UK Revives Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Browser and Cloud Gaming Restrictions

[I7guy]

It’s the "take it or leave it" that's at issue here and being viewed as anticompetitive. Once again, the FACT is that Apple restricts users of a major mobile OS (iOS) from being able to vote with their $$$ when it comes to things like picking where they buy/acquire apps for their iPhone.





Not an appropriate comparison as specific automakers don’t have the market power, dominance, influence, etc. in their market that Apple has in the mobile OS market where there are only two major players (iOS and Android).





As I've stated many times, having an alternative or multiple alternatives does not negate antitrust laws and regulations. Coke and Pepsi, for example, are typically considered suitable alternatives to each other yet both have faced antitrust charges over the years.

Yes, anticompetitive is an interpretation which I disagree with. It’s governmental overreach and the EU threading the needle to ensure apple in its cross-hairs.

You don’t like the product, but a product that suits you. Don’t cheer on government to introduce regulations to air over a company’s assets.

 

[I7guy]

Then it’s not a solution and it’s disingenuous to suggest it as such.

Honda is not a replacement for a Toyota. Yet they both ferry passengers, have steering wheels and brakes. Android is not a replacement for an iPhone, yet they still make phone calls, check Facebook and send emails.

Did I actually?

Yes.

 

[Samplasion]

Honda is not a replace for a Toyota. Yet they both ferry passengers, have steering wheels and brakes.

You've already been told that it's not a good comparison so why keep bringing cars up?

Yes.

You've yet to show me why.

 

[webkit]

Ok, so we agree that people can vote with their money and buy what they want and how having alternatives means people have choices. Apple isn't preventing any of that.

Apple isn't preventing people from buying Android-based phones but that’s not at issue here. What is at issue is Apple preventing users of a major mobile OS (iOS) from voting with their money for things like where they buy/acquire apps for their iPhone.

The difference, if I'm understanding your point of view correctly, is that once people have had years to understand the available choices and the implications of making them, and they've voted with their money on the choice they think best suits their priorities, you want government to inject itself and reverse that choice. You want government to come in and define the feature set of the minority platform to more closely resemble the choice those users actively voted against.

But things aren't like what they were many years ago and this not about "reversing" something. Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) didn't dominate and control the mobile OS market in the early years like they do today and that's why they are dealing with antitrust regulations as they should be.

That seems to me to not only be anticonsumer overreach, but actively destroying innovation.

It's anticonsumer to allow dominant companies to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

The comment thread you made it in was about Google's dominance in web engines, so it clearly isn't about iOS devices in isolation since Google doesn't have a presence there yet. If you're going to change the context, you should be explicit.

I didn't change the context. The comment was about how allowing alternative browser engines on iOS would impact Safari/WebKit share on iOS. It obviously can't impact its share on Android or Windows since Safari isn't even available on Android or Windows.

 

[webkit]

Yes, anticompetitive is an interpretation which I disagree with. It’s governmental overreach and the EU threading the needle to ensure apple in its cross-hairs.

There is no overreach. This is how antitrust laws and regulations are meant to work i.e., dealing with dominant players engaging in anticompetitve behavior.

You don’t like the product, but a product that suits you. Don’t cheer on government to introduce regulations to air over a company’s assets.

I'm "cheering on" governments doing what they are supposed to do by enforcing antitrust laws dealing with dominance and anticompetitive behavior in their country/region.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Yes, anticompetitive is an interpretation which I disagree with. It’s governmental overreach and the EU threading the needle to ensure apple in its cross-hairs.

You don’t like the product, but a product that suits you. Don’t cheer on government to introduce regulations to air over a company’s assets.

You can disagree all you like, but that won't change the fact of what it is Once you are in political power you can redefine it, but until such time you are just confusing the whole situation...

 

[I7guy]

There is no overreach. This is how antitrust laws and regulations are meant to work i.e., dealing with dominant players engaging in anticompetitve behavior.

It’s not how anti trust works. Saying something is anti trust is motherhood and apple pie. Anything can be anti trust or not. But in this case the EU as I’ve mentioned threaded the needle.

I'm "cheering on" governments doing what they are supposed to do by enforcing antitrust laws dealing with dominance and anticompetitive behavior in their country/region.

It seems to me people are cheering governments because they are going into overreach mode.

 

[Analog Kid]

But things aren't like what they were many years ago and this not about "reversing" something. Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) didn't dominate and control the mobile OS market in the early years like they do today and that's why they are dealing with antitrust regulations as they should be.

It's been this way for well over a decade. If you use an iPhone, you know how it works. There's no surprises here and there's very little friction in changing ecosystems. People bought into a system they like, and government is attempting to take it away.

It's anticonsumer to allow dominant companies to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

And for governments, which are dominant by definition, to engage in destroying competition.

