[shinratdr]

> If they ever did manage to get Android killed in the way they seem to want to (Jobs' 'thermonuclear' option), don't they realize that would make them the 90's-Microsoft of smartphones?

Not really, because it wouldn't. You don't see Apple going after WP7. Nor WebOS. Yes they are small competitors but that's only because Android is free and established, if there was no Android, they would pick up the slack quite quickly. Apple has a specific problem with Android because of the level of insider information Google had on the iPhone project at the time Android was being retooled into an iOS competitor.

Microsoft's schtick was embrace, extend, extinguish which was a much more two-faced policy and evil policy. 90's Microsoft wanted to own everything and control everything, from the lowliest embedded device to the most powerful servers in the world, from desktop PCs, to mobile devices, to the internet in general, you name it. If it was related to computers, it should run Windows, browse with IE and Microsoft should receive a license fee for it.

Apple has no such desires now, and never really had them in the first place. 90's Microsoft was genuinely malicious. 2011 Apple on the other hand just doesn't like Android and has a serious problem with how it was conceived. IMO because it repeats so perfectly the mistake Steve Jobs made when letting Bill Gates get so close to Apple. True, they maintain more control over their devices than Microsoft ever did, but they don't have the "100% control of the entire market in all aspects" aspirations that Microsoft had. It's just a completely different situation.

[georgemcbay]

The overall motivations of the company are irrelevant, what matters for antitrust concerns is marketshare plus using that marketshare as leverage to own other markets.

Apple gets away with things like the 30% content tax on their devices because they don't have the sort of marketshare Microsoft enjoyed. In a world sans-Android and with the iPhone on all the major carriers, that would soon change.

And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died (and I say this as a WP7 fan). WebOS in particular is all but dead at this point.

[shinratdr]

> And sorry, I don't believe WebOS or WP7 would factor into the conversation even if Android died

So everyone would use iPhones or dumb phones? I doubt that. There is little reason to think that is exactly what would have ended up happening if Android never had existed.

[georgemcbay]

No, not everyone.

Just like not everyone ran Windows.

But, yes, I do believe that in a world without Android enough people would currently be using iPhones for it to be an antitrust matter, just as Windows was for desktop OSes in the 90s.

[Apple-Guy]

Android also charges 30% content tax: http://support.google.com/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer...

[hahainternet]

I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.

You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.

The only differences are

1. Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.

2. Microsoft has < 1% market share.

[shinratdr]

> I don't believe this for a second. Apple has a specific problem with Android because android has >50% market share.

Apple has been targeting them since before Android was popular. The Android project caused a huge rift between Apple and Google, this is well documented. Marketshare has nothing to do with it.

> You have to be joking if you believe that Apple wouldn't consider the same actions against Microsoft if they had similar market share.

I'm not joking. They would have little or no case as Microsoft actually paid attention to patents when developing WP7. Google didn't.

You also have no evidence of this, other than the fact that you don't like Apple. I have lots of evidence that marketshare was irrelevant to Steve Jobs Android hate, for instance it's documented in his bio.

> Microsoft has a lot more lawfare equipment.

I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.

> Microsoft has < 1% market share.

Really? That's the only difference?

How about the fact that WP7 is substantially different and original when compared to iOS and Android and they would have no case? No? That's not a difference? Ok...