Surely if you can go via the web there isn’t fairer access to consumers than that?
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.
UK Begins Market Investigation into Apple and Google's Mobile Dominance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. We need to fix the reason there are only 2 operating systems, but otherwise let them do as they please.
Nobody cares about history. Just look at the general politicians and movements today. All they see is something is wrong today, and they want an instant fix.
I don't see anything wrong with Apple as they're the only one making iPhones. Vertical integration is not illegal. What they should look at is Google's Chrome dominance, as Google is forcing Android OEMs to pre-install Chrome and other Google bloatware if they want their devices to be certified. That's an obvious Microsoft-style anti competitive, but nobody seemed to care. Google gets a lot of free passes for decades.
Webkit may not go far enough, but it better than opening up to third-party. Webkit is a known and controlled animal. If they open to other engines some may opt for a more secure engine (DDG) but I would bet most will opt for one with many more holes, built in trackers, etc.
edit: typo: someday to "some may"
Last edited:
From an accounting standpoint I would bet these services do pay the fees. Yes, it all rolls to the same parent entity (Apple) but you can be sure that Apple Music and Apple TV+ run as separate P&Ls and have to show necessary profits. These fees would be expenses on their sheets. If Apple Music does not make its numbers (Subscriptions revenue less subscription fees less royalties less operating costs = acceptable profit) they would need some big justification to not get shut down. Same for TV+ (Subscription revenue plus partner payments for app on TVs less subscription fees less production costs less operating costs = acceptable profit) they would nee some big justification to not get shut down.
OK, Music goes way back with Apple, so corporate may "invest" in that business if it loses money. But that would be shown as such with a liability on Music's balance sheet.
On my iPad, I can use Firefox, Chrome or whatever. Same on my iPhone.
I can pay for goods in my web browser using whatever payment processes the website that I'm on supports. And they can use whatever they like. If consumers don't like what they've chosen, they'll go elsewhere.
So, we're already there.
And, what is that reason?
I would guess that if there was a real business opportunity for a new operating system, somebody would jump in both feet waving. Some have tried in the past, of course. The reason they failed was usually because their product wasn't compelling enough for the market to gather enough investment, so people didn't grab onto that system. But, even IBM gave up and they certainly had enough resources that they ultimately chose not to deploy.
For most people, I bet their calculation on which operating system to use is based around both practical considerations (Will it run Excel? Word? Does it work with my school system?) and various intangibles, like how much the product sells for, what their personal acquaintance circle uses, and the effect of advertising and peer pressure. Adding more choices isn't always better for most people, other than in theory.
Those European countries.. yikes! Don’t they have better things to do? Like maybe fix their economies and provide their people with basic needs like affordable food prices and dito energy prices? Its just a thought, folks. ✌🏼
What you are describing is also known as a cartel.
I think I can save the UK a bunch of money here. From what I can tell, they are having a bit of a squeeze financially, more than a lot of other countries, so every little bit should help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Executive summary: Linux is the big leader, by a sizable margin. (Android uses a Linux kernel.) Maybe they should be investigating Google...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Executive summary: Linux is the big leader, by a sizable margin. (Android uses a Linux kernel.) Maybe they should be investigating Google...
The truth is that the “government” is doing an “investigation” because the government has to maintain the appearance of being “for the people” and furthering the cause of “general welfare”. The government WANTS there to be a duopoly because:
1. It gives the illusion of a free market (you have a choice: fruits or robots)
2. It centralizes control by eliminating a wide base of competitors which are harder to manage, predict, threaten, bribe, and blackmail.
Without law or dictate, the government cannot compel the creation and usage of a new, alternative mobile operating system. What exactly are they hoping to achieve? Concoct a scheme to fine Apple and Google, the proceeds of which will be spent on additional government largesse?
If you are exuberantly pro-government because you think capitalism or free enterprise are corrupt to the core, I advise you to look at the last 2000 years of history. Every last government has fallen due to corruption. Every one. They are not your savior and will fail you when you least expect it. The best case scenario is a government with multiple checks and balances, wide distribution of power, and few laws and regulations (which are ultimately used to exploit the honest). Every law, every rule, every handout, every “investigation” ultimately benefits someone. If you see an industry cheering about potential regulation, rest assured that you are not the beneficiary.
