This is silly.<p>Microsoft was a monopoly with 98% of the OS market who was trying to use that monopoly to force their competitors out of business.<p>Remind me again, what company am I supposed to believe is doing that today? Near 100% market share and uncompetitive practices?<p>This comic seems like the opposite of <a href="http://xkcd.com/774/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/774/</a> - it's trendy to ignore the abuses of Microsoft in the 90s, or to paint some false equivalency that allows you to just ignore stuff.
As far as I understand, the problem with MS was that they tried and used their strength in the <i>OS</i> market to gain an advantage in the <i>browser</i> market. What similar cross-market unfair competition are Facebook, Google and Apple blamed for?
Why does everyone think this is about Apple? It's possible the comic is referring to Google's monopoly of web searches.<p>My guess would be he's criticizing "monopoly as dangerous" accusations in general as silly since Microsoft has fallen so far. But that's kind of a poor argument since Microsoft was punished for monopolistic practices, both de jure and de facto.<p>This really isn't XKCD's best comic and it's not even funny.
Hooray for Mozilla! Fighting the fight again, this time against a competitor that wouldn't even have been there but for Mozilla's success.<p>[To be more explicit: that is WebKit on mobile devices.]
At the time it made sense to go after Microsoft for bundling because the PC was the only gateway to the internet. Now almost every device has access to the internet, so its a much even playing field.
the discussion here is weird. isn't this obviously about the across-the-board practice of bundling browsers with OSes, which is the rule in mobile OS and is culminating in Chrome OS?