7 ms·

How do you think Apple will differentiate their case from United States v. Microsoft Corp., where Microsoft was implicated for almost identical monopoly miscond

How do you think Apple will differentiate their case from United States v. Microsoft Corp., where Microsoft was implicated for almost identical monopoly misconduct? The complaint literally says verbatim, "But after launching the iPhone, Apple began stifling the development of cross-platform technologies on the iPhone, just as Microsoft tried to stifle cross-platform technologies on Windows."

gnicholas 2y ago
On the browser front, it’s easy. iPhones have batteries so battery life is a concern. That’s why Apple treats them differently than Macintosh computers, which you can choose your own default browser engine for.
- smoldesu 2y ago
  That's a reason someone might prefer Apple's first-party browser, sure. How does it justify banning third-party browser engines though? Are we ruling out the possibility that competitive browsers could offer better battery performance, too?
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    The argument would be that they didn’t want iPhone users, especially with early models, to end up choosing other engines that were much worse on battery life and that would hurt the image of the iPhone. Back then, there was no battery settings where you could see what was eating your battery. It was all opaque and could make people think the device had lousy battery life. And yeah, I think it’s unlikely someone could have made a more efficient browser than Apple since they didn’t give public access to all of their functionalities. And that might have been partly for security reasons, if there were less-secure aspects to hidden functions, for example. The counter-argument is that they should have opened everything up, but Apple will say they were going as fast as they could responsibly go, and that’s why there were limitations that have been relaxed over time.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      That feels like an argument that could apply to bar any category of apps to compete with Apple ones on the phone. For instance giving a special placement to Apple Music and not allowing other apps to get the same privileges, because music playback needs to be efficient, and a bad music experience would hurt the iPhone's image. Same for movies, same for ebooks, same for spreadsheets (including needing to execute macros, so security risk is through the roof) I feel I could get paid by Apple to come up with excuses for each app they need any.
    - generj 2y ago
      The real justification for browser engine restrictions is not battery life but security. If you look at any iOS vulnerability reporting, Safari is a big weakness and often the source of zero day attacks. Browsers are hugely complex pieces of software with a lot of attack surface. A large part of Apple’s value proposition is being secure. It sounds like the new approach (in the EU only) that allows additional browser engines requires specific security measures to be taken. Rightly or wrongly device security is going to be a strong defense Apple has against some of these allegations.
      - apantel 2y ago
        Then by the same argument, it should be ok for Microsoft to prevent users from installing any other browser on Windows besides Edge because it could make that person’s device less secure… No, a user should be allowed to take the security risk of installing whatever they want on their computers. Security-conscious users will have clean phones, and ordinary users will have phones full of viruses like their computers. Let people choose.
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  Why do you think that apple should get to make this choice for their users? If they are so concerned with not letting their users drain the battery if they wish, why do they allow games on their store?
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    I’m not saying I think they should be able to, I’m saying this is unlikely to be proven as an antitrust violation under the Microsoft precedent.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    The user is choosing the Apple ecosystem and is happy to make these rules. They allow games because some people like to spend their battery power on games.
    - beeboobaa3 2y ago
      The user is choosing an iphone because their friends have one. Do you actually think the average person thinks about these things before buying a phone? No. They are just told by apple "you don't get to do that" once they realize they want to try it. Remember, you (nor apple) are not their parent.
      - detourdog 2y ago
        Most of the things I see Apple stop developers from doing I'm grateful for. Most developers have really bad ideas.
        beeboobaa3 2y ago
        Feel free to not install their apps. Or in the case of the EU, feel free to only install apps from the official marketplace. That is your choice. Other people should still be able to decide for themselves.
    - realusername 2y ago
- gbear605 2y ago
  Most Macs sold are Macbooks that also have batteries
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    Battery life is more of a concern on mobile devices because if your phone dies you can't call 911, get an uber, navigate with maps, or message a friend. There's more reason to protect mobile batteries than laptop batteries.
ruined 2y ago
yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser (in this jurisdiction) so there's technically no precedent yet
- dagmx 2y ago
  Nit: you can install other browsers, but not other browser engines. It might prove to be a significant difference in terms of how it affects competitors as a product.
- adolph 2y ago
  > you aren't allowed to install another browser Currently, anyone can create a new iPhone browser, but with one huge restriction: Apple insists that it uses the same WebKit rendering engine as Safari. [0] And currently you can also delete Safari from your iOS device. An example of this is Firefox [1]. 0. https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/ 1. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/id989804926 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/i...
- mcphage 2y ago
  > yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser A browser is a product, and you can install many other browsers. A HTML rendering engine is a software library, and you can not install another HTML rendering engine. The justice department definitely cares about products. It's not clear to what degree it cares about software libraries.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    This is an artificial distinction. A browser normally comes with its own rendering engine. In my experience, Firefox does not work as well on the iPhone as does Safari. It's obviously a rendering issue, because large pages will reload on their own over and over again while I'm trying to read them. My guess is it's a sneaky broken part of webkit which Apple knows how to fix in Safari and deliberately leaves broken for the other browser makers to suffer the consequences. Because, that's just the kind of bullshit which Apple is down for.
dagmx 2y ago
One of the big factors was that Microsoft were doing things like paying OEMs to not include other browsers. This was also the crux of the issue in Epic v Google recently.
- acdha 2y ago
  Or operating systems: things like BeOS, OS/2, and Linux couldn’t be offered on a given model without paying for a Windows license or giving up volume pricing for the entire line.
  - weberer 2y ago
    That's still the case. Its still almost impossible to buy a Linux laptop from one of the big vendors. Even the rare models that they do sell, like the Dell XPS Developer edition, are hidden so deep in their website that they're almost impossible to find unless you're sure it exists.
    - doublepg23 2y ago
      Have you looked recently? It's pretty easy to get models from Dell and Lenovo.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      The issue was not the lack of computers with alternative OSes. It was Microsoft using its dominant status in the market to enforce it.
    - acdha 2y ago
      That’s Dell’s management problems. What I was referring to was the policy Microsoft had in the 90s of, say, telling Dell that they could license Windows for the XPS line at, say, $10/unit if it was on every device sold or list price if they offered a different OS. That was very effective at making it cost more not to use Windows and did exactly what they intended.
  - codehalo 2y ago
    A whole generation of people who don't know how horrible Microsoft was. Two decades later, people are still bitter. The amount of great tech that got stifled.... SMH.
adolph 2y ago
iOS started out closed and stayed that way for various reasons. Windows OS started with the ability of users to make various choices. One of those choices had to do with web browsers. MS's crime was "the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
bruce511 2y ago
Is Apple even a monopoly though? In the Microsoft case Microsoft had 90+% of desktop market share. (And propped Apple up to create even a semblance of competition.) They were accused of leveraging that position to prevent manufacturers etc from getting out of line. Apple, on the other hand shares the market with Android. Globally it's a minority share. Yes, in the US, Apple has a bigger market share than it has globally, but Android is a real competitor even there. So I'd suggest the two situations are quite different. If it's not a monopoly (which would be fine by itself anyway), it's hard to make the case that they are leveraging that monopoly in unhallowed ways. All that said, clearly the DOJ think they have a case, and I imagine they've spent a LOT of man-hours thinking about it and forming an argument. More than the no-time-at-all I've spent thinking about it.
- realusername 2y ago
  > but Android is a real competitor even there Is it though? On the hardware side sure but on the software side I don't see any competition. Both stores have close to identical practices and do not look like they compete over to get developers onboard. The only pricing change ever made was also made in reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied verbatim. While not a strict monopoly, the lack of competition in this area between the only two players seems obvious.
  - fidotron 2y ago
    Edit: I give up trying to help people
    - realusername 2y ago
      When was the last exclusive deal like we have on console then? I never heard of one.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        This is maybe the first interesting/novel point I've read on this topic. (this Apple debate has mostly been beat to death and the whole thread here looks to be full of the same talking-point style arguments repeated ad nauseum by people on both sides who don't seem to be engaging any critical thinking). I think Apple is clearly anti-competitive and is definitely powerful enough to warrant regulatory action given past standards, but the same exclusivity deals like consoles (and even audiobooks) have is certainly not a common thing (outside of Apple's first-party apps of course, but I would agree that isn't really what we're talking about here). I think this deserves some explanation, as it does seem like an obvious anti-competitive move that Apple could make but doesn't. I tend to think Occam's Razor applied here is that Apple realizes their vulnerability to regulation and didn't wish to serve their critics evidence on a silver platter. I think that's why they announced that they will (finally) add (an inferior implementation of) RCS to the iPhone after many years of refusing and telling people to buy their mom an iPhone if they want to text her. Or the (inferior) implementation of PWAs. This is very much speculation of course, and I'd love to hear other theories.
overstay8930 2y ago
Because unlike the Microsoft case, you have the option to buy a smartphone from a company other than Apple. 1990s Microsoft was quite literally a monopoly, nothing like what is going on today. Apple is not stopping their competitors from making good phones, just like how Apple is not stopping you from buying a phone that wasn't made by Apple. Microsoft was doing both of those things, Apple isn't. The cases aren't even close really.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Phone sales are hardly the issue here. iOS policies are the issue. And you could absolutely buy alternatives to Microsoft Windows in the 90s, from Apple or IBM or others. But that's immaterial. The availability of an alternative says nothing about the market power Apple has or how it's wielding that power. This is why we have anti-trust cases, to determine if that power is being abused.
madeofpalk 2y ago
It's really worth a read about what that case was actually about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... It's reasonably clear why the Microsoft case was different > The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java. Microsoft made deals with other companies to restrict competition. Apple doesn't need to make up a contract to prevent NFC payments as they just don't offer it in the first place. The Microsoft case actually has a lot more similarities to why Google lost the Epic case, by Apple won.

