Apple, Google Face UK Antitrust Probe Into Mobile Ecosystem Power

[Amazing Iceman]

It's the nature of the OS market to want to consolidate around few operating systems, because network effects are the key to their vitality.

Without a large enough user base, you can't attract developers. And you can't attract customers unless you have enough apps and services (which require developers).

It's a chicken and egg problem that exists on such a scale that it is extremely difficult to solve.

Microsoft spent billions trying to buy their way into the smart phone OS market with the purchase of Nokia and paying developers to port their apps onto Windows Phone (which was pretty good) but they still failed miserably.

Yes, Microsoft had Windows Mobile Phone long before the iPhone and Blackberry.
Both Blackberry and Microsoft failed to dominate the market. Actually, Blackberry took a nap and lost their opportunity.

Apple and Google didn't make those mistakes and are now the two dominant technologies.
Anyone else who wants to step up is welcome to do it, it's going to be a long road uphill, but don't try to lower the ones on top "to make it fait to the newcomers".
That's like those stupid parenting rules where all the children got punished because the baby spilled the cereal on the floor.

 

[Camusrieux]

Apple and then Google got so far ahead while Ballmer was screwing around with Windows 8. Then they bungled Windows Mobile for years. Then they bought Nokia at the worst possible time. Then they immediately wasted it.

There’s nobody else with the money to try. Amazon and Facebook both made phones, and they were both instant gigantic flops.

In the context of discussions about government attempts to force changes to the way smartphones are designed, I think it’s worth examining, in more detail, why Microsoft’s, Amazon’s, and Facebook’s attempts to market a phone flopped—and even Google’s isn’t going fabulously in market-share terms. Lack of “money to try” clearly wasn’t and isn’t a problem with any of those companies, so why were they not able to provide consumers with the products that they desire—and regulators with the competition in the smartphone market that they demand?

 

[Jamie0003]

Uh oh, better pull out of the EU, India and the UK Apple, and fast!

Can’t wait to be able to install apps from outside the AppStore here in the UK 👍 might actually be able to make the iPad useful for something then

 

[mrochester]

What company is going to do this work to create the alternatives
Where is the funding for that effort going to come from
If companies don’t think it is viable then are the regulators going to underwrite any losses that the company makes in their effort
How are you going to get developers to support your new platform
How are you then going to get consumers to choose to use it

The regulation would apply to companies after they’ve reached a certain market size.

Developers would be regulated too to ensure they made their apps available on all platforms and that they don’t have the power to pick and choose which platform ‘wins’ by not developing for certain platforms.

Consumers would then pick and choose products from whichever manufacturer they like.

 

[mrochester]

The basic Android code is open source and that is where different companies can make use off. They make a skin of the UI on top of Android. Samsung uses its own and is called One OS I believe. You can’t do that with iOS because it’s closed.

That’s led to a market where Android has a hugely dominant position and has wiped out competition. That’s not a desirable outcome for consumers.

Open source software is inherently anticompetitive as it’s sold below cost, which is why its use should be restricted to manufacturers under a certain threshold. Beyond that threshold you can no longer use open source software and must create your own, thus creating a more competitive market for consumers. That stops the open source software from dominating the market and shutting out competition.

 

[9081094]

That’s led to a market where Android has a hugely dominant position and has wiped out competition. That’s not a desirable outcome for consumers.

Android is open to everyone to use for free…. It’s open source, so it’s not a monopoly.

 

[surferfb]

Developers would be regulated too to ensure they made their apps available on all platforms and that they don’t have the power to pick and choose which platform ‘wins’ by not developing for certain platforms.

That would be an incredibly invasive regulation that would be unconstitutional in the US.

Consumers are already picking the platforms they like. No need to develop incredibly overbearing regulations just because you don't like their choices.

 

[bsolar]

That’s led to a market where Android has a hugely dominant position and has wiped out competition. That’s not a desirable outcome for consumers.

The issue is the project being de-facto controlled by Google, which is far from an independent third-party.

Google is also a player in the market, meaning that they have a conflict of interest in how they manage the Open Source project in relation to their own business needs.

