How does this MS case differ from the iPhone?

Factual Questions
1

More specifically, what is the difference between what MS is accused of, and how Apple packages their Safari browser with no alternatives on an OS within the iPhone? I can’t put any other browser other than some untrusted 3rd party browsers that would require a Jailbreak or other hacks.

So based on this case, is Apple fair game for the same accusation? I’ve yet to see a alternative browser app, and teh Safari blows, and still doesn’t fully support Flash.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164657/microsoft_faces_european_antitrust_hearing_in_june.html

2

I should say that there are alternatives in the app store, but they’re inferior to Safari as well. Would like to see Firefox or Chrome. But some reading on the net says that all apps must use the “webkit”. So it sounds to me as if Apple is intentially blocking Google and Mozilla from coming up with a full mobile browser for the iPhone so they cannot compete with Safari, and the alternatives are essentially using the same Safari engines, so really the alternatives are just repackaged Safari browers and are sold as .99 crap in the app store.

3

The difference is that Microsoft holds upwards of 90% of the PC market. The iPhone is no where near that for the smartphone market.

4

So it’s not what they’re doing, just if they’re doing it a lot?

5

Pretty much. It’s easier to hit large targets.

Nobody bitches that OSX comes with Safari installed.

6

Google’s Chrome is based off of Webkit, not Gecko, so theoretically an easy port is possible.

7

You have to understand the context of the Microsoft lawsuit. It’s not illegal to bundle one product with another or to force people to only buy bundled versions. What Microsoft was accused of was using it’s monopoly powers in one domain to force entry into another. The bundling was merely the tactic they used, not the crime they were accused of.

Since the iPhone, as of yet, does not have a monopoly in any conceivable market, the bundling does not fall under anti-trust regulations.

8

Well, I did.

9

Of course the people who screamed Microsoft is evil didn’t care much about these criteria of monopoly or cross-over dominance from one market to another. They just hated that MS installed crap on their machine and forbade OEMs from installing something better. That’s the same injustice that Apple is committing. Except it’s an injustice, like so many others in the market, that is fully within the law.

10

You have to remember, if Apple and MS do the same thing (browser bundling, DRM or whatever, it does not matter).
Apple did it because it was a wise business decision but MS did it because it is teh evil!

Unclviny