We have two models at the moment, it's ok to want more, but we have two: open and closed. Both are popular, both have adherents, but the closed model is smaller but well supported by people who see an advantage in it.

Europe is moving us to one model without competition.

Apple isn't preventing people from buying Android-based phones but that’s not at issue here.

That is the entire issue here. If the browser they use is a priority, people can choose it. End of problem.

What is at issue is Apple preventing users of a major mobile OS (iOS) from voting with their money for things like where they buy/acquire apps for their iPhone.

Do you keep this on your clipboard so you don't need to keep retyping it?

It feels weirdly out of context. As you yourself said, this isn't about the AppStore or sideloading:

The UK browser antitrust issue is regarding the mobile browser market

I didn't change the context. The comment was about how allowing alternative browser engines on iOS would impact Safari/WebKit share on iOS. It obviously can't impact its share on Android or Windows since Safari isn't even available on Android or Windows.

If you click the little back arrow on a quote, you can trace it back for context. When you do, you'll get to here: #7

It was never about Safari share on Android or Windows, it was about market share of browsers in general.

 

[Analog Kid]

You can disagree all you like, but that won't change the fact of what it is Once you are in political power you can redefine it, but until such time you are just confusing the whole situation...

Ah, "might makes right". The foundational principle of innovation everywhere...

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Ah, "might makes right". The foundational principle of innovation everywhere...

It also doesn't matter whether it is right, that isn't how things work either. It just is what it is, individual redefinition because you don't agree really doesn't help a discussion.

 

[webkit]

It’s not how anti trust works. Saying something is anti trust is motherhood and apple pie. Anything can be anti trust or not. But in this case the EU as I’ve mentioned threaded the needle.

Dealing with dominant players engaging in anticompetitve behavior is how antitrust works. No needle threading here.

It seems to me people are cheering governments because they are going into overreach mode.

It seems to me people are "cheering" governments for doing what they are supposed to do when it comes to antitrust laws, dominant companies, anticompetitive behavior, etc. in their particular countries/regions.

 

[webkit]

It's been this way for well over a decade. If you use an iPhone, you know how it works. There's no surprises here and there's very little friction in changing ecosystems. People bought into a system they like, and government is attempting to take it away.

That's not relevant as the issue it about the change in the dominance in the particular market(s). Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) didn't dominate and control the mobile OS market in the early years like they do today and that's why they are dealing with antitrust regulations as they should be.

And for governments, which are dominant by definition, to engage in destroying competition.

We have two models at the moment, it's ok to want more, but we have two: open and closed. Both are popular, both have adherents, but the closed model is smaller but well supported by people who see an advantage in it.

Europe is moving us to one model without competition.

"Europe" is trying to prevent Apple from violating antitrust laws by restricting activities such as use of alternative browser engines, alternative app stores, sideloading, etc. on a major mobile OS (iOS).

That is the entire issue here. If the browser they use is a priority, people can choose it. End of problem.

There are several issues here but whether or not someone can buy an Android-based phone is NOT one of them. The issues are instead about activities specifically related to using iOS (a major mobile OS) and how Apple restricts users from doing various things including choosing the browser engine they want to use on their iPhone.

Do you keep this on your clipboard so you don't need to keep retyping it?

As long as people keep posting comments regarding "voting with their money", I will continue to post how Apple is PREVENTING people from "voting with their money."

It feels weirdly out of context. As you yourself said, this isn't about the AppStore or sideloading:

Apple's anticompetitive behavior involves a number of areas including iOS restrictions on alternative browser engines, alternative app stores, sideloading, etc.

If you click the little back arrow on a quote, you can trace it back for context. When you do, you'll get to here: #7

It was never about Safari share on Android or Windows, it was about market share of browsers in general.

The context was about Safari share on iOS and how allowing alternative browser engines on iOS would impact that share. It obviously couldn't be about Safari/WebKit's share involving Android, Windows, etc. since Safari isn't even available on Android, Windows, etc. and therefore usage couldn't drop below the already 0% on those operating systems.

 

[Analog Kid]

[Deleted. This is a waste of time...]

 

[I7guy]

Dealing with dominant players engaging in anticompetitve behavior is how antitrust works. No needle threading here.

They aren’t a dominant player who hasn’t engaged in antitrust. The needle was threaded to break open apples ip as it is an American tech company.

It seems to me people are "cheering" governments for doing what they are supposed to do when it comes to antitrust laws, dominant companies, anticompetitive behavior, etc. in their particular countries/regions.

Governments are perfectly capable of screwing up. Unless you have rose colored glasses on.

 

[I7guy]

It also doesn't matter whether it is right, that isn't how things work either. It just is what it is, individual redefinition because you don't agree really doesn't help a discussion.

