Microsoft 1998 = Apple 2024

From the article: "Microsoft making very similar arguments about how antitrust was going to stifle innovation" ... "when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after ... was Microsoft’s browser market share"

Yup, this is what Apple is afraid of as well, and why they are fighting it so hard with very similar arguments.

I’m confused by this post. Formatting aside, it’s drawing a comparison between something Gruber said and something Microsoft said.

Beyond that, there’s not much substance to the post around the assertion of the title?

They may very well be correct or not, but the post itself has no real content to it.

It also erroneously claims that the browser changes were after the European commission rulings but their own graph ends at 2009 when that commission ruling happened. The prior one for that time frame was around media player.

However the quote they point to is around the DOJ investigation which again, does not actually lead to what they claim. Microsoft won the appeal and the later settlement didn’t affect Internet explorer significantly.

The loss in browser market share was imho inevitable as a result of the growing Internet and growing competition, as IE6 lagged greatly behind.

What a lazy comparison and article. No relevant facts, critical thinking, connective tissue or argument being made: it's "Hey kids you remember 1998, right? No? Well, it's just like 2024 but I can't tell you how." Perhaps the author is referring to being able to install a different browser on their iPhone or paying an Apple tax from their store. In 1998, smart phones didn't really exist nor did digital distribution. I can only guess we are comparing computers to phones - why? Shouldn't we be comparing phones to phones?

2006 is a good inflection point, before the iPhone came out, I could install apps on phone from the Verizon store over cell signal which were all around at least 30 bucks per app (there was no such thing as a "free" app). I could go on the internet, via cell tower and pay through the nose to get a slow stream of data on a small screen that was totally unoptimized and tested for my dumb phone. If there was antitrust issue then, it was the cell phone companies.

When did Apple become Microsoft 1998, was it really just this year 2024? Where are the facts that give rise to the criticisms the author presumes can be levied at Apple? Because I think it was 2007 when the iPhone came out, but if you made the argument Apple 2007 = Microsoft 1998 you'd be laughed out of the room. The author needs to make an argument, I can't believe this is at the top of HN right now

Do we really want the App Store to become the rotten cesspool that is Google Play? Do we really want to open the floodgates to thousands of third party web browsers crawling with malware and zero days? Personally I will never use Android because of this, and I thank god that Apple has held the line here. They have extremely good reasons for maintaining the policies they do, and the average user of an iPhone simply cannot be protected any other way.

This over looks the fact that no white box pc vendor could sell a box without paying a license fee to Microsoft.

That is it didn’t matter what OS the buyer wanted to run on the generic PC a license fee was paid To Microsoft.

In 1998, Microsoft had >90% desktop OS marketshare.

Even today the iOS is less than 40% mobile marketshare and the macOS is less than 10% on desktop.

Wall Garden argument is frustrating, but the monopoly argument is confusing.

I think it's more like:

Microsoft 1998 = Bell Phone System 1982

Apple 2024 = Your local airport or sports arena vendors 1980s - Today

Gatekeeper companies whose platforms are all-reaching and all-encompassing (ie. not just toys or games) should be forced to surrender default status to choice. Default search, default payments, default messaging, default email, default browser, and default app store shouldn't be first party options thrust on the user.

Defaults are something 99 out of 100 users will stick with, making them one of the most powerful forms of platform monopolization.

Ending defaults is the only way a competitive gradient can exist. Otherwise, these gatekeeper companies are forever entrenched and can feast off of all economic activity forever. They can furthermore choose to enter tangential markets and snuff out the incumbents.

Why is the title not Microsoft 1998 = Microsoft 2024? I don't see Apple mentioned once. It's Microsoft both times.

Interesting how that browser user share chart doesn't go past 2009...

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://i.imgur...

Why is the font so drastically massive on mobile? I have to scroll down a lot to read so little.

> Oddly enough, when Microsoft lost its cases’ innovation didn’t end. What did decline after the settlement of the DOJ and EU trials was Microsoft’s browser market share — a fact which some commentators would have you believe is a complete coincidence and nothing whatever to do with governments forcing Microsoft to stop being an abusive monopolist.

Huh? I mean, it was a coincidence. Internet Explorer peaked in 2003, not because of the 2001 antitrust settlement, but because Firefox came out in 2004 and then Chrome came out in 2008.

The government didn't create Firefox or Chrome, nor is there any reason to believe that Firefox or Chrome wouldn't have been developed or become popular absent action from the government.

Or we might even say that if it wasn't coincidence, then that's because of a pattern where slow-moving governments often only try to regulate antitrust in the tech industry by the time the specific issue has ceased being relevant.

As Steve Jobs said: "If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful.

So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."

Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable.

Contact him via Techspymax @ gm ail com

Are you suspecting your partner of cheating or having an extramarital affair? I’ll advice you to get proof first before confronting him/her. As that could result in unnecessary confusion in your relationship or marriage. it’s always advisable to consult a professional hacker to help you get concrete evidence by discreetly getting access to their phone or computer. he has forked for me a couple of times and he never disappoints. he provides Accurate results and can be trusted for 100% privacy and untraceable.

Contact him via @

Uh, i wonder if the Betteridge’s law of headlines is applicable here. /s

Hot take: Apple is keeping app quality high by pushing out PWAs (which are just a way for developers to have an easier time, but not a better product).

I think the writer's punchline is implied but I'm not plugged in enough to make the connection.

>Microsoft's monopoly of browsers in the 90s = Apple's [?]

What goes in the box?

Edit: Smartphones. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple...