Google Now Lets Apps Use Third-Party Billing in EU, Apple Yet to Announce Plans

[webkit]

It wouldn’t. It would encourage more competition and innovation in more areas than this legislation does.

No, the opposite would happen as it would force companies to have to create new OS and hardware in addition to whatever new or innovative product or service they were developing. Competition and innovation would be very much negatively impacted.

Imagine, for example, if every phone maker or phone carrier had to create their own cellular network in order to market their products. Many phone makers, including Apple, probably wouldn't have even bothered to try to develop a mobile phone. The MVNO market wouldn't even exist.

 

[webkit]

Snooze you lose. Because a company is not smart enough to disrupt, government should not step in to regulate a market such that mediocre players are handed a niche to try and make a buck.

If not for antitrust regulations, we wouldn't have near the technological and market advancements we have today because early companies would've established a stranglehold on their respective markets thereby discouraging if not completely stopping outside competition and innovation. They would use their market dominance to stifle competition and innovation.

Imagine, for example, if every phone maker or phone carrier had to create their own cellular network in order to market their products. Many phone makers, including Apple, probably wouldn’t have even bothered to try to develop a mobile phone. The MVNO market wouldn't even exist.

 

[webkit]

Every software developer and tech company creating their own OS and device IS THE DEFINITION OF MORE COMPETITION!!

Obviously, I am looking at the bigger picture. Imagine if everyone who had a new or innovative product or service idea for the mobile market had to create their own cellular network, their own OS, and their own device. Talk about barriers to entry that stifle competition and innovation! To a degree, that's what Apple does by restricting access to iOS.

I’m just saying if you want competition, then you have to support the idea of fostering real competition.

Yes, and blocking companies from a major/dominant OS platform is NOT a good way to foster competition and innovation in the tech world.

 

[mrochester]

No, the opposite would happen as it would force companies to have to create new OS and hardware in addition to whatever new or innovative product or service they were developing. Competition and innovation would be very much negatively impacted.

Imagine, for example, if every phone maker or phone carrier had to create their own cellular network in order to market their products. Many phone makers, including Apple, probably wouldn't have even bothered to try to develop a mobile phone. The MVNO market wouldn't even exist.

Creating your own OS and hardware is innovation and competition.

 

[webkit]

Creating your own OS and hardware is innovation and competition.

Yes, but having to do so would stifle competition and innovation in so many other ways. So much more so that the net result would be a lot more negative than positive in fostering competition and innovation overall.

 

[I7guy]

Obviously, I am looking at the bigger picture. Imagine if everyone who had a new or innovative product or service idea for the mobile market had to create their own cellular network, their own OS, and their own device. Talk about barriers to entry that stifle competition and innovation!

The sad truth is the government is not responsible for ones funding. If one believes and are entitled to design and build an new innovative motor transport vehicle with $10 (r&d, design, factories, distribution and support), they would be out of their mind.

Similarly in the mobile phone world. It takes $$$ to get into the business and that should have no factor in any barrier to entry.

To a degree, that's what Apple does by restricting access to iOS.
[...]

No it does not. It in fact lowers the barrier by requesting a paltry $99 and some fee on IAP. That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

 

[mrochester]

Yes, but having to do so would stifle competition and innovation in so many other ways. So much more so that the net result would be a lot more negative than positive in fostering competition and innovation overall.

Not really. If there were more operating systems available to consumers there would be more innovation both at the platform level and within the platform.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If there were more operating systems available... it would be more work for developers to support all of them.

I seem to recall a big problem with Windows Phone was the lack of apps. Developers couldn't be bothered to make apps for a third platform after Android and iOS.

Also... it seems like a lot of these new regulations favor the developer... not the consumer.

Look at who has been making noise... Epic, Spotify, Match, Basecamp, etc.

They created the "Coalition for App Fairness"

It could have been called "Coalition of Pissed Off Developers"

 

[mrochester]

If there were more operating systems available... it would be more work for developers to support all of them.

I seem to recall a big problem with Windows Phone was the lack of apps. Developers couldn't be bothered to make apps for a third platform after Android and iOS.