It’s true, it’s done. But that doesn’t make it right, or good and that’s the discussion. So according to the above we should cease and desist all discussion about it because it is done.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

They aren’t a dominant player who hasn’t engaged in antitrust. The needle was threaded to break open apples ip as it is an American tech company.

This isn't about anti-american tech company, this is about what is best for the consumers. Its funny but that is what a lot of european citizen elect their representatives to do. We value that, and they work for us.

Governments are perfectly capable of screwing up. Unless you have rose colored glasses on.

Oh most definitely, we agree on that. Hence we need to hold them accountable and not have huge swings.

It’s true, it’s done. But that doesn’t make it right, or good and that’s the discussion. So according to the above we should cease and desist all discussion about it because it is done.

Well, not really, if there isn't the acknowledgement of what something is, but we have to go by two individuals' personal redefinition of it, then it doesn't facilitate discussion at all.

 

[webkit]

They aren’t a dominant player who hasn’t engaged in antitrust. The needle was threaded to break open apples ip as it is an American tech company.

Different countries/regions/courts can have different criteria but being only one of two major players in mobile OS (in the UK, iOS has the LARGEST share in mobile OS according to Statcounter), it would hardly be unreasonable to conclude that iOS is a dominant player in mobile OS. Additionally, it would hardly be unreasonable to conclude that restricting alternative browser engines (among other things) on that major OS is anticompetitive behavior. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for a country, court, etc. to rule that Apple (as a dominant player in mobile OS) is engaging in anticompetitive behavior (by restricting things like alternative browser engines) and is violating antitrust laws.

Once again, no needle threading here.

Governments are perfectly capable of screwing up. Unless you have rose colored glasses on.

Sure, and governments are perfectly cable of getting things right too.

 

[I7guy]

Different countries/regions/courts can have different criteria but being only one of two major players in mobile OS (in the UK, iOS has the LARGEST share in mobile OS according to Statcounter), it would hardly be unreasonable to conclude that iOS is a dominant player in mobile OS. Additionally, it would hardly be unreasonable to conclude that restricting alternative browser engines (among other things) on that major OS is anticompetitive behavior. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for a country, court, etc. to rule that Apple (as a dominant player in mobile OS) is engaging in anticompetitive behavior (by restricting things like alternative browser engines) and is violating antitrust laws.

Once again, no needle threading here.





Sure, and governments are perfectly cable of getting things right too.

So in the EU it’s guilty until proven innocent? Because I didn’t see any trial or finding - just some needle threading to carefully catch apple and regulate its business.

 

[webkit]

So in the EU it’s guilty until proven innocent? Because I didn’t see any trial or finding - just some needle threading to carefully catch apple and regulate its business.

Nope. Apple has been given ample opportunity to argue/negotiate its side on various issues and has been involved in legal activities including disputing regulator decisions, appeals, negotiations, etc. with cases still pending.

 

[I7guy]

Nope. Apple has been given ample opportunity to argue/negotiate its side on various issues and has been involved in legal activities including disputing regulator decisions, appeals, negotiations, etc. with cases still pending.

Which goes back to the EU wanting to thread the needle to disassemble apples business model. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Samplasion]

So in the EU it’s guilty until proven innocent? Because I didn’t see any trial or finding - just some needle threading to carefully catch apple and regulate its business.

I mean, "Apple doesn't allow third-party browser engines" is a factual and objective statement. In the context of Apple being a dominant player in the UK, that factual statement provides enough reason to start an investigation into Apple's browser practices.

The needle was threaded to break open apples ip as it is an American tech company.

If your definition of an American company is one that treads over consumer rights then yes, the EU doesn't like American companies according to the values you provide. (Why are you talking about the EU anyway? The UK is no longer part of it)

 

[BaldiMac]

I mean, "Apple doesn't allow third-party browser engines" is a factual and objective statement. In the context of Apple being a dominant player in the UK, that factual statement provides enough reason to start an investigation into Apple's browser practices.

1. The UK isn't in the EU.
2. Google does allow third-party browser engines and they are also a target of the UK investigation according to the article.

 

[Samplasion]

1. The UK isn't in the EU.
2. Google does allow third-party browser engines and they are also a target of the UK investigation according to the article.

1. I know, it's literally in the second half of the comment you quoted
2. Sure but that doesn't change my response in the context of the reply chain

 

[BaldiMac]

1. I know, it's literally in the second half of the comment you quoted

And yet you responded to a post about the EU with a claim about the UK.

2. Sure but that doesn't change my response in the context of the reply chain

I disagree. The context of the last three posts in the reply chain was the DMA in the EU. Your attempt to get it back onto the original topic was based on a flawed premise.

 

[Samplasion]

And yet you responded to a post about the EU with a claim about the UK.


I disagree. The context of the last three posts in the reply chain was the DMA in the EU. Your attempt to get it back onto the original topic was based on a flawed premise.

What point are you trying to make here?