gnicholas 2y ago

On the browser front, it’s easy. iPhones have batteries so battery life is a concern. That’s why Apple treats them differently than Macintosh computers, which you can choose your own default browser engine for.

smoldesu 2y ago
That's a reason someone might prefer Apple's first-party browser, sure. How does it justify banning third-party browser engines though? Are we ruling out the possibility that competitive browsers could offer better battery performance, too?
- gnicholas 2y ago
  The argument would be that they didn’t want iPhone users, especially with early models, to end up choosing other engines that were much worse on battery life and that would hurt the image of the iPhone. Back then, there was no battery settings where you could see what was eating your battery. It was all opaque and could make people think the device had lousy battery life. And yeah, I think it’s unlikely someone could have made a more efficient browser than Apple since they didn’t give public access to all of their functionalities. And that might have been partly for security reasons, if there were less-secure aspects to hidden functions, for example. The counter-argument is that they should have opened everything up, but Apple will say they were going as fast as they could responsibly go, and that’s why there were limitations that have been relaxed over time.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    That feels like an argument that could apply to bar any category of apps to compete with Apple ones on the phone. For instance giving a special placement to Apple Music and not allowing other apps to get the same privileges, because music playback needs to be efficient, and a bad music experience would hurt the iPhone's image. Same for movies, same for ebooks, same for spreadsheets (including needing to execute macros, so security risk is through the roof) I feel I could get paid by Apple to come up with excuses for each app they need any.
  - generj 2y ago
    The real justification for browser engine restrictions is not battery life but security. If you look at any iOS vulnerability reporting, Safari is a big weakness and often the source of zero day attacks. Browsers are hugely complex pieces of software with a lot of attack surface. A large part of Apple’s value proposition is being secure. It sounds like the new approach (in the EU only) that allows additional browser engines requires specific security measures to be taken. Rightly or wrongly device security is going to be a strong defense Apple has against some of these allegations.
    - apantel 2y ago
      Then by the same argument, it should be ok for Microsoft to prevent users from installing any other browser on Windows besides Edge because it could make that person’s device less secure… No, a user should be allowed to take the security risk of installing whatever they want on their computers. Security-conscious users will have clean phones, and ordinary users will have phones full of viruses like their computers. Let people choose.
beeboobaa3 2y ago
Why do you think that apple should get to make this choice for their users? If they are so concerned with not letting their users drain the battery if they wish, why do they allow games on their store?
- gnicholas 2y ago
  I’m not saying I think they should be able to, I’m saying this is unlikely to be proven as an antitrust violation under the Microsoft precedent.
- detourdog 2y ago
  The user is choosing the Apple ecosystem and is happy to make these rules. They allow games because some people like to spend their battery power on games.
  - beeboobaa3 2y ago
    The user is choosing an iphone because their friends have one. Do you actually think the average person thinks about these things before buying a phone? No. They are just told by apple "you don't get to do that" once they realize they want to try it. Remember, you (nor apple) are not their parent.
    - detourdog 2y ago
