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

[gnipgnop]

...but there's more than two digital applications download stores in the desktop market.

And neither Microsoft nor Apple are mandating that every piece of software be approved by them nor do they enforce commissions by mandating all software sales going through their own store.

Neither do they restrict cloud gaming apps and content - nor do their prohibit development, distribution and usage of alternative web browser engines in the desktop/laptop market.

A. There are more than two stores on mobile. Android does have more than the Play store...it's just that Google has put up more and more barriers for those alternate stores in the system that they call "open". Regardless, prices for apps on desktop/laptop have always been significantly more expensive than on mobile despite the larger number of 3rd party stores. One of the hallmarks of the mobile era was how incredibly cheap the apps were versus what people were accustomed to on non-mobile operating systems.

B. Google/Apple don't really mandate that all software sales go through them. Large general consumer oriented apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle moved all of their sales to the internet. And games like Fortnite did, in fact, sell virtual currency online that could be used in their iOS games and that VC was also sold in the form of gift cards in standard retail stores.

C. Both Android/iOS devices give users access to the internet. Neither Google or Apple attempt to control or prohibit anything on the internet. iOS users have access to multiple cloud gaming services via the internet...Gamepass, GEForce Now, Luna etc. As for browsers, I've asked people making the same browser engine point as you to explain the benefit of using an alternate engine versus Webkit and there isn't much response.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A. As a matter of fact, they're only two or three mobile app stores per country that everyone uses - and that practically (though not literally) force mobile app developers to be present on them.

B. Apple certainly does on iOS and iPadOS. With some, few exceptions.

C. Internet browsers often don't allow for the same experience as native apps.

As for browsers, I've asked people making the same browser engine point as you to explain the benefit of using an alternate engine versus Webkit and there isn't much response.

For one thing, one of Europe's largest railway operator's online account/login system doesn't reliably work on Safari/WebKit, preventing users from accessing and making purchases (which is, though, squarely the fault of their incompetent developers, not the browser engines).

I don't get hung up on browser engines. I wouldn't have a huge issue if everybody and everything used the same browser engine - as long as it's standardised/adhering to standards, freely available for everyone and not spying on people.

Still, the prohibition of alternative browser is anticompetitive.

 

[I7guy]

[…]
In some cases, it’s because Apple and Android are sufficiently similar as to be not actually competing, in others it’s just because a duopoly isn’t enough to be really competitive, and sometimes it’s because of the effective lock-in that investing in either of the 2.5 major ecosystems has. […]

Windows and Unix are similar also. Once in the windows ecosystem, you are locked in.

It’s the government’s job to regulate the free market in whatever way the voters want. It’s all too often the government’s practice to regulate it to favour the interests of donors or companies that think they can threaten their host’s economy. […]

The voters , imo, don’t want this. The government is afraid of big tech because they got that way by taking risks, earn massive profits, are innovative and shrewd. Everything that government isn’t.

It happens rarely enough, and should be encouraged when it does.[…]

It’s not rare, it’s prevalent and government doesn’t need more encouragement in this department.

 

[gnipgnop]

A. As a matter of fact, they're only two or three mobile app stores per country that everyone uses - and that practically (though not literally) force mobile app developers to be present on them.

B. Apple certainly does on iOS and iPadOS. With some, few exceptions.

C. Internet browsers often don't allow for the same experience as native apps.

A. What if the EU focused on regulating the "open" system (Android) so that it was actually "open"? If that type of system is really the most beneficial to consumers, then Apple would be the loser by keeping the "closed" system...right? Isn't that what the EU is claiming? That the "open" system is what is better for consumers?

B. Apple doesn't require sales through the App Store. Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle are all examples of sales going through the internet and are not minor players. Those are large revenue generators.

C. The whole point of cloud gaming is that you don't need the native app. IMO, if the experience suffers using the internet then the technology isn't really ready for prime time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

if that type of system is really the most beneficial to consumers, then Apple would be the loser by keeping the "closed" system...right?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do believe that the "closed" nature of Apple's system has considerable benefits for customers.
I don't think the one-store-for-everything is bad for customers, quite the contrary (even if it's not perfect in keeping scam apps out).