 

[9081094]

The regulation would apply to companies after they’ve reached a certain market size.

Developers would be regulated too to ensure they made their apps available on all platforms and that they don’t have the power to pick and choose which platform ‘wins’ by not developing for certain platforms.

Consumers would then pick and choose products from whichever manufacturer they like.

Every competing company can use open source Android and make their own skin to differentiate. Like Apples ios which is based on Unix as is Android. Unlike Android Apple keeps iOS closed so no other company can make or change it to their will. All peripherals on Android are working with all versions of Android because other companies can make use off their API’s. Apple is acting like a gatekeeper and doesn’t allow to let others make use of their API’s so other hardware won’t work seamlessly with iOS if Apple chooses to. That’s monopolistic behavior.

 

[mrochester]

Android is open to everyone to use for free…. It’s open source, so it’s not a monopoly.

Lol. Of course open source software can be a monopoly. The mobile OS market is an example of that.

 

[mrochester]

That would be an incredibly invasive regulation that would be unconstitutional in the US.

Consumers are already picking the platforms they like. No need to develop incredibly overbearing regulations just because you don't like their choices.

Consumers already picked the App Stores they liked too but that doesn’t seem to matter.

But this discussion is about the UK, which has much broader consumers protections than the US.

 

[mrochester]

Every competing company can use open source Android and make their own skin to differentiate. Like Apples ios which is based on Unix as is Android. Unlike Android Apple keeps iOS closed so no other company can make or change it to their will. All peripherals on Android are working with all versions of Android because other companies can make use off their API’s. Apple is acting like a gatekeeper and doesn’t allow to let others make use of their API’s so other hardware won’t work seamlessly with iOS if Apple chooses to. That’s monopolistic behavior.

And selling a piece of software below cost to dominate the market is also monopolistic behaviour, hence my suggestion to curb open-source anti-competitiveness.

 

[9081094]

Lol. Of course open source software can be a monopoly. The mobile OS market is an example of that.

Open source software can never be a monopoly because it’s free for everyone to use.

 

[mrochester]

Open source software can never be a monopoly because it’s free for everyone to use.

That’s not what makes a monopoly a monopoly…. It’s being sold below cost in a bid to dominate the market and shut out competition that makes it a monopoly.

Selling below cost is inherently anticompetitive.

 

[9081094]

That’s not what makes a monopoly a monopoly…. It’s being sold below cost in a bid to dominate the market and shut out competition that makes it a monopoly.

Selling below cost is inherently anticompetitive.

Again… open source is free for everyone to use without cost. If it’s the dominant player, that’s only good! The companies using it, changing it and making their versions behave like gatekeepers, that’s abuse.

If a hardware company uses it and sells below cost it will make a loss on every product sold and will in the end ruin their own business.

Who sells at below cost? Can you name one?

 

[surferfb]

Consumers already picked the App Stores they liked too but that doesn’t seem to matter.

But this discussion is about the UK, which has much broader consumers protections than the US.

And how exactly will that work? “If you don’t develop for all OSes then you can’t sell your app in any of them?” Does that apply to Apple and Google too? Apple Calendar for its competitors? What about single developers like Marco Ament of Overcast? He has to learn whole new programming languages or not sell in the UK? Omni Group and Readle have to make apps for Xiaomi’s OS?

Seems like a fantastic way to ensure you only get apps designed by massive companies that can afford the overhead.

 

[10anta]

Well when people buy a phone from a manufacturer with the manufacturers OS on it then that is the OS and ecosystem that the consumer will use until they buy another phone, which may be from the same manufacturer and therefore the same OS, or a different manufacturer and therefore a different OS. The consumer would have the choice.

As a consumer I don't see a system where changing phone manufacturer necessitates a major migration effort, and rebuying of all my apps to be an improvement - either for the individual, or for companies' prospects of convincing people to switch

 

[CarAnalogy]

This is why you need regulation to force it to happen.

Force what, exactly? Businesses to not make stupid business decisions? It worked out the way it had to. The only other way would be to go the full China route and have the government do it directly. We do not want that.

