• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Drama Epic Games vs Apple in court face off INCLUDING Tim Sweeney , LIVE !!!

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
1,001
2,448
455
Oxfordshire, England
I agree from all the corporations that had better motives to attack Apple, Epic is the least you would expect to go for the jugular.

what will come out from this? Possibly nothing or a complete change in what we perceive an ecosystem is.

I still believe this is a complete circus and Apple will “win” but with some damage to their brand.
Only if Epic fail to make the argument IMO.

IMO Apple are stupid to even fight this, because the more they dig-in, the more their actions look worse, and their isolated enemies will combine to expose those controlling actions. Even those that were alright with special deals will probably favour Apple's control being quashed in the long run. The case being heard at all suggests change is coming IMO and Apple should have changed first, to avoid the fight, because legislative change is likely to damage them far more, because they won't control the prescribed changes.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,240
8,298
735
IMO, this is the most interesting and entertaining lawsuit I've witnessed. Literally so many other companies got brought into this mess, and so many documents that weren't meant for the public's eyes, were given just that. I wonder if there will be many more big twists in this whole ordeal.

Hopefully everyone has their popcorn ready for the next session. Otherwise, the conversations and points from each side (in this thread) have been some of the most mature disagreements on here! (Maybe I'm just used to all the fanboy drivel threads)
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,173
1,635
365
Only if Epic fail to make the argument IMO.

IMO Apple are stupid to even fight this, because the more they dig-in, the more their actions look worse, and their isolated enemies will combine to expose those controlling actions. Even those that were alright with special deals will probably favour Apple's control being quashed in the long run. The case being heard at all suggests change is coming IMO and Apple should have changed first, to avoid the fight, because legislative change is likely to damage them far more, because they won't control the prescribed changes.
I still believe Apple will win because it’s an American system. The free market means something different there.
Now if we look about how EU is talking about how it will take action against Apple.. that is a different case…
For years Apple been making the European Union “angry”… the most scandalous case, being the offshores.
 

LordCBH

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,226
5,523
455
There has to be a delineation of when a platform grows to (say over a billion users) that the "just get an Android" argument doesn't hold water. There are so many businesses that can live or die by what Apple decides to permit or reject from their store. Consumers and enterprises can become so entrenched in the platform with purchases over the years, that the idea to move to a different platform is prohibitively expensive.

The entire business model and philosophy of a platform should not have to change just because it gets incredibly popular.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
The entire business model and philosophy of a platform should not have to change just because it gets incredibly popular.
What if said philosophy changes?

In the beginning of iOS Apple would likely only ever reject apps if the content or quality didn't match their standards. They obviously wanted to build up a catalog of apps to make the App Store diverse and their platform appealing.

Now Apple has spread its wings into services, and seeks to deny certain apps because they are now competition.
 

Dr Bass

Gold Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,565
4,699
920
The entire business model and philosophy of a platform should not have to change just because it gets incredibly popular.

As mobile devices increasingly become people's only computer (not to mention, look at the push Apple has made to have people buy iPads over Macs with their advertising), and software is essential for a huge number of businesses to service their customers ...

Should Apple be the worlds gatekeeper over which business software is or is not allowed to exist? Should Apple be allowed to shut down any business it wants, at any time? Should Apple be able to make an arbitrary and theoretically irreversible decision against said company, often times with no explanation and no recourse? Or should the business be allowed to directly distribute its software to its own customers without Apple's controlling oversight? Does Apple deserve 30% of every businesses revenue on Earth? Is that what you think?

Do not say "then use an Android." That is not a viable answer. The majority of smart devices in the U.S. are iPhones. And Google has the same control over the play store. "Sideloading" (i.e. just installing software) on Android is a hassle almost no non-savvy user will ever enable.

Also, "incredibly popular" is kind of an understatement. I would say these devices have become the basis of a significant part of our global economy. Again, do you think Apple has the right to a huge chunk of the global economy just because they made the device the software can run on? It doesn't work that way with any other general computing platforms. I can't imagine this not eventually changing through laws at some point. It's just unsustainable.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
It is the same problem, because in a 50-50 iOS, Android split, Apple should never be in a position to dictate that and wield so much power over society - as a capitalist driven company. Power like that has to reside with governments, not companies IMHO.

