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

[centauratlas]

Of course this is what Apple is going to do. It's not that the claims that all their lock-in have no merit, it's that they are highly exaggerated. That's always been the issue. The world gets along just fine on MacOS, but all of a sudden it's an issue on the phone (where coincidentally they just so happen to have billions of dollars on the line from their lock on the garden doors).

The same groups that are now saying Apple is exaggerating privacy in iOS are 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. So while stopping Apple from implementing more security and privacy features they then complain about exaggeration.

They are very good about arguing both sides expecting everyone to forget their own role in this.

Anyone who expects a monopolistic government to protect the privacy of individuals is delusional.

 

[cmcbhi]

Then what, pray tell, is the way to get there, if not through regulation?

Well. A company COULD produce a competitive product> Know any?
If you want cheap, buy Android and share your data with the world.

 

[centauratlas]

Or the banks and energy companies..

Or most importantly governments: The largest monopoly in world. The only monopoly with a monopoly on force. With no competition.

Asking for a monopolist to regulate a so-called duopoly is worse than asking the fox to guard the hen house.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Privacy for me means to not have your next move predicted by an algorithm as a means to serve you a relevant ad.

As opposed to having people observing you while in the toilet?

I understand what you are saying but that is not what privacy is. It’s just manifestation of privacy.

Some people might not mind that at all. That is why people need to be able to control which of their data want to be kept for themselves only and which they do not mind sharing in context. Only that aspect is a matter of personal choice. Not what privacy is as a concept.

Now the App Store itself, it is my believe that gives its users choice on that matter in a lot of things but what Apps you want or have installed in your device. Some people mind not mind that at all, other might consider that is no one’s business but theirs and the App creator.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

None of what you describe is necessarily illegal. However, if Walmart is viewed to have monopoly power and is engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices, they would/should be investigated and charged accordingly. Even many states have antitrust laws that could be applied to activities in that state.

Walmart will come in to a new area and deliberately lower their prices to the point where they are losing money on some products. As the local businesses die off, they start raising their prices and in the end, it's Walmart and Sams Club, and some small stores that can cling on for some amount of time in defiance of the huge sucking sound. I find it hilarious that the Walton family makes billions a year off the two stores, and fund agendas that keep the people they 'service' in near destitution, and under and unemployment. It's depressing to see the parking lots full. I shop at smaller local stores and union operated stores as my act of defiance to the welfare queen Walmart. They have gotten far too big and far too powerful IMO. The wreckage of their abuse of capitalism is everywhere. Should they be investigated? IMO, hell yes. Will it ever happen? In a time when the investigators are beholden to their money, sadly, no. AND THEY KNOW IT!!!

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Or the banks and energy companies..

While gas prices are at records, so are oil company profits. Coincidence?

 

[mrochester]

As opposed to having people observing you while in the toilet?

I understand what you are saying but that is not what privacy is. It’s just manifestation of privacy.

Some people might not mind that at all. That is why people need to be able to control which of their data want to be kept for themselves only and which they do not mind sharing in context. Only that aspect is a matter of personal choice. Not what privacy is as a concept.

Now the App Store itself, it is my believe that gives its users choice on that matter in a lot of things but what Apps you want or have installed in your device. Some people mind not mind that at all, other might consider that is no one’s business but theirs and the App creator.

Well let’s get peoples data under control first then, a much more pressing issue.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well let’s get peoples data under control first then, a much more pressing issue.

Under control of whom? The owners of the data and device or the provider of the device and or service?

 

[cupcakes2000]

The issue that needs to be addressed is why no company can seemingly compete against either android or iOS. What is stopping Samsung from releasing Samsung OS and it having a chance of being successful? Those are the problems that need to be addressed.

Why does it need to be addressed? What needs addressing even? It’s not an issue - surely?

There are two main os’. iOS and android. We all know what iOS is, but Android however, can be used and moulded to however the company wishing to use it likes. Why on earth would samsung, for example, bother to take the time to develop a whole new os and ecosystem, with all of what that entails when there is a freely available, fully compatible, fully tweekable ready made os right there?

