Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Google 'Duopoly' to Come Under Scrutiny in the UK
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Harmony is skinned Android.
Huawei’s HarmonyOS: “Fake it till you make it” meets OS development
No discernible difference between Huawei’s “all-new” OS and Android.
arstechnica.com
Folks assuming that they’re going to force the creation of a third OS are completely missing the point. That’s a stupid idea and isn’t what’s going to happen. What may happen is the creation of rules and regulations that aim to prevent Apple and Google from unfairly abusing their market power.
It really surprises me that the Chinese government isn't funding the creation of a home grown mobile ecosystem that would make it easier to keep tabs on their own citizens dissidents. They have the stolen technology.
I can certainly think of some examples about how these duopolies have pushed prices up.
iPhone 4 launch price: £499.
iPhone X launch price: £999.
Samsung S5 launch price: £600
Samsung S8 launch price: £689
Samsung S10 onwards (pretty much) launch price: £799.
Now let's look at apps.
Tweetbot 2: $13.99.
Tweetbot 6: $0.99/mo (or $6 a year). After 1 or 2 years, you're paying more.
And then there's the whole IAP nonsense, which needs to DIAF. Many companies chose to charge more, purely because of Apple's cut, in the iOS store, and weren't allowed to direct people to cheaper alternatives. The net result of that is people paying more for the same service.
You are not being charged more because or Apples cut, Googles cut, or Valves cut. In fact once Steam came about with its 30% cut, games where cheeper. Games are not cheeper on the Epic Game Store, it hosts more to sell to the user there than via Steam, and Steam is cheeper than brick and mortar stores (where devs where lucky to get 30% never mind 70%).
1. Apple and Android took the market because people liked their products better. They came onto a smartphone market controlled by Blackberry, Palm and Windows. Quickly dethroning them. Each tried updating or making a new OS but could not compete. A few other startup OS also failed.
2. It isn't a duopoly.
A. Each Android manufacturer makes it's own builds. These are often customized. Some much more than others. With their own (crappy) update schedule. These are more akin to distros based off Android. Some more vanilla than others.
B. Android makers a free to choose a different store than Play Store. Play Store is a part of Google Mobile Services. A separate package from Android which manufacturers pay for the right to use. They can opt not to use GMS. People can also buy Samsung for instance and use the Galaxy store. It's up to users to want to use it and App makers to want to support it.
C. The plethora of Android phone manufacturers makes for competition. A lot of competition.
2. It isn't a duopoly.
A. Each Android manufacturer makes it's own builds. These are often customized. Some much more than others. With their own (crappy) update schedule. These are more akin to distros based off Android. Some more vanilla than others.
B. Android makers a free to choose a different store than Play Store. Play Store is a part of Google Mobile Services. A separate package from Android which manufacturers pay for the right to use. They can opt not to use GMS. People can also buy Samsung for instance and use the Galaxy store. It's up to users to want to use it and App makers to want to support it.
C. The plethora of Android phone manufacturers makes for competition. A lot of competition.
I didn't talk about epic, or who takes what.
What I said was that because of the rules, many devs chose to charge more for IAP to counteract the loss in revenue. That resulted in higher prices for consumers.
The CMA's view is that the duopoly is resulting in higher prices for consumers. Many have stopped now out of protest, but in reality the charging of more money simply because of Apple's rules is exactly what they're talking about.
It doesn't matter that the dev chose to do that, in the same way that a bakery may choose to pass on the cost of "local protection" to customers. The fact is that the root cause was Apple.
It’s obvious that the sharks are circling for both Google and Apple in all of their major markets in the western world.
It’s time for them both to change - or be forced to change. The former will be preferable.
Allowing different payment providers, a lower ‘covering costs’ commission rate to Apple, the ability to set whatever %age they want to developers, and a genuinely separate & independent editorial team on their app stores, will be key.
iOS 16 should be interesting.
It’s time for them both to change - or be forced to change. The former will be preferable.
Allowing different payment providers, a lower ‘covering costs’ commission rate to Apple, the ability to set whatever %age they want to developers, and a genuinely separate & independent editorial team on their app stores, will be key.
iOS 16 should be interesting.
I'd hope they change off of their own backs, but based on Apple's responses to the Epic lawsuit, I cannot see it happening.
It was innovation that pushed both those operating systems to supplant the big players in the industry even against popular beliefs at the time.
Their very existence and the fall of the likes of blackberry proves a competent and worthwhile competitor can establish competition without the need for regulation and further government intervention.