You are also making a sweeping assumption that the vast majority of consumers understand the difference in openness of the two smartphone options. In reality I would guess the end users will be vastly ignorant to the way they've empowered Apple to dictate to society in the way their store operates, and won't understand the topic - merely assuming their elected officials act to provide suitable consumer protections and be vigilant in identify monopolies, and dealing with them.

The reality is that any app (update) submitted could be blocked initially and cause problems, as in the case of a road assistance app, fixing it in courts two years later isn't "handled" for the people that get affected by Apple's blocking of the app. That ship sails 2years earlier, does it not?

There has to be a delineation of when a platform grows to (say over a billion users) that the "just get an Android" argument doesn't hold water. There are so many businesses that can live or die by what Apple decides to permit or reject from their store. Consumers and enterprises can become so entrenched in the platform with purchases over the years, that the idea to move to a different platform is prohibitively expensive.

It's almost a political difference of opinion, so, I respect these positions, I just see it differently.

If a business lives or dies solely based on the actions of a third-party that sounds like a poorly thought out endeavor.

The argument of they have the power to do this or that, when they've never done this or that yet doesn't do much for me either. Windows, while not open source, is a generally open platform, they could still do a lot of things with the power that they hold (block the websites of political opponents they disagree with, or rival companies, etc.). Now they probably won't abuse their position because they know how that would ultimately end up. Until Apple takes steps to block apps for reasons other than obvious violations of the agreements they have in place, or they use these decisions to limit the capabilities/competitiveness of their mobile OS competitors, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Giving the government/courts the unlimited power to decide how successful is too successful and all that isn't my thing. An unpopular opinion in the "break up everything" culture of the moment, but oh well. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Romero

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
It's almost a political difference of opinion, so, I respect these positions, I just see it differently.

If a business lives or dies solely based on the actions of a third-party that sounds like a poorly thought out endeavor.

The argument of they have the power to do this or that, when they've never done this or that yet doesn't do much for me either. Windows, while not open source, is a generally open platform, they could still do a lot of things with the power that they hold (block the websites of political opponents they disagree with, or rival companies, etc.). Now they probably won't abuse their position because they know how that would ultimately end up. Until Apple takes steps to block apps for reasons other than obvious violations of the agreements they have in place, or they use these decisions to limit the capabilities/competitiveness of their mobile OS competitors, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Giving the government/courts the unlimited power to decide how successful is too successful and all that isn't my thing. An unpopular opinion in the "break up everything" culture of the moment, but oh well. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Apple would never start up a brand new music streaming service and not have a competitive advantage of not having the overheads of their Apple tax?

Apple would never start up a brand new game subscription service and not have a competitive advantage of not allowing competing apps on their App store?

What is the obvious violation about Game Pass or GeForce Now being blocked from the App Store when Netflix is allowed?
 
Last edited:

theHFIC

Member
Aug 22, 2014
771
1,761
810
I wish there was some form of AI searching where I could compare the list of people who complained about the Apple iPad “What’s a computer?” commercial against the people saying the iPhone and iPad are computers and should be treated as such and see if there are any intersections.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,214
40,755
1,310
39
Brazil
I wish there was some form of AI searching where I could compare the list of people who complained about the Apple iPad “What’s a computer?” commercial against the people saying the iPhone and iPad are computers and should be treated as such and see if there are any intersections.
iPhone and iPad are computers.
They are not PC.
It is a different and closed platform.

You can’t change a closed system to open just because the closed one was successful and have a good market share.

The same way you think a open system is better I tell you I find closed systems way better than anything open.
 
Last edited:

theHFIC

Member
Aug 22, 2014
771
1,761
810
iPhone and iPad are computers.
They are not PC.
It is a different and closed platform.

You can’t change a closed system to open just because the closed one was successful and have a good market share.

The same way you think a open system is better I tell you I find closed systems way better than anything open.
I am on Team Closed System for iOS. I just remember people complaining about the What’s a Computer commercial and now people complaining about Apple keeping the system closed on these devices.

I don’t consider iOS devices true computers though. A whole separate category personally that rides a very fine line right now. I am going to have to re-evaluate this stance with M1 going on the iPad.

First I want to see what’s in store at Apple WWDC next month and next iOS/macOS.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ethomaz

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
Apple would never start up a brand new music streaming service and not have a competitive advantage of not having the overheads of their Apple tax?

Apple would never start up a brand new game subscription service and not have a competitive advantage of not allowing competing apps on their App store?

What is the obvious violation about Game Pass or GeForce Now being blocked from the App Store when Netflix is allowed?

