Were Windows 98 users "harmed" because IE5 was bundled with the OS? They "knowingly bought into the Microsoft ecosystem", after all.
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.
FWIW, that's just saying that government antitrust action didn't break the monopoly in question, not that it wasn't harmful. Clearly it was harmful. And Apple's is too.
And yet and still without government intervention, Chrome now dominates to the point where Microsoft gave up and now uses the Chromium engine.
Just maybe if the EU spent more time encouraging innovation instead of passing laws, they would have a real tech industry.
Every Mac and Windows user who uses Chrome made an affirmative choice to download Chrome and didn’t need the government to help them make a decision.
Today in the US, even though the average selling price of an iPhone is twice that of an Android where there are dozens of choices and Android is backed by a trillion dollar company, 70% of users in the US choose iPhones.
In every single country, people with more money choose Apple devices using their own free will even though there are dozens of cheaper Android devices to choose from.
Just like people said “no” to ad tracking when given a choice and now the ad tech industry isn’t happy with that choice.
Microsoft basically invented AJAX and spurred the entire web 2.0 revolution. Other browsers weren't prevented from being installed.
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.
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.