UK Looks to Trigger Regulation Process to Target Apple's Cloud Gaming and Browser Engine Restrictions

[211]

They should start anticipating things, or they'd prove more and more that they're not qualified to make these decisions for tech users.

If they can't anticipate things and keep slapping more and more regulations on to everything it's going to ruin things for everyone, and not just in EU.

That is why there are many amendments and updates to regulations, laws and acts as well as things like terms and conditions. It isn't realistic to expect governments, regulators, institutions, companies, etc. to anticipate every possible scenario as well as changes (technology or otherwise) in the future.

 

[Orange Bat]

Perhaps I am pushing the analogy, but wouldn’t this set the stage for a third department store (operating system) to set up?

Yes. BUT the barrier to entry is high. A company would not only have to build a mobile OS from scratch, but would then have to convince large phone manufacturers to allow their OS on the device. Android and iOS have 10 years on any new OS. And Apple and Google are both giant multinational corporations which will do all they can to keep any other OS from replacing their own. There are already alternate phone OSes available for Android phones, but who wants to spend upwards of $1,000 on a device then wipe out the operating system that is built to run on that device? Sure, there will be a few, but most general consumers will stick to Android.

 

[211]

The problem with trying to impose regulatory solutions to market problems is that there is often an undesired unintended consequence. I understand the desire to have regulation improve things and support the intention. The truth is that those that desire the regulation eventually discover the negative impact of that solution. In the US, the financial crisis in the 2000's and the current GSL crisis were, arguably, both a consequence of unanticipated impacts from regulation.

Those issues were because of lack of regulation

 

[leman]

I don’t get this at all.

if I build a department store. Why can’t I run that store how I like? Should I be compelled to let someone else come in and make money in my store? Vendors / Customers who aren’t happy with the way I run my store can sell / shop across the street?

Nobody is compelled to buy an iPhone so why is it considered a monopoly? People who aren’t happy can buy a different device. If nobody likes existing options then the market can be disrupted by a new entrant.

It's a bit more complicated. The problem is not the iPhone being a monopoly (I don't think that one can even reasonably defend that notion), but the fact that Apple is influential enough to directly affect the market. The great thing about free market is that it self-regulates and promotes innovation. But this is only possible if everyone is on the equal playing ground, so that the customer can freely choose. If many customers dislike the available choices a new competitor can spring up and deliver a product that customers want. But it's virtually impossible to enter the smartphone market at this point, you would need a ridiculous amount of financial and technical resources. That is why some degree of regulation is unfortunately inevitable.

Quite ironically though, this particular initiative is likely to achieve the exact opposite of what it claims to achieve. Web of today is almost exclusively controlled by Google. Their Blink engine (fork of Apple's WebKit) powers almost every major browser in the world currently including Chrome, Edge and Opera. Then you have WebKit which mostly manages to hang on because it's the only possible engine on iOS, and then down there you have Firefox with 3% or so. Which essentially means that Google dictates the web standards. Whatever they implement becomes the new must have feature and if Chrome doesn't implement something, no web developer is going to use it.

If one declares iOS should open up to alternative browser engines, the likely effect will be that google Blink will almost exclusively control all the browsers. That's hardly a way to avoid monopoly and promote innovation.

I think if one goes a regulatory route, then one can define a certain battery of tests based on the current web standards and selected by a industry-wide panel of experts that a company shipping a standard browser must pass or face fines. I think this would be a better way than just give everything to an already overpowered giant.

 

[erikkfi]

Like it or not, this regulatory agency really seems to get the way these issues have affected the state of things in iOS.

Apple’s stubborn refusal to open things up on their own terms over the past few years is going to go down as a major business mistake, especially if the regulators overstep.

 

[211]

What exactly has the EU anticipated?

I'm not sure of the point of your question. You're saying other institutions anticipate everything but the EU doesn't? Which ones?

 

[gnipgnop]

Yes. BUT the barrier to entry is high. A company would not only have to build a mobile OS from scratch, but would then have to convince large phone manufacturers to allow their OS on the device. Android and iOS have 10 years on any new OS. And Apple and Google are both giant multinational corporations which will do all they can to keep any other OS from replacing their own. There are already alternate phone OSes available for Android phones, but who wants to spend upwards of $1,000 on a device then wipe out the operating system that is built to run on that device? Sure, there will be a few, but most general consumers will stick to Android.

LOL...the conventional wisdom back in 2007 when the iPhone originally launched was that Apple wouldn't really be competitive with the goliaths of the cell phone market like Nokia, Blackberry, Ericsson etc.

 

[Morgenland]

Perhaps I am pushing the analogy, but wouldn’t this set the stage for a third department store (operating system) to set up?

I guess thst it’s not consumers who are unhappy about this. It’s the vendors. Everyone wants to come and make more money of Apples invention.

Supporting different engines would cost Apple more to keep the phone secure. Guess who pays for that? It won’t be Apple, it will be all of us through more expensive iPhones.

Do you know who is developing the 3rd system? China. And you call that consumer-friendly? Reality check please!

