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

[Alan Wynn]

I never claimed it would be "easy." I simply think solutions are possible.

What are you willing to give up for your generic solution? Are you willing to have Apple’s much simpler solution still available, or does everything have to go through your more complex (and likely less stable and secure) solution?

You're the one framing the issues as completely intractable, which they most likely are not.

I am pointed out just some of the potential difficulties. I understand these because I have dealt with these kinds of issues before. I asked you what your background was, so that I could understand what experience you have either in data/systems security, UI/UX, standards development, or some other relevant area to know why you think these problems can be solved without major compromises.

And lest we forget, at the end of the day cloud storage is but one scenario in which Apple sets up hurdles to their customers using competing services.

This is the point. Every time someone says “I do not want to eliminate a choice, I just want to eliminate ‘anti-competitive behavior’” the either do not understand that what they are requesting is eliminating a choice and/or degrading the experience for those that prefer it, or they know that and are being disingenuous.

And I think it's obvious to anyone without blinders on why Apple wants to make it hard or impossible for others to compete with their services, not by necessarily being better (though their services are generally great, I fully recognize that), but by not allowing for the competition to compete in the first place.

Apple’s ecosystem is superior for those who like it because it is tightly integrated, focuses on privacy by design, and ease of use. Building open interfaces is hard, locks in designs and adds complexity. To be clear, the EU‘s preferred solution would be to require that users configuring new devices would be forced to choose every application, rather than allow defaults. This would be an awful experience. You claim they start with closed systems to prevent competition, I believe they do it to give time to understand what interfaces are needed, and how they can be implemented in away that allows maximum flexibility in the future.

It's because:

Sorry, you have it backwards. Apple’s services revenue is as big as it is because of the quality of its ecosystem. Android users can install alternative application stores, and early on there were another of companies who really tried to make that a real alternative (Amazon as one example). Customers just were not interested. What is interesting is that the Google Play store, despite have two or more times as many users, has half the revenue. People in that ecosystem either steal their apps or just do not spend money on them. In the surveys we did when I was consulting with a mobile app company, we found out it was because people did not trust the Play store and did trust the App Store. They liked the convenience of the App Store and they liked Apple’s privacy policies. Forcing side loading and/or alternate application stores will just destroy the ecosystem that is here, without generating any real value.

Apple's services bring in over $60 billion and climbing per year and makes up about 20% of their revenue.

About 35% of that revenue is AppleCare and Licensing, about 32% of it is App Store revenue. Revenue from iCloud is less and 9% of the services total, so under 1.8% of Apple’s total.

Apple's services alone would be the equivalent of a mid-tier Fortune 100 company. They absolutely have an extremely substantial interest in designing their software and ecosystem so that consumers have as hard of a time as possible (even going as far making it impossible in certain instances) to use competitive services.

Maybe in your world the way to increase revenue is to provide a mediocre experience but make it hard to purchase the competition, but it certainly is not in mine. Apple has been pushing to get Apple Music to be available everywhere (including on Google Home and Amazon Echos). It took forever for Spotify to be available at all on Apple Watch and then to allow downloads. It seems that if their concern was user experience, Spotify would have done that as soon as possible.

This is why it's laughable when people pretend that it all comes from a place of altruism and that Apple does everything they do with their services in the name of privacy and security.

I have never argued that these decisions were made by Apple for altruistic reasons, only that their interests and mine align. It may be possible to implement some of these options in more open ways that still support privacy and security, but, at a minimum, it will be harder, and in many cases, just impossible. Do you believe for a second that if Facebook could offer their own store, they would continue to offer their app in the App Store while being restricted by its App Tracking Transparency? You do not think that many other apps would follow them?

I have no doubt that plays a role and believe Apple is honest when they say the care about their users' security. However, they also have huge negative incentives to design their software and ecosystem in a way that would maintain security while simultaneously allowing competitors to come in and compete with them.

You are convinced that revenue is the number one reason they do this (or at a minimum a very important one). I look at the experience of the Google Play Store and believe the opposite is true. Despite making alternative application stores and the world’s number one retailer working hard to build a successful store, only the Play Store ever got any real traction. However, what did happen as a result of the openness that was needed to allow this (and side loading) was that piracy and viruses and tracking apps became a huge problem, while they are not meaningful problems on iOS at all. Developers make way more money on the App Store than they do on the Play Store. That is why there are so many apps that are iOS first or iOS exclusively.

You claim it's because it's too hard or not possible to do both, while completely ignoring that in reality Apple makes a lot of money by maintaining the status quo.

I have an provided examples of why their competitor, a major software company that tired to do both failed, and I have yet to see anyone explain how it could be done. You wave your hands and say Apple should be able to figure this out, while providing no explanation as to how, nor a reason why Google (not a stupid company) was unable to do so.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I don't care what mechanism is created, but there should be a way for users to get software on their phone outside of the app store.

You sound like the members of Congress who say: “I do not care what the particular way it happens, but Apple should be able to provide a way to have secure encryption that still has a back door.”

