[MichaelApproved]

Apple can do what it likes because it's not using an existing monopoly to create another monopoly. That's the issue with Windows.

Microsoft used it's monopoly with Windows to edge out competitor browsers and practically killed Netscape's business. When you have a monopoly, there are special laws that apply only to you so you don't abuse the market.

I'm pointing out that it seems like MS is using its monopoly with Windows to edge out the Dropbox service.

[adventured]

That is extraordinarily incorrect.

Apple can be prosecuted under the same exact anti-trust laws as Microsoft, regardless of market-share, if they've managed to cause harm per the government's findings.

Using a quasi-monopoly to create another quasi-monopoly is not illegal. Owning a quasi-monopoly is also not illegal.

I find people are often extremely confused about anti-trust law and the actual laws (and relative lack thereof) related to monopolies.

Microsoft is not operating under a government consent decree any longer.

Microsoft using Windows to compete with Dropbox is not inherently illegal. It has absolutely nothing to do with market-share, it has to do with whether the government, on a case-by-case basis, decides that a company's actions caused harm, and it is purely a subjective decision.

Anti-trust law, I'll note, does not specifically or exclusively govern monopolies. The majority of anti-trust cases that have been brought forward by the government have nothing to do with monopolies.

[MichaelApproved]

In what instance would Apple be in danger under these laws? Regarding their desktop OS.

[chinpokomon]

Why restrict them to the Desktop OS only? They've been very anticompetitive on the Mobile front.

[MichaelApproved]

Ah, yes. I was referring primarily to their desktop operating system because they have nothing close to a monopoly there. In regards to their iOS devices, I can see a case being made but Android still has a much larger market share than iOS.