Microsoft was convicted for merely including Internet Explorer along with Windows while Apple not only includes Safari, but prevents anyone else from offering browser engines (!) on its platform.

As well as tying iPhone/iPad hardware to iOS and viceversa, iOS to App Store and viceversa, iOS development to OSX, OSX to Mac hardware, App Store to 30% fees on developers and being subject to Apple's arbitrary whims with no recourse including being prevented from competing with any Apple software (under the "cannot replicate system functions" clause).

It seems the theory that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is saving them, but of course they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in even with 50% market share due to the large platform network effects.

Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers.

It's not anti-trust unless it hurts consumers. Being forced to develop on Apple software/hardware affects consumers not at all. What harm is resulting from being forced to use a webkit browser? Being able to load only apps vetted by Apple would also be difficult to show harm given all the malware that keeps popping up on Android.

Apple is only 38% market share, Google is ~60%, it's right in the article. World wide Apple is only 18%.

I know people hate Apple but really, can we stick to hating them for the crap they actually do.

AOSP is Open Source. Starting from that, Google hasn't restricted anything. Going forward from there, Google (with Play, Play Services) has gradually started tightening things up because of harm to consumers. Is your Android phone running the latest security patches. No? Google needed a way to push out critical updates and their behind-the-scenes position means they have more limited control than Apple does. It obviously doesn't solve everything but I'd argue that they're doing their best to protect consumers.

This isn't about software products anyway, it's about services, search in particular.

But this is irrelevant, I'm not attacking Google, I'm disputing the "Apple is the bigger anti-trust violator" idea, which is just silly.

Tell that to Chinese Android manufacturers.

Apart that your comment has nothing to do with Android being open source or not. it is irrelevant if a fork is competitive or not, AOSP is still open source

I can give you a link to the AOSP repository.

If iOS and OS X are open source in the same way than Android, then you can give us a link to the repositories, isn't?

Can I fork OS X and make another operating system based on it?

Google has made all manufacturers who use the official Google version of Android sign a contract that forbids them from shipping devices any other forks of AOSP. They've restricted plenty.

Relevant bit: > Switching to Skyhook's service meant Google would not be able to collect location data from users. This was bad for Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the lawsuit is still pending.

IE 6 fell way behind because Microsoft just stopped caring about it (and because Netscape comitted suicide by refactoring, thus leaving IE without any competition to drive it forward), but comparing IE versions to their contemporary Netscape versions, it's really hard to call it "crappy."

They also give away a free text editor and have never been taken to task for "destroying" that market.

Not saying that Facebook isn't harming consumers, just that that harm isn't necessarily related to their monopoly position.

I'm not saying Apple is a blameless company, as a dev who has had years old apps suddenly rejected I have a definite love/hate relationship going. I'm saying it's not a big anti-trust problem.

And %38% of the market is enough to force any any app maker to deal with Apple, so it might as well be 51%.

It's about the question of engaging in anti-competitive practices and Apple is guilty of those despicable practices.

However, I must say that I am not totally sold on all the examples cited in the ancestor comment esp. that developers having to work exclusively on Mac machines to build for iOS devices because that's on the business side of the equation and mostly motivated by financial gains.

On the other hand, as a consumer I'm severely affected negatively by the restrictions Apple imposing on the browser engines available on their mobile devices and the monopoly Safari WebKit enjoys there and I'm really frustrated by that and by the fact that no one yet went after them for this but when you take into consideration that a lot of the big guns in the system are investing in this evil corporation, things become very obvious to you.

Curious, how are you "severely affected" by the Safari WebKit monopoly. I keep hearing people say this and I literally have no idea why this is such a massive problem.

Huh, I'm a web dev and never really had any extraordinary problems with Mobile Safari. Oh, there have been bugs, but that's true of all browsers. Plus, as a web dev, what I install on my devices is irrelevant.

