Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Brutal Battle' Expected as Regulators Close in on Apple Around the World

webkit said:
I'm not opposed to more OSs but I think Apple allowing more app stores on iOS would be a better/easier solution to the app store issue.

A good think about Android is that is provides more flexibility so even though it is technically one OS, the various phone makers can still customize it a bit.
Click to expand...
We know from android that multiple app stores on one platform does not solve the issue. That's why it's a mystery to me why that is likely to be forced onto Apple and its customers when the evidence suggests it will do nothing to improve the App Store competitive landscape.

Why not investigate and establish the actual problem and resolve that instead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: izzy0242mr
webkit said:
But when a company such as Apple dominates a market like mobile OS, their giving software away for "free" could de-incentivize others from trying to offer similar software.
Click to expand...
Apple does not compete in the smartphone operating system market. They do not sell or license operating systems to anyone. The only company selling or licensing smartphone operating systems in any meaningful way is google. This is the problem with the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: izzy0242mr
Beautyspin said:
Whatever makes you happy. It need not be the truth.
www.forbes.com

No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire

An alarming new surge in malicious apps is a much more serious threat to iPhone users than you might think...
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

arstechnica.com

A glut of iOS 0-days pushes their price below cost of those for Android

Top price for unpublished Android exploits reaches $2.5 million, a 25% premium over iOS.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com



635b8c8b49.webp
Click to expand...
I don't dispute those stats. But that only tells us how secure iOS is right now. It doesn't mean that forcing Apple to allow sideloading and third party app stores without any restrictions won't cause *even more* security issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninecows
mrochester said:
Apple does not compete in the smartphone operating system market. They do not sell or license operating systems to anyone. The only company selling or licensing smartphone operating systems in any meaningful way is google. This is the problem with the market.
Click to expand...
It's a "problem" in the sense that yeah we do need more OS competition (what Windows Phone was offering until they had to shut it down. What Windows Phone should have done was go harder on Project Astoria and allow Android apps to run while working toward more native app support. It'd have been a good transition model.).

But Apple definitely shouldn't be forced to license iOS. That would ruin it for sure.

I'd honestly like to see Windows Phone come back and see Microsoft figure out a way to offer a stronger OS. Given that they're building Android Runtime into Windows 11, that doesn't seem like it'd be as hard as one might think.
 
centauratlas said:
the ones who stopped Apple from doing end to end encryption with on device keys for everything. They are the same ones who are advocating for master keys and access by some groups
Click to expand...
Who did this? That sounds terrible (stopping Apple from doing those things, I mean).
 
mrochester said:
Privacy for me means to not have your next move predicted by an algorithm as a means to serve you a relevant ad.

I do not believe any company should be taking my data or behaviour and using it to work out how I might be thinking or feeling as a means to hawk more *****. This kind of business needs to be outlawed.
Click to expand...
"Privacy for me means...." And "this kind of business needs to be outlawed" don't really mesh.

If you don't want to have predictive algorithms suggesting things for you, I think companies should give you the right to reject those. I think that's a fair thing to demand the option for.

But privacy is like liberty or property in that not everyone cares the same about it. Yeah, everyone wants "freedom" and *privacy*, but to different degrees. The solution, then, is options, not "outlawing" predictive algorithms because some people dislike them.

If some people genuinely want to give up more of their property via taxes to better fund public systems, they should be able to do that. And, at least in the US, that's done by moving to a different state. Privacy should work the same way in the sense of "if you care about it, you should have a "tracking off" button. If you don't, you should have the ability to leave tracking on."

But outlawing that altogether is the wrong move. There's nothing inherently harmful about helping people know what they're going to want or need next based on their past actions. Some people genuinely appreciate that and that is their right to have that preference, whether you like it or not.
 
deevey said:
Samsung provide "Smart Switch" in order to sync your iCloud data, Apple have a migration tool. Other manufactures might have something similar - thats on them.

The only issue is data between iOS/Android specific subscriptions, and thats down to the software providers. But there was always the issue that you'd need to buy Mac or PC specific Applications anyhow and some stuff just isn't portable.

Move from Android to iPhone or iPad - Apple Support (PH)

Ready to transfer to iOS? Download the Move to iOS app to get help switching from your Android device to your new iPhone or iPad.
support.apple.com support.apple.com

www.samsung.com

smart-switch

Upgrade to a smarter lifestyle with the Samsung smart switch. Seamlessly transfer to new devices and enjoy exclusive deals for a limited time.
www.samsung.com www.samsung.com

"Here's what gets transferred: contacts, message history, camera photos and videos, photo albums, files and folders, accessibility settings, display settings, web bookmarks, mail accounts, and calendars. If they're available on both Google Play and the App Store, some of your free apps will also transfer. After the transfer completes, you can download any free apps that were matched from the App Store."
Click to expand...

