I think consumers would quite happily take a third OS if developers would make their apps for it.
Sadly developers couldn’t be bothered when they had that chance.
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's Mobile 'Duopoly' Targeted by UK Regulators
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sadly developers couldn’t be bothered when they had that chance.
Not until they arrest someone for a "mean tweet" because someone spoke up stating a truth.
I'm tired of the UK dictating what the rest of the world does, when they need to get their own house in order first.
I don't think the argument is the prices of the App Store would go up, but that other charges to developers would to recoup the costs that are lost by the EU/UK forcing a lower percentage. Just as an example, rather than $99 a year for the developer fee it becomes $399 or $999, or is put on a sliding scale based on app revenue, or whatever.That's a lot to write when you're missing the key point: The only assumption we're using is that Apple is trying to maximize profit. Unless you think Apple is doing something benevolently, then there is absolutely no logical reason that the prices of the app store would go up by the introduction of competition. And if you think that Apple is a benevolent company that doesn't try and maximize profit, then I'm happy that you're happy in that bubble.
We've already seen from Android that costs don't go down just because there is "competition" in App Stores. If that were the case, Google would have to charge developers much lower prices than iOS given they're open to third party stores, but they don't. It's the massive flaw in the argument all the defenders of these burdensome regulations ignore.
Why are the Play Store's the commissions the same as iOS' despite competition from players like Amazon and Samsung? And why do regulators think Apple's commissions will lower in face of "competition" when the Play Store's haven't? All they're going to do is make Apple's platform worse while not achieving their stated goals.
The fact of the matter is that Apple's prices aren't inflated, they're market rate. Of course developers don't want to pay them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are market rate.
Well there was windows phone and developers did make apps for it. Until Microsoft ****ed them around and told them they now need to rewrite them from scratch for the next OS version. Which killed it dead.
Yeah, it really comes down to Microsoft being customarily full of themselves and not making it worth their effort. They’ll misread the room and wasn’t aware that their marketshare meant they SHOULD have been making concessions, not demands.
Anyone looking at that and saying, “If even Microsoft couldn’t do it…” doesn’t understand that Microsoft wasn’t even making a best effort.
First, the logic of Apple being able to recover "lost revenue" from developers is again based on the faulty logic that Apple isn't trying to maximize their profits; they are already charging developers the most they can without pissing off developers and regulators.
To your second point, the OP was arguing that competition would raise prices, not keep them even. Google hasn't raised its rate to 35% is evidence SUPPORTING my point, as they have lost some business to other app stores (even if that amount is small).
The fact that some developers are now getting more money by working with Epic Store (whether you like them or not) is still an example of this lowering prices for developers. The fact that Google hasn't seen enough business ceded to Epic to force them to lower their prices shows that Google has a fair market price at present. But as more users realize they can save money, that may cause the prices to fall eventually. There's no reason to stop all competition just because prices aren't falling in the short term, it takes time to find equilibrium.
Maybe Apple's prices will turn out to be market rate and perfectly fair. And if that's the case, there's still absolutely no reason to not offer alternate stores that the user can simply ignore and not utilize.
I'd argue they're balancing between having the barrier of entry to be low to attract hobbyists, students, and one man development shops and maximizing profits. Taking away the ability to fairly charge large companies for their use of Apple's property is going to change that equilibrium.
Android has been open for almost 20 years now. Prices haven't fallen except in response to APPLE lowering prices for small developers. They're not going to start falling just because regulators want them to. It's magical thinking that shows these regulators have no idea how the market works or what they're doing.
The reason not to offer alternate stores is many consumers prefer a closed ecosystem. An open ecosystem exists for consumers or developers who want that option. Apple wants to offer a closed system, millions of customers prefer it. Government coming in and saying "that isn't allowed because we know better than Apple, its customers, and the free market" is overreach. If you don't like it, there's an alternative. Your preference is not more important than mine or the platform owner's.
