Hacker News Reader

Comment by bartl | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how Apple's attitude here is any better than Microsoft's stand regarding browsers on Windows, a few years ago, and for which they got a huge fine in Europe. If anything, Apple's attitude ("The company prevents its users from making any other application the default browser") is worse.

View on HN

Microsoft got a fine for breaking its promise to offer consumers using its Windows system a choice of rival internet browsers (the browser choice screen). That offer was made by Microsoft to stave off an investigation by the EU in the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. That possible investigation was requested in light of earlier convictions of Microsoft for abusing its dominant position in the market (and earlier broken promises).

Apple has no such dominant position in the market, nor has it ever been fined for abusing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/06/mirosoft-eu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...

Apple's tablet market share is big enough to qualify.

IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, it comes down to 'market definition' [1]. The computer market as a whole was recognized to be a 'relevant market', in which Microsoft was found to have a dominant position [2].

It's up to lawyers and economists to decide whether the current tablet offerings make up a market in that sense, separate from the cell phone market or the computer market.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_definition

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#...

Microsoft's original legal defense of its browser monopoly was that it was an intrinsic feature of the OS (a bunch of graduate students proved this to be false and most viewed the claim at the time as disingenuous -- MS had sewn IE into as much of Windows as possible seemingly with this defense in mind). The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense.

Also bear in mind that the case against Microsoft showed a pattern of behavior including its treatment of Java, QuickTime, Borland, and so on.

Next, the only significant platform for browsers was desktop computers. So it wasn't a case of MS owning one category of platform among many. It owned the only game in town.

Further to this, Netscape had been the dominant player on the Windows platform, and Microsoft had undermined it. Apple has closed its platform to rivals who give away their software on other platforms. Apple doesn't stop Google or Yahoo or Bing from making money from advertising on iOS, all it blocks is, essentially, middlemen.

Finally, Netscape was a browser vendor who suffered material damage from having its commercial product undercut by MS bundling policies. No-one sells browsers any more.

> The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense.

Relative merits of two bogus arguments aside... It's pretty easy to argue against. Chrome & Firefox would help security (and this additional consumer choice would probably go well with the pro-market regulators). And they could lift the JIT ban on a per app basis.

Windows users have always had a choice of browser, since they have always been able to download an alternative to IE.

The deal with the EU didn't add any choices, it just used Windows to promote alternative browsers to Windows users.

It's not a question of attitude, or meanness - Microsoft is a monopoly in desktop OS, so they must obey antitrust laws. Apple is not, so they don't have to do anything.

I don't see how Microsoft's fine was justified. Did Apple support it?

Google and Opera requested it. Apple tends not to get involved much with these antitrust proceedings.

http://bgr.com/2013/03/07/microsoft-fine-google-tattled-3626...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com