Their very existence and the fall of the likes of blackberry proves a competent and worthwhile competitor can establish competition without the need for regulation and further government intervention.
I want each geographical region to have at least three governments competing to lower my taxes and provide me services. Follow the science, the political science.
This right here. It’s not about creating additional mobile operating systems, rather it’s about making sure that Apple and Google aren’t abusing their power by limiting third party options. The likely outcome is that Apple and Google will have to provide deeper access to third party services in areas where the OS maker competes with a third party (something Google does to some extent).
For example, Apple only allows backups to iCloud, so people who have storage available with OneDrive, Google Drive, or another are out of luck, or they have to go through a convoluted process of backing things up manually to other clouds in ways that don’t work as seamlessly with system apps. Apple could be forced to open up an API to allow consumers to choose their cloud storage service and give it the same level of system integration as iCloud enjoys.
Is there no end to this UK investigative madness? If they claim there is a duopoly, what can they do to fix that? Force Apple or Google to give up their intellectual property to a third company for free? After the years of painful and costly R&D?
I wonder what investigation they will come up with next after this payday is done for them.
I wonder what investigation they will come up with next after this payday is done for them.
They can start subsidy programs to create the mighty AmigaOS Mobile.
A response would be more active regulation of them, in particular of how they use their market position to gain entry and a market position in new markets... to avoid using this market position to earn money from everyone elsewhere.
Potential issues:
- noone else can use the NFC in the Apple Watch and iPhone for payment, so banks need to sign up with Apple and pay a fee
- You can't sign up for services like Spotify on iOS without Apple taking a 30% cut of the payment for their competitor, no signup link or information allowed
- Apple protects their revenue by banning game streaming apps like Microsoft's game streaming service
and a myriad others. Basically, banning someone from the platform or from access to something on the platform where the primary purpose of this is to protect Apple's current or potential revenue might become illegal.
It's not like the customers (like me) don't already pay for the HW+SW platform...
Does duopoly suck? Yes. Can you legislate this away? Nope. Capitalism doesn't work that way folks. Waste of effort.
And for the BlackBerry comments - as one who gave 8 years, 2 months of my life in R&D to that company, you can lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of Mike & Jim (but mostly Mike). Surrounded themselves with yes men and fired anyone who pushed back too much. (wore an iPhone 3GS on my hip for 18 months next to my corporate BB trying to get Mike angry enough to listen) *sigh*
74% market share in Canada and 46% market share in the US at our peak.
BB10 (QNX) should have happened 2 years earlier - along with a robust SDK. If that would have happened, they'd still (likely) be competing today.
Anywho....water under the bridge.
And for the BlackBerry comments - as one who gave 8 years, 2 months of my life in R&D to that company, you can lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of Mike & Jim (but mostly Mike). Surrounded themselves with yes men and fired anyone who pushed back too much. (wore an iPhone 3GS on my hip for 18 months next to my corporate BB trying to get Mike angry enough to listen) *sigh*
74% market share in Canada and 46% market share in the US at our peak.
BB10 (QNX) should have happened 2 years earlier - along with a robust SDK. If that would have happened, they'd still (likely) be competing today.
Anywho....water under the bridge.
Remember Windows Phone?
It was Microsoft's big competitor vs iOS and Android. And it was pretty damn good. They even got Nokia, the leading mobile phone maker at the time, to start producing and selling phones with their OS on it. They paid developers to port their iOS and Android apps to Windows Phone. They used the Office suite to lure in business customers.
But what happened?
Customers didn't want it because they were already happy with Android or iOS and changing OSes is a pain. There also weren't enough apps.
Developers didn't want to spend time and money developing apps for a platform that had no customers.
In 2017, Microsoft finally pulled the plug, citing low market share and a lack of third-party development.
This is not an easy problem to solve.
i dont own a cellular phone because of this control apple and google enforces on people
As long as VHS winning wasn't used to gain other advantages, there wouldn't be a problem.
However, if you had been in the situation where a couple of movie studios owning the standard could deny other movie studios the ability to sell their movies on a system that was now standard there would probably have been an investigation..
The problem is that a feeling does not an effective policy make and this is an extremely difficult issue to solve.
That may be true for some, but not for most... For most IAPs (think Fortnite and other games), there is no variable cost with IAPs so the price to the customer is the one that would make the most revenue. If you just increase it 30%, fewer people would buy it and revenue would sink... and if you decreased it 30% because you no longer had to pay Apple, you'd leave money on the table that the customers were willing to pay.
Spotify and other vendors where IAPs actually cost them something are obviously different.