Your examples were inconsistent as well.
Don’t think so.
As a principle I believe in neutral internet communications. I am against any form of conditioning a part from security and privacy reasons. I also understand that end to end neutral communications can be conditioned in many different ways …
So I was in favor:
- ISP products and services be regulated with Net Neutrality principles
- Microsoft being regulated when it tried to dominate the browser market by baking it into Windows, amongst many things making it default. The reason why the browser is so important its because its is the primary user interface to the Internet … even though there are others. Microsoft was also regulated not not where the browser was concerned bit also APIs access as well as certain apps.
Within this, of course would be inconsistent of me (and I believe anyone else) to be in favor of a duopoly (Apple + Google) with practices that go against these principles even if at the moment just clustered in smartphones … already surpassing PCs as preferred internet devices. Case in case, the most prominent, the tying the App Store with the ability of users installing apps.
What do Apps have to do with internet communications and network in general you might say. Well, apps in communication lingo are in effect end-points / clients. You head of Client / Server Architectures for sure didn’t ya? … So control which apps user can install and not as well as how, one controls one end of the communication, in effect is the sole mediator of internet enabled communication in iOS. In effect Apple in iOS controls which Clients / Endpoints can be installed in iOS and how, case in case if you are open to share 30% of you in app revenue they might allow, if you don’t … well than we definitely not!
Of course one can say … well let’s wait until this duopoly conditioning becomes even more limiting, more privately mediated by a bunch of companies, case in case these two. Well personally believe that delaying this can be worst. For one side, usually regulations in those cases are, let’s say much more restricting to companies participating in these practices ... sometimes requiring enterprise restructuring which can be bad for innovation. Secondly, it leaves a trace of bad “blood” out of anti-competitive practices that its hard to escape from.
We had traces do anti-competitive practices. For instance the restrictions Apple imposed to game streaming in iOS through the App Store policies. There no privacy or security reason why xCloud or Stadia were restricted to use the browser, otherwise have each game stream published as individual apps in the App Store. A requirement that makes no sense technically, neither in terms of security or privacy. The measure was done fundamentally to keep both these services away from iOS and not compete with Apple game services, current and future.
So, people might disagree, but I believe that my stance is fairly consistent neither the principles behind are designed to favor one company or the other.
Cheers.
