Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

If Microsoft can be sued (and lose) for making IE the only/default/integrated browser on millions of copies of Windows - why does not the same apply to Chrome/Safari on Android/Iphone?

View on HN

The issue with IE came from the notion that Microsoft already had a monopoly on operating systems and was using that monopoly as unfair leverage in the "browser market". (This made more sense at the time than it does today, as now the idea that a desktop OS would ship without any browser seems silly).

As long as Android and iOS both remain strong competitors, neither can really be seen as a smartphone (or tablet) monopoly. This is part of the reason I think Apple going "thermonuclear" on Android is counterproductive for them -- if they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and Android disappeared tomorrow, Apple would essentially be assured of having the government (not just the US, but perhaps even more so in Europe) come in and force them to open up iOS far more than they would be comfortable doing.

Because neither Apple or Google have a monopoly on the browser market anywhere near what Microsoft had. Also, Microsoft was sued for actively thwarting competition[1] in order to maintain it's position.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

While your first point is valid, the fact that Apple completely refuse to allow any 3rd party browsers on iPhone/iPad/etc... puts them in a worse position competition-thwarting-wise than MS with IE.

Not true. You can get Opera for iOS: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id3637...

Having a monopoly in a market is not illegal. Using your monopoly in one market to win another (by not competing fairly) is illegal. This is precisely what Microsoft was convicted for.

At the time, there was pretty much only one category of personal computing device and Microsoft's OS ran on nearly every one sold. Legally, they were considered to have a monopoly in the consumer OS market and to be abusing this monopoly to stifle competition in the web browser market.

Now we have a variety of devices and platforms and I think it's fair to say that there is no comparable conglomeration of power in the industry. Not yet, anyway.

At least on Android Firefox works really well, and thanks to the intent system can replace the default browser regardless of where in the system you open a link.

This doesn't mean we wouldn't be in the old IE monopoly of "nobody downloads browsers"

Works really well as long as you don't have an armv5 processor that's unsupported because it can't automatically fix alignment mistakes.

Android and the iPhone don't have a monopoly on mobile phones. So long as you aren't a monopoly, you are free to restrict the software on your phone as much as you'd like.

Plus, you can have a different browser on both the iPhone and android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com