That lawsuit SAS honestly complete bullshit. Going after Microsoft for having plentiful stolen their browser would have been one thing, but saying an OS couldn't ship software applications out of the box is crazy. What do you find when booting up an OS for the first time? Am empty desktop and no way to install anything?
What apple has done with browsers at least seems more egregious. Windows didn't stop you from installing a different browser, ios does. There was even a long running joke that the only good use for IE was to install a real browser.
It wouldn't be hard to find a reason to sure Microsoft though. Take a look someone at where the legal text states their software builds were made and ask what tax benefits one might get from running production builds on servers in the Caribbean.
I remember seeing this on TV and not understanding why microsoft was threatened with a fine if they ship IE by default on their products.
Actually I still don't. Nobody ever stopped me from downloading another browser on windows, anyone who wants to do it will do it. So people did have a choice, they just didn't know they had it, and it's their problem, not microsoft's!
Microsoft weren’t sued for bundling a web browser with Windows. This is an apocryphal simplification.
They were sued for disallowing other browsers to be bundled with the system by OEMs, which stifled other companies to get market share.
Case in point, Microsoft still bundle a browser with their system today. They just can’t stop Dell from shipping with Firefox now.
The case with Apple is different, they allow other browsers to be installed by the user, and because there aren’t OEM sales, they don’t run afoul of the same thing. Yes I know browser engines are different than browsers, but the point is about the product itself not the underlying pieces.
This is also why Google got sued for the play store monopoly whereas Apple didn’t. Google was pressuring companies to ship with their store instead of competitors. Because Apple neither has the ability for custom stores or other brands selling their OS, it doesn’t apply.
This isn’t to say that there can’t be other cases against them, just to say that the Microsoft and Google situations aren’t precedent or entirely relevant.
Microsoft was sued simply for bundling IE with Windows, which sounds crazy when you think about it. But at the time it seemed like selling browsers was going to be huge and Microsoft basically killed Netscape. With Windows, though, you were always free to install other browsers and set them as the default unlike iOS.
In the end the case kinda fizzled out as the times were changing so fast. Browsers kinda became an accepted "default" application to go along with an operating system.
I have to admit with all of the lawsuits in the software industry, I'm kinda surprised that Apple hasn't gotten more heat.
Why do Microsoft benefit from having a good browser? This article says the only reason is to protect Window's market share and that will inevitably lead to MS doing something evil with it's OS market share.
Two things occur to me:
1. Windows still has a dominant market share, if they were going to do evil I don't see what's stopping them
2. Having a good browser might protect their browser market share but I'm not convinced it protects their OS market share. Maybe if IE was way way better than anything else it would stop people going to Mac OS, but it isn't and there are plenty of other more significant barriers to changing your OS.
I think it's more plausible that their investing in browsers because they want to help their online services market share, and having that search box default to Bing on 50% of PCs is hugely valuable.
Why do people act like what happened in the MS anti trust case is lost to the annals of history? Absolutely nothing came of the bundling IE with Windows in the US. There was never a time that IE was not bundled with Windows because of the lawsuit and there was no browser choice mandate in the US.
The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and not include 3rd party browsers.
Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers.
If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be an issue.
The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its software to 3rd parties.
On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM partners to include software, then Google would likely be facing various government bodies that have issue with this process and possibly facing fines.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never actually believed that Microsoft bundling a browser (that they made, of course) is monopolistic. It seems like Microsoft is pushing a value-add with their products. Of course, it serves their agenda, but everything every company does serves their agenda -- that's why they're companies. I don't see the difference between Microsoft bundling IE with Windows and Apple offering a free iPod with new Macs during "Back to School." And yet, no one ever suggests that maybe Apple should be offering a choice between a free iPod and a free Zune.
Not only that, but I'm also troubled by the inclusion of other browsers. Why should Firefox get the free publicity? Because they're popular? Well that seems to be the same argument against IE. Personally, my favorite Windows browser is Opera, but how much do you want to bet that that certainly won't be on their list.
As recently as five years ago, I thought this would never happen. The argument was something like: "All Microsoft has to do is put out a good-enough browser. Every time people buy their next computer, IE will be the default and they won't bother to switch. The only way would be if Apple gets a big part of the desktop market, and that's very unlikely."
Wrong in so many big ways:
- Completely missed mobile browsers
- People aren't upgrading their desktops as often anymore
- The browser is the most important app, so people are motivated to get the best one
- Apple's growth
Yeah, I still don't understand how Microsoft lost the suit back in the day just for including IE as a default web browser in windows, whereas apple can ban all web browsers but their own and it's fine.
Still wait for Google to be punished for abusing it market position to push its browser in a much worse manner than Microsoft pushed IE back in the days.
For those who are new to this game: Microsoft was basically punished for bundling a browser with their operating system.
If that was punishable (and thankfully it was), what should we say about the worlds largest advertising company pushing their browser in ad spots so valuable that no others were ever allowed to touch them (the otherwise clean front page of Google)?
And of course: with its current behavior, MS should of course be punished again for its abusive use of a dominant position when it tries to stop people from downloading other browsers and tries to prevent people from setting other browsers as default.
I really wish people would stop bringing up Microsoft.
They had ~95% market share when they were pulling this IE nonsense. iOS is ~28%.
And they didn't get in trouble just for bundling IE. It was the coercion of OEMs to not bundle Netscape. Many of the companies at the time wanted to offer both but weren't allowed.
That laws suit was crazy. Every other competing OS came with a browser, and how are you even going to download a third party browser, if the OS doesn't come with a client you can use to download it with? The 'browser selection dialog' was just Bonkers. What if I wanted one that wasn't in the court-approved list?
I need MS to install IE, so I can use it to go and get IceWeasel, or whatever. Leave them alone!
Why are Apple and Google not in trouble today for antitrust violations the way Microsoft was over a decade ago?
Microsoft bundled IE with Windows, in the same way Apple bunldes Safari with OS X and iOS, and Google bundles Chrome with Android. Is it because Microsoft had larger market share? Or have the barriers to installing alternative browsers been lowered? If the latter, then was the decision against Microsoft a mistake in retrospect?
I am not sure I understand - Microsoft was blasted because it destroyed the commercial browser market by offering a superior product for free?
No.
Microsoft was blasted because you had no choice in the matter, even if you wanted to use a different browser than IE, there was no way to make anything but IE behave well with the rest of the OS.
I see it differently. Way back when Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer with Windows it ruined companies. We see companies being arbitrarily ruined by Apple's actions every month. This platform abuse triggered massive antitrust actions in the US and EU that Microsoft lost quite spectacularly, costing them a fortune and forcing many changes to their software.
The antitrust case was about Microsoft giving away a free browser. Every operating system comes with a free browser. My phone comes with a free browser. My kindle comes with a free browser.
What apple has done with browsers at least seems more egregious. Windows didn't stop you from installing a different browser, ios does. There was even a long running joke that the only good use for IE was to install a real browser.
It wouldn't be hard to find a reason to sure Microsoft though. Take a look someone at where the legal text states their software builds were made and ask what tax benefits one might get from running production builds on servers in the Caribbean.
reply