So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff.
They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff.
They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
Clearly the consensus is that YES, they were harmed, and the proof is the Web 2.0 revolution driven by the eventually broken browser monopoly by Firefox and Chrome. But at the time the tech industry trenches were filled with platform fans cheering Gates et. al. and claiming sincerely to want the benefits of the unified Microsoft Experience.
Every time you take an Uber or reserve an AirBnB you're demonstrating the fallacy of that kind of thinking.
Basically: yes, competition is good always, no matter how tempted you are to believe the opposite.
Compare what Apple does on iDevices. Safari comes pre-installed, and every competing browser can only skin the OS engine; competing browsers can't actually port their own offerings. On top of that, if you actually want to sell a browser, Apple will get a cut of your sales.
And yet, Apple's app store and ecosystem doesn't seem to be treated as a monopoly in this regard. If not here, why wouldn't they also get away with all of their other anti-competitive practices?
FWIW, I think they should be treated consistently as a monopoly. As a backup option, I'll settle for consistently treated as not-a-monopoly.
Mixing and matching rulings will only serve to hurt in the long run.
... except in the EU where it's now legal to deliver a non safari browser engine through alternative app stores.
It's just that no one will do it for just the EU...