      Most of the things I see Apple stop developers from doing I'm grateful for. Most developers have really bad ideas.
      - beeboobaa3 2y ago
        Feel free to not install their apps. Or in the case of the EU, feel free to only install apps from the official marketplace. That is your choice. Other people should still be able to decide for themselves.
  - realusername 2y ago
gbear605 2y ago
Most Macs sold are Macbooks that also have batteries
- gnicholas 2y ago
  Battery life is more of a concern on mobile devices because if your phone dies you can't call 911, get an uber, navigate with maps, or message a friend. There's more reason to protect mobile batteries than laptop batteries.

ruined 2y ago

yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser (in this jurisdiction) so there's technically no precedent yet

dagmx 2y ago
Nit: you can install other browsers, but not other browser engines. It might prove to be a significant difference in terms of how it affects competitors as a product.
adolph 2y ago
> you aren't allowed to install another browser Currently, anyone can create a new iPhone browser, but with one huge restriction: Apple insists that it uses the same WebKit rendering engine as Safari. [0] And currently you can also delete Safari from your iOS device. An example of this is Firefox [1]. 0. https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/ 1. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/id989804926 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/i...
mcphage 2y ago
> yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser A browser is a product, and you can install many other browsers. A HTML rendering engine is a software library, and you can not install another HTML rendering engine. The justice department definitely cares about products. It's not clear to what degree it cares about software libraries.
- metabagel 2y ago
  This is an artificial distinction. A browser normally comes with its own rendering engine. In my experience, Firefox does not work as well on the iPhone as does Safari. It's obviously a rendering issue, because large pages will reload on their own over and over again while I'm trying to read them. My guess is it's a sneaky broken part of webkit which Apple knows how to fix in Safari and deliberately leaves broken for the other browser makers to suffer the consequences. Because, that's just the kind of bullshit which Apple is down for.

dagmx 2y ago

One of the big factors was that Microsoft were doing things like paying OEMs to not include other browsers. This was also the crux of the issue in Epic v Google recently.

acdha 2y ago
Or operating systems: things like BeOS, OS/2, and Linux couldn’t be offered on a given model without paying for a Windows license or giving up volume pricing for the entire line.
- weberer 2y ago
  That's still the case. Its still almost impossible to buy a Linux laptop from one of the big vendors. Even the rare models that they do sell, like the Dell XPS Developer edition, are hidden so deep in their website that they're almost impossible to find unless you're sure it exists.
  - doublepg23 2y ago
    Have you looked recently? It's pretty easy to get models from Dell and Lenovo.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    The issue was not the lack of computers with alternative OSes. It was Microsoft using its dominant status in the market to enforce it.
  - acdha 2y ago
    That’s Dell’s management problems. What I was referring to was the policy Microsoft had in the 90s of, say, telling Dell that they could license Windows for the XPS line at, say, $10/unit if it was on every device sold or list price if they offered a different OS. That was very effective at making it cost more not to use Windows and did exactly what they intended.
- codehalo 2y ago
  A whole generation of people who don't know how horrible Microsoft was. Two decades later, people are still bitter. The amount of great tech that got stifled.... SMH.