Companies are free to engage in 'anti-competitive' practices if they don't have too much power over the market. Think about it – how many businesses will offer you a discount if you buy multiple services from them? That's basically the same thing, right?

That's completely untrue. If the shop owner around the corner in your hood colluded with other shop owners to fix prices and they're caught, they will be in a lot of trouble. So, anti-competitive behavior is not about monopoly or market dominance, it's about the act itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

Damage to whom? Damage to potential competitors? Sure, but that's fair game under antitrust laws.

Damage to consumers? That argument is a lot harder to make.

Consumers:

- Unless you carry two mobile devices, you can't use several apps that are iOS-only or Android-only. This is because Apple refuses to support Android apps, and Android cannot easily support iOS apps because iOS is tied to iPhone/iPad hardware (and other tech/legal issues caused by Apple)

- If you decide to only carry an iOS device, your freedom is restricted and you can only run software according to Apple's permission. Also, it's not obvious to the average consumer which categories of software they have been prevented from using by Apple (this includes or included things like a faithful port of Firefox or Chrome, BitCoin wallets, BitTorrent software, games including the confederate flag and so on).

- If you want to run iOS software, you have to pay Apple several hundred dollars more than you would in a competitive market for iOS devices, and can only choose between devices Apple makes

Software developers:

- Reaching a large majority of mobile users requires writing the software twice, due to existence of iOS and the fact that Android cannot support iOS apps and Apple refuses to support Android apps

- Reaching the large market share of iOS users forces you to support Apple's practices, buy and manage Mac hardware, warp your software at additional cost to fit Apple whims, wait days to get updates delivered (if Apple decides to accept them) and pay 30% of your revenue for a service that has at most 5% marginal cost to Apple

- Some software cannot be written for iOS because Apple doesn't allow it, reducing the market for it and potentially making it not viable to develop it

Phone/tablet makers:

- Lots of people only want to carry one device and want/need to use iOS apps (due to lock-in and exclusive software), so the market for new mobile devices is reduced even if they are better in all aspects than existing ones

Society:

- Less innovation happens due to Apple's restrictions on software and the reduced market for non-iOS devices

- Freedom is being curtailed by Apple while offering users benefits for accepting that curtailed freedom, contributing to change cultural norms to a state where it is acceptable for such a company to decide which software and hardware is allowed in the marketplace, and in general what businesses and customers are allowed to do and publish

If Apple were split into three truly independent companies, one selling hardware, one selling iOS and OSX, and one offering the App Store and other online services, most of these issues would no longer be present.

Google is also guilty of several things similar to what Apple is doing, although they are generally less restrictive and it's possible to opt out, and thus less of an issue.

What Microsoft did was control the industry. Bill Gates prevented big PC makers (like Dell) from shipping alternatives to Microsoft software, ensuring there was effectively no way to buy a non-Microsoft computer.

Apple has never done anything even close to as evil as what Bill Gates did in his prime. He held the industry back in multiple ways, for years. Apple has done more to accelerate technology than any single organization in history.

This is an oft-repeated meme, but outside of anecdotes where they were being mean to competitors, there is no evidence of the software industry being harmed by its practices on any meaningful scale. In fact, at least one study looked at economic data and found no empirical evidence for it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498

Here's the key – companies are free to provide whatever devices and services they want on the market, so long as they don't have so much influence that it distorts the market. If they do, then they will come under increased scrutiny.

Apple are, and should be, totally free to enforce whatever stupid restrictions they want, because there are multiple other mobile device platforms available. It's not even the largest one. The market is open and competitive.

iPhones not running Android apps is not harm to consumers (leaving aside the technical hurdles of a few GB of libraries an OS wrappers). Apps not being allowed might be anti-trust, but the app policy is pretty fairly applied and is not necessarily anti-competitive so that would be a hard one to prove.

Impact on software developers is NOT harm to consumers, it's just not.

Competitive differentiation is NOT anti-trust.