If this dog and pony show concludes that everything is “okay”, will you really believe it?
1. It gives the illusion of a free market (you have a choice: fruits or robots)
2. It centralizes control by eliminating a wide base of competitors which are harder to manage, predict, threaten, bribe, and blackmail.
Without law or dictate, the government cannot compel the creation and usage of a new, alternative mobile operating system. What exactly are they hoping to achieve? Concoct a scheme to fine Apple and Google, the proceeds of which will be spent on additional government largesse?
If you are exuberantly pro-government because you think capitalism or free enterprise are corrupt to the core, I advise you to look at the last 2000 years of history. Every last government has fallen due to corruption. Every one. They are not your savior and will fail you when you least expect it. The best case scenario is a government with multiple checks and balances, wide distribution of power, and few laws and regulations (which are ultimately used to exploit the honest). Every law, every rule, every handout, every “investigation” ultimately benefits someone. If you see an industry cheering about potential regulation, rest assured that you are not the beneficiary.
If this dog and pony show concludes that everything is “okay”, will you really believe it?
Oh noes, now it’s not the ultra-communist EU who wants to regulate Apple, it’s liberal, Brexit-ed Great Britain who many people here are rooting for!
They already sort of do. The monarchy signed the Magna Carta. Just rescind it - then there will be parliamentary government and the Crown as separate. Of course I do recall wars being fought over that.
/s
Downloading other browsers or even including IE by default was NOT the antitrust issue. To imply so is both wrong and misleading.
Microsoft included the IE browser but it also embedded then into the OS so it could not be removed. They also actively worked against Netscape and others by precluding the PC manufacturers from including alternatives preinstalled on their PCs or MS would rescind their licenses (effectively putting those PCs out of business). Plus a bunch of other things.
I don't see the comparison between Apple today and what MS did then.
The reason needs to be established by the regulators so that they can put measures in place to mitigate against it.
I cannot believe that you are really that dense. Having choice about how the owner (read I said, the owner) of the device uses the device is not in any way related to what is configured by default or recommended by the manufacturer.
It seems clear to me that you do not believe in competition, fairness, and freedom of speech. I wonder what you do believe in?
If a random guy on the internet can draw that conclusion, you can bet someone else also can, which means what you describe is questionable at best.
Also, be careful what you ask for. Don't come back to us saying you don't want Apple controlling your power supply when Apple and Google successfully buy out the entire country you live in right now.
Yeah, nothing stops anyone from adopting AOSP and developing their own OS/Store/Phone. Except:
1. huge capital support. I am talking about $10b minimum.
2. outstanding features that both iOS and Android are sorely lacking and difficult to replicate 1:1 by either Apple or Google in a reasonable amount of time.
3. ample committed developer support upon initial release, including major app's developers vowing to support that new platform. A new phone without access to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Youtube, TikTok apps and such cant gain traction with the general public within a year or two. Windows Phone failed in this regard and we all know where Windows Phone went since then.
If someone is able to assemble a team with $10b capital and satisfy the above, we might see an emerging 3rd mobile platform with successful commercially available devices we can buy and try out.
Yes, there's that Linux phone, but their selling point is not having those mainstream apps.
Funny but apple and google seem to value profits more than sticking it to the governments. China has many restrictions and yet apple still not only does business there, but also manufactures its phones there as well.
If you don't count Chrome-anythings.Linux. That 0.000001% market share on desktop saves them.
Even with 100% they would have no issues, because they have no „market“, market is a commercial thing, Linux is fully OpenSource.Linux. That 0.000001% market share on desktop saves them.
Anyway without Linux/GNUTools or FreeBSD and all the OpenSource Software and Libraries Apple would hold zero in their hands(from networking stack to a simple zip file), and probably not being able to compete in any way now a day.
Just Microsoft would be able to exist without Linux, but even they had to learn the hard way. Linux is here to stay and power the infrastructure all this end consumer Apple crap is build on.