But... Apple should not be given unchecked power to act as a gatekeeper. That isn't good for customers.

Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle are all examples

...of very particular, carefully crafted exceptions from the rule. The so-called "reader" apps that Apple had to make concessions for. Cause Netflix and Amazon Kindle have (had) so much power in their respective markets for content, that their absence would have hurt Apple in public perception and device sales.

The whole point of cloud gaming is that you don't need the native app

Don't think so - when native apps can offer superior controls.

The point is that you don't need (or have!) the massive amount of computing and especially GPU rendering power on mobile devices.

 

[gnipgnop]

The voters , imo, don’t want this. The government is afraid of big tech because they got that way by taking risks, earn massive profits, are innovative and shrewd. Everything that government isn’t.

This is an exaggeration. There are plenty of examples of significant tech advances that came from government labs and agencies.

 

[gnipgnop]

...of very particular, carefully crafted exceptions from the rule. The so-called "reader" apps that Apple had to make concessions for. Cause Netflix and Amazon Kindle have (had) so much power in their respective markets for content, that their absence would have hurt Apple in public perception and device sales.

Fortnite isn't a reader app. iOS customers could use VC purchased online or through gift cards in retail stores.

 

[hagar]

You may have noticed (and I already mentioned examples above) how phones are used for much more every-day transaction and life than gaming consoles.

So you’re implying that devices that are multipurpose should be opened up? What kind of criterium is that. So if Nintendo adds a chat or news app, they cannot control what runs on their device anymore. That makes zero sense and you know it.

 

[I7guy]

This is an exaggeration. There are plenty of examples of significant tech advances that came from government labs and agencies.

True, there are some examples the government funded companies (free money) have technological advances. But by and large the government is only interested in keeping itself in business.

 

[ian87w]

But Google has been investigated, sued, and/or significantly fined for those sorts of things as part of antitrust violation suits.

And what were the result? Nothing changes.
Microsoft was forced to put options on first time Windows setup, and the ability for users to uninstall IE. None of those things happened on Android. There’s a reason Chrome becomes the huge majority in browser market share.

 

[211]

I meant it is only part of U.K. law as we were in the EU, it was a law required by the EU, as a member state of the EU we needed to have the law, it is now not needed as we are not in the EU. Perhaps I should have said we lost any EU legal responsibility to have the pop ups?

The UK reviewed the EU rule and still decided to keep it and made it law

 

[jlc1978]

The UK reviewed the EU rule and still decided to keep it and made it law

I would say yes an no; the EU GDPR applies for UK firms monitoring EU individuals, but not for law enforcement and intelligence purposes

 

[webkit]

And what were the result? Nothing changes.
Microsoft was forced to put options on first time Windows setup, and the ability for users to uninstall IE. None of those things happened on Android. There’s a reason Chrome becomes the huge majority in browser market share.

There have been some changes, some significant fines, and some things are still under appeal. It's not like the Microsoft situation was investigated and decided overnight. These sorts of things can take time.

Also, just because something becomes popular or "the huge majority" doesn't necessarily mean it was through illegal or anticompetitive ways. Windows is still the dominant desktop OS and Edge comes pre-installed on every or nearly every new Windows machine/upgrade yet Chrome is the dominant desktop browser.

I just don't see Google as having a "free pass" and there are more antitrust things coming.

 

[PlayUltimate]

That’s a problem of insufficient regulation, where they didn’t cap student fees or cap maximum repayments (which effectively caps fees based on anticipated repayments), or limit the guarantees to those degrees where the earnings were adequate, or capped the numbers in each degree based on employment demand (which at that time was still common in other countries), or require student fees to be spent solely on teaching with separate totally optional fees for sports teams, gyms, etc..

So you just generally believe in more regulation. Regardless, the unintended consequences are a) capping maximum repayments means a smaller loan. Thus less wealthy students won't be able to go to college since a GSL will not be issued to cover the full cost (That was one of the other reasons for GSLs; the basic student loan program, based on repayment ability, was still not enough for students to attend a 4-year university full-time) , b) the Federal Government will now determine which degrees are "worth it" (bye bye humanities), c) re: student fees - that is generally small compared to the overall university cost.
Sadly, I'm not sure how to get around this. Most "public" universities are poorly funded by the public and are as expensive as many private universities. I attended UCLA. It was expensive when I attended; it is much more expensive now.