Further, who is actually asking for a new os? There is no room, as the extremely mighty players of the past will attest to. Are consumers asking for more? I don’t think so.

It seems to be an inadequate half solution looking for a problem that isn’t even there.

 

[mrochester]

Under control of whom? The owners of the data and device or the provider of the device and or service?

The person the data belongs to.

 

[I7guy]

What Privacy is, is understood and shared by everyone. It’s not a matter of opinion what privacy is.

There may be a standard definition of privacy in the Merriam Webster, but like innovation the definition is a sliding scale.

Now there are things that one might consider private others do not. Other might consider the same thing private or not depending on context.

Yes, I agree.

The GDPR focus for instance is not to define what privacy is, which is understood, but to give each people the ability to control which data is only for you to see (kept private) and which you allow others to see depending on the context. This became necessary because tech companies where not providing these facilities to citizens … were actually exploiting mass surveillance mechanisms for their own profit … selling the data you deposited without your knowledge … or actually such to be a precondition to use the service without any info being provided.

Ok.

On governments spying people … I understand that you are mostly anti-gov … you are entitled to that opinion of course. I’m ok with companies, govs and people, very rich or very poor, as long as either aim is to improve social well being and human progress instead of exploitation. To each their own responsibilities and objectives apart from that … that is my mantra.

It depends. Like other citizens I have my opinions on what I consider good or bad legislation to me, and wxpress those opinions verbally and by voting.

 

[kc9hzn]

Of course this is what Apple is going to do. It's not that the claims that all their lock-in have no merit, it's that they are highly exaggerated. That's always been the issue. The world gets along just fine on MacOS, but all of a sudden it's an issue on the phone (where coincidentally they just so happen to have billions of dollars on the line from their lock on the garden doors).

Most people tend to use their phones far more extensively than desktop devices, and the personal data is far more valuable to criminals. If anything, smartphones should be more locked down than PCs on those grounds alone. Do you stay logged in on social media or your banking sites on your PC? Probably not, but you probably do on your phone. At the very least, if you’ve got your banking app on your phone, that knowledge could help an attacker in a spear phishing campaign. Plus, phones contain all this juicy location info, which could be valuable for so many things (espionage, marketing, targeted violence, etc.)

 

[mrochester]

Why does it need to be addressed? What needs addressing even? It’s not an issue - surely?

There are two main os’. iOS and android. We all know what iOS is, but Android however, can be used and moulded to however the company wishing to use it likes. Why on earth would samsung, for example, bother to take the time to develop a whole new os and ecosystem, with all of what that entails when there is a freely available, fully compatible, fully tweekable ready made os right there?

Further, who is actually asking for a new os? There is no room, as the extremely mighty players of the past will attest to. Are consumers asking for more? I don’t think so.

It seems to be an inadequate half solution looking for a problem that isn’t even there.

It needs to be addressed because it is the reason why there are only 2 viable app stores to reach nearly every smartphone user. If there were more competing operating systems there'd be more competing app stores. Yes, developers would need to put it more effort to make their apps available across multiple different stores, but that's just the price of doing business.

With consumers spread across multiple different operating systems and ecosystems there'd be no one system with gatekeeper access to the vast majority of consumers and therefore no competitive issues.

I've been saying it for many years, the world desperately needs more vertically integrated smartphone companies like Apple so that consumers have multiple different platforms and ecosystems to pick from instead of just the 2 we are currently stuck with.

 

[kc9hzn]

It needs to be addressed because it is the reason why there are only 2 viable app stores to reach nearly every smartphone user. If there were more competing operating systems there'd be more competing app stores. Yes, developers would need to put it more effort to make their apps available across multiple different stores, but that's just the price of doing business.

With consumers spread across multiple different operating systems and ecosystems there'd be no one system with gatekeeper access to the vast majority of consumers and therefore no competitive issues.

