[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!

[frumper]

I believe I tried out their live cd, which was a neat concept. Mostly I ran redhat though.

[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.