That's exactly the antitrust issue Microsoft ran into isn't it?
People who didn't live through that era really don't appreciate a key aspect of it, which was that MSFT OWNED the desktop -- like, 90+% of the market. There were no other real options. For a good chunk of that period, Apple was seriously on the ropes and might not have survived. (Michael Dell famously said it should be sold off and the money returned to the investors.)
Microsoft had deals in place with PC makers so that it was impossible, nearly, to buy a computer without buying a Windows license. BillG specifically told Netscape he planned to "cut off their oxygen supply" by shipping a browser with Windows, and he did this because he was smart enough to see that browser-based software could endanger their control of computing. That was literally illegal.
No one has anything like the control they had back then. The desktop market is still mostly Windows, but Apple got healthy and took a decent chunk back. Now there's also ChromeOS and Linux out there, too -- plus, we have mobile, which is an even BIGGER chunk of the platform market, and it's split between iOS and Android.
So that's at least 6 different software platforms a hypothetical user could pick in 2022, and they're spread over dozens of hardware manufacturers. That's been the norm for so long now that it's easy to forget how little choice we had in 1998.
*ANYWAY* the bigger point is that adding features to your system isn't a problem if you're not acting as a monopolist. Microsoft WAS in the 90s. Nobody has that ability now.
Then they just point at marketshare and say: "we only have 30% worldwide". Yeah, but your stuff is aspirational and the vast majority of Android users have lower disposable income so spend less and many switch to iOS when they have enough money.
It's very sneaky and it's breaking everything down.
Laws just haven't caught up to it.
Are you suggesting that a successful business with a small fraction of the overall market be treated like a proven monopolist? That's risible.
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-o...
> Apple Captures 75% of Global Handset Market Operating Profit in Q2 2021
At this point everyone competing, including Samsung, are getting close to also-rans.
I felt otherwise a few years back, but Apple's marketshare is actually going up almost universally, as countries develop:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha...
Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system and the million models of phones.
They do not control the market, and thus are not subject to -- and should NOT be subject to -- the kinds of restrictions justifiably imposed on actual monopolists.
>Android is stagnating, if anything despite the free and Open Source operating system
I might argue that Android is stagnating BECAUSE it's free/open source, and as such lacks effective leadership.
No, it's even better.
If a company could have 1 single user and that user could pay them $500bn in perpetuity for a product costing $1, they'd only want that customer.
They want more customers because they can't have that ideal case. First of all nobody would pay that much for such a cheap thing, secondly, nobody lives for ever. So companies expand to make more money (= profit) and to future proof themselves.
Again, as I said, very sneaky from Apple, and I'm arguing it's breaking down existing economic models.
It's basically another run-around at "winning capitalism". Monopolies were one way. This is another one.
There is AMPLE computing choice today. There is even healthy choice available in mobile alone.
Monopoly regulation is about preventing those with market-controlling power from exploiting that position in unfair ways to the detriment of consumer choice. Microsoft did this when they tried to destroy Netscape by bundling a browser with Windows. There really WASN'T another viable desktop system at the time, and mobile didn't really exist; they owned the market.
Apple is free to improve their offerings in any way they see fit. They are even free to incorporate features into their systems that began life as products from other vendors; this is the normal way of things. If you don't like how Apple is behaving, you are free to shift your desktop to Linux or Windows or ChromeOS, or to migrate to mobile devices running ChromeOS or Android. That's a functioning market.
There's nothing sneaky about openly continuing to improve one's offerings.
HN is really, really bad about ascribing dark motives to every tech company not on the Approved List (which, of course, is constantly changing). Apple is pretty smart. Adding encryption to their backup scheme is one of those scenarios where yes, it's good business, but it's also the right move for customers.
No, there isn't.
If I want to be a functional human being, not some dork, it's either:
1. iOS (not jailbroken).
2. Android (not rooted).
Everything else is a FOSS hippie pipe dream, to be blunt.
And in economics there aren't just monopolies. There are also oligopolies and cartels.
We will need new laws for software ecosystems, if anyone will be bold enough to write them (they won't, see lobbying).
Seems like we can never relax, always some company waiting for the chance to take over a space. Gotta stay vigilant.
I see reflections of this throughout the history of the iPhone. Apple has always controlled how people access both the internet and even what applications they can install. Every "browser" on iOS is just Safari with a skin for example, because Apple will not allow any other browser engine.
Allowing anyone to put their browser engine on iOS through the App Store would open the door to a wide variety of security problems. It would also effectively bypass the App Store, as Google (just as a totally random example) could release their own iOS "browser" that's actually their own platform for apps that they sell. Not to mention inserting their own ads into anything people browsed on it. And tracking literally every single tap and text entry that people do in that browser, including bank passwords, credit card info, etc.
On a platform like the Mac, that doesn't matter very much, because it's small enough that basically no one would bother.
On iOS? If you could get 0.0001¢ per website visit from even 1% of iOS users, that would be a money-printing machine.
Apple would certainly argue that, yes. Foremost though, they're adding it because it's what Apple wants, and conveniently converges with the desire of the user.