Just like on MacOS.

Piracy is a much more serious problem on macOS, while almost non-existent on iOS. However, macOS does demonstrate my other point. When developers get to choose between the better user experience of the Mac App Store (even at a higher price), and the increased control they get via direct download many choose the later exclusively, not the Mac App Store, or both options.

You say you do not want to eliminate a choice from the market, but the Mac demonstrates that is exactly what would happen were side loading or alternative application stores in the manner that Epic demands were enabled.

The App Store/Mac App Store inherently protects my privacy (the developer does not get any of my personal information in the transaction), and provides a better user experience (I need not create a new account on their store, enter my credit card information, etc.). It also means I have one place I can go to cancel subscriptions (rather than many). At a minimum, hundreds of millions of people prefer this option and once you take it away it is gone for good.

 

[xyz01]

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.

Opening access to things like this - and thus not preventing e.g. banks or other payment providers from offering contactless payment (as well as other use cases from other companies) unless they pay Apple - is one of the things that would be seen very differently if you are a monopoly rather than one of many competitors in a market. To put it bluntly, no-one should want a company taking a cut of absolutely everything because they own a monopoly platform - no matter how much we like Apple (and I've certainly got more Apple kit than most).

In general, using a monopoly position in one market for economic rent is seen as very bad. As is using a dominant position in one market to take over other markets.... e.g. if a couple of the major ISPs merged, and now declared that the only streaming services available from now on are HBO and Hulu, unless you pay $25 extra, I guess you see the problem? Or Microsoft started blocking Google search on the network layer of their OS - "bing only"?

The interesting part here is that Apple would be watched and regulated if it was a monopoly... but as we know, it isn't. It's a duopoly - 99% market share combined, IIRC. A duopoly is still very different form a normal, balanced market - should it be regulated? It's obvious that Apple limits innovation (e.g. by blocking game streaming services), seeks economic rent, and enters new market in a way that gives them an inherent 30% pricing advantage - but as I wrote, it's a duopoly, not a monopoly. Is that enough to avoid regulation?

 

[Alan Wynn]

Opening access to things like this - and thus not preventing e.g. banks or other payment providers from offering contactless payment (as well as other use cases from other companies) unless they pay Apple - is one of the things that would be seen very differently if you are a monopoly rather than one of many competitors in a market.

Let me ask you a question. Android controls well over 50% of the market in the U.S. and more like 80% in the rest of the world, and yet ApplePay is the number one mobile payment platform. Do you accept even the slightest possibility that the trust that Apple customers have in Apple’s products, and the ease of use both of configuring and using ApplePay might have something to do with that? Do you think it would be a better experience for users if every bank required their own app and configuration mechanism, as well as a much more complex activation (one would have to choose an app, not just a card)? Do you think that might make it less likely that mobile payments would ever take off?

Android offers the openness you describe and that is likely why so few people use it.

 

[Lategamer]

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.

Microsoft was bad in the 90s because they had a 90%+ market share, made exclusionary deals with their PC manufacturers and could force licensees into only including one browser AND firing up misleading "errors" when people tried to change the defaults. They had a monopoly (which isn't bad in itself) and they abused it.

Apple is bad in the 2020s because they have a ....10% market share? Not a monopoly. Therefore most anti-trust legislation should fall on it's face. Are they abusing their non-monopoly? Doesn't matter as there's a plethora of choice out there.

 

[Lategamer]

People railing against the App Store ecosystem are ignorant of what it was like on mobile before the App Store.

30% take? Ha. In 2007, we'd have jumped at that. App aggregators (App Stores) were taking 70-90% of cover price with zero guarantees of security, zero guarantees of compatibility and zero recourse for the consumer.

 

[ruka.snow]

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.

Dev's don't charge you more. We get 70-85% of the sales now instead of under 30%. It has never been a better time and the cheapest way to sell you to is via the App Store, Google Play, Steam, and the Microsoft Store. The current most expensive ways to sell to you is brick and mortar, Epic Game Store, and directly from our own websites.

 

[laptech]

It's very obvious to see in here that many members have missed the point of both companies coming under scrutiny. Governments do not have a problem with companies in the consumer sector becoming very powerful just as long as they do not abuse that power to a) keep prices of their products and services to others at artificially high prices and b) to prevent or serverly restirct other companies from using the companies services.

Businesses/companies cannot say to competing businesses/companies that want to use their services with 'if you want to use our services, it is done on our terms and this amount of money', if those terms and money are not considered fair. If businesses/companies feel they are not being treated fairly by Apple then they have every right to complain.

 

[MacBH928]

It is a duopoly indeed, I like Apple products but its unhealthy for the world to rely on 2 companies globally. I think it should be more like the automobile market, we have multiple Japanes, German, American, Korean, British, even Chinese car manufacturers. Hard to believe that making a car is simpler than making telephone software.

This is dumb. The reason Google and Apple have this so called "duopoly" is because they have a better product than the competition. It's as simple as that. Blackberry had a chance, they blew it. Microsoft had a chance, they blew it. Not Google and Apple's fault if the competition sucks more than my ex gf.

