A new article written by a guy who predicted Chrome is an OS more than 2 years ago

[acegolfer]

Wasn't one of the issues that the EU brought up in its anti-trust suit that MS Windows came preinstalled with IE? It's not like consumers couldn't then go and download Firefox or Opera, it was the fact that the OS came pre-installed with only one choice of browser. I believe the EU determined that to be anti-competitive practices.

I understand ChromeOS is a whole 'nother beast but it would seem as if there may be something there for other companies to attack Google on. Now, how successful a suit would be is another question entirely. Google has an excellent team of in-house counsel who assuredly have already thought about all of these issues.

If so, isn't it illegal to preinstall safari on iphones?

MS was determined illegal because it tried to kill an existing browser, netscape navigator. On the other hand, there's no existing browser for Chrome OS. So it's a non issue.

I know this because I used to teach anti-trust.

[CBowley603]

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly[citation needed] restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft's position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been. The case was tried before Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The DOJ was initially represented by David Boies.

- United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that the bold parts here are the difference. In this case, Chrome is NOT a distinct and separate product that does not need to to be tied to the operating system. Chrome IS an operating system. I think another difference is that Chrome is not for-sale.

[phoenix212]

Good points acegolfer and CBowley603. "[D]istinct and separate product" and the fact that Chrome is free are two major differences. I still wonder how competitors are considering the ChromeOS structure in that it is freely distributed but made to direct advertising revenue back to Google. There may not be any out of pocket cost to consumers but I would imagine that having to open a google account and stick within the google ecosystem in order to run the OS could be considered anti-competitive, albeit slightly. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I'm probably so far off base that it's not even funny.

I took zero anti-trust courses in law school so I know zero about this topic. However if you ever have any immigration questions, I'm your man

[CBowley603]

..but if you think about it. When you boot into Windows you need to supply your username and password. That is kind of what you are doing here. With windows, your settings and everything are stored on the computer, with Chrome OS all your setting and everything are stored with Google services. After you sign in you are free to use any web service that you want, you are not really tied with Google any more than you are tied to your machine and installed applications on a traditional o.s.

[phoenix212]

Agreed, that's what I realized as I was typing my previous response. Google does not force you to use Google Docs or any other Google products, there just isn't anything else currently available to ChromeOS users. That's not a fault of Google, that's just the current state of the market for this OS, which is open and will grow over time. I concede, I concede.

[Gary2234]

Antitrust laws do not apply to ChromeOS because it is a free, open source operating system. You do not have to use it, you don't pay to use it, and you are free to modify it. Therefore, it's your choice to use ChromeOS, and your choice to not modify it to use plugins. (there are completely different laws for open-source programs and operating systems.)

[SALSA]

I had to get in on this, hence the first comment. I'm sure we all know that it was possible to sue Microsoft for deliberately (effectively) excluding other browsers, but Chrome OS falls into a separate category. What happens when your browser IS the operating system? If another browser was to be installed, would this lead to multi-booting a separate operating system? Also, Googles release of open-source operating system is the perfect counter-argument to any anti-competitive allegations.

[Hungry Man]

Haha, there are no antitrust issues here...