The market needs fixing with regulation so that it supports more than a couple of software paradigms. If it can support multiple hardware vendors there’s no reason it can’t support multiple software vendors, we just need to get rid of the anti-competitive business practices that prevent competition from existing, such as free software supported by advertising, tying agreements etc.
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.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So your solution here essentially requires launching a nuclear missile into the computing industry. All just so Apple doesn't have to allow third-party app installation. 😂 I can see why the EU is going the way they are if that is the other option.
This statement makes it clear that you don't understand why the market is the way it is. The reason multiple hardware vendors can easily exist is because the applications that consumers use aren't dependent on specific hardware, at least in the vast majority of cases. It is dependent on the software though. A developer doesn't need to rewrite their app for every piece of hardware out there. They do need to write it for every piece of software it runs on though.
Even eliminating free software subsidized by advertising, which you'll have to explain how is anti-competitive, doesn't solve the crux of the issue. Developers only have limited resources and will focus on the most popular OS's. Over time critical mass will simply result in companies dropping off one by one as consumers leave them for platforms with more of the apps they want. It's like you forgot that what you're asking for already existed about a decade and a half ago and what I'm describing is exactly what happened.
Assuming the EU was dumb enough to do what you're asking, the most likely outcomes would be:
1: Samsung selling their smartphone business to Google.
2: Google selling their Android OS business to Samsung.
3: Google and Samsung spinning off their hardware/OS businesses into some kind of joint venture.
Any of the three would make them into the vertically integrated business you're asking for. Meanwhile, the only thing you've accomplished is killing off a bunch of Android handset makers.
Much of the legislation being discussed here has to do with things like browser engines, app stores, sideloading, etc. (Apple’s "walled garden") which are related to the OS. Apple (iOS) is clearly part of a mobile OS duopoly with Google (Android).
Legislate that app developers need to support all platforms. Get rid of the concept of ‘network effect’ so that it’s no longer a thing.
Only to an alarmist with grossly exaggerated expectations of the outcome of the new law. Forcing Apple to allow third-party app installations is hardly a nuke into the entirety of the computing industry.
How does a developer do that without the resources? And of developers who do have the resources, the EU is supposed to force millions of devs to use those resources on supporting a dozen platforms that have 2% market share? All to spare the world's most valuable company from making changes that their C-suite and a few overly fervent supporters don't want to see? And a major impact of forcing this enormous waste of such resources is a severe lack of application innovation. Instead of working on the next game-changing app, a developer will be busy porting their existing applications to a dozen different platforms used by a combined 53 people. Glad to see the EU not going that route.
But it's not the only game in town. Maybe the EU should fund some startups instead of this idiotic legislation.
Wasn't it amazing when Apple basically prevented all that bloat being put on phones back then?
I guess you want Chrome to be the default browser of the entire world? Great way to usher in more innovation.
And not for nothing. This was since the beginning. It wasn't sprung upon us after we got to enjoy all that bloat, and using several different browsers. You never could by default install whatever you wanted on the iPhone. Outside of a WebApp. Unless you jailbroke it, and that was on you to do and trust.
Your arguments are too one sided.
It will all end up being Chrome. Microsoft (Chrome), Google (Chrome). It's not like opera or any other browser is going to make a big splash anytime soon. Well, we do have Firefox I suppose.
I don't know why our legislators don't just come up with laws that state "Make it secure, or else!".
They want less secure and more back doors into our devices.
It's like the difference between Murder in the 1st vs self-defense. Either way someone died, but one was on purpose the other was to save oneself. And one way is not legal. If you become a monopoly and never abuse the power it affords. Then you should be fine. Nothing should happen to your company.
Thank goodness.
This is the domain in which it applies to for now. My question is, what happens when something "else" pops up? Would you or any citizen of the EU want to take part in a new business that could change the world and you're the sole reason it exists, so you stand to reap the rewards of your work. Would you engage with the EU with the rules as they are constructed against these tech companies?
I personally would not. I would forecast as best I could and see that in the end, they will make new laws to make what I do illegal or more difficult for me to do business. That's my view.
It doesn’t have to be the ONLY game in town. As I said, Apple (iOS) is part of a mobile OS duopoly with Google (Android). Most antitrust cases involve companies that aren’t the ONLY game in town.
Allowing an open market is a great way to usher in competition and innovation. Far better than having restricted, closed off markets with large companies wielding too much control/power.
Imagine if phone makers, for example, had to build their own cellular networks and carrier businesses in order to market their phones. Many phone makers, including Apple, probably wouldn't have bothered to try to get into that business which would stifle competition and innovation there and in other/related ways.