It's simply too late for any competition. The main issue with every new platform is: Lack of Apps. How do you get developers to move to your new platform? Right: If there's money to make. If there are users that use the stuff.
How do you get users to use your platform? Right: If there are a lot of cool feature and most important: The apps they want to use.

There is a flaw in the capitalist system. Although Google and Apple are not stopping any one from competing, once a company(or few) are dominant enough, those with money no longer challenge them and rather enter a new market to find growth and be the dominant player in that market. This is why we only have 2 phone OSs , 2 Computer OSs(commercial), 2-3 videogame console manufacturers, but 4000+ digital currencies and like 9-10 video streaming services.

That being said, I heard there is something in the law that the court will split a corporate into multiple companies if there are no competitors like they did with Standard Oil and ATT&T.

 

[MacBH928]

Blackberry should still be around but unfortunately many people were misinformed about it. Sad really, because it's a better product than Android that's still around.

I don't think you had the joy of having to restart your blackberry phone multiple times a day with the battery drain in like 2 hours.

 

[mrochester]

It is a duopoly indeed, I like Apple products but its unhealthy for the world to rely on 2 companies globally. I think it should be more like the automobile market, we have multiple Japanes, German, American, Korean, British, even Chinese car manufacturers. Hard to believe that making a car is simpler than making telephone software.





There is a flaw in the capitalist system. Although Google and Apple are not stopping any one from competing, once a company(or few) are dominant enough, those with money no longer challenge them and rather enter a new market to find growth and be the dominant player in that market. This is why we only have 2 phone OSs , 2 Computer OSs(commercial), 2-3 videogame console manufacturers, but 4000+ digital currencies and like 9-10 video streaming services.

That being said, I heard there is something in the law that the court will split a corporate into multiple companies if there are no competitors like they did with Standard Oil and ATT&T.

How would you split them? I can see a greater argument for splitting AOSP away from Google than iOS from apple.

 

[vipergts2207]

I list the two different Android versions, because, as you said, the control Google exercises over Android is only over its services. Android Open Source Platform allows a manufacturer to support all the Android apps through their own application store (assuming they can get developers to make their applications available through their store), without any of Google’s platform exclusivity conditions.

The availability of AOSP means that any competitor (or group of competitors) could release phones that supported Android apps without incurring the conditions that Google requires for licensing its tools. Microsoft could produce a branded version of AOSP will all its software in the store (or included by default) without being required to develop a third version of their code. That they do not shows not that Google is anti-competitive, but that they do not believe they can offer enough value or differentiation to make it financially worth it.

There are two different, interrelated markets. One for hardware and one for software. Apple is a major player in both. Google is a major player in software, but a minor player in hardware. Samsung is a major player in hardware, but a minor player in software (they do offer their own application store, and their own competitor to Apple Pay and Google Pay).

Yes you are. You are asking to eliminate the platform choice that a over a billion customers have made because you do not like it. I picked Apple’s ecosystem not Google’s or either of the open source alternatives because I like the safety, security, privacy, convenience and integration choices Apple has made. You want a system that is less private, less convenient, and less integrated, as well as likely less safe and secure.

Be specific. What restrictions do you want to see.

Again, easy to say, please provide specifics.

Being forced to define open APIs to break out services does more to slow innovation. It takes years for standards bodies to agree on standards and then even longer to agree on changes to them. Clearly Google and Apple have been able to insulate themselves from competition. That is why the only social networks we have are Google+ and Ping, the only business productivity apps we have are Google Docs and iWork, the only video editor available is Final Cut Pro, Google Home and HomePod are the only smart speakers (and both are bundled in many cars), etc.

That dominance is why Apple Music and YouTube Music control 90% of the music steaming market, while tiny players like Spotify languish and are forced to introduce innovative features like spatial audio and lossless transmission to desperately try to hold on…

Exactly how many players do we need in a market to have the level of competition you want? Three? Four? Five?

You can frame Android’s existence however you want, but that doesn’t mean Apple and Google aren’t a duopoly. The fact is that today Microsoft doesn’t have their own version of Android out there, so you’re not even coming at this from reality as it exists. Much of your argument comes down to, “well since some things Apple and Google do aren’t anti-competitive, then nothing they do is anti-competitive,” which is plainly absurd.

Again with the false dichotomy that fostering a more competitive environment has to result in less privacy, convenience, etc. You can design for both, it doesn’t have to be one or another. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as it were. Apple has significant monetary incentives to design things the way they have with regard to making it harder to use competitor services. Asking for a more competitive market environment is also not asking for the elimination of a platform. Not in the least. Making iOS more like MacOS is not a bad thing.