Finally, according to IDC, Google has 82% of the world market in units shipped. You are seriously losing the plot when you say Apple's actions are harming consumers by reducing market for non-iOS devices when Apple only has 13% world market share.

- Having a dominant market position is okay.

- Abusing a dominant market position is not okay.

It's not a complex issue. Complaining that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is a theory is a nonsense objection.

That aside if the whole idea for the probe is that Google prefers their own services on Android while restricting others - it's going to be a tough one to substantiate given Microsoft already can ship all of their apps as replacement to Google's - Cortana for example.

If Antitrust wasn't just about market share but also profit share then Apple is doing far more to invite a probe than Google in the Smart Phone market.

1) Write your own OS from scratch 2) Borrow an existing OS (e.g. Linux) and build all of rest of the layers and services (e.g. Tizen) 3) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Android), and build all of the rest of the layers and services (FireOS, etc) 4) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Google Android), and all the layers and services

What vendors seem to be saying is #1, #2, and #3 are "too hard" and that consumers are demanding Google's Apps and Services. What these manufacturers want to do is, design some commodity hardware, put on the stuff consumers are demanding (Google's services), but then load them up with other stuff (which many consumers would call bloatware or junk).

But how easy should one expect it to be to ship a phone? Seriously, 10 or 20 years ago, you not only had to make a lot of custom hardware design, but you had to have a lot of inhouse embedded software engineering. These days, most of this stuff is available off the shelf, and Chinese manufacturers can slap together a new phone and drop Android in it extremely quickly, all at low cost.

If there was no Android, and just two proprietary platforms (iOS + Windows, or iOS + Symbian), their situation would be even worse.

Android's brand already has bad branding from fragmentation and security issues. Paradox of choice tends to drive conformity and commodification, so I'm not sure the situation would be much better otherwise.

If you want to launch consumer phone hardware and get lots of customers, IMHO, you should expect it to be hard and differentiating and have to put in enormous software work. I honestly don't think Android manufacturers are going to standout on small software tweaks and packaging of apps.

If you're an Android manufacturer and you think the key to standing out in innovation, I don't think it's going to come from skinning Android and replacing one of apps on the homescreen. Just IMHO, but this seems more like companies wanting to take shortcuts without putting in the hardwork that Apple or Google have made to convince users of the value of a custom platform.

I disagree the situation would be worse without Google. In China, where Google isn't competing, there are more platforms available. The only non-Google Android devices that have an appreciable market share are able to thrive.

And as for using 'user experience' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why is Nexus still so unpopular if Google's so good at UX?

And as for using 'security' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why doesn't the MADA contain anything about security update requirements, and why are so many Androids with Google Apps still vulnerable to Stagefright and even old versions of OpenSSL with Heartbleed?

If manufacturers don't want to do it then they could still use Android san the play services like a lot of Chinese manufacturers are doing.

I find these anti trust investigations against Google that are based on the fact that manufacturers have to bundle Google's App ridiculous.

I know for me as an end user, it's very inconvenient when I don't want to use Google's Android, but still want access to the Google Play Store. If you use Cyanogenmod or other custom apps, you have to download google apps. If you use Amazon's Fire devices, the process is a little more inconvenient. On the one hand you have to wonder whether this harms adoption of third-party Android devices, running Cyanogenmod, FireOS, OxygenOS, or any of a number of other custom Android forks. However, Amazon has become somewhat successful in introducing an alternate app marketplace, and this leads to the other question.

Is Google's inclusion of Google apps only on Google android harmful to other app developers? I know personally, if I had a choice between the Google Play Store and the Amazon Appstore, I would choose Google Play 100%. It just has more of the apps I want. But if you want to give users an option, how would you do it? I suppose a scenario similar to what the EU imposed on Microsoft would work, where on activation you would pick from a list of appstores to download to your device. This would at least give users options. I also know personally that I would just stick with the default Maps and Chrome apps if they were bundled with the device instead of giving me a choice of downloading alternate maps and browser apps. This makes it hard for developers of those apps to compete.