A fragmented browser market hurts customers more than it helps, already today Microsoft is pushing Edge to its customers and maybe wants to make money with it one day. And this is only possible if the function of other browsers is impaired.
I enjoy the html6 standard, it feels like peacetime, there have been bad evils in the past (Adobe Flash etc), or code had to be tweaked forever for the major browsers to work. So, all comparatively good at the moment, I think.

 

[Pezimak]

Considering the way Apple treated Microsoft when it wanted to bring Xcloud gaming to iOS I'm not totally surprised by this. Apple only has themselves to blame on that one.
They will also be looking into Google as well.

 

[darngooddesign]

Also, AAA games are not designed for iPhone sized screens. Yes, you can technically play the game on an iPhone but it's a compromised experience relative to playing it on larger PC or TV screens. Again, that underlines the fact that iPhone access is supplemental to those kinds of games, not a crucial part of the AAA gaming market.

The implication is iPhones and iPads.

 

[webkit]

I don’t get this at all.

if I build a department store. Why can’t I run that store how I like? Should I be compelled to let someone else come in and make money in my store? Vendors / Customers who aren’t happy with the way I run my store can sell / shop across the street?

Nobody is compelled to buy an iPhone so why is it considered a monopoly? People who aren’t happy can buy a different device. If nobody likes existing options then the market can be disrupted by a new entrant.

A company is essentially free to operate as they please as long as they don't have monopoly power (as defined/determined by the region in question) and aren't using that monopoly power in anticompetitive ways (also as defined/determined by the region in question).

In the UK, for example, iOS and Android each have about 50% mobile OS share and practically no other competition. That can be viewed as too much power in the eyes of regulators, at least if one or the other are believed to be using anticompetitive practices.

 

[Pezimak]

Here in the EU we have the worst possibile web experience due to these endless, stupid nag screens. It’s a nightmare.

Now, let’s ruin all the rest, block by block.

EDIT: I just deleted my reply as you said your in the EU and not the U.K. so sorry for my previous reply.

But I'll add, here in the U.K. we lost any legal responsibility for these coockie pop ups when we left the EU, but as usual the government has done nothing about it and we still have them. So we are worst, we don't even require or need the damn things yet still get them endlessly on every website.

 

[gnipgnop]

Considering the way Apple treated Microsoft when it wanted to bring Xcloud gaming to iOS I'm not totally surprised by this. Apple only has themselves to blame on that one.
They will also be looking into Google as well.

Cloud gaming on iOS is purely supplemental for the AAA market. Microsoft isn't really focused on selling Windows/Xbox games to iOS users. Windows/Xbox comes first. That's why MS never ported any of their 1st party franchise titles to iOS in the past.

 

[darngooddesign]

Imagine there being only 2 department stores in New York City. You can go to 1 department store or the other. However, only one department store sells shirts, and only shirts made by themselves. The other department store doesn’t have shirts, but sells their own pants brand. Each department store also requires membership and it a significant cost to join the other department store.

The problem with phones aren’t the devices themselves, but the operating systems. There are only 2 real competitors in the phone OS market and they can wield a significant amount of power over consumers and creators. For example, Apple only allows the WebKit browser engine. Why? This limits innovation and user choice If you go with Apple.

EDIT: I’m not saying I agree or disagree with government intervention. I understand it, but I don’t understand it well enough to offer a confident opinion on the matter.

But in this case both stores sell both shirts and pants. There are some inventory differences, but those are due to G-Store allowing a wider variety of shirts and pants, and A-Store having more shirts and pants, and in some cases nicer shirts and pants, because its customers spend more there. Both department stores in that town, including any future ones, have a membership and require owning a car to drive there so you can bring your shirts and pants home.

 

[gnipgnop]

The implication is iPhones and iPads.

AAA games aren't designed for iPads either. Cloud gaming on mobile is nothing more than a supplement to the platforms that the games are actually designed for.

 

[Wildkraut]

The mills of the law grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

 

[djphat2000]

They should start anticipating things, or they'd prove more and more that they're not qualified to make these decisions for tech users.

They can't, and that's the problem. They are attempting to solve a problem that has yet to actually "BE" a problem.
All of it is an attempt to stop something bad from happening, when nothing bad has yet to happen.

"which finds that Apple and Google have an "effective duopoly" on mobile ecosystems that allows them to "exercise a stranglehold over these markets,"
-Like who talks like this? Have they put a stranglehold over the markets? Are they wielding their power in ways that would require us to stop them? It's all about what they "could" do verses what they have done. And I'm not saying they are angels and saints here. They are guilty of doing some bad stuff too. But, I have not seen them block anyone else from competing. Someone can create a new platform at any time to compete with them.

"including on operating systems, app stores, and web browsers. "Without interventions,"
-What interventions are needed? Someone has to make an operating system. Someone has to make an App Store. Someone has to make a web browser. Someone has to have the ability to do these things affectively. If you do any of them poorly people will not use or buy it. If you do it correctly, people will buy it. If you do it well enough it will outlast other competitors attempts to do the same. You can win or lose this at anytime. There is risk, and there must be reward.