I’m not sure what pointing out unpopular products like Google+ and iWork is supposed to prove. Because not everything Apple or Google does is popular or catches on means they don’t ever act in an anti-competitive manner? That does not follow. The problem seems to be that you believe it has to be all or nothing or that Apple has to have monopoly/duopoly positions in every area they play in. Everything they do is anti-competitive or nothing is? Nonsense. If Google or Apple had come out with the most popular and dominant social network, they may have done things that were anti-competitive to hamper competitors through their market position. That’s kind of the crux of the issue here that you missed with this point. You can only unfairly use your market position through monopoly or duopoly power if you have said monopoly or duopoly in that area in the first place. Look at it through the opposite lens. If Facebook came out with a smartphone OS tomorrow with loads of restrictions on using competitor services that are clearly anti-competitive in nature, would regulators start looking at that as well? Unlikely because Facebook would have near zero market share in the space and wouldn’t have the ability to unfairly shape the smartphone ecosystem of half the market to their benefit. Apple and Google do have that ability, however. At the end of the day it’s not about an exact number of players in a space, but whether any or some of those players have a dominant position and if so are they abusing those dominant positions in an unfair way that precludes or makes competition extremely difficult?

 

[mrochester]

You can frame Android’s existence however you want, but that doesn’t mean Apple and Google aren’t a duopoly. The fact is that today Microsoft doesn’t have their own version of Android out there, so you’re not even coming at this from reality as it exists. Much of your argument comes down to, “well since some things Apple and Google do aren’t anti-competitive, then nothing they do is anti-competitive,” which is plainly absurd.

Again with the false dichotomy that fostering a more competitive environment has to result in less privacy, convenience, etc. You can design for both, it doesn’t have to be one or another. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as it were. Apple has significant monetary incentives to design things the way they have with regard to making it harder to use competitor services. Asking for a more competitive market environment is also not asking for the elimination of a platform. Not in the least. Making iOS more like MacOS is not a bad thing.

I’m not sure what pointing out unpopular products like Google+ and iWork is supposed to prove. Because not everything Apple or Google does is popular or catches on means they don’t ever act in an anti-competitive manner? That does not follow. The problem seems to be that you believe it has to be all or nothing or that Apple has to have monopoly/duopoly positions in every area they play in. Everything they do is anti-competitive or nothing is? Nonsense. If Google or Apple had come out with the most popular and dominant social network, they may have done things that were anti-competitive to hamper competitors through their market position. That’s kind of the crux of the issue here that you missed with this point. You can only unfairly use your market position through monopoly or duopoly power if you have said monopoly or duopoly in that area in the first place. Look at it through the opposite lens. If Facebook came out with a smartphone OS tomorrow with loads of restrictions on using competitor services that are clearly anti-competitive in nature, would regulators start looking at that as well? Unlikely because Facebook would have near zero market share in the space and wouldn’t have the ability to unfairly shape the smartphone ecosystem of half the market to their benefit. Apple and Google do have that ability, however. At the end of the day it’s not about an exact number of players in a space, but whether any or some of those players have a dominant position and if so are they abusing those dominant positions in an unfair way that precludes or makes competition extremely difficult?

It sounds like you are saying that it’s ok to do ‘anti-competitive’ stuff as long as you don’t become too successful!

If doing ‘anti-competitive’ stuff is precisely what makes your product successful and make customers like what you do, preventing said company from doing said ‘anti-competitive’ stuff just because they became really successful is not a win for consumers.

 

[vipergts2207]

It sounds like you are saying that it’s ok to do ‘anti-competitive’ stuff as long as you don’t become too successful!

If doing ‘anti-competitive’ stuff is precisely what makes your product successful and make customers like what you do, preventing said company from doing said ‘anti-competitive’ stuff just because they became really successful is not a win for consumers.

Taking anti-competitive actions when you're not a dominant player won't actually impact the market in any meaningful way. It's not about intent, it's about actual outcomes in the marketplace. So yes it's actually probably legal, or at least you wouldn't get much scrutiny, if you act in an anti-competitive manner, but only control a fraction of the associated market. You have no real power and your anti-competitive actions won't have wide reaching influence.

Apple doesn't have to be anti-competitive to be successful. How does not giving onerous conditions to game streaming apps like Google Stadia and Microsoft's xCloud result in a better experience for iOS users? Conditions that are so onerous that Google and MS have decided to forgo an iOS app and use a browser-based version as a work-around.

 

[mrochester]

Taking anti-competitive actions when you're not a dominant player won't actually impact the market in any meaningful way. It's not about intent, it's about actual outcomes in the marketplace. So yes it's actually probably legal, or at least you wouldn't get much scrutiny, if you act in an anti-competitive manner, but only control a fraction of the associated market. You have no real power and your anti-competitive actions won't have wide reaching influence.

Apple doesn't have to be anti-competitive to be successful. How does not giving onerous conditions to game streaming apps like Google Stadia and Microsoft's xCloud result in a better experience for iOS users?

The difficulty is that being 'anti-competitive' in many instances actually means 'we are going to make this feature exclusive to our product as a competitive advantage'. The anti-competitiveness is what ultimately leads to a more competitive market as other companies come in to create alternatives, e.g., access to Google Stadia and Microsoft xCloud is a competitive advantage that Android has over iOS and if enough users value that they will switch to Android. Or alternatively, Microsoft could create their own smartphone operating system/ecosystem which has exclusive access to xCloud, thus creating more competition in the smartphone OS market.