Ultimately, this just goes to show that you should take the claim that Android is "open" with a grain of salt. Not only is Google restricting access to Android, there's also this troubling bit from the article:

>“When we say we’re concerned, it’s not only because [the FTC] didn’t do a good investigation the first time around, or the fact that they didn’t protect the confidentiality of the people who complained," Reback said, “but also because they seem to take directions from Google.”

No, not really an overstatement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall

In my opinion all this bloviating about ignition switches, bundled browsers etc. misses the mark. We should be demanding much safer and more survivable vehicles. I sure don't want to die on the road or see my loved ones crippled by some drunk driver.

Let's legislate survivability at highway speeds. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something that works--collision avoidance, prison for DUI, explosive bumpers--anything to reduce those numbers.

First of all, around one fifth of people killed in traffic have committed suicide. They take their car, take off the seatbelt, and drive as fast as they can and hit an oncoming heavy goods vehicle. That's bad, because it is very traumatic to the people who drive trucks and transport stuff. They get injured physically, and even worse, emotionally. You can't stop this by making better cars; you might stop it by having only Google-driven robot cars (so we go merry round with the discussion on how evil corporations are). And even then, if people can't kill themselves with a car, they'll find something else. Next, you'll be banning pedestrian bridges.

Over one tenth of traffic deaths here are natural deaths. I.e. they are recorded in traffic death statistics, and they are used for justifying car and fuel taxes, but in fact it's the old man got a heart attack or a stroke, and died, and there's not a scratch to the car. Or just fell off the road on his bike. But it's still a traffic death here.

Then there are the tragic accidents where a child is run over by a heavy goods vehicle. Most of this is not about speed; it's about noticing people who were in a blind spot. We've had three children killed in an few weeks in this nation in similar accidents, and that is too much. Here, some automatic detection technology will probably help a bit.

But what's the bulk of traffic accidents? Mostly it's tremendous idiocy which is hard to legislate away. People who are DUI at four times the legal limit, are driving three times the speed limit, and running away from police because they don't have a driver's license, and they have no seat belts, and then they hit a tree and everyone in the car is killed.

More survivable vehicles help, and in fact the development has been huge over the past years, but particularly the people who are gross idiots are also people who drive older cars, so they are less protected.

And still, considering all this, I think road traffic is remarkably safe, and when I think how much people move around, accidents are few and far between.

I'm appalled that you can simply run somebody over with a car and then say "oops, accidents happen" and walk away. I'm appalled that safety standards are so lax. I'm appalled that drunk drivers are not treated exactly like somebody who walks around a fires a gun randomly. I'm appalled that people who have become a driving hazard because of illness or infirmity are allowed to keep driving "for their dignity".

The 32K deaths is why the self-driving car will rapidly take over the market once it is viable. The insurance companies will see to it.

But even with GM and car security issues, I think it is an overstatement to say that they have done "mass murder". Yes, there have been some faults in GM cars, and recalls, and accidents, but overall, if we look at modern cars and traffic, I'd say they are remarkably safe.

For instance, if we ride bikes instead, the likelihood of death per passenger km is about 10 times higher than with car traffic.

I'm not aware who Google has "mass murdered". Google has surely had a profound influence on the society in most countries, and life has changed, but I can't see how the word "mass murder" fits in.

This thread was not about google. I started it. Nowhere in my original comment did I mention google. The article may involve google I'm only remarking on a part of the article. My comment shifted the topic a bit to litigation and corporations in general. It seems quite obvious to me. I think the evidence points to your own ability to follow the thread then someone writing something about GM.

>I'm not aware who Google has "mass murdered". Google has surely had a profound influence on the society in most countries, and life has changed, but I can't see how the word "mass murder" fits in.