 

[CarAnalogy]

In the context of discussions about government attempts to force changes to the way smartphones are designed, I think it’s worth examining, in more detail, why Microsoft’s, Amazon’s, and Facebook’s attempts to market a phone flopped—and even Google’s isn’t going fabulously in market-share terms. Lack of “money to try” clearly wasn’t and isn’t a problem with any of those companies, so why were they not able to provide consumers with the products that they desire—and regulators with the competition in the smartphone market that they demand?

Because they did not understand what the market wanted, and they screwed their developers.

Windows Mobile specifically was off to a decent start. Then they scrapped all the code and told developers to start from scratch. And then they did it again and by that time the “app gap” was too large and that’s what really did it.

Remember this is also the time period Microsoft was floundering with Windows 8, and if a real alternative existed to Windows, it would have threatened the desktop. As it is, it did irreparable damage to what was their strongest product.

So maybe the government could have outlawed app stores and forced the use of open web standards.

But the open web standards ship sailed by the late 90s. So what really could have been done other than the government propping up a third option artificially? This is capitalism, with all its benefits and detriments.

 

[webkit]

Yes, Microsoft had Windows Mobile Phone long before the iPhone and Blackberry.

Long before? RIM launched a BlackBerry branded mobile device with a phone in 2002. I believe the first phone to use a Microsoft mobile OS ("Pocket PC 2002") was released only a few months earlier.

 

[webkit]

The regulation would apply to companies after they’ve reached a certain market size.

Developers would be regulated too to ensure they made their apps available on all platforms and that they don’t have the power to pick and choose which platform ‘wins’ by not developing for certain platforms.

Consumers would then pick and choose products from whichever manufacturer they like.

If regulations only applied to operating systems after reaching a certain market size, how would they be able to grow if developers aren't obligated to makes apps for their OS in the early years when they have potentially little market share/size.

Or, are you saying app developers would be required to make apps for ALL operating systems regardless of market share/size. If so, how would that be fair to app developers? They would be burdened with the cost, potential fees, etc. of making their apps available on all operating systems including ones that may have very little market share, may have certain business or tech requirements they have issues with, etc.

 

[webkit]

That’s not what makes a monopoly a monopoly…. It’s being sold below cost in a bid to dominate the market and shut out competition that makes it a monopoly.

Selling below cost is inherently anticompetitive.

While competition laws can vary, selling a product at below cost doesn’t typically make a company or product a "monopoly.” Monopoly is more about market share/size and being a monopoly is not necessarily illegal.

However, open source software may sometimes be argued as anticompetitive (due to things like “predatory pricing”) but even that can be tough to proof as open source software can sometimes help promote/create competition and innovations, generate income through complimentary products/services, provide alternatives to proprietary or closed-source software, etc. All of this instead of the more traditional purpose of anticompetitive "predatory pricing" which is to drive competitors out of business and then raise prices later.

 

[mrochester]

Again… open source is free for everyone to use without cost. If it’s the dominant player, that’s only good! The companies using it, changing it and making their versions behave like gatekeepers, that’s abuse.

If a hardware company uses it and sells below cost it will make a loss on every product sold and will in the end ruin their own business.

Who sells at below cost? Can you name one?

lol wow. Having 1 software option is not a desirable outcome for consumers.

A consumer facing the prospect of a single option in the market means there is a monopoly.

 

[9081094]

lol wow. Having 1 software option is not a desirable outcome for consumers.

What “one” software option are you talking about?

Having ONE AppStore ruled by ONE company is asking for trouble for developers and consumers.

 

[mrochester]

What “one” software option are you talking about?

Having ONE AppStore ruled by ONE company is asking for trouble for developers and consumers.

This is why we are thankful for Apple and iOS to ensure that Android doesn’t have a complete monopoly of the market.

Developers and consumers can pick from 2 different app stores.

If Android didn’t have such a dominant position in the market due to anti-competitive business practices and we had regulation to ensure more competition in the market then developers and consumers would have even more competing operating systems and app stores.