My understanding is that Microsoft was sued for installing Internet Explorer alongside of Windows by default. It feels like all of Apple’s software installed alongside iOS would qualify for the same lawsuit. Why isn’t Apple sued for it?
In: 2
>My understanding is that Microsoft was sued for installing Internet Explorer alongside of Windows by default
Because this was one of the stupidest, least informed legal decisions in the tech space we have seen in a long long time. This never ever should have been an issue. It was basically tech illiterate people being dumbasses, and every single tech person telling them “no, you’re idiots”, but they went ahead with it. Its laughably bad. There’s more details that make it even stupider, but you get the jist.
Eventually, they figured out how dumb not allowing browsers was, like how everyone told them for years, and they stuck their head in a hole and acted like it all never happened
iOS (or MacOS on mac computers) is not a program, it is an operating system. The MS equivalent would be Windows. Without it, the device simply would not work. Without internet Explorer, a MS computer still works perfectly fine.
>My understanding is that Microsoft was sued for installing Internet Explorer alongside of Windows by default
Because this was one of the stupidest, least informed legal decisions in the tech space we have seen in a long long time. This never ever should have been an issue. It was basically tech illiterate people being dumbasses, and every single tech person telling them “no, you’re idiots”, but they went ahead with it. Its laughably bad. There’s more details that make it even stupider, but you get the jist.
Eventually, they figured out how dumb not allowing browsers was, like how everyone told them for years, and they stuck their head in a hole and acted like it all never happened
iOS (or MacOS on mac computers) is not a program, it is an operating system. The MS equivalent would be Windows. Without it, the device simply would not work. Without internet Explorer, a MS computer still works perfectly fine.
So the first fundamental problem with your analogy is that Windows was judged to have an effective monopoly on desktop operating systems at the time. So the problem was that Microsoft was using their monopoly on desktop operating systems to give them an unfair advantage in browser programs.
Apple does not have anything approaching a monopoly on mobile phones. At best, Apple has a monopoly on Apple-based phones, which is kind of a weird thing to say in relation to any sort of judicial action.
That being said, there absolutely is investigation ongoing in several countries about anti-competetive activities from Apple and Google, being a duopoly, “trapping” people in their respective ecosystems, etc. Will any of that get anywhere? That remains to be seen.
So the first fundamental problem with your analogy is that Windows was judged to have an effective monopoly on desktop operating systems at the time. So the problem was that Microsoft was using their monopoly on desktop operating systems to give them an unfair advantage in browser programs.
Apple does not have anything approaching a monopoly on mobile phones. At best, Apple has a monopoly on Apple-based phones, which is kind of a weird thing to say in relation to any sort of judicial action.
That being said, there absolutely is investigation ongoing in several countries about anti-competetive activities from Apple and Google, being a duopoly, “trapping” people in their respective ecosystems, etc. Will any of that get anywhere? That remains to be seen.
Latest Answers