Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Apple

Microsoft President Raised Apple Issues To House Antitrust Group (bloomberg.com) 49

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Microsoft President Brad Smith raised concerns to U.S. lawmakers about what the company regards as Apple's anti-competitive behavior around its app store, Bloomberg reports. From the report: Smith, who is also chief legal officer, was invited by the House of Representatives's antitrust subcommittee to share his experiences around Microsoft's own antitrust battle with the U.S. government in the late 1990s. During the conversation, which occurred weeks ago, he discussed the company's issue with Apple, said a source familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the discussion was private. Smith said last month that regulators should examine app store rules, which he called a far higher barrier to fair competition than Microsoft's Windows operating software when it was found guilty of antitrust violations 20 years ago. While Smith didn't name Apple in that public interview, a Microsoft spokesperson said later the executive was referring to the iPhone maker.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft President Raised Apple Issues To House Antitrust Group More

Microsoft President Raised Apple Issues To House Antitrust Group

Comments Filter:

  • Politicians should have told Brad Smith to take his competition elsewhere, the government is NOT to be used for your competitive battleground. Ditto for Apple and everyone else.

    • So, is the government going to make whole all of the damages it did to Microsoft because it's giving Apple a pass?

      • Poor, poor little Microsoft, always getting beat up by the big bad guys.
        Or perhaps you missed all of the 1990's and a certain antitrust trial? Hint, those things don't just happen for the fun of it -- they are well deserved. And their reputation precedes them.

        The whole point of my post is that NEITHER company should be using the government to dish on their competition. Rather, the government should be enforcing anti-trust laws on its own (not that this has happened in my lifetime, but still....)

        • The funniest part of this is that in the 90s, that anti-trust case was made b'cos of Microsoft's tendency to enter various software markets and wipe out its competition, be it Stacker, WordPerfect, Lotus, Borland, Netscape, and a whole lot of other companies making Windows based software. One of the biggest things was bundling Internet Explorer in a way that it couldn't be removed from the system - it was 'system software', thereby making Netscape redundant. That was what kicked it off.

          More recently, wh

    • I'm sure Spotify, email apps like Hey, and many, many others, as well as Apple's own behavior regarding requests to review it's app store policies suggest this isn't just Microsoft, it's just Microsoft adding weight. https://www.theverge.com/inter... [theverge.com] Besides, Apple is just as guilty of this behavior. You don't think Apple had anything to do with the FTC filing anti-trust litigation vs. Qualcomm which conveniently coincided with the Apple and Qualcomm patent fight?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's completely hypocritical for Microsoft to accuse ANYONE of antitrust violations. Windows has a near total monopoly on the PC market and Windows 10 is spyware and malware which has caused tons of lost work and damage to customer hardware.

      • So? It would be an issue if only Microsoft-approved apps could be installed on Windows 10, but that's not the case.

      • Does it still? How hard is it today to wipe Windows 10, and replace it w/, say, ChromeOS? I mean there is no reason ChromeOS couldn't use plenty of storage space and memory just b'cos the standard Chromebooks are so lean!

        I had wiped Windows 8 off this laptop years ago and replaced it then w/ PC-BSD: right now, it runs TrueOS. One of my past jobs forced me to get another Windows laptop as a BYOD, and there, I managed to spend just $250 for it: I use it today either to play Civ VI, or whenever an online

  • Slack is raising anti-competitive concerns about Microsoft Teams, including bundling Teams with Office 365 and worse, making it impossible to uninstall Teams. https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com] Gee, wasn't Microsoft found in violation of the law for doing that same stuff with Internet Explorer? Maybe Mr Smith should spend some time examining Microsoft's own anti-trust/anti-competitive behavior...

  • Microsoft has dealt with the US Justice Department in the past concerning anti-trust matters. If you have been around 30 years or more you don't need a citation to back up that statement. If you are younger than 30 or so, learn how to web search; it's a basic computer skill nowadays.

    Microsoft having an opinion on the matter of Apple being a possible anti-trust violator is reasonable; Microsoft is expressing it's opinion on a topic it knows first-hand.

    It's like sending a "friend of the court" brief to a cour

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      Microsoft is expressing it's opinion on a topic it knows first-hand.

      it's still a fun plot twist. :)

      • It's pretty disingenuous for MS to compare Apple's "barrier to entry" to their antitrust suit which was about using their monopoly powers to crush competitors.
        One is "Pay us and you can play" and the other is "We're putting you out of business with dirty tricks inside the OS so your programs don't work because they compete with our programs"

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 )

          No, Apple does play the "we're putting you out of business" game, and they're a lot more brazen about it. Let's take web browsers for example, because that's what Microsoft got into trouble over before:

          To be comparable to Apple, Microsoft wouldn't have just bundled IE with Windows, they would also have banned users from installing Netscape, told Netscape that their browser had to use IE's rendering engine, and even if Netscape shipped a skin over IE, Windows wouldn't permit you to set it to the default brow

          • The thing you seem to be missing is that Apple is placing restrictions inside the their own ecosystem. To make your analogy more apt to what MS did, Apple would have to meddle with developers creating apps for Android or Windows stores. Lest we forget that was exactly how MS competed with Netscape; they threatened OEMs that their Windows pricing would increase if they preinstalled Netscape. They hinted to Intel that Windows would favor AMD architectures if Intel continued work on their Java VM.

