Apple and Google 'Duopoly' to Come Under Scrutiny in the UK

[wanha]

I think there is scope for realistic rules that improve things for consumers and address the clear imbalance in power.

To me it definitely feels they have an unfair advantage in the service market due to deeper integration than they would afford to developers.

From the top of my head:
- Level playing field for service competitors e.g. limit Apple's commission to 5% on in-app subscriptions to non-Apple services where they compete like music, fitness, video, news (soon meditation)...
- Extend defaulting options, maybe open up the possibility to choose Alexa over Siri or backup to Dropbox over iCloud

It's similar to the when movie studios also owned the cinema industry, meaning only certain films were available at that studios' cinema and smaller studios couldn't reach an audience. Which was deemed to violate US antitrust laws in 1948 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/what-movie-studios-refuse-understand-about-streaming

These aren't bad suggestions per se, but I want to use them to illustrate why this is so difficult.

Who will pay Apple to build in compatibility to Alexa? Amazon, Apple, or someone else?

Who enforces that it works as it should? Does this mean Apple need to create APIs for Alexa to be able to do everything Siri can on Apple devices?

Who decides what competing apps get preferential treatment (eg Alexa, Spotify) and which don't (Tile)?

I wish there was a clearcut way to solve this problem, but where I am looking it just seems to me that all these "remedies" open up a Pandora's box that will have a lot of unintended consequences.

 

[gregmancuso]

Some people thought Microsoft was bad in the 90's - and that was with a completely open operating system, just because they included Internet Explorer on it.

Here you have one platform, Apple, where you cannot install anything outside Apple's locked down App Store - on a device you buy for thousands of dollars.

First - The Microsoft issues was not "just because they included Internet Explorer on it."

Second - So what? People buy into the Apple model because you cannot install anything outside the App Store. Save your thousands of dollars and go to the platform that does allow you to side load.

 

[leon44]

These aren't bad suggestions per se, but I want to use them to illustrate why this is so difficult.

Who will pay Apple to build in compatibility to Alexa? Amazon, Apple, or someone else?

Who enforces that it works as it should? Does this mean Apple need to create APIs for Alexa to be able to do everything Siri can on Apple devices?

Who decides what competing apps get preferential treatment (eg Alexa, Spotify) and which don't (Tile)?

I wish there was a clearcut way to solve this problem, but where I am looking it just seems to me that all these "remedies" open up a Pandora's box that will have a lot of unintended consequences.

True but I think there might be a solution there if its thought about sensibly, so I'm glad someone's looking into it

 

[leon44]

I'm glad I live in a somewhat free market for businesses, rather than England where they can forcefully tell a business how much money they can and can't charge.

The state where I live tried to tell ISP's to offer a $15/month plan for people living in poverty... A judge just struck down that law and said "no can't do."

Is it really so unaffordable? Home internet is only about $20/month in Europe

 

[nicho]

The state where I live tried to tell ISP's to offer a $15/month plan for people living in poverty... A judge just struck down that law and said "no can't do."

Yeah, f*** the poor! WOO!

 

[gregmancuso]

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.

Those rules already exist. Proving they have abused their position is much harder. Neither platform has raised any fees to either users or developers. In fact both have reduced fees over time. If they were abusing market positions fees (to developers) would be much higher and increasing.

Neither platform has blocked third-party apps from getting into their ecosystems - barring some obvious things like porn, obvious malware, or illegal activities. Fees to developers even in places there is competition are consistent and arguably fair. Some may disagree about the fees being fair, but that is another topic. And "fixing" the fees does not benefit the consumer. Every time fees are reduced the developers pocket the difference. No relief to the harm of any theoretical overpayment by consumers.

Apple locks it's hardware to only allow iOS. Not abusive. Mac are locked to only allowing MacOS - would that be considered abusive?

Android phone manufacturers lock their hardware to only specific versions or flavors of Android. Is that abusive? I'd say not.

So - other than not being allowed to side load on iOS or thinking the developer fees are too high, what is the perceived abuse?

 

[octoberist3]

Im a UK consumer, and I do not feel like I'm losing out. Where does this government department get their information from?

All these things favour the plaintifs, it does not benefit the end user of any services effected by any legislation because of governmental jiggery-pokery

The government gets its information from developers who want to force users to buy their apps and subscriptions from a potpourri of different companies for as many possible system functions as they can get. They want to break up the streamlined experience users have bought into so they're forced to resort to third-party solutions.

Apple's not perfect. They should, for example, be banned from taking a 30% cut of Spotify's sales because they offer a directly competing product. But these governments are completely failing at getting input from users and normal people who are not tech-savvy and don't pay so much attention to the tech tools they use everyday.

 

[gregmancuso]

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...

NFC on Apple Watch - So what? I actually like the fact that there is limited access to the hardware - and the fact it is physically connected to the physical security chip. If Apple can be forced to open direct access to single component of their device to any third party, the same would apply to all - I cannot wait to have direct access to the infotainment hardware in my car.

Signing up in app - Antisteering rules are quite common. And legal. They have been court tested around the world. Spotify has an option for signing up that does not involve Apple. One that would pay Apple nothing. Only thing is they actually have to work a little to advertise it. Considering that an exceedingly small number of Spotify's paid members pay via Apple they must be doing OK with their messaging.

Game streaming - I am torn on this one. I get that the streaming platform can act like a store within the store, but it really isn't the same thing. I don't play many games on my phone so have not looked closely at this one. Of any of the cases that Apple should back down on it is probably this one.

 

[vipergts2207]

Those rules already exist. Proving they have abused their position is much harder. Neither platform has raised any fees to either users or developers. In fact both have reduced fees over time. If they were abusing market positions fees (to developers) would be much higher and increasing.

Neither platform has blocked third-party apps from getting into their ecosystems - barring some obvious things like porn, obvious malware, or illegal activities. Fees to developers even in places there is competition are consistent and arguably fair. Some may disagree about the fees being fair, but that is another topic. And "fixing" the fees does not benefit the consumer. Every time fees are reduced the developers pocket the difference. No relief to the harm of any theoretical overpayment by consumers.

Apple locks it's hardware to only allow iOS. Not abusive. Mac are locked to only allowing MacOS - would that be considered abusive?

Android phone manufacturers lock their hardware to only specific versions or flavors of Android. Is that abusive? I'd say not.

So - other than not being allowed to side load on iOS or thinking the developer fees are too high, what is the perceived abuse?

If those rules already genuinely exist, then they should be enforced. As another user pointed out, just one example of Apple shutting out competitors is cloud storage. Apple has made it so cloud backups of your device are only available through their own paid service, iCloud. That is a perfect example of them using their position and power to hamper competitors. An iPhone user should be able to backup their device to other cloud services if they so choose. Apple not allowing backups to other services means they artificially keep themselves from having to compete. They can charge whatever they want for storage because users can't go to another cloud service to backup their devices.

 

[octoberist3]

I understand the intent behind this (duopolies don't exactly encourage competition), but I don't know what governments can really do about this.

Windows Phone, for example, was a pretty good OS that Microsoft threw all their weight behind, but it never gained traction with either consumers or developers because the network effects of iOS and Android were so strong that there was never a reason to invest in a third OS.

Governments can do a lot about this: like make Apple to sell blank iPhones with zero first-party software experiences.

 

[octoberist3]

If those rules already genuinely exist, then they should be enforced. As another user pointed out, just one example of Apple shutting out competitors is cloud storage. Apple has made it so cloud backups of your device are only available through their own paid service, iCloud. That is a perfect example of them using their position and power to hamper competitors. An iPhone user should be able to backup their device to other cloud services if they so choose. Apple not allowing backups to other services means they artificially keep themselves from having to compete. They can charge whatever they want for storage because users can't go to another cloud service to backup their devices.

No one is asking for this except developers and tech-types who want to feast on backup data. Disgusting.

 

[Dark_Omen]

Yeah, f*** the poor! WOO!

$40-$50 a month gets someone a basic internet plan. Companies aren't charities. Most of the people in this state are on unemployment because they're too lazy to work. You don't get a special rate just because you don't want to work and sit at home all day.

 

[vipergts2207]

No one is asking for this except developers and tech-types who want to feast on backup data. Disgusting.

Pure conjecture and doesn't address Apple abusing their market position in any way.

 

[vipergts2207]

$40-$50 a month gets someone a basic internet plan. Companies aren't charities. Most of the people in this state are on unemployment because they're too lazy to work. You don't get a special rate just because you don't want to work and sit at home all day.

Yeah it's so odd. I wonder why people aren't climbing over one another for a poverty-wage job.

Only 3% of jobs posted on Tennessee's website offer more than $20,000 per year

There are more than 250,000 jobs available in Tennessee right now, but some lawmakers say there’s a catch with that number. Only 3% of the jobs posted — about 8,500 as of Friday evening — appear to pay $20,000 or more. The federal poverty line for a family of three is just under $22,000. Some...

fox17.com

 

[gregmancuso]

I think there is scope for realistic rules that improve things for consumers and address the clear imbalance in power.

To me it definitely feels they have an unfair advantage in the service market due to deeper integration than they would afford to developers.

From the top of my head:
- Level playing field for service competitors e.g. limit Apple's commission to 5% on in-app subscriptions to non-Apple services where they compete like music, fitness, video, news (soon meditation)...
- Extend defaulting options, maybe open up the possibility to choose Alexa over Siri or backup to Dropbox over iCloud

First-party will always have tighter integration. For certain hardware-specific use cases. There should be an OS / Apps development team wall in place for purely software capabilities. But, as far are I know, Apple has no optimized private APIs only available to the iWork team that cannot also be used by Microsoft.

The commission is not simply a transaction fee, but where there is direct competition for a given app / class perhaps some movement on the fee makes sense.

I'll concede the option to backup to Dropbox. But Alexa? Not a chance in hell. I don't see how that could be mandated. And even if it were somehow approved, Apple would neuter her - no always on listening, no direct access to Amazon's servers, limited or no skills. They'll die on that hill - allowing Alexa would completely obliterate the privacy-first positioning of iOS.

 

[Dark_Omen]

Yeah it's so odd. I wonder why people aren't climbing over one another for a poverty-wage job.