Dude when did anyone say "Google" mass murdered? Nobody said that. Read english man. When I said "mass murdered" I said corporations have mass murdered. People have mass murdered other people too. Both are true statements.

Even with GM, I think using words "mass murder" is an overstatement. Their cars are exceedingly safe when you look at them in any historical context. I do understand the sentiment if you apply it to tobacco companies, but it would have been a rather long logical jump to get what you mean in the context since everyone else was talking about Google and Apple.

I started the thread with the "mass murder" quote. The parent to this thread is the article itself so there is technically no "prior" comment. The order in which you see the comments listed under the parent isn't in order of time. In fact, I was actually the first person to comment on this article and thus "prior" to every other thread that you see here.

> I suggest you tone down and slow down a bit, so it is easier to understand what you mean.

This is a veiled and negative insult which is not directly in violation of HN rules but nevertheless you are provoking me. You are blaming me and my dictation ability for you inability to comprehend my writing. It's a kind of personal attack because you are remarking on my conversational ability which has nothing to do with the topic. What's even stranger is, I can't "slow down." The speed in which you parse this text is not controlled by me, but by you. If anyone needs to slow down, it's you.

>Even with GM, I think using words "mass murder" is an overstatement. Their cars are exceedingly safe when you look at them in any historical context. I do understand the sentiment if you apply it to tobacco companies, but it would have been a rather long logical jump to get what you mean in the context since everyone else was talking about Google and Apple.

The Headline was about google but the thread was started by me; I dictated the context of the conversation. This is a very normal thing that humans typically do if you are familiar with human behavior. In typical human conversation, topics and context can shift and change and move in different directions which is what is going on here. Thus there is no "rather long logical jump." What's going on here is a failure to interpret a shift in the context of the conversation. The topic that was shifted to and from can be illustrated in the diagram below:

"google" -> "all Corporations in general"

Thus in the context of "all Corporations in general" crimes involving the deaths of multitudes of people would be interpreted by a typical human to encompass the definition of the words "mass murder."

Following your advice I have "slowed down a bit" while typing out this response. I hope the speed in which I type will assist you in understanding what I mean. Thanks.

Ciba-Geigy is another example. Read the reviews of the book: http://www.amazon.com/Toms-River-Story-Science-Salvation/dp/...

These are just two random "success stories" I picked out of many failures. And even though I call them "successes" the results are still truly pathetic. if an individual rather than a corporation committed equivalent crimes they are tried in international court and hanged. Imagine the speed at which justice was served to Saddam Hussein versus a corporation.

It seems to me that you're on a crusade against big corporations, regardless of what they are doing (tobacco, cars, search services or book sales) and you think they are bad just because they are big.

FTC = bad.

FTC investigates companies for small problem while ignoring other companies that do way worse.

Hope this helps.

So we are going after the most open platform for which switching any part of the system is going to the playstore/F-Droid instead of the apple shaped elephant in the room.

And Apple is the biggest single vendor of smartphones in US ... go figure.

Just because they take the lions share of the industry's profits doesn't mean that they sell a monopolistic number of devices.

The notion that "bundling" is anti-competitive is so 1995. No one in the real world minds bundling, no one is hurt by it, and everyone would be inconvenienced by some kind of unbundling solution to satisfy the 10 people in the world who oppose Google's right to package its services together.

There are real and egregious abusers of the system--bribing federal judges, giving kickbacks to food inspectors, paying off legislators and Congressional staffers to slant the laws and regulations in favor of a particular supplier--and these do hurt honest competitors and cause us all to pay more for goods and services.

But to go after a large company merely because it's large and influential and highly successful... These regulators are simply out of control.

See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.

The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators. Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn advocated DIRECTLY for Google.

As for financial support by Google, Rep. Eshoo received a total of $6,400 from Google (individuals + PAC)[1], out of some $160,000+ in donations in the most recent election cycle. It seems unlikely that this level of support could be termed "buying off".

[1]https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...