Like I said, I was not commenting on the Microsoft case, only the claim that there should be an Apple case.
And what im saying to you is that the Microsoft case proves that this assertion: "Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly." is wrong, that's not how a monopoly is defined at all.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
And Microsoft never stopped anyone from selling (or running) a competing browser...no monopoly?
I was never arguing the Microsoft issue. However, it's my understanding that the problem was Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM's. Also, their falsifying of videotape evidence during the trial does not help their case.
That was their anti-trust case, that's an issue with abusing a monopolistic position. Your original suggestion ("Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.") would hold that Microsoft would not have even had a monopoly to abuse because Netscape was able to sell a competing browser.
So what you're doing is taking the markets of tablets and smartphones (though seemingly excluding things like feature-phones, set top boxes, smart tvs and games consoles) and claiming microsoft has a monopoly because they have large marketshare? You do realize there is more to a monopoly than marketshare yes? I mean Microsoft's power in the personal computer market hasn't affected the tablet market even though you've lumped those markets together into one. Likewise their mobile platform has struggled to get traction even though you have suggested they have a monopoly in that market.
What is it you think MS could do with their position in this 'personal computing devices' market you've defined that could dictate the path of the tablet market or the smartphone market? Having a large marketshare in one market doesn't mean you have a monopoly over the amalgamation of that and a bunch of smaller markets.
Oh, so precise. Apple makes it's own hardware, yes, Foxconn makes it. So are you going to buy an Apple product off of Foxconn? You buy it off of Apple. no one else.
Exactly, the only difference is that iOS devices are only sold by Apple whereas Windows 8 devices are sold by a number of different manufacturers, and this has no impact in terms of anti-trust law whatsoever. If you believe otherwise then point me to the part of anti-trust law that makes this distinction.
Now, that Microsoft computer - who makes it? Were do I get the Microsoft computer. I can get a lot of computers made by different manufacturers, but I've never seen the Microsoft built computer, built for them by Foxconn, or anyone else.
There is no 'Microsoft computer', there are (or rather 'will be') Windows 8 tablets, they are made to a set of specifications provided by Microsoft and have Microsoft software.
You tell me I'm making no sense
Because you're making no sense, just because Apple sells the device doesn't have any impact on anti-trust law whatsoever. Unless of course you want to point me to the part of anti-trust law that backs up your argument? But you can't, because no such thing exists.
Ah, thx, they appear to have changed that from the original certification requirements. I suppose given the tablet market that does make sense, tablet makers could always ship non-certified devices but that's less likely.
The only way for an end user to obtain Windows RT is preinstalled on a device that is cryptographically locked (using UEFI Secure Boot with custom mode forbidden) to run only Windows RT.
SecureBoot needs to be implemented, there is nothing anywhere to say it can't be turned off just like any other UEFI feature, so you could in fact turn it off and run Linux.
In other words, MS still has at least 81% of all computing devices.
All computing devices? How many computing devices do you use in a day that run Microsoft software? Hell if you did a traceroute to slashdot you'd probably hop more non-Microsoft devices than you use in a day.
Whether it's a new brand or not doesn't matter, their previous anti-trust investigation was centered around Intel-compatible x86 computers whereas Windows RT is for ARM in which they do not have a monopoly position. If you counted Windows RT and Windows 8 together then you would have to count the x86 computer market and the ARM device market as one and ARM device market is so big that Microsoft would still not have a monopoly.
Now if MS made the platforms that run it's various operating systems, they could mandate what software ran on it. IE only, no problem W8? You got it!
That makes no sense whatsoever, and in fact Apple does not make its hardware, Foxconn does and they make it in agreement with Apple and these new Windows 8 tablets will be made in agreement with a number of OEMs, only difference is those OEMs will also sell the devices, in Apple's case it is Apple who sells the devices.
The really funny thing is that people are demanding to run whatever software they want, and Mean old Apple is evil, and everyone is picking on poor old Microsoft.
No i think most people see both situations as being perfectly fine, there is an abundance of choice in the market and it is not controlled by any one particular company. The comparison to Apple is raised because they are the majority leader in the market and they do exactly the same thing and most people (including the DOJ) have no problem with that.