Apple shouldn't be allowed to have their own streaming service? Doesn't Apple have to negotiate this tax themselves when they hit other devices? I know, for example, that Roku wants a piece of everything. Isn't Apple TV+ or whatever they are calling it available there?

Apple can't have a game subscription service? I believe that Apple Arcade also lists each game separately within the store, I don't have any iOS devices so can't confirm that.

Are there in-app purchases within Netflix that I'm not aware of?

But strange decisions get made all the time. If users threw fits about needing to open a web browser one time in order to download the browser they really wanted, and actually won on that, anything is possible. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Onya A2Z

Member
Apr 16, 2012
9,598
3,450
970
Melbourne, Australia
iPhone and iPad are computers.
They are not PC.
It is a different and closed platform.

You can’t change a closed system to open just because the closed one was successful and have a good market share.

The same way you think a open system is better I tell you I find closed systems way better than anything open.

Internet Explorer bundled with windows says hi. Of course regulators can step into free markets at any point for any reason, if it's breaking the system or creating monopolies then it's high time regulators stepped in. Who gives a shit if it's open or closed, it's the aspect of fair play or healthy competition that's paramount. Otherwise all sorts of things start to go awry.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Andodalf
Oct 26, 2018
19,202
26,844
820
Internet Explorer bundled with windows says hi. Of course regulators can step into free markets at any point for any reason, if it's breaking the system or creating monopolies then it's high time regulators stepped in. Who gives a shit if it's open or closed, it's the aspect of fair play or healthy competition that's paramount. Otherwise all sorts of things start to go awry.
Never understood the IE monopoly issue.

Having IE bundled with Windows never stopped anyone from using Netscape or Chrome or Opera. Hardly anyon even uses IE/Edge. Most people probably use Chrome on PC. So it shows when there's good products, people will manually search for Chrome the second they get a new PC and use the net for the first time using IE/Edge.

It was a weird thing to pick on browsers because with tech, it's made many things obsolete from calculators, or people carrying a note pad or day planner since everything has a digital version you can use. Yet nobody cared for those products getting protected.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: DaGwaphics

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
Apple shouldn't be allowed to have their own streaming service? Doesn't Apple have to negotiate this tax themselves when they hit other devices? I know, for example, that Roku wants a piece of everything. Isn't Apple TV+ or whatever they are calling it available there?

Apple can't have a game subscription service? I believe that Apple Arcade also lists each game separately within the store, I don't have any iOS devices so can't confirm that.

Are there in-app purchases within Netflix that I'm not aware of?
I'm not arguing if they're allowed or not allowed. The reality is however, that being a platform owner puts your service at an immediate advantage of having to forego this mandatory 30% cough up of revenue to the platform owner.

Apple Arcade - it's in the agreements that all games need to be listed separately in the store, but all film and TV content in Netflix doesn't? What am I missing, how does that argument hold up?

Sadly Game Pass is not yet available in my country. I've not seen anywhere that the app allows in-app purchases, but I might be mistaken.

The official report released from Apple when they justified blocking the app made no mention of this. Instead they put out some bogus PR statement about we need to secure our users as in the independent review board; ESRB, was suddenly inept overnight.

There is a slight issue I see in how Apple has moved into services though. They sent out invites left and right, all welcome. Everyone get your app on the App store and we'll all mutually benefit. Then iOS gets too big to fail.

"Thanks everyone for helping make our platform viable and reach 1 billion users. We'll take it from here with music streaming and gaming now. Not welcome. You can't sit here."
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
19,202
26,844
820
Apple Arcade - it's in the agreements that all games need to be listed separately in the store, but all film and TV content in Netflix doesn't? What am I missing, how does that argument hold up?
I don't follow Apple, Apple Arcade or what constitutes a listing requirement or not, but just based on what you said it might be one of those things where Netflix has like 5000 shows and movies, whereas a Apple Arcade has 150 (I just googled it).

So Apple might have simply given NF a break because they got too much content.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
I don't follow Apple, Apple Arcade or what constitutes a listing requirement or not, but just based on what you said it might be one of those things where Netflix has like 5000 shows and movies, whereas a Apple Arcade has 150 (I just googled it).

So Apple might have simply given NF a break because they got too much content.
But read between the lines. That's not the root cause is it. They can allow it, they just want to be difficult.
 

Ozzy Onya A2Z

Member
Apr 16, 2012
9,598
3,450
970
Melbourne, Australia
Never understood the IE monopoly issue.