If Chromium ends up being the browser engine of choice for most users, at least the open market decided that. Maybe if Apple put more effort into making WebKit better and more widely available, it could become a bigger player. Maybe if dominant Apple didn't have a "walled garden" with their mobile OS, it would encourage more competition and innovation in browser engines and so many other software products and services.
There are actually a few other browser engines out there besides Chromium and Gecko. Maybe if Apple didn't block them from iOS, they would be able to compete more.
This isn’t anti trust because apple hasn’t broken any laws. This is anti-big tech. Apple is just one of literal dozens of phone manufacturers.
Should be extremely easy to do. They do it with food, they just need to raise the safety standards. Funny is that chip and pin was mandated as the minimum security standard 10 something years ago.
Make food safe or else: you get fines or get banned from serving food.
well in this case it’s a distinction without meaning. Monopolies are legal. Dominating the market is legal. Abuse is never legal tho. And you can only abuse if you have a dominant position.
Well that something else would need to be a big new thing to ever be covered.
Millions of user a month, billions of revenue and thousands of businesses users in multiple member states
Considering Microsoft have extremely big market place and dominate their market and suffer a little to no impact from the legislation doesn’t fade me. Especially when I have read what the requirements are
Meta Is in a 'Very Deep, Philosophical Competition' With Apple Over the Metaverse, Says Mark Zuckerberg
Meta is in a "very deep, philosophical competition" with Apple over the future of technology and the metaverse, the social network's CEO...
www.macrumors.com
I agree with Mark on this point
"One of the things I think is interesting is that it's not really clear upfront whether an open or closed ecosystem is going to be better. If you look back to PCs, Windows was clearly the one that had a lot more scale and became the default and norm that people used. And Mac did fine, but I think PC and Windows were, I think, the premier ecosystem in that environment.
On mobile, I would say it's more the other way. There's more Android devices than there are iOS devices, but I think in developed countries and places like the US or Western Europe in kind of the high end, [and] a lot of the culture-setters and developers, I do think that skews quite a bit more towards iPhone and iOS. So I'd say on mobile, Apple has really carved out quite a good position for themselves, and that's why they're the most valuable company in the world, or maybe one of the couple most valuable companies in the world."
"This is a competition of "ideas," Zuckerberg went on to claim in the June 30 meeting. Apple believes in "doing everything themselves and tightly integrating that to build a better consumer experience," he said. On the other hand, Meta sees the need for a "larger ecosystem to exist."
Zuckerberg admits, however, that it's unclear whether a "closed ecosystem," which he claims Apple to have, or an open ecosystem from Meta, would be better suited for the metaverse."
This is a philosophical question about which is better. And in the world we live in, we should have the ability to choose between these two approaches. If you prefer the open system, you have plenty of options in handset makers and while few of them take the next step of altering the OS to more suit their idea of a better version of Android. You have choice. While if you prefer a closed system that is tightly integrated and has a completely opposite view of privacy and security. Then you have that option as well.
You're right, Apple would not have made a smart phone if there was no cellular network to connect to. Just like many carrier service providers like AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/Orange, etc are not producing cellphones. They don't have the expertise or ability to do so. Unless we are getting more specific with some hardware manufactures like Nokia or Motorola, and the likes that also made hardware for cellular networks and made cellphones. But not also being a network carrier.
That isn't to say we didn't have carrier specific and branded phones back in the day.
THANK YOU!!!!!
They do this. Google is winning and won.
Back to the first point made up top.
"Apple believes in "doing everything themselves and tightly integrating that to build a better consumer experience," he said. On the other hand, Meta sees the need for a "larger ecosystem to exist."
Zuckerberg admits, however, that it's unclear whether a "closed ecosystem," which he claims Apple to have, or an open ecosystem from Meta, would be better suited for the metaverse."
But you know what will produce more competition and innovation? Having both as options and letting the market decide.
Maybe. And maybe we would see less innovation in Safari as its use drops.
Get investors.
Yes.
Those overly fervent supporters kept Apple alive during the dark-ages. Other companies would be so fortunate to have such a passionate fan base.
Why would porting applications be so insurmountable? Would it not be nice to have games available on all platforms? Rather than trying work with game emulators, or API converters. Not to mention applications. Then as a customer, I can operate on the OS and hardware of my choosing. I'm not locked into the evil of just Apple and Google.
Just hire more people. It's not like we have a shortage of people that want to work from home these days.