Wish Keychain would transfer also.
 
izzy0242mr said:
I don't dispute those stats. But that only tells us how secure iOS is right now. It doesn't mean that forcing Apple to allow sideloading and third party app stores without any restrictions won't cause *even more* security issues.
Click to expand...
Actually, the statistics show that Apple is becoming more and more insecure while it is the opposite for Android.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and dk001
mrochester said:
We know from android that multiple app stores on one platform does not solve the issue. That's why it's a mystery to me why that is likely to be forced onto Apple and its customers when the evidence suggests it will do nothing to improve the App Store competitive landscape.

Why not investigate and establish the actual problem and resolve that instead?
Click to expand...

A regulator's role is more about keeping markets as free and competitive as possible and not controlled by dominant companies that may use "unreasonable" or "artificial" barriers, restrictions or other things which can discourage new competition, hamper innovation, impact pricing, and so on.

Whether or not this results in significant changes in that market is meant to be up to the market to decide. Regulators basically just want to make sure the market isn't too restricted from being able to decide.
 
dk001 said:
Which means what? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
1. Doom and gloom is shoved down our throats by media and those in power. Shouldn't be surprised when it is reflected back.
2. When we ARE told 'that will never happen', somehow it does later. Think of words like fifteen, withdrawal, mandate, ban, safe, effective, transitory...
You know what it means!
 
mrochester said:
Apple does not compete in the smartphone operating system market. They do not sell or license operating systems to anyone. The only company selling or licensing smartphone operating systems in any meaningful way is google. This is the problem with the market.
Click to expand...

Apple very much competes, just in a slightly different way. Instead of selling iOS on its own, they sell (license) it through retailers or direct to consumers as part of the purchase of an iPhone.

Whether an OS is used exclusively by the company on its own device or on other devices, the net result can be the same. If a company dominates a particular market like mobile OS, providing or making software available for "free" with the OS can potentially stifle competition by de-incentivize other companies from offering similar software and/or force other companies to have to find ways to give their software away for "free", at a very low cost, etc.

Apple and Google have significant control over practically the entire mobile OS market and that is why their various related business activities are (and should be) scrutinized more.
 
webkit said:
Or they achieved, maintain and/or try to expand their dominance through illegal antitrust/anticompetitive behavior. A reason why antitrust laws exist are to make sure dominant companies don't illegally exploit their dominance. Otherwise, there is no point in having antitrust laws and regulations.
Click to expand...
The achieved dominance by making something no one else made. They maintain it by having better eco systems. Like I said. If you want to beat them.. Beat them. But quit whining about how it's unfair they're successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cupcakes2000
dk001 said:
According to what?
If that was true we would have seen the same at least in part in Android. We haven't. Those few that tried went back.

There is nothing at this time to support your statement in any fashion.
As far as I know.
Click to expand...
Yeah you must be right. Companies with every ability to distribute the apps themselves are just going to keep paying the 15-30% because they like doing so.

LMAO.
 
webkit said:
A regulator's role is more about keeping markets as free and competitive as possible and not controlled by dominant companies that may use "unreasonable" or "artificial" barriers, restrictions or other things which can discourage new competition, hamper innovation, impact pricing, and so on.

Whether or not this results in significant changes in that market is meant to be up to the market to decide. Regulators basically just want to make sure the market isn't too restricted from being able to decide.
Click to expand...
A regulators job is to keep markets free flowing and to ensure there aren’t undue illegal barriers to entry.
 
siddavis said:
1. Doom and gloom is shoved down our throats by media and those in power. Shouldn't be surprised when it is reflected back.
2. When we ARE told 'that will never happen', somehow it does later. Think of words like fifteen, withdrawal, mandate, ban, safe, effective, transitory...
You know what it means!
Click to expand...

I agree. Somewhat.

On one side - against regulatory. For Apple they are looking at alternative stores code wise. Mention showed up in iOS 15 code review.
On the other side - for regulatory of some kind (from min to max).

Problem is that we are all assuming that there will be some kind of regulation and some are assuming no matter the solution to that regulation it is all doom and gloom with nothing to back it up.
 
cocky jeremy said:
The achieved dominance by making something no one else made. They maintain it by having better eco systems. Like I said. If you want to beat them.. Beat them. But quit whining about how it's unfair they're successful.
Click to expand...

Whining? I never said it was unfair that Apple, Google or any company is "successful" or that they should be broken up, etc. My point has been that ANY dominant company that is (alleged to be) violating antitrust laws should be investigated and dealt with accordingly. Just because a company dominates a market and is popular with consumers, doesn't mean shenanigans couldn't also be going on.

Again, a reason why antitrust laws exist are to make sure dominant companies don't illegally exploit their dominance. Otherwise, there is little point in having antitrust laws and regulations.
 
dk001 said:
I agree. Somewhat.

On one side - against regulatory. For Apple they are looking at alternative stores code wise. Mention showed up in iOS 15 code review.
On the other side - for regulatory of some kind (from min to max).

Problem is that we are all assuming that there will be some kind of regulation and some are assuming no matter the solution to that regulation it is all doom and gloom with nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...
I can see that. I'm not spouting doom and gloom, just that this is overreach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
dk001 said:
:rolleyes:

Then where is that mass migration away from the Play Store?
Click to expand...
APK's have always been distributable. What the heck are you talking about?

And we're talking about MONEY here. A foreign term to anything Android related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back