            • And windows wasn't Microsoft's own ecosystem? Sorry but that's a very weak argument. If anything you just made the case that in spite of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, they were still more open than Apple.

              • Did you read the court’s opinion? Companies are allowed to control their own products. What they are not allowed to do is to leverage their monopolies against other companies in unrelated matters. In what way does that make Apple look worse? They are setting restrictions within their own ecosystem which they are allowed to do. They have not interfered with matters outside of that ecosystem. By your logic, Ford could not dictate what parts they installed in your car if you bring your car to their shop.

                • Did you read the court’s opinion? Companies are allowed to control their own products. What they are not allowed to do is to leverage their monopolies against other companies in unrelated matters.

                  Where are you getting this from? This sounds more like the Novell decision, which is that monopolists aren't required to cooperate with competitors, and therefore it wasn't an antitrust issue.

                  And no, the Ford analogy wouldn't apply, this ultimately comes down to tying, which is what Apple is doing, just like Microsoft was found guilty of.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                  The Ford analogy fails because those parts are an integral component of the product. That is, without its parts, the car just isn't a car.

                  • Where are you getting this from?

                    So I take you didn't read the MS antitrust decision then? This is common sense: A company is allowed to control its own products.

                    This sounds more like the Novell decision, which is that monopolists aren't required to cooperate with competitors, and therefore it wasn't an antitrust issue.

                    The Novell decision doesn't apply as Apple allows MS to create an app but again Apple is allowed to control it's own app store by dictating terms and conditions.

                    The Ford analogy fails because those parts are an integral component of the product. That is, without its parts, the car just isn't a car.

                    My point was about servicing a Ford. If you go to a Ford dealership to repair or service a Ford, Ford is allowed to dictate what parts they use. By law you can ask for aftermarket parts; you don't get to dictate exactly wh

    • Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse and then effectively pardoned by John Ashcroft, who said it wasn't in our best interests to prosecute. Good times. For Microsoft.

  • Microsft has No mobile presence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Your Average Joe ( 303066 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @04:50PM (#60320589)

    Microsoft missed the boat and now they are pissed. There is no software we want from a microsoft store for our phones and tablets, Apple and Google have that covered. Maybe microsoft should stop complaining and find a nich that Google and Apple do not cater to and make the MS store do something different that is better.

    Micrtosft is also pissed they are not getting 100% of the cut, Apple gets some moeney for every drug addict that rents MS office for the iPad and iPhone. This alternative store also makes it impossible for microsoft to have the local gold partiner stop by to sell some consulting for training and custom apps for the Office running on the iPad...

    In a decade MS windows will run fine on phones and tablets. They just need to hang on so that htey can hold out for the hardware to catch up. Maybe microsoft should start by desiging thier own CPU's, chipsets, RAM and storage systems.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      Microsoft missed the boat and now they are pissed. There is no software we want from a microsoft store for our phones and tablets, Apple and Google have that covered.

      MS only have themselves to blame.

      I remember building a mobile handheld solution around 2006, the Windows Mobile was one of the very few practical solution. If it didn't suck so bad, MS could have dominated the mobile platform like Android is now.

      • The ironic thing is that the last time around, the house of gates actually had something pretty cool.

        I feel a little bit dirty saying it. But I actually rather liked the windows phone OS. The tiles were a clever and effective way to convey information to the user and matched nicely with the phone or tablet paradigm. Hell, if it weren't a dead product, I wouldn't mind having a tablet running that OS mounted on the wall to control my home automation and IoT gear while also presenting the weather, MUNI arri

        • Fully agree w/ you. Actually, to this day, I have a Microsoft Lumia 550, but it's pretty useless since Microsoft disabled WiFi on that phone w/ one of their updates

      • Microsoft's real issue w/ their attempts at a mobile presence was their long term insistence on their mobile interface resembling their desktop interface, when those are 2 totally separate beasts. Windows CE made the mistake of trying to fit the desktop on a phone, and Windows 8 went the other way - trying to put the phone interface on the PC. Both sucked!

        However, taken by itself, Windows Phone 8 was a valiant effort at a clean user interface, and was actually a pretty good office phone. There was OneN

  • I predict that the outcome of forcing Apple to allow alternative app stores is that virtually no one will use those app stores. And if they force it to the degree that somehow you can't be absolutely certain you're buying from the Apple app store, it could be even worse that it would destroy the phone app business all together because people will be too afraid of malware to buy anything from anyone.

    The short version is that almost all purchasers of Apple products like their walled garden, it's part of the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Why not allow the companies to take payment themselves, or require Apple to offer reasonable terms.

