Like many things people think are new on the internet, it started a long, long time ago. And yeah it’s always been intentionally annoying.
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 'Playing Hard-Ball' in Appeal Against UK's Investigation Into Platform Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Like many things people think are new on the internet, it started a long, long time ago. And yeah it’s always been intentionally annoying.
Can’t have a monopoly because there’d be no competition.
Can’t have a duopoly because there’d be… not enough competition?
Can’t have a triopoly or a tetropoly either because… reasons.
What about a pentopoly?
How many polies is the correct number of polies?
Pretty much can’t have anything where a regulatory agency chooses to use the suffix “-poly.”
Apple’s system works for both most consumers and developers who choose it, and they’re now being punished for their success.
Can’t have a duopoly because there’d be… not enough competition?
Can’t have a triopoly or a tetropoly either because… reasons.
What about a pentopoly?
How many polies is the correct number of polies?
Pretty much can’t have anything where a regulatory agency chooses to use the suffix “-poly.”
Apple’s system works for both most consumers and developers who choose it, and they’re now being punished for their success.
If you use iOS you use Safari’s webkit engine, using another browser is just like putting lipstick on a pig. To date all iOS browser’s use the same engine, that will change soon, in the EU at least.
Of course they’re playing hardball. No company wants government interference. Also, Apple thinks they’ve never done anything wrong.
As usual the best course is somewhere in the middle. I’m not a fan of government intervention but I’m also not a fan of a company wielding its absolute power over its platform to stifle competition.
Let’s not forget that in 1998 Microsoft got into enormous trouble over less than this. Yes it seems quaint now but it’s still no less anticompetitive.
I don’t believe anymore that Apple makes most of its App store decisions for the good of its users. Yeah maybe the simple and obvious ones, but increasingly they wield App Store policy as a weapon.
I don’t want Apple to be forced to make changes by a government bureaucracy, but I don’t think Apple will do the right thing on their own. I don’t want them to be forced to allow sideloading, but I also don’t want them to enforce ridiculous and unnecessary restrictions on a very important software platform.
As usual the best course is somewhere in the middle. I’m not a fan of government intervention but I’m also not a fan of a company wielding its absolute power over its platform to stifle competition.
Let’s not forget that in 1998 Microsoft got into enormous trouble over less than this. Yes it seems quaint now but it’s still no less anticompetitive.
I don’t believe anymore that Apple makes most of its App store decisions for the good of its users. Yeah maybe the simple and obvious ones, but increasingly they wield App Store policy as a weapon.
I don’t want Apple to be forced to make changes by a government bureaucracy, but I don’t think Apple will do the right thing on their own. I don’t want them to be forced to allow sideloading, but I also don’t want them to enforce ridiculous and unnecessary restrictions on a very important software platform.
Kind of. If Microsoft still had a 90% dominance in operating systems and wanted to take 30% of all commerce on Windows, would you still think that’s OK? What if Microsoft declared that there can be no third party browsers on Windows, only skins to Internet Explorer. Would we be better off today?
Monopoly is clearly bad, and duopoly is business as usual in the United States. The rest would be a cartel if they actually worked together to stifle competition, and that’s also bad.
Yes people choose the platform, but they don’t choose to have to jump through arbitrary and capricious hoops to protect Apple’s moat.
I’ve been doing it sparingly (key word: sparingly) since at least 2011 but I’m guessing tiktok or something made it get way out of hand. same way all trendy s—t goes: underground for years, brought to the mainstream in a ridiculous fashion, almost immediately considered gauche and passé while the underground figures out something new
sorry, this is an Apple forum, so let me put in my two cents on this article: re: “cloud gaming”…Apple Arcade, or payment systems in games? I’m guessing the latter, with the hullabaloo that Epic started—which Apple seems to be working on. re: “browser restrictions”…yeah, let people develop browsers without WebKit already. it’s long overdue. I love Safari but other people don’t. plain and simple.
on another note, I’ve done a pretty hard 180 on third-party app stores—mainly because I think anyone who tries to create one will a) lose customers b) realize what an absolute revenue-suck it is—and these stores won’t be forced down anyone’s throat. if anyone’s read my earlier comments, go ahead and disregard them.
Probably since Apple released the Butterfly Keyboard! 🤣, but no worry soon Apple will put these MacBooks on the vintage list.