I've been saying it for many years, the world desperately needs more vertically integrated smartphone companies like Apple so that consumers have multiple different platforms and ecosystems to pick from instead of just the 2 we are currently stuck with.

There’s more than just one app store on Android, Amazon has their own. All the Kindle Fires and Amazon TVs out there aren’t getting apps from the Google Play Store, and most Android users could sideload the Amazon App Store if they felt it had offerings they couldn’t get from the Play Store. And there’s no guarantee that, had FirefoxOS caught on or had Ubuntu for smartphones caught on, that their App Stores would have driven much competition. Look at how badly Microsoft blundered when it came to mobile.

 

[cupcakes2000]

It needs to be addressed because it is the reason why there are only 2 viable app stores to reach nearly every smartphone user. If there were more competing operating systems there'd be more competing app stores. Yes, developers would need to put it more effort to make their apps available across multiple different stores, but that's just the price of doing business.

With consumers spread across multiple different operating systems and ecosystems there'd be no one system with gatekeeper access to the vast majority of consumers and therefore no competitive issues.

I've been saying it for many years, the world desperately needs more vertically integrated smartphone companies like Apple so that consumers have multiple different platforms and ecosystems to pick from instead of just the 2 we are currently stuck with.

You think the way to solve the perceived lack of App stores is to create new os’? That’s not really the best way to address something like that. It’s not a problem only having a few os’ around. It’s better for consumers because every app they want is likely on both. But some apps wont be developed for some os’, as already happens frequently on the desktop landscape.

for the record, I don’t think that there needs to be an abundance of different app stores, I think it’s an overblown ploy to stop companies like apple restricting data gathering and backdoors in to software, mainly conceived by governments and big advertising companies - strangely championed by the people. Another example of the turkeys voting for Christmas. But if I did agree, then simply forcing Apple to open up the os would suffice.

 

[vipergts2207]

It needs to be addressed because it is the reason why there are only 2 viable app stores to reach nearly every smartphone user. If there were more competing operating systems there'd be more competing app stores. Yes, developers would need to put it more effort to make their apps available across multiple different stores, but that's just the price of doing business.

With consumers spread across multiple different operating systems and ecosystems there'd be no one system with gatekeeper access to the vast majority of consumers and therefore no competitive issues.

I've been saying it for many years, the world desperately needs more vertically integrated smartphone companies like Apple so that consumers have multiple different platforms and ecosystems to pick from instead of just the 2 we are currently stuck with.

This isn’t the first time other OS competitors have been mentioned but it’s not a viable solution. What consumers will want to buy a phone with so few apps? What developers will want to spend resources developing an app for an OS with so few consumers? It’a a chicken and egg scenario.

 

[mrochester]

There’s more than just one app store on Android, Amazon has their own. All the Kindle Fires and Amazon TVs out there aren’t getting apps from the Google Play Store, and most Android users could sideload the Amazon App Store if they felt it had offerings they couldn’t get from the Play Store. And there’s no guarantee that, had FirefoxOS caught on or had Ubuntu for smartphones caught on, that their App Stores would have driven much competition. Look at how badly Microsoft blundered when it came to mobile.

So if multiple app stores doesn’t solve the problem of their being only 2 viable App stores, what will solve the problem?

 

[mrochester]

You think the way to solve the perceived lack of App stores is to create new os’? That’s not really the best way to address something like that. It’s not a problem only having a few os’ around. It’s better for consumers because every app they want is likely on both. But some apps wont be developed for some os’, as already happens frequently on the desktop landscape.

for the record, I don’t think that there needs to be an abundance of different app stores, I think it’s an overblown ploy to stop companies like apple restricting data gathering and backdoors in to software, mainly conceived by governments and big advertising companies - strangely championed by the people. Another example of the turkeys voting for Christmas. But if I did agree, then simply forcing Apple to open up the os would suffice.

