smoldesu

  "It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans."

- Steve Jobs, on Apple's suit following his resignation (Newsweek, September 30, 1985)

If you want to run a non-default OS, don't install one. Blocking competitors for competition's sake is a regulatory tightrope walk, the exact same mentality that nearly annihilated Microsoft.

Historically, the first amendment has never been used as a defense in antitrust law (and for good reason). A business and it's self-expression is kinda besides the point when you're analyzing market harm and extrinsic impact. Microsoft was not within their means to "self-express" coordinated first-party limitations to stifle competing browsers. Apple using the same tactic does not automatically make it legal because they're percieved as some form of underdog.

If Apple really wants to express themselves, United States law won't stop them from disincorporating and relocating their private assets to a nation they're more comfortable with like Russia or China. They could become a PRC-subsidiary and fulfill their destiny of being the man in the glasses on the grey TV.

While I agree that Microsoft's treatment of Windows is basically criminally negligent at this point, it's a lot harder to prove damages with them than it is with Apple right now. I also suspect that any prosecution against desktop OS service bundling would end up lumping Apple in as well anyways. One step at a time, eh?

Solenoid in a box!

That's speculatory, and furthermore I'd argue Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in. Apple's anticompetitive behavior may well be the last thing stopping a browser monopoly. That's for the free market to decide though, and it's an entirely different lawsuit in the making.