If you judged monopoly position on 'all computers' then microsoft has never ever been even close to having a monopoly, this is precisely why the US DOJ had to narrow the field to Intel-compatible x86 personal computers.
Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.
Clue is in the title of the lawsuit if you care to look. It's because Microsoft owned that market with a 95%+ market share, in the tablet market no-one has that sort of market share and no-one has a monopoly.
No, as i said, in the EU the Sales and Guarantees Directive only applies to physical products, it does not apply to software, there was a proposal some years back and AFAIK it never passed.
I prefer to just pay a couple hundred every few years to run it in a VM for the necessary applications than spend time stuffing around getting WINE working.
Actually in some places, yes. There are mandatory warranty and merchantability requirements. If its been purchased in the last year it is still under warranty.
It's not irrelevant at all because the behavior is the same, both Microsoft and Apple are using private APIs in their applications and preventing 3rd party developers from using those APIs. The only reason it's ok is because in the target market neither holds a monopolistic position, that doesn't mean they aren't engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
You missed the point. Microsoft has already been caught doing exactly this - limiting browser choice.
So even though Apple limits browser choice you're saying it's ok because they haven't been caught?
They were required to add a browser selection option to their OS. In other words, they are doing the same thing as before.
And you've missed the key element to why that was not allowed, which is that they had a monopoly in that market, this is not that market, this is the version of their OS for ARM which is a market in which they have virtually no marketshare and are competing with Android and Apple who own the market.
Apple should not have such a requirement, because they did not have an anti-trust suit lost.
So this behavior is ok if you don't have a monopoly in the market but only if you aren't Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
How often do you find yourself needing to dial a number when you have no service?
Well it depends on what you mean by 'no service', Siri requires 3G or WiFi, such requirements aren't placed on phone calls.
Like I said, I was not commenting on the Microsoft case, only the claim that there should be an Apple case.
And what im saying to you is that the Microsoft case proves that this assertion: "Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly." is wrong, that's not how a monopoly is defined at all.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
And Microsoft never stopped anyone from selling (or running) a competing browser...no monopoly?
I was never arguing the Microsoft issue. However, it's my understanding that the problem was Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM's. Also, their falsifying of videotape evidence during the trial does not help their case.
That was their anti-trust case, that's an issue with abusing a monopolistic position. Your original suggestion ("Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.") would hold that Microsoft would not have even had a monopoly to abuse because Netscape was able to sell a competing browser.
No, that's sales of new devices.
So what you're doing is taking the markets of tablets and smartphones (though seemingly excluding things like feature-phones, set top boxes, smart tvs and games consoles) and claiming microsoft has a monopoly because they have large marketshare? You do realize there is more to a monopoly than marketshare yes? I mean Microsoft's power in the personal computer market hasn't affected the tablet market even though you've lumped those markets together into one. Likewise their mobile platform has struggled to get traction even though you have suggested they have a monopoly in that market.
What is it you think MS could do with their position in this 'personal computing devices' market you've defined that could dictate the path of the tablet market or the smartphone market? Having a large marketshare in one market doesn't mean you have a monopoly over the amalgamation of that and a bunch of smaller markets.
I am not aware of an equivalent Windows Logo Program Certification for Windows Phone 7.
I wasn't aware there was a Windows Logo Program Certification for Windows Phone 7.
Oh, so precise. Apple makes it's own hardware, yes, Foxconn makes it. So are you going to buy an Apple product off of Foxconn? You buy it off of Apple. no one else.
Exactly, the only difference is that iOS devices are only sold by Apple whereas Windows 8 devices are sold by a number of different manufacturers, and this has no impact in terms of anti-trust law whatsoever. If you believe otherwise then point me to the part of anti-trust law that makes this distinction.
Now, that Microsoft computer - who makes it? Were do I get the Microsoft computer. I can get a lot of computers made by different manufacturers, but I've never seen the Microsoft built computer, built for them by Foxconn, or anyone else.
There is no 'Microsoft computer', there are (or rather 'will be') Windows 8 tablets, they are made to a set of specifications provided by Microsoft and have Microsoft software.
You tell me I'm making no sense
Because you're making no sense, just because Apple sells the device doesn't have any impact on anti-trust law whatsoever. Unless of course you want to point me to the part of anti-trust law that backs up your argument? But you can't, because no such thing exists.
tablet makers could always ship non-certified devices but that's less likely.