Also... it seems like a lot of these new regulations favor the developer... not the consumer.

Look at who has been making noise... Epic, Spotify, Match, Basecamp, etc.

They created the "Coalition for App Fairness"

It could have been called "Coalition of Pissed Off Developers"

Surely they must appreciate the irony of not making apps for Windows Phone AND then complaining about Apple and google having a duopoly?!

 

[webkit]

No it does not. It in fact lowers the barrier by requesting a paltry $99 and some fee on IAP. That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Having to create one’s own OS and device in order to market a product UNLESS they follow the rules of a dominant player is increasing the barrier to entry. If a dominant OS is allowed to restrict access of a product or service, it increases the barrier to entry.

Explain to me how, for example, Apple lowers the barrier to entry for a company wanting to develop a new, innovative mobile browser engine?

 

[webkit]

Not really. If there were more operating systems available to consumers there would be more innovation both at the platform level and within the platform.

If individual operating systems, devices and/or other things were required to market products and services, the added costs and risk would discourage companies from entering markets and would stifle competition and innovation. I doubt Apple, for example, would've gone into the phone business if they had to build their own cellular network in order for the phones to work. There are many companies that wouldn't have developed their product or service if they also had to create their own OS and/or devices to market it. Again, all of this stifles competition and innovation.

 

[mrochester]

Having to create one’s own OS and device in order to market a product UNLESS they follow the rules of a dominant player is increasing the barrier to entry. If a dominant OS is allowed to restrict access of a product or service, it increases the barrier to entry.

Explain to me how, for example, Apple lowers the barrier to entry for a company wanting to develop a new, innovative mobile browser engine?

Apple doesn’t, but that company can make their new, innovative browser engine for android, the dominant platform, or for Windows, or MacOS, or Linux.

Explain to me how google lowers the barrier to entry for a company wanting to develop a new, innovative mobile operating system?

 

[I7guy]

Having to create one’s own OS and device in order to market a product UNLESS they follow the rules of a dominant player is increasing the barrier to entry. If a dominant OS is allowed to restrict access of a product or service, it increases the barrier to entry.

Explain to me how, for example, Apple lowers the barrier to entry for a company wanting to develop a new, innovative mobile browser engine?

If you want to compete, compete. Do it one your own dime. The government is not (should not) be there to make it easy for companies to compete in markets where other players have already done the hard work. Want to build a car factory? Don’t regulate Honda so that it becomes easier for the competition.

If someone has a new browser engine, let them develop it and do t regulate apple to help.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If you want to compete, compete. Do it one your own dime. The government is not (should not) be there to make it easy for companies to compete in markets where other players have already done the hard work. Want to build a car factory? Don’t regulate Honda so that it becomes easier for the competition.

That’s how google invented chrome. It used WebKit.

Apple made MacOS on the back of xerox GUI, Microsoft then “stole” it from apple and made windows and would not exist without it.

Do you have an internet browser which has tabs on it? That's thanks to firefox. OpenOffice? Linux? Redhat? Most of these things businesses use to help power their servers AND their internal workings.

Without freeware, you would have to pay for everything. The world of the internet would be held back considerably as there would be nowhere near as much innovation

If someone has a new browser engine, let them develop it and do t regulate apple to help.

And how are they supposed to implement it? If iOS/Mac only allowed webkit, and Windows only allowed Internet Explorer.

Then how would a new browser ever be used when 99% of the market in this instance would ban its use?

Chrome wouldn’t exist and so wouldn’t Firefox. And we would likely have ended up with Internet explorer on iOS and Mac forever and not just for a small time when internet explorer was the default browser on Mac.

 

[I7guy]

That’s how google invented chrome. It used WebKit.

Apple made MacOS on the back of xerox GUI, Microsoft then “stole” it from apple and made windows and would not exist without it.

Do you have an internet browser which has tabs on it? That's thanks to firefox. OpenOffice? Linux? Redhat? Most of these things businesses use to help power their servers AND their internal workings.