adolph 2y ago

iOS started out closed and stayed that way for various reasons. Windows OS started with the ability of users to make various choices. One of those choices had to do with web browsers. MS's crime was "the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

bruce511 2y ago

Is Apple even a monopoly though? In the Microsoft case Microsoft had 90+% of desktop market share. (And propped Apple up to create even a semblance of competition.) They were accused of leveraging that position to prevent manufacturers etc from getting out of line. Apple, on the other hand shares the market with Android. Globally it's a minority share. Yes, in the US, Apple has a bigger market share than it has globally, but Android is a real competitor even there. So I'd suggest the two situations are quite different. If it's not a monopoly (which would be fine by itself anyway), it's hard to make the case that they are leveraging that monopoly in unhallowed ways. All that said, clearly the DOJ think they have a case, and I imagine they've spent a LOT of man-hours thinking about it and forming an argument. More than the no-time-at-all I've spent thinking about it.

realusername 2y ago
> but Android is a real competitor even there Is it though? On the hardware side sure but on the software side I don't see any competition. Both stores have close to identical practices and do not look like they compete over to get developers onboard. The only pricing change ever made was also made in reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied verbatim. While not a strict monopoly, the lack of competition in this area between the only two players seems obvious.
- fidotron 2y ago
  Edit: I give up trying to help people
  - realusername 2y ago
    When was the last exclusive deal like we have on console then? I never heard of one.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      This is maybe the first interesting/novel point I've read on this topic. (this Apple debate has mostly been beat to death and the whole thread here looks to be full of the same talking-point style arguments repeated ad nauseum by people on both sides who don't seem to be engaging any critical thinking). I think Apple is clearly anti-competitive and is definitely powerful enough to warrant regulatory action given past standards, but the same exclusivity deals like consoles (and even audiobooks) have is certainly not a common thing (outside of Apple's first-party apps of course, but I would agree that isn't really what we're talking about here). I think this deserves some explanation, as it does seem like an obvious anti-competitive move that Apple could make but doesn't. I tend to think Occam's Razor applied here is that Apple realizes their vulnerability to regulation and didn't wish to serve their critics evidence on a silver platter. I think that's why they announced that they will (finally) add (an inferior implementation of) RCS to the iPhone after many years of refusing and telling people to buy their mom an iPhone if they want to text her. Or the (inferior) implementation of PWAs. This is very much speculation of course, and I'd love to hear other theories.

overstay8930 2y ago

Because unlike the Microsoft case, you have the option to buy a smartphone from a company other than Apple. 1990s Microsoft was quite literally a monopoly, nothing like what is going on today. Apple is not stopping their competitors from making good phones, just like how Apple is not stopping you from buying a phone that wasn't made by Apple. Microsoft was doing both of those things, Apple isn't. The cases aren't even close really.

asadotzler 2y ago
Phone sales are hardly the issue here. iOS policies are the issue. And you could absolutely buy alternatives to Microsoft Windows in the 90s, from Apple or IBM or others. But that's immaterial. The availability of an alternative says nothing about the market power Apple has or how it's wielding that power. This is why we have anti-trust cases, to determine if that power is being abused.

madeofpalk 2y ago

It's really worth a read about what that case was actually about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... It's reasonably clear why the Microsoft case was different > The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java. Microsoft made deals with other companies to restrict competition. Apple doesn't need to make up a contract to prevent NFC payments as they just don't offer it in the first place. The Microsoft case actually has a lot more similarities to why Google lost the Epic case, by Apple won.