This legislation is about antitrust and, once again, a company doesn't have to be the ONLY player in town. It has more to do with the level of dominance a company may have in a particular market, typically as a monopoly or part of a duopoly or oligopoly. Apple clearly has a dominant position in mobile OS as part of a duopoly with Google (Android).
If you want to further discuss Apple's dominance, it would be quite reasonable to conclude that Apple is also part of an oligopoly or even a duopoly in mobile phone device markets depending on the country/region in question.
Apple is simply going to have change their business practices or pull out of the EU if they want to avoid legal consequences.
There are more Android devices (brands) than iOS devices but the relevancy here is the OS market as the restriction issues have to do with the OS itself. However, even in mobile devices (hardware), Apple could be said to have a dominant position (part of a duopoly or oligopoly) in various countries/regions.
Apple's dominance tied with their anticompetitive behavior stifles competition and innovation.
Even if there was less Safari innovation, that doesn't mean there couldn't be more innovation in many other browsers thanks to a less restricted OS market.
This is about encouraging competition and innovation in multiple areas tied to OS use/access, not just what may or may not happen with one browser, one app store, etc. etc. etc.
That is why this legislation is about anti-big tech. The legislation is about giving those with no skin in the game the ability to earn $$$ from Apples r&d.
It is also reasonable to assume apple is one of more than a handful of cell phone manufacturers. https://www.phonearena.com/phones/manufacturers
Yes. If the losses (both real, brand image and brand value) from these regulations net the revenue, Apple could pull out. And the EU can regulate Android to death.
And that’s why telling developers to make their own OS makes zero sense.
And EU banned carrier specific phones and made it mandatory phones was sold unlocked, making carriers more competitive as they no longer could lock in customers with a phone. But also had to provide a service worth staying for.
Apple aren’t doing it at all. They have purposefully crippled WebKit. The only devices that can run WebKit is MacOS and iOS. Safari for Windows was killed and android didn’t ever get it
Well it’s already clear. A a closed market will always produce less innovation by the nature it limits categories that can be explored.
If we talk about the application market and not OS and device market as they are completely separate
Oh it's just that simple, huh? Why don't more people think of that? Better yet, why don't they just borrow $1 million from their dad? 🙄🙄
The EU disagrees, which is what actually matters.
OK.
Nobody said it was insurmountable for everyone, though for many it would be. Of those who are capable, instead of working on their next great app, they're busy porting their existing apps to a dozen different platforms. The net result is a lack of innovation for the sake of redundancy which would be mandated to save Apple from having to offer third-party installation. The pay off isn't at all worth the cost.
How do you get the funds to hire more people when the cost of those new workers isn't producing any meaningful additional income for the developer? Not to mention it's not like you can just hire random people to write software for you, it requires education and/or experience.
Android won’t be regulated to death. It will not even be touched. It’s just googles policy that will be changed.
Such as preventing phone manufacturers from offering some google services and their own competitive options. Etc
Apple being one of a handful of phone manufacturers have zero relevance to EU.
There can be a billion phone manufacturers but if everyone but one uses android then it’s just two sides of interest.
Last edited:
Trump did just that. Look at him now? 🤣
But seriously. Why does Apple have to do it? Why can't developers and said companies go out and earn it? Get people to buy into your idea and invest in it? Or yes, go take out a loan and start up something? Isn't Europe the land of opportunity? Oh wait. Sorry, you're right.
It doesn't matter to me yet.
If it was easy, everyone would do it. RFK "Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
More apps on more platforms means more choices for people to pick which platform they want. Verses having just 2 platforms.
Maybe one or two of those developers really likes developing on a new platform. Maybe they figure out a new way to do something or a better way to improve their app? Idk. In the mean time, macOS would get more apps, more games! So would Linux(s). Maybe Microsoft loses is stranglehold on the desktop because the same apps are available on many different other OS's?
We wouldn't be saving Apple from anything. They can choose to remain or leave. Same as the UK did. Which arguably was harder to do than just one company to stop sales of 1 or 2 products within the EU.
And why should it be Apple's responsibility to make a change? If developers are so important, why not let them develop on more than one platform? How about this. Tax Apple and Google more. Use those tax revenues to fund a small business program for developers (those that don't make tons of money already to be fair). So they can hire more staff and get the equipment they need. With the sole purpose of developing apps/games/wares for multiple platforms. Done.
Sounds like a chicken & egg problem. It would be nice if Apple was thought of like this when they came out with the iPhone.
Europeans are well educated. Just look the EU is full of techies. They are writing these laws after all..