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
I can see why Apple is worried about opening up it's 'walled garden' to others because of past and ongoing hacks to electronic systems (computers or otherwise). Take the recent cases of two of the UK's largest retail companies, Marks and Spencer and the Co-Op, both the victims of recent hacks, Marks and Spencer computer systems being taken down resulting in them losing £300 million in sales and the Co-Op having it's complete customer database stolen. Clearly both companies did not have adequate security systems in place to prevent the hacks which is something Apple would rightly be concerned about because if they were to open up their 'walled garden' as the UK seems to want to be doing, how good is the security systems of those that want to have access to Apple's walled garden. What conditions is the UK going to put on companies that want access to Apples walled garden to make sure it's security is not compromised because it would be wrong for the UK to tell Apple that they have to open up their systems to others and that it will be their responsibility to make sure the security of those systems are not compromised.
If the UK is saying Apple must open it's systems up to others then there needs to be provisions in place to make sure all those that want to have access to Apple's systems have a very robust and secure security system in place and if they do not then they cannot have access to Apple's systems. If the UK does not do this then Apple have every right to stop/block others from having access to their systems.
If the UK is saying Apple must open it's systems up to others then there needs to be provisions in place to make sure all those that want to have access to Apple's systems have a very robust and secure security system in place and if they do not then they cannot have access to Apple's systems. If the UK does not do this then Apple have every right to stop/block others from having access to their systems.
They should just come out and be honest, saying we hate US tech companies and will do anything we can to control them.
Side loading can probably expose iOS to threats but having an external payment system for App should not. The absolute majority of online purchases is through the web anyway (external payment systems) and having a walled Apple garden will not help.
There is no hate. It is a matter of different accepted business practices. From the argument presented, US citizens just love monopolies leading customer ripoffs and no one has the right to challenge the might god of a corporation. The latter was sarcasm by the way.
What we’ve also seen from Android:
Even if other stores and/or sideloading exist, developers aren’t leaving the Play Store.
Which is why the “choice of a walled garden” is not taken away from consumers when Apple is obliged to “open up” to allow for such alternative means of installing applications.
Which is why the “Oh, but there already is an open system, so everyone can have “open” and there’s no need to treat Apple the same” is bogus.
Last edited:
Only if developers don’t remove their apps from the Apple app store in preference of another store.
In that situation my preference would be overwritten by the developers preference.
…which, again, we have “already seen from Android”:
Despite alternative means of installation existing, developers did not remove their apps from the first-party store.
…and my preference for another store (or sideloading) would not be overwritten by Apple’s preference anymore.
Makes 3rd party stores pointless then and a bad trade off for reduced security and protections.
Not when they offer other and/or more favourable conditions than Apple’s App Store.
Epic’s Games Store and SetApo are good example that are quite popular.
Government should be regulating things like health, worker safety, the environment, etc. are good and valid reasons for government intervention in the free market. “I want an open ecosystem on my pocket computer but I can’t be bothered to use an Android device” is not - that’s is the government picking winners and losers. And they’re not qualified to be doing it here. The UK actually says on the website “Google puts up warning screens before letting users sideload” as if that’s a bad thing! They clearly don’t know what they’re doing.
No one is arguing “no regulation whatsoever.” I wouldn’t have spent a career working with regulatory agencies if I thought that was the case. I said copycat regulation usually turns out poorly. Especially when copying a jurisdiction that is famous for over regulation and whose own economic leaders and businesses have cited burdensome regulations in tech as damaging their economy.
you are forgetting the majority of Android devices sold are the cheap ones.
to poorer countries.
or the non tech group: old people, kids, someone who just wants a phone that is a phone...
go to Indonesia and 95% of the locals use Android phones.
and often less than $50 gets you a competent phone.
our Bali friends even buy these for their 8 year old daughter.
all her friends have phones too. and cheap data.
so yes you can easily switch to an Android device to get the features you want.
perhaps buy a second phone and no phone plan... hotspot internet access off your iPhone when you need it.
problem solved
We’ll also see a massive uptick in malware and scams, like Android.
Why haven’t prices gone down on Android? It blows away your entire argument. “Let’s do a massive government overreach to change nothing” is very on brand for the EU but is not good government.
This is just the same people who have been saying for decades Apple is doomed if they don’t open up now suddenly deciding that the same business practice they though was going to destroy Apple is suddenly so clearly and blatantly anticompetitive they must open up.
They’re just mad a large and profitable subset of consumers like Apple’s model.
when someone can't accept that opening up iOS and removing the walled garden isnt taking away from consumers...
there's no point arguing.
removing the walled garden removes my choice of an OS that is controlled and has less problems for me. and many others.
and still they cant say what apps they NEED that Apple wont allow on iOS devices.
million of apps, billions of phone users willing buying these walled garden devices for decades...
Agree.
So let’s stop pretending Apple is just a small “minority” market share operator when it comes to digital content and apps for such phones.
You can opt for a walked garden experience by limiting your transactions to Apple.
The premise that that choice would be “removed” is patently wrong.
Everything will remain “controlled” by Apple if you opt for that choice.