Having IE bundled with Windows never stopped anyone from using Netscape or Chrome or Opera. Hardly anyon even uses IE/Edge. Most people probably use Chrome on PC. So it shows when there's good products, people will manually search for Chrome the second they get a new PC and use the net for the first time using IE/Edge.

It was a weird thing to pick on browsers because with tech, it's made many things obsolete from calculators, or people carrying a note pad or day planner since everything has a digital version you can use. Yet nobody cared for those products getting protected.
It was a weird phase for Internet/MS, I could sit on both sides of the ol' browser fence back then TBH. It's a similar argument with Apple and App Store in this thread, they're store they're rules. However Apple make it so customers aren't just walking into their store by choice, they're tied into that app store and shop, unlike the retail shop metaphor where a customer can purchase from another shop if they choose. Within Apple's closed system they're literally locked into one purchase path. The browser wars never actually locked them into anything so there is quite a difference by comparison. In all honesty I can see merits for both Apple and Epic, not sure which way to side. I prefer the Google approach where it's more open and you can even third party install/pay but that's not what Apple do.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
I don't follow Apple, Apple Arcade or what constitutes a listing requirement or not, but just based on what you said it might be one of those things where Netflix has like 5000 shows and movies, whereas a Apple Arcade has 150 (I just googled it).

So Apple might have simply given NF a break because they got too much content.

I think it's more of a money issue. Netflix doesn't have in-app purchases, so not worth their time to worry about. Games typically do have in-app purchases and they want to be able to individually check that anything happening there is passing through their payment system.

@ Menzies Menzies I hear you. Like I said, I'm an Android user myself. So it's not like I'm a real defender of Apple or anything. I agree that platform owners definitely have a leg up on their home turf, I just don't see that as a major problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StreetsofBeige

prinz_valium

Member
Oct 15, 2013
2,456
2,764
815
Never understood the IE monopoly issue.

Having IE bundled with Windows never stopped anyone from using Netscape or Chrome or Opera. Hardly anyon even uses IE/Edge. Most people probably use Chrome on PC. So it shows when there's good products, people will manually search for Chrome the second they get a new PC and use the net for the first time using IE/Edge.

It was a weird thing to pick on browsers because with tech, it's made many things obsolete from calculators, or people carrying a note pad or day planner since everything has a digital version you can use. Yet nobody cared for those products getting protected.
And with IE you at least had options, they weren't just easily presented. Apple is denying those.

There will be a lot of antitrust in the tech sector soon.
 

massivekettle

Formerly 'ksharp'
Jun 2, 2013
3,710
322
785
And with IE you at least had options, they weren't just easily presented. Apple is denying those.

There will be a lot of antitrust in the tech sector soon.

Wrong comparison. Microsoft had a monopoly AND a competing product to Netscape. It used its monopoly to crush Netscape. Then regulators stepped in.

Apple should prevail against Epic - it doesn't have a monopoly in mobile. However, the case between Apple and Spotify in the EU is on shakier grounds given it does have a directly competing product.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,873
12,553
2,110
Again for the “we do not care how the sausage is made, I love my iPhone and cheap games” crowd.

 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
1,001
2,448
455
Oxfordshire, England
It's almost a political difference of opinion, so, I respect these positions, I just see it differently.

If a business lives or dies solely based on the actions of a third-party that sounds like a poorly thought out endeavor.

The argument of they have the power to do this or that, when they've never done this or that yet doesn't do much for me either. Windows, while not open source, is a generally open platform, they could still do a lot of things with the power that they hold (block the websites of political opponents they disagree with, or rival companies, etc.). Now they probably won't abuse their position because they know how that would ultimately end up. Until Apple takes steps to block apps for reasons other than obvious violations of the agreements they have in place, or they use these decisions to limit the capabilities/competitiveness of their mobile OS competitors, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Giving the government/courts the unlimited power to decide how successful is too successful and all that isn't my thing. An unpopular opinion in the "break up everything" culture of the moment, but oh well. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
I'd say it is more an issue of economic opinion - which I respect, too - because the bodies that contend with anti-trust and monopolies are non-partisan, and the reason for it being economic, is that when companies get too big(wealthy) and too powerful(have direct or indirect economic impact on sectors/businesses/individuals) their inevitable (IMHO) rise, peak then fall (and possible failure) damages the economic activity of said sectors/businesses/individuals disproportionately, with the fallout costing tax payers (in a non-partisan capacity), ultimately. Course correcting in advance through legislative means, can hopefully avoid such widespread impact, which is for the wellbeing of an economy IMO, and potentially spreads the opportunities and wealth of that one powerful company to many, and saves using much stronger legislative correction, in the event of no action and a worst case monopoly scenario happens.