Business's need clear rules as to what behaviour is or isn't acceptable and they should apply to everyone, not just those that have become successful else you give some companies unfair advantages over another.

 

[vipergts2207]

The difficulty is that being 'anti-competitive' in many instances actually means 'we are going to make this feature exclusive to our product as a competitive advantage'. The anti-competitiveness is what ultimately leads to a more competitive market as other companies come in to create alternatives, e.g., access to Google Stadia and Microsoft xCloud is a competitive advantage that Android has over iOS and if enough users value that they will switch to Android. Or alternatively, Microsoft could create their own smartphone operating system/ecosystem which has exclusive access to xCloud, thus creating more competition in the smartphone OS market.

Business's need clear rules as to what behaviour is or isn't acceptable and they should apply to everyone, not just those that have become successful else you give some companies unfair advantages over another.

Being anti-competitive has nothing to do with exclusive features. Exclusive features are great. That's not the same thing as telling MS or Google that they can't participate in and sell their product to half the smartphone OS market unless they jump through a bunch of hoops. The enormously complex requirement that MS have to create an entire smartphone OS and ecosystem just to sell games is anti-competitive on its face. It sets up huge barriers to entry, which is entirely the issue. What if I'm some small-time developer who wants to make some games to sell on my own streaming gaming service. The proffered solution is that I also have to make my own smartphone OS and ecosystem? Please explain how having to choose between having access to xCloud or Stadia on Android or Apple's Arcade on iOS is better for the consumer. MS and Google would actually like users to have access on iOS, but Apple wants to make that difficult by throwing up roadblocks. Apple's customers are not at all well-served by Apple's actions in this case.

 

[mrochester]

Being anti-competitive has nothing to do with exclusive features. Exclusive features are great. That's not the same thing as telling MS or Google that they can't participate in and sell their product to half the smartphone OS market unless they jump through a bunch of hoops. The enormously complex requirement that MS have to create an entire smartphone OS and ecosystem just to sell games is anti-competitive on its face. It sets up huge barriers to entry, which is entirely the issue. What if I'm some small-time developer who wants to make some games to sell on my own streaming gaming service. The proffered solution is that I also have to make my own smartphone OS and ecosystem? Please explain how having to choose between having access to xCloud or Stadia on Android or Apple's Arcade on iOS is better for the consumer. MS and Google would actually like users to have access on iOS, but Apple wants to make that difficult by throwing up roadblocks. Apple's customers are not at all well-served by Apple's actions in this case.

Microsoft does not have a right to participate in the iOS market just because they want to just as I have no right to demand a supermarket carries my product, thus denying me access to the customers who shop at that supermarket. They are free to make apps that adhere to the rules Apple lays out. They are also free to make a competing product if they do not like those rules and in turn increase the competitiveness of the market of rule-setters. Likewise, if a supermarket does not carry a certain product I want then I will have to go to another supermarket or elsewhere to buy it. This is the same as users having to switch to Android to get the software products they might want. We don't demand that all supermarkets carry all products.

Supermarkets set rules as to what products they will or won't carry. Operating system/ecosystem creators set rules as to what software products they will or won't carry.

The solution to one is more companies operating supermarkets. The solution to the other is more operating system/ecosystem creators. That way developers can pick and chose which platforms to make their software products for based on the differing rules and regulations of those platforms, just the same way I could chose not to sell my product in Asda because I don't like their terms but do chose to sell it in Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury's because I agree with their terms.

The problem is not the size of iOS (that's just a symptom of there being so little competition). The problem is the lack of competition in the operating system/ecosystem market. That's what needs to be addressed. We need to question why there is so little competition in the operating system market and address the reasons for it. That's where the regulation should be.

 

[Schismz]

How many countries initiating an anti-trust investigation on Apple (or Google, but especially Apple) does it take until the die-hard Apple fans pull their heads out of the sand and rid themselves of the denial that Apple are operating morally questionable marketing practices?

Say what now? Isn't marketing identical to law -- and the entertainment industry, financial services industry, politics -- in the sense that they operate in a moral vacuum? In the case of marketing the purpose is to get people to buy <whatever> you've been hired to sell, in the case of law, the purpose is to win (even if you know your client is guilty).

Apple is really gifted at making shiny new things that people want to buy and use. That's pretty much the total summary. Google is a surveillance capitalism monolith like Facebook, which gives away Chrome, Android, etc, etc, etc, to turn you into the product. But hey, Chrome is a great browser and Android sure has a lot of market share and owns the entire lower end of the market where Apple doesn't want to play.

It is what it is. People vote with their money and I have quite a few friends who continue buying high-end Samsung phones because <gasp> they like Android.

I don't follow the reasoning. While I don't support the basic premise of "control of every phone needs to stop," at least this investigation is looking at the correct market - mobile phones.

