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 to Let EU iPhone Users Delete Safari and More Easily Transition to Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The state can do that in this part of the world as well, as I pretty clearly said. There are public accommodations laws and zoning regulations that property owners need to adhere to. That's nothing new, so let me know when you get close to making a point, thanks.
I'm sure that's true right now
Maybe more would use it if it were more widely available, or even better if it were an open protocol?
Not sure I understand. We can already both remove Safari and install a host of other browsers.
And why should the burden be on Apple to help someone migrate to Android? Apple figured out tools to help someone migrate to an iPhone, so should the reverse be Google’s job?
And why should the burden be on Apple to help someone migrate to Android? Apple figured out tools to help someone migrate to an iPhone, so should the reverse be Google’s job?
Consumers who want access to apps that aren’t available on the App Store now due the developers not liking Apple’s terms will benefit by being able to buy those apps in the first place, consumers will also benefit if developers are chargedess in fees than Apple charges and decide to pass some or all of that saving onto their end users so plenty of people will benefit from this.
Further nobody will blame Apple if malware is introduced as Apple can have a giant warning screen that displays prior to installing an app from another App Store that plainly states Apple isn’t at fault for what may happen on their device either now or in the future if the user ignores the warning and proceeds. They can reinforce that by warning when an alternative App Store is installed and when apps are first installed of even again when they are updated. Nothing in the EU regulations prevents Apple from letting users know the potential danger that comes with it and letting the end user decide. We’ve been there and done that with cookies on the web and although it’s annoying I’d rather inform consumers than not and Apple could provide an option buried somewhere in iOS to only warn when a new app is installed or just when a new App Store is installed, etc. but make the user seek out the setting and turn it on to be warned less and make them click through another warning when they shut them down.
Plenty of people will benefit. If they don’t then there won’t be any other countries that line up to pass similar laws and it’ll be a one off for as long as it’s on the books in the EU. We don’t need to speculate further as now we get to see what really will happen which was the original point of my post.
Enough talk. Let’s see what happens, who benefits and who doesn’t or actually gets hurt by this law.
Google is going to be really mad when they don't get their moneys worth for all of this.
The customers will pay as always. Maybe another price hike for iPhones? It's already ridiculous.
It was already possible to remove Safari (from home screen) but not entirely delete it from the phone. This will allow users in the EU to actually delete it and replace with an alternative browser. Also, while alternative browsers were allowed on iOS they had to use the WebKit engine but are now able to use their own engine (Blink, Gecko, etc.) in the EU.
The idea is to reduce transition/switching barriers in the mobile OS market which are dominated by just two players (Apple/iOS and Google/Android).
I don’t think you know what the word “monopolistic” means. Here’s a definition for you : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monopoly
Apples iOS share of the market is 24% vs the 74% of Google/Android. Apple is a minor player. Just because they’re good at extracting money from their tiny market doesn’t mean they’re a monopoly.
One thing that the EU supporters conveniently ignore is that the EU had to come up with the term "gatekeeper" because they couldn't word anything in a way that would legally make the definition of "monopoly" apply. Talk about moving goal posts!
I was talking about the Apple/Android duopoly, not Apple by itself. Having only two choices when it comes to a phone OS isnt super great for consumers
Why not? Those "only" two choices exist because consumers chose them over the others that existed. There were options other than Google and Apple, but they weren't popular enough amongst consumers to continue, so here we are. Apple and Google are the "only" two choices because that's what the consumers chose.
And I'm sure every developer is just dying to dive back into working code to implement multiple payment systems, multiple in-app purchase protocols, differential capabilities based on the App Store from which the program is downloaded, etc. The effect of multiple app stores will be: 1) A small number of competitive stores; 2) Some regionally preferred stores; 3) Apps that violate current apple standards and bring crap quality, bloatware, and spyware to your iPhone.
Why? You can just use WhatsApp or Telegram or whatever. And I’ll still judge your green bubbles. 😁
Well, the problem now is that any other competitor should need a HUGE advantage and a lot of luck to start, so with a duopoly it’s more likely that innovation will stall on the OS. It’s like how Boeing and Airbus are not innovative anymore. And if one really screws up? Welcome to a monopoly.