All any regulatory body needs to do is subpoena Apple's internal communications about their on-platform monopoly and they'll find irrefutable evidence that profit is the primary motive. Who here believes that Phil Schiller and Eddy Cue spend their days congratulating each other about how safe, secure, and trustworthy the App Store is?
Funny this comment can also be applied to CMA. Yes CMA can say that Apple wants to throw their weight around with demands, but aren't they guilty of the same?
BuY aN aNdRoId PhOnE iF YoU DoNT LiKe iT
Of all the predictions I've seen on MR this one is, IMHO, the most accurate. One thing you can always bet on is legislators blaming someone else for their faulty legislation.
Companies already can create and install apps outside of the App Store for internal use so external app stores won't change that. As for others, the App Store is too convenient and cheap to use so why go elsewhere?
I doubt it, for two reasons. Most users don't care about sideloading/non-Safari browsers, etc. and won't pay the markup imported phones will have.
If it were a problem, Apple could simply develop a way to geofence UK capabilities to the UK; although I doubt they would bother. An easier solution is to simply limit how many phones they import to the Uk. No one says they need to meet the total demand from UK purchasers and potential resellers.
Apple's badly needs to show the world with iOS 17 that it does indeed allow application purchase flexibility to some degree and puts all these stuffed shirts back in their places instead of those types always trying to tax technology using whatever scheme they come up with.
Define ”so big” the problem. A relative term compared to what? The natural comparison another like product in the same category. A monopoly happens when a company or product so dominates an industry that others cannot compete. There are excellent very competitive products in the market place for every product Apple produces. Apple has less than 50% of the smart phone market, their flagship product. Governments are just plain wrong on this one.
No wonder Tim Cook gets up at 3:45 AM. I couldn't sleep either with all these lawsuits and conflicting regulations.
Eh?! Isn't this article discussing the UK's stance? Are you getting the EU and the UK mixed up by any chance? 🙄
I don't think this bothers him in any way, his bank account is full already.
He is not emotionally attached to Apple like Steve Jobs was. For Tim Cook it's just a task and stock shares, he is just playing the game to squeeze more money out.
Some parts of the world more than others, necessitate smartphone detox centers. For example in 2019 98% of Korean teens were on phones way too long. Some teens were on their phones 13 hours a day. The gaming companies are just trying to take advantage of that addiction with pushing their way onto iOS and android phones convincing government regulators they are being hurt by mean old Apple and Google. It's an outcome that few expected when Steve introduced the iPhone.
Recently, here in America, Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said in her decision on the Epic v. Apple battle that Apple was not a monopolist and “success is not illegal.”
Apple created the App Store model, as we know it. Development was decentralized from large companies with dozens of software engineers to anyone with a computer and iPhone. Apple’s philosophy has proven successful with users as there are more iPhones than any other smartphone. Many people, myself included, appreciate the control and security Apple brings to market. For people who want more control over their devices, there are other manufacturers who have alternative business models.
I’m all for allowing web downloads on the iPhone. But I would hate to see Apple loose control of the App Store. This would allow more openness for those who want it and still maintain the security and control for the majority of the users who don’t.
Did she get her new Ferrari already? Nevermind!
Anyway, recently there in America a bipartisan bill aka "Open App Markets Act" started to roll, which will render any previous decision made by any judge in this regard invalid, including the one made by Mrs. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The Open App Markets bill moves out of the Senate Judiciary Committee | Brookings
The recent manager's amendment would provide needed regulatory oversight for both antitrust enforcement and privacy and security for mobile apps, but would not create the national privacy law that advocates are seeking, which seems to be stuck in congressional limbo, Mark MacCarthy writes
www.brookings.edu
Open App Markets Act - Wikipedia
Just for your information!
Last edited:
Did she get her new Ferrari already? Nevermind!
Anyway, recently there in America a bipartisan bill aka "Open App Markets Act" started to roll, which will render any previous decision made by any judge in this regard invalid, including the one made by Mrs. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The Open App Markets bill moves out of the Senate Judiciary Committee | Brookings
The recent manager's amendment would provide needed regulatory oversight for both antitrust enforcement and privacy and security for mobile apps, but would not create the national privacy law that advocates are seeking, which seems to be stuck in congressional limbo, Mark MacCarthy writes
Open App Markets Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just for your information!
I am aware. I also know there is much debate on that bill and with the current political climate, little, if anything will likely to get accomplished.