Only 3% of jobs posted on Tennessee's website offer more than $20,000 per year

There are more than 250,000 jobs available in Tennessee right now, but some lawmakers say there’s a catch with that number. Only 3% of the jobs posted — about 8,500 as of Friday evening — appear to pay $20,000 or more. The federal poverty line for a family of three is just under $22,000. Some...

fox17.com

Umm... I don't live in Tennessee. The minimum wage in my state is $14/hr.

 

[Alan Wynn]

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.

Sorry, your comparison is wrong. When the iPhone 4 was launched, it was the only new device Apple launched at the time. When the iPhone was launched, Apple had a large range of phones at every price point. Apple offers customers a choice of phones with more features for more money and still offers less expensive phones for those who want them.

Samsung S5 launch price: £600
Samsung S8 launch price: £689
Samsung S10 onwards (pretty much) launch price: £799.

Here your argument is even more flawed. First Samsung offers a huge variety of phones at every price point. Second, they have many competitors in the Android space (also at many price points).

Please explain how the existence of Android, that makes it possible for many companies to release phones that are compatible with each other, eliminating the problem of a lack of apps, has enabled one of the hardware supporting that platform to be able to raise its prices?

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.

Even more odd as an argument. Tweetbot has lots of competition, both on iOS and on Android. Exactly how does the existence of two platforms had any impact on this?

 

[JimmyTW87]

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.

Yes but there was a better spec phone (than iPhone 4) available at same or cheaper price when the X launched. No one needed to buy the X, Apples job is just to invent that "need." So much waste, so much destruction, oh and by the way we are going to make the phones nearly impossible to repair whilst claiming to the green company. The quest for never ending growth is what's killing this planet.

 

[vipergts2207]

Umm... I don't live in Tennessee. The minimum wage in my state is $14/hr.

I didn't say you did. You didn't say where you live in fact. Just pointing out that nobody should be surprised that people don't want to put in a fair day's work and still end up living in poverty anyway. The point of working is so that you don't live in poverty.

 

[Dark_Omen]

I didn't say you did. You didn't say where you live in fact. Just pointing out that nobody should be surprised that people don't want to put in a fair day's work and still end up living in poverty anyway. The point of working is so that you don't live in poverty.

Right, but you can't just pull data from some random state to counter my point and then also make your point as if it was relevant. You should've just started out by asking where I live. I do agree with you, however. Also - $40 isn't a lot of money for how much use you get out of an unlimited home internet plan.

I'm not the wealthiest person, but I don't complain when my $70 electric/heat/hot water bill shows up because I use it a ton.

 

[macsimcon]

about time.
their control over every phone on the planet needs to stop.

There was a third option: Palm. And a fourth option: Blackberry. There was Microsoft. Danger. There were at least six total competitors in the market, but the market decided, and now we only have two. Don't whine about it now, come up with your own mobile platform.

 

[NotTooLate]

Where is the regulator when it comes to Intel and AMD x86 duopoly ? Those 2 actively disallow competition while google and Apple just out performed the windows mobile for example , should we ask for a worst product so Microsoft can catch up and compete ?

 

[macsimcon]

Umm... I don't live in Tennessee. The minimum wage in my state is $14/hr.

Nobody is making $28K a year on unemployment. If jobs aren't being filled, it's simple economics: the wages being offered are too low to attract workers.

 

[MBAir2010]

There was a third option: Palm. And a fourth option: Blackberry. There was Microsoft. Danger. There were at least six total competitors in the market, but the market decided, and now we only have two. Don't whine about it now, come up with your own mobile platform.

since you are concerned, there another phone options that is being considered now.
i hope you have a nice day!

 

[fernelius]

Reading this article made me wonder what it would be like if all the Android manufacturers had their own OS and app store. Would there be so much concern about anti-trust if Google wasn't the source of the app store (Play Store) and OS on so many devices? Different companies could establish their own cut for their respective app stores, and there could be more competition. There wouldn't necessarily be a solution to being locked-in to a platform -- actually it might be worse because there would be so many different platforms. There would be competition, though. Maybe HTC might have been a cheaper app store or more flexible set of guidelines. It would have been a greater nightmare for developers as they would have had to have contended with many platforms, OSs, and developer toolsets.

Apple would have had one OS and app store out of many.

These government inquiries, also, seem to miss that there are other app stores on Android (Samsung's Galaxy Store, Amazon App Store, etc...); though, I haven't seen them fare incredibly well against the two dominant stores. Android manufacturers are able to install their own company store.

I do believe Apple's tight integration is the best solution for me, and I do want to keep the hardware, OS, App Store, and developer tool integration that Apple offers. I wonder, though, if it might be in Apple's interest to allow people to side load apps (with proper warnings) on iOS. It introduces a security challenge, but I would expect Apple could protect users who choose not to side load. I haven't checked the data, but my observation has been that the majority of Android users I have seen choose not to side load (and probably have never thought to do so). I think Epic has, also, noted this. The loss to Apple might be negligible at this point; though, it would have likely been higher before Apple incorporated many of the popular enhancements that were available on Cydia and elsewhere.