If you want to run a non-default OS, don't install one. Blocking competitors for competition's sake is a regulatory tightrope walk, the exact same mentality that nearly annihilated Microsoft.
Historically, the first amendment has never been used as a defense in antitrust law (and for good reason). A business and it's self-expression is kinda besides the point when you're analyzing market harm and extrinsic impact. Microsoft was not within their means to "self-express" coordinated first-party limitations to stifle competing browsers. Apple using the same tactic does not automatically make it legal because they're percieved as some form of underdog.
If Apple really wants to express themselves, United States law won't stop them from disincorporating and relocating their private assets to a nation they're more comfortable with like Russia or China. They could become a PRC-subsidiary and fulfill their destiny of being the man in the glasses on the grey TV.
I was thinking more in general terms of how every possible art or endeavor has been hijacked by political corruption in one form or another and we’re just still rolling with it, with zero recourse through speaking out.
Though perhaps we haven’t exhausted all the first amendment options yet as we’re all still pretty cozy and can’t be bothered yet to try and unravel it all.
Unfortunately with that approach, by the time it becomes urgent enough to rouse us, it will be too late in many respects.
While I agree that Microsoft's treatment of Windows is basically criminally negligent at this point, it's a lot harder to prove damages with them than it is with Apple right now. I also suspect that any prosecution against desktop OS service bundling would end up lumping Apple in as well anyways. One step at a time, eh?
Yup. It wouldn't be quite so close of a comparison if third-party browsers could ship with their engines intact, let alone at-cost to their users. Apple is using their control to block competitors. At their scale, that's a dangerous game.
They won't ever have a monopoly on a browser engine though, or messaging app.
Their monopolistic practices are, arguably, preventing other monopolies. If Safari disappeared 97% of mobile browsers would be Chrome (or use the Chrome engine):
That's speculatory, and furthermore I'd argue Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in. Apple's anticompetitive behavior may well be the last thing stopping a browser monopoly. That's for the free market to decide though, and it's an entirely different lawsuit in the making.
> Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in
Chrome has plenty of anti-competitive practices that aren't under scrutiny. Nudges in all Google owned software to switch, breaking features in other browsers (Firefox Whoops).
Like, I guess I'd be way more "pro this lawsuit" if Google was under similar scrutiny.
Google is under similar scrutiny. They are designated as a service and digital market Gatekeeper under EU law and will be reprimanded if they abuse a potential monopoly position. I personally support regulating Google, and the scrutiny of their (comparatively few) anticompetitive practices.
You and I can feel whatever way we want about it, it doesn't change a thing. Apple's market abuses are unique from Google's, and specifically you are asking the DOJ to punish Google for abuse that hasn't happened. Google's most egregious violation so far has been their advertising racket, which they were already punished for last year: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...
> and can play exactly none of them on the Mac because several years into Apple Silicon
You think that's some kind of low blow? This is a problem on the Mac App Store, too; if you buy software Apple depreciates, your Apple hardware won't run it. Don't get mad at Adobe or Steam, get mad at the person depreciating things with wild abandon and expecting everyone to cater their whims. Get mad at yourself for accidentally trusting Apple and updating to their new OS without reading the conditional changes they're introducing to your computer's software. Steam and it's publishing partners have no intrinsic obligation to support software that didn't exist when they wrote their programs.
> Which seems to really upset people when Apple charges that.
The App Store could take a 99% cut, for all most developers care. The point-of-contention is Apple's lack of an alternative, which makes any percentage unsubstantiated because there's no way to deliver software at-cost. Apple isn't charging for convenience, they're commoditizing privlidge.
Nobody cares when Steam takes their 30% because people deliberately install it on their PC. The App Store on MacOS is a great example of what happens when you let an arbitrary payment surcharge meet the free market. It becomes a fucking ghost town.
> The App Store could take a 99% cut, for all most developers care. The point-of-contention is Apple's lack of an alternative, which makes any percentage unsubstantiated because there's no way to deliver software at-cost.
Maybe Apple shouldn't use their dominant position as a smartphone manufacturer to knowledgeably exploit human insecurity and exacerbate user woe in hope of selling families another iPhone: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107676/buy-your-mom-an-...
