The government did go after Microsoft in the desktop OS space and ultimately it paved the way for Windows to become a more open ecosystem and for Mac to rebound helping to make Apple to become the company it is today. Microsoft no longer sets things up on Windows in a way that straight up prevents people from using competing services and they no longer pressure OEM's into only install Windows and Microsoft products into Windows. As it sits today people have more choice within the Windows ecosystem and with desktop OS in general than ever before.
TBF, Microsoft don't "have" to force OEMs to only provide Windows installs because the only viable OS in PC for the vast majority IS Windows. People use it by habit now, and because they have tons of programs and whatnot either only on Windows or where they are only comfortable using them on Windows. They're ingrained into that ecosystem after years of
indoctrination usage.
More choice in theory does not mean that choice is actually practical or has significance in practice. By the time Microsoft were forced to open up Windows, it commanded 90%+ of the PC OS market. And this was a very mature market by the mid '00s, not like console gaming in the late '80s where Nintendo held a similar monopoly (and even in Nintendo's case, they were hit with an antitrust lawsuit over price-fixing). The vast majority are not seriously considering Linux, BSD etc. as alternatives to Windows, because there is a culturally ingrained perception that there are no real alternatives to Windows.
The vast majority have this conditioned in themselves, so what's it matter materially that Microsoft had to "open up" Windows to competitors with collectively less than 2% of the PS OS market?
Consoles as closed ecosystems could be impacted by a case like this. Fortunately you can still buy games for consoles from third party retailers as physical media and in the case of two platforms you can buy games digitally from third party retailers, so consumers still have a choice other than a single distribution channel provided by the platform holder. But if they ever go all digital and make it impossible to buy games, apps and services from anywhere but their own app store it's reasonable to assume that the DOJ could go after them, too.
And this right here is how a greedy, overzealous government, through the DOJ in particular, destroys an entire industry just to assert presence for more dollars and, I almost want to say, imperialist superiority. Because I can almost 100% guarantee that if Xbox were the console dominating the market, you'd never get a sniff or whiff of the DOJ or anyone else questioning if the console market needed to suddenly be "more open".
As to your point, I don't think the issue is actually about platform holders not allowing other digital storefronts on their system. It's the fact those other digital storefronts want to be hosted on those console
WITHOUT paying a licensing fee cut to the owners of that platform! That's exactly what the Epic vs Apple stuff was about (or at least partly). It's what Microsoft's said as to why they feel they "can't" be on Apple devices. I'm pretty sure it's less about Apple completely barring them, and more about them not wanting these 3P companies circumventing them completely in terms of payments for having alternative competing storefronts on their devices.
Which should be well within the rights of a company like Apple in that scenario, or Sony & Nintendo if those like the DOJ want to take this to the console space. Because companies like Epic, Microsoft, whoever aren't putting any money or investments into R&D'ing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing devices like iPhones, PlayStations or Switches. All of that is money being put up by the companies who own that platform, and if the platform fails, they're the ones losing billions. So why do 3P feel they can not only have alternative competing storefronts or whatever on them, but also
NOT pay a penny to the platform holders of those systems in terms of a 30% cut?
I don't think whaboutism matters in these cases. If MS is behaving in an anticompetitive way, then I imagine they might already be under investigation, those aren't things that they always disclose.
I don't think I'm making a whataboutism so much as a reasoned conclusion; none of these Big Tech companies got to where they are by playing by the rules.
This isn't what it is about. General purpose devices (such as PCs and phones) have become engrained in how most people access basic services (email, banking, utility services etc) so if a single entity (Apple) have complete control of what is available to these devices and how then it could:
- Stifle innovation
- Censor communications
- Inhibit competition of services
- Control secondary markets
- etc.
So nobody (here or DOJ) is saying that you should be able to move games from GOG to Steam, but what they are saying is that GOG and Steam should be allowed to exist on iOS and compete. Gaming is a frivolous example, this could have real-world worrying implications if Apple decided to (for example) restrict certain banking Apps. Yes in theory people could use their browser, but as it stands Apple control all browsers in iOS and restrict (or don't support) concepts that would allow PWAs to compete (although due to pressure this is changing I think).
I like Apple hardware, typing this on a Macbook right now, amazingly it allows me to install software from wherever I want (at my own risk), I don't see why their phones shouldn't also do this. I would like them to do it because they are a nice company that welcomes competition and backs themselves to out innovate others, but I think that they are scared of the money they will lose and want to hold on to their monopoly on the iPhone marketplace as long as possible.
GOG and Steam ARE allowed to exist on iOS, at least to my knowledge. But the reason you won't find them there is because all the games they host run on either Windows or Linux. Guess what iOS is? It's not Windows or Linux. So what point is there to bring a gaming storefront to a platform that wouldn't be able to run 99% of the games natively?
And let's say even if CDP and Valve wanted to bring their storefronts to iOS but Apple prevents them....so what? Yeah iOS is a closed ecosystem, but it's also a proprietary one. The OS is proprietary. The kernel is proprietary. A lot of the tech in iPhones is proprietary. Whether the devices are general-purpose or not doesn't mean Apple has to abide by the same standards as, say, Microsoft, because iPhones, Macs etc. are purpose-built devices for a specific, proprietary OS. Windows is a proprietary OS but inherently designed to run on non-proprietary I/O and hardware standards because that's how IBM initially designed it (out of deadline pressure, not out of intent at least, not 100% out of intent).
Apple's devices are closer to microcomputers in terms of the business design, than IBM-compatible PCs. It's always been that way. So is it suddenly only a problem because they aren't niche anymore? I'm genuinely trying to figure this out.
.