  • Microsoft was judged a monopoly in the PC Market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by musicmaker ( 30469 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @05:40PM (#60320763) Homepage

    Whereas Apple is very far from a Monopoly as everyone is so fond of pointing out - iPhones aren't even the majority in the phone market, nor Macs in the PC market, so it's a bit difficult for an antitrust issue to arise here. If you don't like there terms, make an Android app, or a Windows Phone app... oh wait...

    Not that different than forcing your users run IE to run your crappy VB.net apps, none of which worked in any other OS than windows back in the day. Talk about pot calling the kettle black-bottom... Even if it looks like the shoe is on the other foot; it's not.

    • When found guilty, Microsoft's punishment was...well their Pres visited the US VP. Then the punishment was dropped. Perhaps Microsoft wants Apple to get the same non-punishment?
    • The article is behind a paywall but what is MS complaint other than high barriers? In terms of defining monopolies, a high barrier to competition is one of the factors to consider. But it’s not the only one. Suitable alternatives do not exist is another one. For example if you don’t like the Walmart grocery store in your town, you or anyone building a grocery store to compete is a high barrier. But if there is a Target and Kroger in the same town, Walmart can’t be considered a monopoly. As

    • Re:Microsoft was judged a monopoly in the PC Marke (Score:4, Insightful)

      by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @09:42PM (#60321323) Journal

      Whereas Apple is very far from a Monopoly as everyone is so fond of pointing out - iPhones aren't even the majority in the phone market, nor Macs in the PC market, so it's a bit difficult for an antitrust issue to arise here.

      Depends on your definition of "the market."

      Back in the early days of Microsoft's antitrust trial, Microsoft tried to argue that they weren't a monopoly in the PC Market because of Apple. However, the government argued that it didn't matter--Microsoft held a monopoly for operating systems based on Intel CPUs (at the time, Apple used PowerPC CPUs). Apple was not a competitor in this market.

      iPhones may have a small percentage of the market, but Apple certainly has a monopoly on selling iOS Apps because they're the only ones allowed to do so. You can't buy apps directly from the developer. You cannot buy apps via other app stores. You can only buy them from Apple. I'd say that gives Apple 100% of the market--certainly a monopoly.

      Oh, and before you drag out the ol', "Well, it's Apple's Platform", it stops being their platform when third-party developers get involved. If the App Store only sold Apple-branded products, you'd have a legitimate argument. But when they open it up to other companies, they have to play fair with those companies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The existence of Android actually screws them more, rather than acting as a defence. On Android you can buy direct from the developer (I have done in the past) and you can install other app stores. In fact some phones ship with them pre-installed, e.g. Samsung.

        Thus Android demonstrates that not only is it possible, it also destroys Apple's security related arguments because in practice Android has proven to be just as or even more secure than iOS. Banks are happy to have banking apps and card payments on bo

      • Oh, and before you drag out the ol', "Well, it's Apple's Platform", it stops being their platform when third-party developers get involved. If the App Store only sold Apple-branded products, you'd have a legitimate argument. But when they open it up to other companies, they have to play fair with those companies.

        Part of me wants to go OMG that is an idiotic assertion because what kind of sense does it make to say "well if we don't allow 3rd parties at all, fine, but if we allow 3rd parties, we have to hurt ourselves to accommodate them."

        But then I realize just how idiotic politicians are, and even more relevant, willing to do whatever if the right people are putting up the right money, so yeah, that could be exactly the outcome.

        But you know what, I think if it came down to that, Apple would quite possibly say screw

        • what kind of sense does it make to say "well if we don't allow 3rd parties at all, fine, but if we allow 3rd parties, we have to hurt ourselves to accommodate them."

          Uh...competition?

          First, let's be real here. Third-party developers pay Apple to be included in their store. Apple does not pay anything to be included in their store. That gives Apple a tremendous advantage when competing with third-party developers. If you say it doesn't, you're being deliberately obtuse.

          But you know what, I think if it came down to that, Apple would quite possibly say screw you all, I'm going home and close the App Store down to 3rd party devs.

          Which would hurt Apple.

          Apple has a love/hate relationship with third-party developers. Third-party developers add value to their platforms--would the Mac even be here today without Aldus PageM

          • I still don't see how this distinguishes them from any store that sells house brands alongside name brand products.

            Spotify and Amazon music are interesting ones to invoke here since they are notorious for underpaying the actual artists while Apple Music is amongst the highest paying for artists, i.e., Apple is passing on a whole lot of its "advantage" to the people that deserve it most.

      • They way you’ve defined market is so narrow as to make every market a monopoly. And that makes any legal or practical analysis meaningless. Walmart has a monopoly on Walmart stores by your definition.
    • Apple would be a monopoly using the same formulae they used for MS as you would not include anything that IOS can't be installed on.
  • “Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties.” – Fortune

    BRAD SMITH: “I'm pleased to be here today to participate on behalf of Microsoft in this discussion on the future of the patent system.”

    “Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, discusses the company's new Azure IP Advantage program. Designed to help Azure customers an
  • You know it's bad when Microsoft is calling you anti-competitive!

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close