[etchalon]

Microsoft didn't get dinged for shipping IE by default. They got dinged because, to promote IE, they engaged in a lot of fairly nefarious things, forcing their OEM partners not to install other browsers, for instance.

It wasn't just "you can't have a default web browser in IE", and reducing that case to that is ahistorical.

[somethingsidont]

You literally cannot install another default messaging app on iOS with SMS integration. There are no OEM partners to speak of on iOS. If iOS reaches 90%+ market share, why shouldn't it be treated the same as Microsoft?

[qwytw]

It's not the same thing. If Microsoft was selling both the hardware and the software. IIRC the US antitrust case was mainly based on restrictions MS imposed on the OEMs. No OEMs, no issue really.

Which sort of makes sense. You don't technically don't have the obligation to make your platform open or support specific APIs regardless of your market share.

[etchalon]

If iOS reaches 90% market share, I'm sure more companies will push the DOJ to go after Apple to open up iOS more.

I don't think Apple would care too much if they were forced to allow other applications to be designated as default SMS clients for the phone, though.

[turquoisevar]

It seems you’re missing their point.

MS was prosecuted because they pressured OEMs into not installing a different browser by making that a requirement to be able to buy Windows licenses.

The alleged illegal act here was the combination of them 1) leveraging the power they had over OEMs to 2) prevent them from installing a different browser in an effort to 3) kill competing browsers.

It was never just about having a default browser, it was about the combination of 1, 2 and 3. There were some other incidents other than the browser that involved elements 1, 2 and 3, but the logic behind it was similar.

I say “alleged” because MS won on appeal and the DOJ decided to settle.

Apple on the other hand, just has a default messaging app. They’re not using their power to block other messaging apps with the intent to kill them, nor are they pressuring other parties to do or not do an act to protect their default messaging app.

The only thing that comes closest to the MS case is that Apple told carriers that they can’t have their bloatware preinstalled from the get go with the first iPhone. The problem however is that Apple, when they imposed that restriction, had no power over carriers, they were just entering the phone market after all. If anything the carriers had power over Apple, but they still choose to play ball despite this restriction.

I’d they’d tried to do that now, then it’d be a different story, because now Apple has quite some market dominance and it could be an antitrust issue.

That’s why carriers are free to impose limitations on certain functionality like hotspot use, because if Apple would force carriers, especially in a heavy handed way, then it could be explained as abusing their power.

Apple is mainly lucky for always having done Apple things, even when they were small in the respective market.

A lot of what Apple does, Apple has done from the beginning when they were insignificant in the context of a market. They couldn’t do introduce many of those things now while they’re so big.

So for all intents and purposes Apple is treated the same as MS.

[heavyset_go]

They also got dinged for baking IE into Windows such that it couldn't be removed, much like Safari and iMessage on iOS.

They ultimately got sued for leveraging their dominance in the PC operating systems market to dominate the browser market.

[dwaite]

The thing is Apple really doesn't want to dominate a market - they're fine just making the most profit.