I also largely reject the notion that allowing making iOS “more open” means more problems. Particularly when it comes to installation of apps, because sideloading and alternative stores fundamentally work just the same as enterprise apps allowed by Apple.
Last edited:
Or how about this: you can opt for Android and not trample on Apple’s rights as platform owner and millions upon millions of its customers’ preferences for a closed ecosystem by limiting the device you buy to Android devices.
You are not entitled to have your cake and eat it too!
No it’s not. You can argue up is down all you want, but you’re taking away choice from consumers because you think you shouldn’t have to compromise but everyone else should.
However, I still think tech should still be regulated just like health, water, air etc. Tech has become such an integral part of human society today that unregulated tech (such as unregulated AI tech) can and will quickly destroy society. Both Apple and Google, as well as Facebook TikTok Twitter etc etc have grown so large and have such immense impact on people from all walks of life, when their stances are swayed by huge amounts of money and other benefits, they can make or break the society. That is the scary part.
I agree that current government is hopelessly and pathetically ill equipped to tackle this beast called “tech” and tame it to serve the better part of human society, and they are using basically ancient methodology to solve modern problems, assuming they can even attempt to do so in the first place. However, I do not agree with deregulating tech and hoping free market will solve all the problems. For example, free market will not solve kids addiction to highly manipulative social media.
The alternative would be Google developing their own closed system and introduce their own ecosystem to compete with Apple’s closed system. I haven’t seen them doing any of that yet. Maybe Google was wrong to leave android open in the first place.
Assuming android and iOS reaches an extremely high level of feature parity and android is ALSO closed just as much as iOS, I’m curious what kind of argument would people have by then.
Oddly enough, yes. Majorly profitable companies look like potential 'cash cows' at a time when cash-strapped governments with deficits and debts, ever looking for targets for crusades to make politicians look good, could use a good villain to milk.
Many years ago in the U.S. multiple states coordinated and managed to score a huge win against 'Big Tobacco.' You might expect that huge windfall would mostly be deployed to treat smokers, focus on improved medical treatments for complications of smokers and smoking cessation, etc... Nope. IIRC, the states mostly treated it like a windfall, as though they won the lottery, and funneled it into funding other things. However much some may despise the tobacco companies, it looked more like a mugging than 'justice,' in terms of the way the money was used. So was it really about righteousness and justice for smokers?
It's my understanding their fee wasn't exceptionally high by market standards. Google Play also charges a fee, despite side-loading for Android, so not only is there a fee, but developers evidently consider Google Play to offer value for money.
There's also the free market 'what the market will bear' effect. There is competition; it's not within the Apple platform, but between it and Android. The buying public is very capable of a mass migration to Android. If you got an iPhone under contract with a cell service provider, that same provider will happily sell you an Android phone when you renew.
It's not bogus, it's just more broadly applicable. Android is a very viable alternative.
But I have a question; Android users can still side-load, right? Even if Google tightens down requirements for Google Play, Android users can still download Android app.s from elsewhere, right?
To be clear, I am not saying tech shouldn't be regulated at all. What I am saying is that the proposal we are discussing is wrongheaded, won't achieve what regulators claim, and will make the problem they purport to solve worse; while actively harming consumers and taking away choice.
Just for example: say Meta decides it doesn't like the privacy rules on iOS, right now their choice is "no native app for iOS" or "follow the rules." So they follow the rules. Apple's one-store model has protected Apple's users' privacy. If Meta is suddenly allowed to open their own store, what's to stop them removing Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, etc. from the App Store so they can further track their users? Do we think most "normal" users will stop and say "hmmm, you know what, after weighing the pros and cons, I'm not going to use Meta's products" or are they just going to install the Meta App Store? Meta is big enough to force this change through.
Only the largest, most well known companies will be able to pull that off. So in the end, the rich like Epic and Spotify get richer (we don't have to pay for the property we use), normal developers will need to stay in the App Store because that's where the users are, and all the regulators have done is allowed big companies to freeload off of Apple's hard work and harmed the end users they are trying to protect.
I know it's fashionable on MacRumors to assume that Apple is greedy greedy greedy and dastardly Tim Cook is only doing this only for the bottom line, but there are actual, real benefits to having the one store model. And regulators are rushing to throw that all out without any consideration whatsoever.
Last edited:
The big question is what 'regulated' means, not just how, but why. All companies and industries (and pretty much all people) operate under some degree of regulation. Health, water and air aren't direct products of human industrial innovation; they preceded it.
And here's an example speaking to 'why.' These companies are not the property of some communist society where the State owns all. Does anyone think McDonalds is 'serving the better part of human society?' Or how about the cigarette industry?
Quite a number of products exist because people want and enjoy them, despite their impact on society appearing deleterious to some observers, because it's seen as an exercise in free will and liberty by consumers. Why do we have McDonalds? Because people choose to buy there. They don't serve much 'health food.' And I don't get to blame McDonalds if I have a heart attack after eating there.
And now, people that may have only been tangentially aware of it are FULLY aware of them forcing companies to not say when they’ve been snooping. Sometimes, people don’t think about what the worst possible outcome could be. Not asking for Apple to provide a backdoor may have meant more actual police work and training, BUT it would have meant that their secret little program remained secret.