Without freeware, you would have to pay for everything. The world of the internet would be held back considerably as there would be nowhere near as much innovation

And how are they supposed to implement it? If iOS/Mac only allowed webkit, and Windows only allowed Internet Explorer.

Then how would a new browser ever be used when 99% of the market in this instance would ban its use?

Chrome wouldn’t exist and so wouldn’t Firefox. And we would likely have ended up with Internet explorer on iOS and Mac forever and not just for a small time when internet explorer was the default browser on Mac.

Exactly. Compete on your own dime. Software and hardware tend to be collaborative efforts over time. However regulating incumbents that have already done the hard work to allow newbies to enter without a cost and successfully, is wrong on every level.

 

[webkit]

Apple doesn’t, but that company can make their new, innovative browser engine for android, the dominant platform, or for Windows, or MacOS, or Linux.

Yes, they can because Android does not engage in some of the anticompetitive activities that Apple does. If antitrust laws and regulations didn't exist, dominant companies would regularly conduct business in anticompetitive ways that stifle competition and innovation in order to maintain their dominance/power. Apple, as a dominant company in mobile OS, is stifling competition and innovation by their restrictions which a reason behind antitrust laws and regulations like the EU legislation.

Explain to me how google lowers the barrier to entry for a company wanting to develop a new, innovative mobile operating system?

Google isn’t doing anything that blocks companies from making their own OS skins/ROMs for Android, or making their own OS but as I have been saying, this is about so many more things than just OS. Google is lowering the barrier to entry for things like browser engines and other software, app stores, payment systems, etc. because they don't force companies to have to make their own OS or devices to market those things. Apple is stifling competition and innovation in those wide ranging areas by overly restricting access to their dominant mobile OS. Again, a reason behind antitrust laws and regulations like the EU legislation.

 

[webkit]

If you want to compete, compete. Do it one your own dime. The government is not (should not) be there to make it easy for companies to compete in markets where other players have already done the hard work. Want to build a car factory? Don’t regulate Honda so that it becomes easier for the competition.

If someone has a new browser engine, let them develop it and do t regulate apple to help.

Companies are looking to compete on their own dime but want to do so in a free and open market, not one dominanted by companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior. This is a reason why we have antitrust laws and regulations. Without these laws, Apple, Google and others probably would never have been in the position to achieve many of the things they've been able to achieve.

 

[I7guy]

Companies are looking to compete on their own dime but want to do so in a free and open market, not one dominanted by companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior. This is a reason why we have antitrust laws and regulations. Without these laws, Apple, Google and others probably would never have been in the position to achieve many of the things they've been able to achieve.

Sure and it’s a good thing big tech companies have not engaged in anticompetitive behavior. People throw around the word antitrust as if they are sitting on the board of the SEC.

 

[avz]

If you want to compete, compete. Do it one your own dime. The government is not (should not) be there to make it easy for companies to compete in markets where other players have already done the hard work. Want to build a car factory? Don’t regulate Honda so that it becomes easier for the competition.

If someone has a new browser engine, let them develop it and do t regulate apple to help.

You are missing a point that the governments are just trying to survive. It is pure politics and have very little to do with the technology itself.
I understand that some are living in illusion that they don't need any government or any other "centralization" until they do. Even very rich people are only rich because they rely on a system or a model that legitimize their right to own their assets. With the destruction of that system or a model they got absolutely nothing.

 

[webkit]

Sure and it’s a good thing big tech companies have not engaged in anticompetitive behavior. People throw around the word antitrust as if they are sitting on the board of the SEC.

It would be a good thing if that were true but the reality is that big tech companies HAVE engaged in anticompetitive behavior which is why there have been various lawsuits, settlements, agreements to comply, paid fines, etc. both in the U.S. and overseas.

 

[I7guy]

It would be a good thing if that were true but the reality is that big tech companies HAVE engaged in anticompetitive behavior which is why there have been various lawsuits, settlements, agreements to comply, paid fines, etc. both in the U.S. and overseas.