As I understand it, no certification, no Windows license.
That's never been the case before.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
And Microsoft never stopped anyone from selling (or running) a competing browser...no monopoly?
Ah, thx, they appear to have changed that from the original certification requirements. I suppose given the tablet market that does make sense, tablet makers could always ship non-certified devices but that's less likely.
The only way for an end user to obtain Windows RT is preinstalled on a device that is cryptographically locked (using UEFI Secure Boot with custom mode forbidden) to run only Windows RT.
SecureBoot needs to be implemented, there is nothing anywhere to say it can't be turned off just like any other UEFI feature, so you could in fact turn it off and run Linux.
If Microsoft only made OSs for Microsoft computers, they wouldn't get this kind of scrutiny either.
What are you on about? Of course they would! Anti-trust has nothing to do with whether you only make the OS or whether you sell the hardware too.
MS still has ~90% of desktop OS market, and desktop to mobile computers ratio is about 90:10.
No, it just isn't.
In other words, MS still has at least 81% of all computing devices.
All computing devices? How many computing devices do you use in a day that run Microsoft software? Hell if you did a traceroute to slashdot you'd probably hop more non-Microsoft devices than you use in a day.
Whether it's a new brand or not doesn't matter, their previous anti-trust investigation was centered around Intel-compatible x86 computers whereas Windows RT is for ARM in which they do not have a monopoly position. If you counted Windows RT and Windows 8 together then you would have to count the x86 computer market and the ARM device market as one and ARM device market is so big that Microsoft would still not have a monopoly.
Now if MS made the platforms that run it's various operating systems, they could mandate what software ran on it. IE only, no problem W8? You got it!
That makes no sense whatsoever, and in fact Apple does not make its hardware, Foxconn does and they make it in agreement with Apple and these new Windows 8 tablets will be made in agreement with a number of OEMs, only difference is those OEMs will also sell the devices, in Apple's case it is Apple who sells the devices.
The really funny thing is that people are demanding to run whatever software they want, and Mean old Apple is evil, and everyone is picking on poor old Microsoft.
No i think most people see both situations as being perfectly fine, there is an abundance of choice in the market and it is not controlled by any one particular company. The comparison to Apple is raised because they are the majority leader in the market and they do exactly the same thing and most people (including the DOJ) have no problem with that.
on the real hand they're all computers
If you judged monopoly position on 'all computers' then microsoft has never ever been even close to having a monopoly, this is precisely why the US DOJ had to narrow the field to Intel-compatible x86 personal computers.
Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.
Clue is in the title of the lawsuit if you care to look. It's because Microsoft owned that market with a 95%+ market share, in the tablet market no-one has that sort of market share and no-one has a monopoly.
No, as i said, in the EU the Sales and Guarantees Directive only applies to physical products, it does not apply to software, there was a proposal some years back and AFAIK it never passed.
I prefer to just pay a couple hundred every few years to run it in a VM for the necessary applications than spend time stuffing around getting WINE working.
Europe, and the warranty applies for 2 years.
Wrong, that does not apply to software.
Actually in some places, yes. There are mandatory warranty and merchantability requirements. If its been purchased in the last year it is still under warranty.
In what places is this?
Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant at all because the behavior is the same, both Microsoft and Apple are using private APIs in their applications and preventing 3rd party developers from using those APIs. The only reason it's ok is because in the target market neither holds a monopolistic position, that doesn't mean they aren't engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
The European Union is continent?
MS was still held accountable for making the browser uninstallable.
These days if you try and uninstall Safari on OSX you get an error telling you it contains critical system components and cannot be uninstalled.
You missed the point. Microsoft has already been caught doing exactly this - limiting browser choice.
So even though Apple limits browser choice you're saying it's ok because they haven't been caught?
They were required to add a browser selection option to their OS. In other words, they are doing the same thing as before.
And you've missed the key element to why that was not allowed, which is that they had a monopoly in that market, this is not that market, this is the version of their OS for ARM which is a market in which they have virtually no marketshare and are competing with Android and Apple who own the market.
Apple should not have such a requirement, because they did not have an anti-trust suit lost.
So this behavior is ok if you don't have a monopoly in the market but only if you aren't Microsoft?