Let's look back 14 years. We had 100 different phone makers each peddling their own OS. almost all of them were absolutely miserable. Custom ROMS for each phone. No practical ability to customize or extend functionality. Any apps that might have been available are phone manufacturer-specific, expensive, and only available the the mobile phone providers. The only phones that were close to what we have today were Windows CE (e.g., Compaq PDA phones) or Blackberry. I guess you could include Symbian in the list too.

Come 2007 Google is working on Android as a direct BB clone to enter the market. Apple released iPhone. Google quickly shifted Android design consideration to mirror iPhone. The market rushed away from the dedicated simple phone interfaces and into the world of current smartphone OS.

This. Steve Jobs did a lot of LSD, had a vision for something brand new, and then yelled, cried, and engaged his Reality Distortion Field to enable talented groups of people to actualize his vision. Google who was very busy copying Blackberry immediately saw the writing on the wall, threw their efforts in a trashcan, and started over by cloning what Apple was doing. Blackberry stuck their heads in the sand and called the iPhone a toy and did nothing. Microsoft woke up way too late, and couldn't get anybody to develop Apps for their platform because developers want to, oh, ya, right, make money, and writing Apps for some niche platform isn't going to do it.

While I have not paid close attention to what Ubuntu, etc, all did with themselves, just looking at the products that are available, they appear to have failed to get any traction. The single exception to all of this that I vaguely recall was Tizen, which was owned by Samsung and was the evolution of the very old Enlightenment window manager for Linux, which turned into a mini OS that powered some cameras and other devices, and I've no idea what happened to it other than Samsung sticking it on the wearable devices and TVs, but I don't see it on Samsung's current flagships.

If you want to talk about monopolies -- or duopolies -- how about the real monopoly, in my part of the country anyway, I can choose from Verizon, Verizon, or half a bar of signal. Fantastic! Yes I can buy an AT&T or T-Mobile plan, except their infrastructure is garbage where I live; but at least I don't have to sign a 5 year contract in blood to remain married to some carrier, I can just buy an unlocked phone and attach it to whatever I want/whatever is available.

DUMB

DUMB

DUMB lol 😂

There is no duopoly.

Apple’s OS is on its own product.

Google has a monopoly and that’s because there’s nobody else who can make a decent OS for the majority of phones.

Who is there?

Microsft tried and failed badly.

Symbian was 💩

Blackberry version of Android was 💩

Firefox tried an OS and it was 💩 💩 💩

Amazon tried an OS and it was 💩 💩 💩

Before smart phones we had PDAs with many different OS and they were all 💩 💩

Yup, all of the above, nice summary, can't find anything to disagree with.

 

[vipergts2207]

Microsoft does not have a right to participate in the iOS market just because they want to just as I have no right to demand a supermarket carries my product, thus denying me access to the customers who shop at that supermarket. They are free to make apps that adhere to the rules Apple lays out. They are also free to make a competing product if they do not like those rules and in turn increase the competitiveness of the market of rule-setters. Likewise, if a supermarket does not carry a certain product I want then I will have to go to another supermarket or elsewhere to buy it. This is the same as users having to switch to Android to get the software products they might want. We don't demand that all supermarkets carry all products.

Supermarkets set rules as to what products they will or won't carry. Operating system/ecosystem creators set rules as to what software products they will or won't carry.

The solution to one is more companies operating supermarkets. The solution to the other is more operating system/ecosystem creators. That way developers can pick and chose which platforms to make their software products for based on the differing rules and regulations of those platforms, just the same way I could chose not to sell my product in Asda because I don't like their terms but do chose to sell it in Tesco, Morrisons and Sainsbury's because I agree with their terms.

The problem is not the size of iOS (that's just a symptom of there being so little competition). The problem is the lack of competition in the operating system/ecosystem market. That's what needs to be addressed. We need to question why there is so little competition in the operating system market and address the reasons for it. That's where the regulation should be.

Actually, if there only existed two supermarkets, then you might actually have an argument that the supermarket denying access is being unfair in not giving you access as well. Especially if said supermarket sells it's own brand of whatever kind of product it is you're trying to sell and there is empty space on the shelves where your product could go. Of course the reason this isn't an issue in the real world is because there are actually many supermarkets out there and none with monopoly or duopoly market share. Even big bad Walmart only has 26% of the grocery market. It's also not practical to demand that supermarkets stock every product because there are physical limits that simply don't exist in the digital world. This is really just a poor analogy.

If I have a good I want to sell to consumers, I shouldn't have to setup an entire supermarket just to sell that one good. Again that's an excessively high barrier to entry, especially when consumers of the two existing supermarkets already have their membership cards, know where the store is located, and already have products that only work with other products from that store. The whole, "just make your own smartphone OS" argument ignores the basic reality that the market will only support what it supports. It is now a fully mature market. It's not all that different from how the disc-based media market will only support one player, Blu-Ray. If it could support two, then HD-DVD would still be around. If the smartphone OS market could support three or more players Blackberry or MS would still be in the space. Amazon wouldn't have discontinued the Fire phone 6 years ago. The reality is that it will take a paradigm shift the likes of regular cell phones to smartphones for things to change and who knows when that will be. Regulators can't and shouldn't let Apple and Google do whatever they want in the meantime, without regard to effects on the market, just because someday in the future a paradigm shift may occur once again.