I feel like you are asking a complicated question and expecting a simple answer. The whole point of an inquiry would be to dig into likely thousands of documents, emails, etc... and look for patterns of those two companies and how they affect the total market. I know know IF they are doing it, I am happy someone is looking at it. I don't agree with one of them having a monopoly, but I do agree the two of them COULD manipulate the market.
There is no point lost, nor do I think prices would go up. The point is prices won't go down just because people say they will. Apple SHOULD be trying to maximize profits. New companies SHOULD be trying to undercut if they can differentiate enough. This is not about SHOULD's or SHOULDN'T this is about assumption on how the market will respond and instead of stating them as assumptions, stating them as a fact and then used for justification of opinions.That's a lot to write when you're missing the key point: The only assumption we're using is that Apple is trying to maximize profit. Unless you think Apple is doing something benevolently, then there is absolutely no logical reason that the prices of the app store would go up by the introduction of competition. And if you think that Apple is a benevolent company that doesn't try and maximize profit, then I'm happy that you're happy in that bubble.
Those making extraordinary claims need to have evidence to back it up. Saying “this might be happening” with no proof (or even a credible accusation of wrongdoing) would be a witch hunt.
And, to be clear, it’s not what the UK is doing here. The UK is essentially saying “the EU got to regulate, so we want to too” without considering whether it’s smart, a good idea, or will achieve what they want to achieve. It’s “I’m a regulator, I want to regulate, those guys are regulating, so I’m going to regulate too.”
As someone who has spent over 20 years in and around government, it’s something I’m pretty familiar with. But it usually doesn’t lead to good outcomes, no matter how well-intentioned the regulations are. And I’d argue the DMA wasn’t well intentioned, so it won’t lead to a good outcome here.
if customers hated the closed Apple ecosystem so much, there would be no sales or very few and Apple would feel compelled to open up their ecosystem.
In 20 years with a strong Android system, Apple still havent wanted that.
If they had, perhaps more Android users would have chosen Apple and Apple's market share would be even higher worldwide, limited only with low end cheap devices fighting for scraps.
And Apple devs generate more income from those fewer users... why? trust basically.
trust that buying is safe, apps are (largely) safe, refunds are easy, user data is protected.
Some want to destroy this system, removing our choice of an environment that we trust.
For those people, go buy an Android device. it really is that simple.
your desire for an open, free environment exists.
do not remove my choice of an environment that is protected that I want and I will have no other choice if that is removed.
i'm not anti choice or anti open environments.
i have Android devices that let me do a few things I cant do on Apple devices, like adding cheap extra storage with SD cards.
i have PCs and Macs that let me install and do whatever else I want to run.
choice is good. but it should never impact other users, in their millions, from their choice of a safe trusted ecosystem because someone wants to force Apple to open up.
this isnt consumer led action.
it's political. and a few large businesses.
and i think fewer trust those interests above their own interests.
You would be surprised how most devs and customers feel indifferent about this issue compared to tech enthusiasts like many forum members. As long as lowest denominator needs are met, anything else is just icing on the cake.
So, if regulation tends to lead to bad outcome, what is the alternative? I’m sure things like water and air quality if remain unregulated, the society would have lots of problems. Same for medical service and electricity.
UK may be just following suite of what EU has done recently but duopoly between Apple and Google is an undeniable fact. What regulator I believe would do is to find the evidence that can satisfy the legal definition of duopoly. As to what they are going to do next is probably anyone’s guess. Maybe this attempt at regulating Google and Apple turns out to be a bad move, but I also don’t believe the world should be lawless and with no regulation whatsoever.
Here’s the thing. Ever notice both android and iOS have more and more similar features over the years? Whether the system is closed or not, when people wants to use an android device, they expect certain iOS features to be there, whatever they might be. Apple has been slowly loosening the grip of some of their most fiercely guarded design philosophies in the past few years by ways of offering some form of customisation, ease restrictions on emulators and bring in certain android features to iOS with their own spin. If a closed system can offer almost the same feature sets that an allegedly “open” (it’s not) system would offer and more, more customers would seriously consider switching from Google to Apple, regardless of whether they care about privacy or not.