I know but the barriers to entry in the market are super high. You need to be one of the most valuable companies in the world to compete. The market doesnt allow small players to come in and innovate because they dont have the structure and the capacity to compete. Apple and Google control the whole market except for China. Not many choices if you aren't happy with one or either of those two and nobody's accountable for anything. That's why i'm glad that the EU is at least beginning to make these companies accountable wether it's about data privacy or whatever else.
The EU ruling on App stores does nothing to change this situation. If you want another choice, then create a phone and start selling it.
The market evolved to its current state because it is what consumers wanted. If they still wanted Blackberry, Treo, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, etc. those companies would still be selling phones. They all had different operating systems and died because no one liked them.
We still have multiple hardware manufacturers. However, rather than bear the expense of creating and maintaining an operating system (like Apple has done), they all decided to sell your data to Google by adopting Android. Consumers like it because the lack of choice in OS forces hardware vendors to compete on function and price. It is cheaper for the consumer because the hardware companies aren't trying to amortize massive software development expenses.
So, tell me, how does the EU requiring Apple to load Russian Trojan Horses onto the iPhone from alternative app stores change this situation?
Apple sells about 20% of the phones in the world. The other 80% are sold by Samsung (which accounts for another 20%), Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, Huawei, RealMe, OnePlus, and surprisingly even Motorola is still in there with a single-digit percentage. People have hardware choice. They don't have software choice because only Apple creates their own OS. All the others use Android by their choice. If you want more choice, then create a cell-phone OS to compete. Make your case it should be adopted by one or more of the seven non-Apple dominant forces in the market. When you can't create a large enough value proposition, you'll understand why we only have two choices at present. You'll also learn that consumers don't want more than two or three choices in the first place.
You don't create choice by having the government bureaucrats making engineering and product decisions to make the two existing choices more alike than not.
A "monopoly" and "monopolistic" (term other poster used) competition are not necessarily the same thing. Monopolistic competition typically involves 2 or a few major players in a market. Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) are only two major players in the mobile OS market.
Even defining "monopoly" as one player in a market isn't necessarily accurate. Definitions/declarations can vary by country/region, case, etc. For example, Microsoft was declared a monopoly in computer operating systems in the 1990s yet that market also had Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.
It's also not always just about market share. Other aspects can include barriers to entry, substitutability, etc.
No one is saying developers HAVE to make their iOS apps available in multiple stores. They now have a choice, at least in the EU. They can pick and choose which one or ones they think are best for their business.
New app access competition from sideloading and alternative app stores could push Apple to make its App Store better for developers and therefore developers could come out ahead even if they (still) only use the App Store. It could end up being a win if they only use the App Store and a win if they choose to use multiple app stores.
The word you are searching for is oligopoly. Monopolistic is an adjective which essentially means "of or related to a monopoly". "Monopolistic competition" is an oxymoron because competition requires two or more and monopoly excludes more than one.
No one tells Bimbo Bakeries that they have to sell their breads in every store. They have a choice. Of course, they have to be everywhere to hold their dominant position in the market.
Again, definitions of monopoly can vary. As I pointed out, Microsoft was declared a monopoly in computer operating systems yet they weren't the only company in that market. Monopolistic competition is not an oxymoron.
Other terms like duopoly or oligopoly can also refer to two or more major players in a market.
Please answer a few questions to help me gain insight into the supposed competition it is encouraging.
On 90% of iPhones in the EU (From Statista)
- What is the default search engine? Google?
- What is the most popular browser? Chrome? Google....Chrome?
- What is the most popular social media app? Facebook?
- What is the dominant Messaging App? WhatsApp? Messenger? Both owned by Facebook? So much so that the EU had to back down from listing iMessage as a Gatekeeper?
- What is the dominant music app? Spotify?
Yep. According to every stat I could find:
- Google is the dominant search enging
- Chrome is the dominant browser. Google....Chrome.
- WhatsApp and Messenger are the dominant messaging apps....owned by Facebook. Both of them
- Facebook or X are the social media dominance.
- Spotify is the dominant music app.