterprise, and we must parcel large ones to keep competition fair, replacements rolling, class mobility high, the american dream possible for new entrants and more importantly, so that governance of our daily life is regularly given to the next generation.

[skohan]

What does pro-corporate policy have to do with 9/11?

[llampx]

It marked a shift in thinking and foreign policy

[skohan]

I don't know, it seems to me there was a continuous trend in pro-corporate neoliberal policies you can trace back to the 80's or mid-70's.

Can you give any evidence of what changed after 9/11 in terms of pro-corporate policy?

[AlbertCory]

"In the wake of 9/11" is lazy writing. Kinda like businesses saying "we have crappy service, because of COVID."

Antitrust enforcement has more to do with the party in power than anything else. The Bush Administration wasn't interested in suing businesses, and now the Biden Administration is again.

[amelius]

Do you think the consumer would have been better off if Microsoft was the hardware manufacturer too, back then?

[galleywest]

Microsoft DOES sell hardware. The Surface series anybody?

[filoleg]

It does now. The discussion isn’t about Microsoft in the present time, it is about Microsoft in the time when they lost their anti-trust lawsuit.

[cartoonworld]

Firefox works fine on iOS

[fooey]

As the parent post says, Firefox on iOS isn't really Firefox. It doesn't run Gecko, it's barely more than a skin on top of Safari.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5...

> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.

[fingerlocks]

How much does this really matter to the typical user? I’m not using Firefox because it’s JS and rendering engine are significantly better than webkit. Can’t really tell the difference honestly. I’m still getting all the other features of Firefox that actually distinguish it from it’s competitors. The so-called skin is more like the guts from a user value perspective.

[willcipriano]

The reason I use Firefox for Android is the ability to use addons. According to this, they don't work on Apple phones: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios

[int_19h]

Safari lags behind on many web standards. On other platforms, when that happens (e.g. IE), competitors provide alternatives that can do better.

[snovv_crash]

Apple doesn't develop things like push notifications via web app, which might compete with the app store.

[fzzzy]

The user doesn't notice, but it stifles innovation at that level of the stack.

[AlexCoventry]

I would notice the lack of ad blocker/no-script.

[cartoonworld]

Question to downvotes:

I’ve seen people saying in these comments often that you have to use safari. I am using ff on my iOS device right now, what am I missing?

[hortense]

In general, WebKit has more bugs and fewer features than gecko.

[fingerlocks]

The technical reason is that a very powerful system call is blocked on iOS that’s required to build a custom language runtime needed for a browser. This is done to increase security of the device. The trade-off is that the JavaScript engine and renderer must be shared by all browsers on iOS.

But if you can’t tell the difference, does it really matter?

[commoner]

iOS platform restrictions prevent Firefox for iOS from supporting add-ons. That is a rather striking difference.

[ohazi]

> But if you can’t tell the difference, does it really matter?

Firefox on Android supports add-ons, in particular uBlock origin. Firefox on iOS does not. That's a huge difference.

[cartoonworld]

Thanks, appreciated greatly

[frumper]

You mean safari with a custom skin

[HWR_14]

If Apple allowed other browsers beyond Safari, Google (and others) would stop supporting Safari and force people to download Chrome (or FF, their supported also-ran). We'd be back where a giant company 100% sets web standards.

Apple standing against that is important for the open web.

[shagie]

If apple prevented its licensees for the iPhone to bundle Safari rather than another browser... then this would be more applicable.

However, Apple isn't extending its dominance in the smart phone area (Apple has 53% market share of mobile devices, Microsoft had above 90% market share for intel compatible PCs https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... ) to its licensees for iOS.

Apple not forcing Samsung to bundle Safari on the Samsung branded iPhones to the exclusion of Chrome.

Yes, Apple isn't licensing iOS to others and that's a key difference. Furthermore, Apple has half of the market dominance that Microsoft had in its day.

[eptcyka]

Just because they make both iOS and the iPhone doesn't mean they get a pass to be anticompetitive on their platform.