Looking at the previous actions by the US with AT&T/Cable&wireless and Microsoft the corrective measures were relatively light and economically better IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griffon
Mar 19, 2015
3,143
3,686
740
When you get a PC and buy a game from steam, where is the microsoft cut? You are using windows aren't you?
Same thing. Phones are computers. Multipurpose devices.

i really don't get how anyone can side with apple on this. well i do understand why, because for some irrational reason people hate tim sweeney.

A cut for what? You purchase the OS you use. In some cases there are free OS available as well.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
12,732
7,809
1,365
Why not just..... Use Android?

Using Apple and participating in their closed ecosystem is YOUR CHOICE. By definition, Apple cannot be a monopoly because you have a choice and Android actually dominates the smartphone market share, not iOS.

Somewhere, Xi Jinping is laughing

This is a free market issue, so its a capitalist argument to its core.

If a company carves out a large section of the marketplace then its presence, and rules, become difficult to ignore. its why general purpose utility is key to the formulation of harm.
 

Banjo64

Gold Member
Dec 8, 2020
1,851
5,778
555
IMO, this is the most interesting and entertaining lawsuit I've witnessed. Literally so many other companies got brought into this mess, and so many documents that weren't meant for the public's eyes, were given just that. I wonder if there will be many more big twists in this whole ordeal.

Hopefully everyone has their popcorn ready for the next session. Otherwise, the conversations and points from each side (in this thread) have been some of the most mature disagreements on here! (Maybe I'm just used to all the fanboy drivel threads)
This is juicier than Eastenders or Corrie. I’m just waiting for the final twist, the reveal of some emails between Spencer and Ryan exposing their long, passionate, sexual affair that they have to hide from the world due to the political implications of a man from green and a man from blue being in love.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
11,986
6,664
1,560
Spain
Never understood the IE monopoly issue.

Having IE bundled with Windows never stopped anyone from using Netscape or Chrome or Opera. Hardly anyon even uses IE/Edge. Most people probably use Chrome on PC. So it shows when there's good products, people will manually search for Chrome the second they get a new PC and use the net for the first time using IE/Edge.

It was a weird thing to pick on browsers because with tech, it's made many things obsolete from calculators, or people carrying a note pad or day planner since everything has a digital version you can use. Yet nobody cared for those products getting protected.

The problem is that normies don’t do that. They see a button called internet and that’s it for them.
 

Schmick

Member
Aug 7, 2019
627
1,042
400
This is juicier than Eastenders or Corrie. I’m just waiting for the final twist, the reveal of some emails between Spencer and Ryan exposing their long, passionate, sexual affair that they have to hide from the world due to the political implications of a man from green and a man from blue being in love.
Unfortunately I don't think we are going to see anymore emails.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
1,001
2,448
455
Oxfordshire, England
And with IE you at least had options, they weren't just easily presented. Apple is denying those.

There will be a lot of antitrust in the tech sector soon.
In a dial-up world, where 20MB installers took 2hours to download at home, or 10minutes in a decent office with internet, they were still better distributed by magazine CDs or spans of 3.5" floppy disks from a friend IIRC.

Having the internet explorer pre-installed with windows provided a path of least resistance - for users - IMO to give IE rapid market share. I worked in an R&D division's IT department on my degree sandwich year for a major company at the time, and even with corporate rules instructing the use of Netscape for all web browsing, I would find world class R&D engineers still click on an IE3 icon than pickup a phone for me to go round to install Netscape across the network for them - because they didn't have time for such things, and made no distinction between one web browser icon and another, and sometimes still used IE when netscape was installed - forcing us to remove all IE icons/shortcuts, which was ultimately futile when service packs restored and update the in-built IE.
 

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
4,569
4,699
620
Well it was bound to happen. Epic is trying to argue that closed game consoles are different from closed mobile systems (aka iPhone), but other parties won't see it that way and will go after Sony/MS (Xbox)/Nintendo as well for their closed systems.

edit: Oh a video discussing this as well from Hoeg Law.
Yeah epic are creating a nightmare across closed system stores like Xbox and PlayStation store, this could effect gaming in its entirety
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Blochu and smbu2000

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
The problem is that normies don’t do that. They see a button called internet and that’s it for them.