 

[mrochester]

Actually, if there only existed two supermarkets, then you might actually have an argument that the supermarket denying access is being unfair in not giving you access as well. Especially if said supermarket sells it's own brand of whatever kind of product it is you're trying to sell and there is empty space on the shelves where your product could go. Of course the reason this isn't an issue in the real world is because there are actually many supermarkets out there and none with monopoly or duopoly market share. Even big bad Walmart only has 26% of the grocery market. It's also not practical to demand that supermarkets stock every product because there are physical limits that simply don't exist in the digital world. This is really just a poor analogy.

If I have a good I want to sell to consumers, I shouldn't have to setup an entire supermarket just to sell that one good. Again that's an excessively high barrier to entry, especially when consumers of the two existing supermarkets already have their membership cards, know where the store is located, and already have products that only work with other products from that store. The whole, "just make your own smartphone OS" argument ignores the basic reality that the market will only support what it supports. It is now a fully mature market. It's not all that different from how the disc-based media market will only support one player, Blu-Ray. If it could support two, then HD-DVD would still be around. If the smartphone OS market could support three or more players Blackberry or MS would still be in the space. Amazon wouldn't have discontinued the Fire phone 6 years ago. The reality is that it will take a paradigm shift the likes of regular cell phones to smartphones for things to change and who knows when that will be. Regulators can't and shouldn't let Apple and Google do whatever they want in the meantime, without regard to effects on the market, just because someday in the future a paradigm shift may occur once again.

So the solution in the supermarket arena is the same as the solution in the operating system arena, have more of them competing with one another. Regulations should create the market conditions that allow competing operating systems to exist and have a fair shake. That way developers can shop around and work with different combination of ecosystems based on the agreements they can make with them to sell their wares.

What are the biggest barriers to entry for a new company to create a new operating system/ecosystem? What regulations could we innact to reduce those barriers?

 

[vipergts2207]

So the solution in the supermarket arena is the same as the solution in the operating system arena, have more of them competing with one another. Regulations should create the market conditions that allow competing operating systems to exist and have a fair shake. That way developers can shop around and work with different combination of ecosystems based on the agreements they can make with them to sell their wares.

What are the biggest barriers to entry for a new company to create a new operating system/ecosystem? What regulations could we innact to reduce those barriers?

There aren't more "supermarkets" though. Stop letting this point fly over your head. It'd be great if there were, but there aren't so regulators have to deal with reality as it exists. The reason more smartphone OS's don't exist is because the market won't support them. One of the biggest barriers is that there are too many interoperability benefits from being in either Apple or Google's existing ecosystem. Everything from streaming content providers to lightbulbs to cars to washing machines already work with those two ecosystems. It's a fantasy to think someone else will come in at this point and be a real competitor. David versus Goliath doesn't even do the scenario justice. The most likely candidates for success in making a new ecosystem: Blackberry, Microsoft, and Amazon have already failed. There are few companies that even have the required capital and resources required to even attempt to come in make another smartphone ecosystem.

 

[vipergts2207]

What are you willing to give up for your generic solution? Are you willing to have Apple’s much simpler solution still available, or does everything have to go through your more complex (and likely less stable and secure) solution?

I am pointed out just some of the potential difficulties. I understand these because I have dealt with these kinds of issues before. I asked you what your background was, so that I could understand what experience you have either in data/systems security, UI/UX, standards development, or some other relevant area to know why you think these problems can be solved without major compromises.

This is the point. Every time someone says “I do not want to eliminate a choice, I just want to eliminate ‘anti-competitive behavior’” the either do not understand that what they are requesting is eliminating a choice and/or degrading the experience for those that prefer it, or they know that and are being disingenuous.

Apple’s ecosystem is superior for those who like it because it is tightly integrated, focuses on privacy by design, and ease of use. Building open interfaces is hard, locks in designs and adds complexity. To be clear, the EU‘s preferred solution would be to require that users configuring new devices would be forced to choose every application, rather than allow defaults. This would be an awful experience. You claim they start with closed systems to prevent competition, I believe they do it to give time to understand what interfaces are needed, and how they can be implemented in away that allows maximum flexibility in the future.

Sorry, you have it backwards. Apple’s services revenue is as big as it is because of the quality of its ecosystem. Android users can install alternative application stores, and early on there were another of companies who really tried to make that a real alternative (Amazon as one example). Customers just were not interested. What is interesting is that the Google Play store, despite have two or more times as many users, has half the revenue. People in that ecosystem either steal their apps or just do not spend money on them. In the surveys we did when I was consulting with a mobile app company, we found out it was because people did not trust the Play store and did trust the App Store. They liked the convenience of the App Store and they liked Apple’s privacy policies. Forcing side loading and/or alternate application stores will just destroy the ecosystem that is here, without generating any real value.