[seanmcdirmid]

They can be anticompetitive on their platform as long as their platform doesn’t have a lock on the market. So say, if you didn’t need to buy an iPhone and could buy an android instead, and if that actually happened in practice, Apple could reasonably argue they didn’t have a monopoly on the market even if they had a monopoly in their own platform.

[howinteresting]

By the HHI, Apple absolutely has a lock on the market.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman...

With 53% market share, Apple alone contributes over 0.25 to the HHI. 0.25 for the entire market is regarded as highly concentrated.

[wayneftw]

Not when their platform holds the majority of users in the US and when they're colluding with the "competition".

[ryan93]

A majority of users choose apple. but they didnt have to

[seanmcdirmid]

54% is a majority, but its not a vast majority.

> and when they're colluding with the "competition".

Unless you have evidence for that, that's just libel.

[sciprojguy]

"Samsung Branded iPhones"? This can't possibly be a thing.

[inetknght]

Well, not at the current model with Apple's abusive position of manufacturing both the iPhone and iOS and Safari.

[sandworm101]

Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.

[mkotowski]

> Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows

- Mac OS X Public Beta (2000)

- SUSE Linux 7.0 (2000)

- Debian 2.2 (2000)

- OpenBSD 2.7 (2000)

- Solaris 8 (2000)

- AmigaOS 3.9 (2000)

- and so on... [0]

Hardly “no alternatives” in my humble opinion.

And in office space, MS-DOS was still a thing for quite some time.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_operating_systems#...

[sandworm101]

None of those had the broad software options of windows. Everyday users who wanted to complete office tasks, use the internet, and play games were locked into windows. (The 2001 ruling also took a while and was based on pre-2001 behavior by MS and likely future behavior.)

[simfree]

In 2001 Linspire had a huge software library you could install from with a single click right from Click N Run (a pretty app store with the app icon, name, description, storage required and user reviews.).

Firefox worked, as did Flash (hello NewGrounds!), Java (RuneScape), you could do a ton and be nigh invulnerable to all the malware on the internet of the early 2000s.

[KronisLV]

Curiously enough, 2000 was also when the first public versions of OpenOffice became available: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org

It's interesting to think that the project has survived for so long, even if nowadays the Libre office variety is more widely used.

[grishka]

Desktop OSes aren't alternatives to mobile ones. They serve different purposes.

[sandworm101]

Except when they are. There were windows phones briefly. And linux will run on phones. And Android laptops. Such choices were not around in 2001. PC users in 2001 would have killed for the number of options available to phone users today.

The 2001 decision was comparing desktop options at a time when they weren't any. Today's mobile users have plenty of options, plenty of brands and OSs to choose from.

[grishka]

Windows Mobile may have had the same kernel as the desktop counterpart (but I believe it was heavily stripped down), but the userspace was entirely different because the usage paradigm is entirely different.

Android is Linux under the hood. It just doesn't use any of the cruft that desktop Linux usually has, like Xorg.

[frumper]

Linux wasn’t a viable alternative to windows in 2001 and I don’t think a Linux phone would be considered a viable alternative to google or iOS. There are 2 mobile OS’s, which admittedly is twice as many as desktop OS’s in 2001. As for hardware, there were a ton of options on 2001, probably more major brands than what phones have today, that’s not even including mom and pop custom built PCs.

[simfree]

Did you ever use Linspire? It had a posh, user friendly app store with a ton of useful apps, Firefox, Flash Java and most other things worked without issue. Not a bad experience in the early 2000s on a Pentium 3!

[erhk]

We should still call for breaking up bad busoness practices regardles of whether something is a monopoly or not. We forget that even considering a monopoly to require gov intervention is a somewhat novel concept. Right to repair comes to mind, especially for things like tractors. Im tired of paying for products and not truly owning them in the way I want to. Be it in the literal sense or being locked into iOS' walled garden or otherwise.

[Xelbair]

which is basically nothing compared to google/apple of today.They are basically forcing you to use them as a middle-man for any app you want. While getting a cut from all transactions.

Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps, side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.

IOS forcing you to use safari no matter what, and there is no way to side-load apps, nor any non-apple app stores.

chrome de facto sets web standards, giving them slight edge over other browsers - and they do use chrome specific APIs to cripple other browsers - like YouTube working worse on Firefox due that reason.

And that's even without taking into the consideration all the tracking in form of telemetry on the devices, coupled with their own ads markets.

[techrat]

> Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps,

They can in Android 12.

> side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.

The warnings are minimal.

-- 1) Open Chrome.

-- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png

-- 3) Accept warning and Open APK.

-- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png

-- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png

-- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once)

-- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png

-- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png

Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.

The ZOMG SKERRRY WARNINGS only show up once when you toggle the permission for that app and if you look at the screenshot, it's a reasonable disclaimer.

We have plenty of things to bash on Google here for... the sideloading process, however, is not one of them.

> chrome de facto sets web standards,

Chrome became the most popular browser simply because it is better.

If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Not because of subterfuge, but because they continually drop the ball.

Chrome didn't exist in a vacuum and it didn't have the advantage of having a host operating system that had it installed from the start. There's a reason it's the primary engine now. It actually works better.

If that bothers you, use Firefox or De-Googled Chromium. Or if you really hate yourself... Safari.

[simfree]

Chrome had the advantage of having the #1 search engine with 90+% market share show warning modals saying "Works best in Chrome" while they actively gated features or degraded features for other browser users. Swapping user agents would cause G Suite to perform much better in non-Chrome browsers.

[pyrale]

> If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times.

Mozilla never had #1.

And I don't know what world you live in, but Google has pushed Chrome with the equivalent of billions in advertising. There's simply no way Mozilla can compete with that considering the kind of budget they're on.

If you want a fair estimate, look the time it took for Firefox to slowly grind market share from IE6, despite an abyssal difference between the two browsers.

[techrat]

Netscape was the dominant browser from at least 1995 to the end of 1998. It overtook Mosaic to become #1 with Mosaic being a very, very distant #2.

At its peak it had 90+% of the market share.

Firefox nearly overtook IE until Chrome was released. If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.

I switched to Chrome not because Google had good advertising but simply because it was _better._ Firefox has always had issues and Mozilla can't seem to make a browser that doesn't shit itself every now and then.

[pyrale]

> If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.

It took 6 years for Chrome to gain 50% market share. In 6 years, firefox had barely taken 25% from IE.

If you're arguing that this difference in success is explained by the technological gap between chrome and firefox being much larger than the technological gap between firefox and IE, you need a reality check.

Otherwise, you need to acknowledge the fact that Chrome had something firefox didn't have, and it was not a technological advantage.

[_xy8h]

Firefox made it to about 32%.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/internet-browser-market-sha...

Chrome took more away from IE initially than it did from Firefox.

And yes, I'm arguing a technical difference. I've used every version of every browser when it was still new, all the way back to Mosaic.

Chrome introduced per-tab instancing which was a HUGE leap ahead of everything else and Firefox took years to catch up to that one feature alone. Firefox was bloated, slow and unstable.

It still is.

[hliyan]

On a perhaps related note, I have noticed that a Google Meet that consumes just over 1Mbps on Google Chrome consistently consumes close to 4Mbps on Firefox. Same settings, same window size, same participants. I cannot help but wonder whether Chrome has implemented some standard browser feature more efficiently, or whether it has special native features just for Meets.

[simfree]

Change your useragent to Chrome. Google often gates performance improvements to be Chrome only.

[techrat]

Or they're using a different codec which is not supported by Firefox.

[gentleman11]

What about alerting users that Firefox is potentially malware and that edge is safer? That seems extremely anti competitive to me

[mhh__]

Apple have undocumented instructions now let alone APIs

[passivate]

I don't know every detail of the case, but I used Netscape in the 90's, it worked just fine. I don't think it was crippled by any means.

[jokethrowaway]

I hope Apple treatment of low performance iOS webviews will be treated similarly