"the press release claims, both companies are likely to maintain, and even strengthen, their grip over the sector, further restricting competition and limiting incentives for innovators."
-So they will squeeze and prevent any competition on their platform? It's their platform.
They will restrict competition and limit incentives for innovators? Did they not innovate to create the platforms they have now? Did others not try to innovate to create alternate platforms? There are winners and losers, we can't all win.

If they can't anticipate things and keep slapping more and more regulations on to everything it's going to ruin things for everyone, and not just in EU.

100%, Amen.

 

[211]

EDIT: I just deleted my reply as you said your in the EU and not the U.K. so sorry for my previous reply.

But I'll add, here in the U.K. we lost any legal responsibility for these coockie pop ups when we left the EU, but as usual the government has done nothing about it and we still have them. So we are worst, we don't even require or need the damn things yet still get them endlessly on every website.

It is actually law because of PECR: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/pdfs/uksi_20032426_en.pdf

 

[djphat2000]

I'm not sure of the point of your question. You're saying other institutions anticipate everything but the EU doesn't? Which ones?

I'm sorry, to be fair, what has any of them anticipated?

 

[211]

I'm sorry, to be fair, what has any of them anticipated?

I can't think of any. The vast majority of the time it is reactive, not proactive. PPI and payday loans is an example in the UK, COVID-19 is an example globally. That's why amendments and updates are made. I think it's better to learn from your mistakes and fix it, rather than deny anything is wrong or acknowledge and not bother to fix

 

[NightFox]

...but I don’t understand it well enough to offer a confident opinion on the matter.

If that was a requirement of these forums, they'd be virtually empty

 

[djphat2000]

That is why there are many amendments and updates to regulations, laws and acts as well as things like terms and conditions. It isn't realistic to expect governments, regulators, institutions, companies, etc. to anticipate every possible scenario as well as changes (technology or otherwise) in the future.

But they seem to be pushing ahead with new regulations knowing full well they don't understand all the unintended consequences.
Don't mistake this as saying they should not regulate at all. But, they should be a bit more invested in getting the correct outcome.

 

[211]

But they seem to be pushing ahead with new regulations knowing full well they don't understand all the unintended consequences.
Don't mistake this as saying they should not regulate at all. But, they should be a bit more invested in getting the correct outcome.

You can make that argument for every amendment made by every government, regulator, company, etc

 

[kiranmk2]

AAA games aren't designed for iPads either. Cloud gaming on mobile is nothing more than a supplement to the platforms that the games are actually designed for.

I think you're wrong with this statement. Microsoft loose money on every Xbox Series X sold - gaming subscriptions are potentially a way to greatly open up the market (and control things). The prospect of saving >£400 by not buying a console and just subscriptions to an App on the TV/Apple TV/iPad etc and get access to a wide library of games sounds pretty good for me. Yes, at present not all games are part of the cloud libraries, but you can bet that as people start to move over to subscriptions, studios will have no choice. As a further sweetener, the studios will no longer loose money to the second hand/reselling market. I see an equivalence to Apple putting the Apple TV app on smart TVs which is costing them Apple TV sales, but gaining them wider Apple TV+ subscriptions.

I see your statement a lot like people in 2010 saying that they would keep on buying CDs because they sound better than streaming services.

 

[djphat2000]

I can't think of any. The vast majority of the time it is reactive, not proactive. PPI and payday loans is an example in the UK, COVID-19 is an example globally. That's why amendments and updates are made. I think it's better to learn from your mistakes and fix it, rather than deny anything is wrong or acknowledge and not bother to fix

I'm not in disagreement with this at all. However, they seem very head strong on solving this technology issue as if they know how to fix it. And that the treat is so imminent that these companies are going to be the end all be all of the mobile space. As if no other company could compete. When they simply have chosen not to (not worth it for them). Don't know how to do it better (my opinion the most likely answer). Or tried and failed miserably.

The root of the problem is not enough competitors. If we had Microsoft and maybe say Palm or BlackBerry still around in this space. We wouldn't be talking about this at all. And not for nothing, Android is open enough to be the solution. Since we have plenty of handset makers. They all can create a device that is unique enough, and they can customize the OS "enough" to have an alternative. But maintaining an OS isn't easy. And supporting devices for "time" isn't easy. Creating an ECO-system isn't easy. None of this is easy. It's all hard to do and failure is well, more probable than any would like it to be.

I don't think regulating what we do have, which for the most part succeeded the right way. Will do anything to help break this duopoly. They will find another way around any rule they come up with. OR, worse. They will leave the market in that space. What if Apple said, " You know what. We will just put a slightly lower end version of macOS on the iPad device. And we will just license out iOS. We will get out of the iPhone business, and charge say $399 for iOS." They make money, and maybe even more than today. Don't care one bit about the AppStore. Let someone(S) else deal with that. Don't care about your security, let someone(S) else deal with that. Here is an OS that works on ARM chips we sell and Qualcomm. And these devices for touchID and faceID. Oh yeah, and basically resell their ARM A series chips to the world. Maybe keep the M series to themselves for awhile longer.