Who's fault is that though. I'd say it was up to Netscape to advertise the benefits of their software and make their url known to users.

@ PaintTinJr PaintTinJr there really wasn't any fallout for MS with the browser issue in the US. Only that OEMs were allowed to bundle other browsers with systems if they chose, which they never did. You still have to go and get those yourself.

Could you imagine requesting than an OS maker didn't bundle a browser of some kind today. Would be like saying Apple couldn't include the dialpad or contact functionality with iPhone because alternatives were available in the store.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
11,986
6,664
1,560
Spain
Who's fault is that though. I'd say it was up to Netscape to advertise the benefits of their software and make their url known to users.

Good luck with that.

Google managed to overcome that because they aggressively marketed it on the most visited page in the world.

There’s no money that can pay that - literally, google doesn’t accept ads for their main page. And it worked because normies go to google.com to search instead of using the navbar.
 
Last edited:

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Jul 15, 2020
3,240
8,298
735
This is juicier than Eastenders or Corrie. I’m just waiting for the final twist, the reveal of some emails between Spencer and Ryan exposing their long, passionate, sexual affair that they have to hide from the world due to the political implications of a man from green and a man from blue being in love.
Lmfao that was a twist within itself. It would also explain something's as well.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
Good luck with that.

Google managed to overcome that because they aggressively marketed it on the most visited page in the world.

There’s no money that can pay that - literally, google doesn’t accept ads for their main page. And it worked because normies go to google.com to search instead of using the navbar.

No question that MS acted in a monopolistic fashion in regards to Netscape and stopping OEMs from preloading the software along with IE. That I agree with. Clearly a case of MS abusing their position there.

I don't think that the action of MS bundling the browser with the OS should have been a problem on its own. Not unless MS did something specific to block installs of competing browsers.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
11,986
6,664
1,560
Spain
No question that MS acted in a monopolistic fashion in regards to Netscape and stopping OEMs from preloading the software along with IE. That I agree with. Clearly a case of MS abusing their position there.

I don't think that the action of MS bundling the browser with the OS should have been a problem on its own. Not unless MS did something specific to block installs of competing browsers.

Problem is that bundling one makes it the default one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethomaz

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,214
40,755
1,310
39
Brazil
No question that MS acted in a monopolistic fashion in regards to Netscape and stopping OEMs from preloading the software along with IE. That I agree with. Clearly a case of MS abusing their position there.

I don't think that the action of MS bundling the browser with the OS should have been a problem on its own. Not unless MS did something specific to block installs of competing browsers.
The browser build in the system was never a issue... even today the browser is still build in the system.
The issue was that you have no option to change the default browser in the system... even OEM couldn't do that.

But PC is a open platform.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
Problem is that bundling one makes it the default one.

Seems like a browser is an extremely important program on a computer, not having one would stop you from having the ability to download a different one. I'm glad the US didn't implement some weird policy where MS had to provide a hand up to their competition like the EU did, that was extreme.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DonJuanSchlong

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,827
8,772
885
23
Earth
Internet Explorer bundled with windows says hi. Of course regulators can step into free markets at any point for any reason, if it's breaking the system or creating monopolies then it's high time regulators stepped in. Who gives a shit if it's open or closed, it's the aspect of fair play or healthy competition that's paramount. Otherwise all sorts of things start to go awry.

How the hell is the average person supposed to download chrome without IE?


A Computer sold without a bowser is a brick to 99% of people
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
The browser build in the system was never a issue... even today the browser is still build in the system.
The issue was that you have no option to change the default browser in the system... even OEM couldn't do that.

But PC is a open platform.

Even back then, I think MS had the option of setting the default programs. The issue was that they stepped in and blocked OEMs from preloading the competition which was basically the definition of monopolism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordBlodgett

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
40,214
40,755
1,310
39
Brazil
Even back then, I think MS had the option of setting the default programs. The issue was that they stepped in and blocked OEMs from preloading the competition which was basically the definition of monopolism.
They did not have.
They were forced to launch Windows XP with these options.
Late they where forced to change in US too.

The issue were not only about IE but the Windows Media Create too.

Just to be clear it is not the default app to open HTML files but the default option as browser in the system.
 
Last edited: