That would be a very clear anti-trust violation where they would be abusing position in the OS market to influence their position in the search market.

How is that different to what they're doing with browsers? Last time I checked, you can't ship your own browser/js engine on iOS

It's exactly the same. I have no idea how they're able to get away with it.

Perhaps your understanding of antitrust law is flawed.

I hope it is, because the alternative is that they're being allowed to get away with something that's against the law, bad for the free market, and anti-consumer.

Really? One of the few things keeping the creeping Google Chrome monopoly in check is bad for the consumer and bad for the market?

I, for one, am happy that Google isn't able to unilaterally dictate the next generation of web standards.

So you're saying the only reason that Chrome isn't more dominant is that some consumers cannot use it because of Apple and somehow that's a good thing? If iOS users would switch to Chrome if given the chance, isn't that a sign that they are currently worse off?

No, iOS users can already use Chrome, they just can't use Blink. The difference is whether Google can leverage their developer base to drive people to Chrome without having to provide a superior product to the consumer. Today developers have to support WebKit to get iOS users, instead of just throwing Safari users a popup that says "fuck you, download Chrome" like they do on desktop. I think it's at least arguable that many would prefer to do that than continue to support WebKit.

> If iOS users would switch to Chrome if given the chance

They already have the option to switch to Chrome on iOS. It's not like most iOS users know that Chrome on iOS is just a re-skinned Safari. They would use Chrome if Safari was insufficient for their needs or Chrome had some compelling feature they wanted. I have Chrome installed on my phone but it's so I can use the password manager, but I still prefer to use Safari as my browser.

Perhaps the fact that Chrome's limited to being a reskinned safari is the reason it doesn't have a compelling feature they want.

Almost any time anyone brings up accusations of anticompetitive behavior against Apple for the iOS ecosystem, notice that what they’re saying is “in order to make the smartphone market more competitive and give customers more choice, Apple should be forced to make their smartphone offerings less distinguishable from Android, the only other smartphone ecosystem.”

If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome.

If Apple decided there next phone would have no screen or phone it would automatically make it a better choice because it is so much more different from android? I don't buy that line of thinking.

> If more like chrome means more openness and choices for the public than who cares if it is like chrome or not like chrome.

Because it will make iPhones worse for a huge number of iPhone users. You might say “I don’t care if you’re less satisfied with your iPhone because you now have ‘more choice’ according to my limited definition.” But Apple presumably actually cares about how satisfied people are with their iPhones.

No, they should not force everyone's smartphones to be like a different smartphone.

Instead they should allow users to do what they want with their own device.

That way everyone gets what they want, with the device that they own.

Probably because it’s not bad for consumers, for one thing. They’re also “getting away with” using their position in the OS market to influence their position in…every feature of their hardware and software.

That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition.

For example, Microsoft had ~95% market share of the entire computing market when they tried to embrace and extinguish Netscape.

It's why it was perfectly fine for Google to use its web services to influence competition within the Android OS market.

Anti-trust law is not simple. In the case of MSFT and IE they were accused under the protects of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act[1] of using their monopoly position (Windows) to reduce consumer choice (bundling IE without letting users pick a different option). In the case of Apple and Google, it's more likely to fall under the Clayton Antitrust Act[2] as it's a matter of corporations collaborating to reduce consumer choice (but I am not a lawyer, and not even American, so I could be waaaay off the mark here.)

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.a...

[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.a...

> That only applies when you dealing with markets with an absence of competition.

This is incorrect. From the FTC[1]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Ok, wouldn't there be the same problem with app stores then?

Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one.

So excluding and removing healthy market competition is completely OK in that respect. Or so we're told.

> Except, as we keep being told by Apple fans here, that's not enough because Apple's OS isn't the most popular one.

Even that deflection is incorrect. When it comes to the mobile market in the US, Apple has over 60% of the market, and Google has the rest. When it comes to the mobile app distribution market, they're responsible for 100% more sales than Google is, and both companies make up that entire market.

In the US, Apple is the most used mobile and mobile app provider. And even if they weren't, they have a duopoly with Google in a dozen or more markets.

a) Apple has had their own search engine for years now. It powers Safari Suggestions.

b) They don't have an option to change it.

c) If they were to extend its use for all searches then I can't imagine there would be an issue. And if there was it would likely be across the entire mobile search industry.

addition to a): The quality of its results is laughably bad