About 35% of that revenue is AppleCare and Licensing, about 32% of it is App Store revenue. Revenue from iCloud is less and 9% of the services total, so under 1.8% of Apple’s total.

Maybe in your world the way to increase revenue is to provide a mediocre experience but make it hard to purchase the competition, but it certainly is not in mine. Apple has been pushing to get Apple Music to be available everywhere (including on Google Home and Amazon Echos). It took forever for Spotify to be available at all on Apple Watch and then to allow downloads. It seems that if their concern was user experience, Spotify would have done that as soon as possible.

I have never argued that these decisions were made by Apple for altruistic reasons, only that their interests and mine align. It may be possible to implement some of these options in more open ways that still support privacy and security, but, at a minimum, it will be harder, and in many cases, just impossible. Do you believe for a second that if Facebook could offer their own store, they would continue to offer their app in the App Store while being restricted by its App Tracking Transparency? You do not think that many other apps would follow them?

You are convinced that revenue is the number one reason they do this (or at a minimum a very important one). I look at the experience of the Google Play Store and believe the opposite is true. Despite making alternative application stores and the world’s number one retailer working hard to build a successful store, only the Play Store ever got any real traction. However, what did happen as a result of the openness that was needed to allow this (and side loading) was that piracy and viruses and tracking apps became a huge problem, while they are not meaningful problems on iOS at all. Developers make way more money on the App Store than they do on the Play Store. That is why there are so many apps that are iOS first or iOS exclusively.

I have an provided examples of why their competitor, a major software company that tired to do both failed, and I have yet to see anyone explain how it could be done. You wave your hands and say Apple should be able to figure this out, while providing no explanation as to how, nor a reason why Google (not a stupid company) was unable to do so.

Apple's simpler solution with regard to what exactly? There are a lot of different ways Apple has setup anti-competitive barriers so you'll have to be more specific.

You'll have to explain how adding additional options such as cloud storage or video game streaming services "eliminates choice". Nobody said Apple has to discontinue iCloud or any other service they offer. And how does allowing different cloud storage choices or streaming gaming apps degrade the user experience? It would be seamless to those not interested in going outside of Apple's offerings. Spotify doesn't impact the Apple Music user experience so why would xCloud being available impact the user experience as it exists on iOS?

Nobody said Apple has to cease tightly integrating their products. The complaint is about blocking others or making terms so onerous as to all but require that integration on the part of consumers. HomePod working with Apple Music is great, tight integration. HomePod only working with Apple Music is anti-competitive. Of course Apple has since changed course on that front and others as well like reducing app store royalties. This is likely only happening because of the ever increasing scrutiny Apple is under, the very thing some people on here are complaining about.

Apple's services are generally high quality, agreed. However, I'm not foolish enough to think that's the only reason Apple makes as much money as they do from them. And while you say that Apple's iCloud service is 9% of their services, that's still 5.4 billion dollars. That means Apple's iCloud services alone are the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company, though just barely. But sure, they have no incentive to design things around insulating themselves from competition..

Does Facebook offer a store on Android? If not, why?

The solution to tracking apps and viruses is to not download them. If people are that stupid, that's their problem. As far as piracy goes, Apple would be perfectly within the right to block alternate stores that don't take care of piracy issues.

 

[mrochester]

There aren't more "supermarkets" though. Stop letting this point fly over your head. It'd be great if there were, but there aren't so regulators have to deal with reality as it exists. The reason more smartphone OS's don't exist is because the market won't support them. One of the biggest barriers is that there are too many interoperability benefits from being in either Apple or Google's existing ecosystem. Everything from streaming content providers to lightbulbs to cars to washing machines already work with those two ecosystems. It's a fantasy to think someone else will come in at this point and be a real competitor. David versus Goliath doesn't even do the scenario justice. The most likely candidates for success in making a new ecosystem: Blackberry, Microsoft, and Amazon have already failed. There are few companies that even have the required capital and resources required to even attempt to come in make another smartphone ecosystem.

So let’s create legislation that resolves those issues then.

 

[vipergts2207]

So let’s create legislation that resolves those issues then.

What kind of legislation do you propose?

 

[mrochester]

What kind of legislation do you propose?

First we need to make it economically viable for a competitor to exist and be able to make a profit from their software, so get rid of the ability for software to be given away freely and funded by advertising (I.e., get rid of predatory pricing practices).

We then need to make sure that horizontally integrated companies cannot use their power to squash a fledgling competitor by denying them access to certain products or services, so it should be illegal to prevent a competitor from making software that accesses the services of horizontally integrated services (I.e, make it illegal for a company to prevent another from making a YouTube client etc).

With these two measures there would be room for a competitor to both make a profitable software product and be able to offer software on that platform to access the most popular online services that people want to use.

We’d them have multiple different vertically integrated platforms, each offering their own vertically integrated features, with all of them having apps for the most popular services offered by horizontally integrated companies.