Because they're not a monopoly on smartphones/tablets. Android is doing pretty well, by most accounts. Blackberry still isn't dead (though not for lack of RIM's trying). The IE antitrust case against Microsoft was because they held a monopoly on desktop computers, and tried to use that to build a monopoly on Internet Browsers.

Apple a monopoly on Apple devices, but that's fine. Saying that they have a "monopoly" here is like saying that Coke has a monopoly on the contents of Coke bottles, and they should be forced to fill some with Pepsi. Perhaps less glibly, that things like XBox should be forced to ship Mario, or that Microsoft must release Halo for the PS3. Just because we're used to anything with a CPU being "free for all developers to ship whatever they like onto" doesn't make it a right enforceable by law. If that's your preference, great - buy devices that support this. We do not want the government dictating policy in an area so young, and highly competitive.

If, in a few years, the iPad has become the tablet computer with 99% of the marketshare, there might be an argument for an antitrust case against App Store policies. But that looks very unlikely to be the case.

When the antitrust/monopoly ruling came down from on high Microsoft held something like 90% of the home computer market. That's a dominant position. Apple maintains a solid percentage of phones, and the tablet market is too small to notice.

There's no loophole, Apple is small enough in percentages and there's that much more choice that they can't be classed as a monopoly. Don't like it? Don't buy the product. The issue was with Windows there was only one game in town for the vast majority.

Monopoly isn't illegal, it is the anti-trust or anti-competition that got MS in trouble. If MS didn't try all the scare tactics that they did, then they would still be allowed to keep IE bundled just like Apple.

Because MS got convicted, they're forced to make up for all sort of things and that is why MS is getting all sort of attentions about the browsers, they're still regulated by the governments due to the laws that MS broke.

Apple hasn't done any of that, so there are no regulations and Apple is fully in its right to do what it wants.

Obligatory car analogy: Apple's position in tablets and phones is similar to Ford's position in cars. Ford will not sell you a car with a Chevy engine. Ford is in the complete car market, and an engine is an essential part of a complete car.

Antitrust law tries to be reasonable. This means that for those things that are the main or essential components of a produce, the manufacturer should be free to choose those components.

If antitrust law looked too deeply into individual components, costs for everyone would go way up. Imagine the manufacturing nightmare if, say, Dell had to worry that if they used capacitors from Dielectric Laboratories in their motherboards, they might get sued for not also offering the choice of capacitors from Johnson Dielectrics, ROHM Products, or Illinois Capacitor.

For tablets and smartphones, internet browsing is practically one of the defining features of the product. A typical consumer who bought a tablet and found it had no browser preinstalled would be about as shocked as someone who bought a Ford and found no engine installed.

Microsoft also said they would drop licensing to companies like dell, toshiba, if they were to include netscape in the PCs that they sold

Still doesn't answer my question.

Monopolies are not illegal under antitrust. What is illegal are certain practices designed to lead to monopoly, including using dominance in one market to try to gain power in another, unrelated market.

By bundling the browser and penalizing manufacturers who wanted to bundle a different browser in addition or instead of Microsoft's, Microsoft was using their dominance in one market (desktop operating systems for x86 PCs) to try to gain power in an unrelated market (internet browsing applications that run on Windows). Hence, they ran into antitrust problems.

In tablets and smartphones, there has not really been a separate market for internet browsing applications. The market for tablets and smartphones has been for complete internet devices (hardware, OS, and browser) from the start.

It's reaaaaaaaly hard to claim monopoly and restraint of trade when your are the highest priced thing in the market. The platform is also not locked down, in the sense that it can be jailbroken and apps (without QA or other oversight) can be bought, sought, installed and used. Yes, they have a commanding position in key areas of their markets, but plenty of folks are willing to pay a premium and plenty of other folks are willing to write apps under Apple guidelines and restrictions. There are too many ways to distinguish the Apple of today with the US Steel of yesterday. The problem is, the headstart grabbed by Apple isn't something any other single COMPANY (Android isn't a company) has been able to counter. This is all legit competition and it is lethal. Apple has just confiscated market participants formerly belonging to RIM, Nokia, MS, Dell, HP. Their stupidity is not legal grounds to oppose Apple's success.

I think the key here is that phones were for a long time "embeded devices". It is protected platform that can not be 'tinkered' with. This was how iPhone 1.0 was. That is point one to ponder.

Point two: Original intent of sales. iPhones and Android and other phones are sold as a smart phone. As long as it is not sold as a computer, the vendors are free to dictate what is possible and what is not.

NB: While Android does has third party browsers, it should be noted that the default Browser.app can not be recreated using the Android SDK as it relies on private APIs.

iOS is not in a dominant position in the smartphone market. Android is bigger. iOS is rather dominant in the tablet market, but the market is arguably too nascent to be concerned yet - there's no reason to believe that Android tablets won't eventually become popular.

Fundamentally, monopoly regulation (like that which affected microsoft) is for monopolies. I really dislike Apple's lock-down-heavy policies, but as long as there are credible alternatives out there there's little reason to be concerned.

The tablet market didn't exist few years ago and the govt is slow to notice things. They do not dominate the smart phone market, android has a larger market share.

I'm seeing a lot of replies about Apple not having a majority market share in devices, so therefor they can't be considered a monopoly.

I'm curious about if Apple did have a majority market share, would they then be classified as monopolistic?

I understand Apple's point in terms of securing the OS, but allowing mobile safari to have higher access privileges over 3rd party browsers seems unfair, no?

There are multiple alternate browser choices for iOS devices. Apple distributes Chrome and Opera for iOS through the app store. Mozilla has chosen to not support iOS.

No, they are all forced to render using Apple's Webkit, there might be a different skin on top, but the underlying technology is STRICTLY no-touchy. Its a monopoly of the worst kind.

If Apple was the dominant OS for all portable devices manufactured by everyone then I would agree. However, Apple only controls the OS for devices they produce. I don't see that as a monopoly of the worst kind.

If you go into any non-Apple electronics store you can buy many devices which don't use iOS. When everyone made the big stink about Microsoft's monopoly it was almost impossible to buy a computer without Windows installed from any major retailer or manufacturer.

True, but bear in mind that third-party apps still have limitations such as no JIT compilation, that hurt the JS performance of third-party browsers. Safari does not have this limitation which gives it an unfair advantage.

It's also worth to note that the EU is checking into Windows 8 RT concerning no JIT access for other browsers as an extension of their Windows 7 agreement [1].

Considering Windows RT will be a minority player in the marketplace, with Apple the dominant player, one would think that Apple would face equal attention from the EU.

[1]http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407324,00.asp

Alternatives were available to IE as well (netscape).

IE won because:

(a) It was sincerely better than Netscape at the time (b) It came bundled in with the system (c) It came bundled in with the system because Microsoft chose not to charge ISPs to do.

Netscape got themselves in a right mess with two overlapping versions in development Competing on Internet Time (http://amzn.to/QenoYs) talks about this in detail.

It's funny how bundling a browser got MS into trouble but is now de facto.

Wonder when Apple hijacking browser links and re-routing them to their own apps e.g. Google Map links to iOS maps app, will be considered monopolistic.

i can't understand any part of your argument that would be legally supportable that wouldn't make every single kind of embedded system illegal. consoles? right out. dumbphones? illegal. gps? nope. atms? gotta be hackable. mp3 players? can't.

iOS is far from a monopoly. It's not even quite a majority