In short, having a closed system in an of itself isn’t a problem. The problem is customers are asking for increasingly similar feature sets between Android and iOS, yet there are way more iOS users accusing those demands as “turning iOS into android” when it is not, compared to android sides accusing the same thing. Android is still android, with its own flavours, same with iOS.
air and water are essential to life.
and the planet.
your phone OS is not.
not when you have alternative devices you can do the same things on.
if Android and iOS phones stayed as they are, you can still choose another device to do whatever you want.
market forces, your wallet effectively, determine how these devices exist.
and billions of users are using them so they cant be too bad at meeting user needs.
as always, if they didnt a third party can come along and offer a better device.
but tech always has a way of weeding out the weak:
VHS vs Beta.
MiniDisc vs DCC vs CD
BluRay vs HD DVD
consumers like choice. but only so much survives in the marketplace.
weak doesnt always mean worst... sometime price and marketing and timing determine the outcome more than anything. after 20 years it would be hard in a mature market to come out with a new phone that sways users no matter what is offered.
Urgh give it a rest UK. iOS and Android earned their place. We had Blackberry, Windows, and more. The market decided they liked iOS/Android.
I’m happy with Apple Pay and will keep using it. I dont want to use some weird janky wallet.
Sick of this government ****ing around with things. E2EE/backdoors, OSA, this.
Hopefully the US puts them in their place again.
I’m happy with Apple Pay and will keep using it. I dont want to use some weird janky wallet.
Sick of this government ****ing around with things. E2EE/backdoors, OSA, this.
Hopefully the US puts them in their place again.
Ahh, you mean a region with a significant trade surplus of goods to USA? At the same time has a trade deficit of about 30% in services to US in which IT is included. Actually surprised it was so little difference between EU import and export of services considering "another region utterly incapable of building their own tech". USA is the origin of high profile products like the OS, search engine, AI etc, but there is much more to IT than that.
Where was the ARM architecture developed that Apply designed its chips from? Was it not UK?
There was actually one.
Google refused to provide one for the platform despite Microsoft offering to pay for it because they were trying to build an android monopoly. So Microsoft wrote their own one. This annoyed Google because it was quite good, didn’t have ads and allowed you to download videos offline. Google sued Microsoft. Microsoft took it down and set up a web site called Scroogled which complained about Google’s privacy practice. This turns out today to be ironic.
In the mean time Apple were taking notes and building out their entire sovereign service proposition.
Microsoft could have been top tier but their senior executives lacked the ethics, vision and quality drive to do so, reverting to low grade MBA monkey techniques as they always do. Race to the bottom every time. Same with Google which was turn the end user into a product.
I must ask those who defend Apple so much and apparently think 30% cut if fine. Would you accept 50% or 70%? Nothing is stopping Apple as there is no competition on Apple platform.
"You can always switch to Androids" does not work, because it is often a $1000 phone plus service lock-ins to deal with. It is not like switching one milk brand for another at the supermarket.
"You can always switch to Androids" does not work, because it is often a $1000 phone plus service lock-ins to deal with. It is not like switching one milk brand for another at the supermarket.
Honestly I don’t care.
You don’t have to run an app business. If the financials don’t make sense or you feel the risk is tangible, don’t start one. If you do it and moan about the platform cut to try and reduce it, that’s a crappy business plan or shows dubious business savvy. Or the standard MBA tactic of worrying about margins later or being big enough to think you can sway influence.
All these facts were made available at the time of business conception.
Fundamentally if this is a problem, vote with your feet. Go write a SaaS where you have billing control and can mug your customers off on your own terms? If it’s a problem don’t portalise yourself through someone else’s product.
They have in the EU. In the US, they solved the problem with lobbying and legal.
Yeah but the anti-competitive behaviour happened many years ago and needed to be tackled then to prevent the damage it caused.
We need a mechanism to get back to where we would have been had google not engaged in that anti-competitive behaviour.