One platform seems to predominately support one App Store. Even people here seem to be under the impression that if/when apple are required to allow multiple app stores the vast majority of users will stick to the apple App Store, which means from a competition perspective we have achieved nothing (which is what the regulation is supposed to be addressing).

So it seems logical to me that another OS with a different App Store would be the actual thing that’s needed to bring more competition to developers.

 

[cupcakes2000]

One platform seems to predominately support one App Store. Even people here seem to be under the impression that if/when apple are required to allow multiple app stores the vast majority of users will stick to the apple App Store, which means from a competition perspective we have achieved nothing (which is what the regulation is supposed to be addressing).

So it seems logical to me that another OS with a different App Store would be the actual thing that’s needed to bring more competition to developers.

There is no room for another os. It can’t just be willed in to being and then magically work. The mighty windows couldn’t even mange. The past greats have been obliterated into nothing. It’s not due to anticompetitive behaviour, if it was this would fall on Google’s shoulders rather than apples - for creating a free os that anyone can use thus making it almost pointless to spend the rss to develop your own. It’s simply consumers choosing what they want to buy.

 

[mrochester]

There is no room for another os. It can’t just be willed in to being and then magically work. The mighty windows couldn’t even mange. The past greats have been obliterated into nothing. It’s not due to anticompetitive behaviour, if it was this would fall on Google’s shoulders rather than apples - for creating a free os that anyone can use thus making it almost pointless to spend the rss to develop your own. It’s simply consumers choosing what they want to buy.

So we are in agreement that the regulation is pointless?

To me all the regulation appears to be trying to do is manufacture a competitive landscape that consumers have already decided and damaging the attractiveness of at least one of the existing products in the process by forcing it to be something that some consumers don't want it to be. It's basically tackling the wrong problem.

 

[webkit]

It should be illegal to give things away for free in an attempt to dominate a market.

That would potentially fall under predatory pricing. However, the line can sometimes be blurred between "free" and included/bundled.

Apple, with the exception of iPod Touch for a couple of years, has always given away new iOS versions for free.
Apple used to charge for new macOS versions but made them free starting about 10 years ago.
Apple used to charge for Keynote, Pages, Numbers and other software but made them all free.

Do you think any of this should be considered anticompetitive and/or being used to try to gain or maintain dominance in the particular markets?

 

[cupcakes2000]

So we are in agreement that the regulation is pointless?

To me all the regulation appears to be trying to do is manufacture a competitive landscape that consumers have already decided and damaging the attractiveness of at least one of the existing products in the process by forcing it to be something that some consumers don't want it to be. It's basically tackling the wrong problem.

Yes. As I said before: I think it’s an overblown ploy to stop companies like apple restricting data gathering and backdoors in to software, mainly conceived by governments and big advertising companies - strangely championed by the people. Another example of the turkeys voting for Christmas

 

[mrochester]

That would potentially fall under predatory pricing. However, the line can sometimes be blurred between "free" and included/bundled.

Apple, with the exception of iPod Touch for a couple of years, has always given away new iOS versions for free.
Apple used to charge for new macOS versions but made them free starting about 10 years ago.
Apple used to charge for Keynote, Pages, Numbers and other software but made them all free.

Do you think any of this should be considered anticompetitive and/or being used to try to gain or maintain dominance in the particular markets?

I would say if your software is for use exclusively on your own hardware then that is not anti-competitive as it does not distort the market. Something like android being free for all OEMs should be illegal as that distorts the market for operating systems by making it nearly impossible to compete.

 

[webkit]

It needs to be addressed because it is the reason why there are only 2 viable app stores to reach nearly every smartphone user. If there were more competing operating systems there'd be more competing app stores. Yes, developers would need to put it more effort to make their apps available across multiple different stores, but that's just the price of doing business.

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.

 

[webkit]

I would say if your software is for use exclusively on your own hardware then that is not anti-competitive as it does not distort the market. Something like android being free for all OEMs should be illegal as that distorts the market for operating systems by making it nearly impossible to compete.

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.