It’s not black and white as you make it out. There have been instances of big tech being caught in a net and settling. It’s the nature of the beast. However by and large there have been no massive cases against big tech that caused any amount of “heartburn”.

 

[webkit]

It’s not black and white as you make it out. There have been instances of big tech being caught in a net and settling. It’s the nature of the beast. However by and large there have been no massive cases against big tech that caused any amount of “heartburn”.

While there can always be potential grey areas when it comes to laws and regulations (hence the EU’s attempt to try to better define their legislation), for you to have said "big tech companies have not engaged in anticompetive behavior" is simply untrue.

The good thing about antitrust laws and regulations is that they not only can "punish" companies for violations but can also be a deterrent to try to keep companies more in-line. Without them, we wouldn't have the degree of competition and innovation seen over the years.

 

[I7guy]

While there can always be potential grey areas when it comes to laws and regulations (hence the EU’s attempt to try to better define their legislation), for you to have said "big tech companies have not engaged in anticompetive behavior" is simply untrue.

Sure. It’s like saying WebKit never committed a crime. I’m sure you did, even if it’s as benign as accidental littering.

The good thing about antitrust laws and regulations is that they not only can "punish" companies for violations but can also be a deterrent to try to keep companies more in-line. Without them, we wouldn't have the degree of competition and innovation seen over the years.

Sure. But these regulations go beyond all of that. Anti-trust is good when applied appropriately. These are overrwachi g innovation killing regulations.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

A market of one isn’t a market. Apple have a market of many. If apple removed every 3d party developer then they wouldn’t be in a problem and would be exactly like McDonald’s.

'Market' has a particular meaning within competition law. In competition law, the relevant market seeks to identify the smallest product group (and geographical area) such that a hypothetical monopolist controlling that product group (in that area) could profitably sustain 'supra competitive' prices.

A market of one could profitably sustain ‘supra competitive’ prices. So a market of one IS a market. A market is anything the person defining it wants it to be. A market of one is absurd (as Apple is a market of 1 over Apple’s App Store) which is why I wouldn’t use a market of one to suggest improper control over a market.

A company’s trademark is just a description. EUs definition of market does it without apple. And have stayed almost the same since 1999

The EU has specifically said that they have a problem with Apple’s monopoly of the iOS store. I WISH they’d did it without Apple, but they couldn’t.

As have been told a million times.

Illegal monopolies don’t exist. A Monopoly is 100% legal to have and operate. In USA it migh be illegal, but here it’s completely fine

One man’s illegal monopoly is another man’s ‘Gatekeeper’. LOL The number of contrary ideas the EU must maintain simultaneously must be staggering to the EU regulators.

“Monopolies are 100% legal, but we can’t allow monop—- ah what we meant to say is we can’t allow GATEKEEPERS, yes, see, that’s a new thing and in no way effectively saying that we don’t like monopolies, we just don’t like gatekeepers! Because of their mon— I mean, because of their gatekeeping!!”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Obviously, I am looking at the bigger picture. Imagine if everyone who had a new or innovative product or service idea for the mobile market had to create their own cellular network, their own OS, and their own device. Talk about barriers to entry that stifle competition and innovation! To a degree, that's what Apple does by restricting access to iOS.

And yet… we have Apple. No matter what anyone says they believe about COMPANIES SHOULDN’T BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THEIR OWN THINGS, the fact is that, approximately 15 years ago, one company looked at the market, decided, “We’ll have to build our own thing” and tried. And that’s how we got the iPhone of today. Not by forcing Verizon, or Blackberry, or Motorola or Samsung or any other company to alter their core business practices to ease the barriers of entry to Apple, but by Apple building what they felt was innovative for the market they wanted to enter. And, for the parts they couldn’t build, they formed strategic agreements. That’s how innovation comes about.

Alan Kay said “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware”. We don’t need to lower the barriers of entry, we need innovating entrepreneurs serious enough about their software to invest in their own hardware. If they’re NOT really serious about software, I don’t want to lower the barrier so their lacking solutions come to market. We’ve got enough of those already!