 

[MauiPa]

Free browser, free access to web it. So how is this anything but BS?

“We note that Apple benefits financially from weakening competition in browsers via the browser engine ban.”

Apple somehow makes money on free?

 

[djphat2000]

We're not living in 2007 anymore, where phones were bought mostly on design, feel and tech specs.
We're living today, where phones are primarily bought by availability of apps.

Cameras would like a word in on that. They may disagree somewhat. Processors too would have a word too. I mean, what can Apps "do" without something to process it and provide proper acceleration to said apps?
In truth, tech specs still matter. Those apps are useless without them. Fast WI-FI, 5G cellular, Camera's, CPU, charging (fast, super fast, ULTRA FAST!), displays (LED, miniLED, OLED) refresh rates!!, USB-C (FU EU ), and on and on.

Can I get Google Maps, Instagram, TikTok, my bank's banking app, and the local public transit app. Any platform that doesn't deliver on that today is immediately out of the question for 90% or more of buyers in developed markets.

Most if not all of this is just as easily done on a webpage. Is it better as an App? Sure, but lets be real here. All of what you just described works fine on a webpage. Even gaming...

That leaves two operating systems (you know which ones) and 2, at most 3 mobile app stores per country (you know which ones).

If you can make it work as a webpage, you don't need anyones store other than your own.

You may have noticed (and I already mentioned examples above) how phones are used for much more every-day transaction and life than gaming consoles.

Yes, it is a phone at the end of the day. Which I still find to be its most important feature. The fact that we have advanced so much that we can have such a powerful device in our pockets is pretty amazing. But, it didn't happen over night. It wasn't handed to anyone, it had to be developed researched, and tested over and over till it was just right. Lots of money and peoples time spent to get it to what we have today. And just imagine what will come tomorrow? Well, if the EU and these stupid governments have their way. We may not be imagining what comes tomorrow.

Chicken and egg.
Anyone who doesn't offer the most popular apps today is immediately out of the race.

So what? So what? People/Companies can LOSE. It's not unheard of. It's OK, try again.
Does every country make the World Cup? NO. Do we all get to be rich and wealthy? NO. There are winners and losers. Sometimes its not fair. But, that doesn't mean you can't try again. The state of tech today is what it is because of chances taken some years ago. Someone else can still take a chance on a different approach. Make your own OS. Seems to be plenty of developers out there complaining about not making money on their apps. Well, make a Mobile OS. Contract with a handset maker, and build something new. Most apps can work or do work on websites already. Start there, and build up. The other players did. Stop expecting it to be handed to you and go make it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Cameras would like a word in on that. (...) Processors too would have a word too. (...)
In truth, tech specs still matter.

Yes, specs matter. As does design.
But availability of popular apps is a sine qua non.
Your phone's specs can be as good as you like - without apps very few people will buy it (maybe a few camera enthusiasts, yes).

Most if not all of this is just as easily done on a webpage. Is it better as an App? Sure, but lets be real here. All of what you just described works fine on a webpage. Even gaming...
If you can make it work as a webpage, you don't need anyones store other than your own.

In practice, you can't provide hundreds of MB of gaming, Maps or other in-app content as a website for offline use.
You aren't going to make image editing / manipulation accessible on a web site. Not even a calendar or note-taking app.

I'm not disputing your point for many online services. I really wish more companies would provide better web apps rather than making me download their native apps.

As you said yourself: let's get really and get back to reality, once you try to sell a smartphone / mobile internet device and begin to tell people that they can't get their Facebook Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, local transit app, banking app, COVID certificate app, or just a mediocre app to control some bluetooth smart home devices...

...if you can't offer apps, people'll laugh at you and won't buy your device.

Yes, it is a phone at the end of the day. Which I still find to be its most important feature

Looking at actual usage, it's hard to agree.
For most people, the phone functionality far from the most important one.
These devices have evolved to become mobile internet computing and communication devices.
Especially since you could replace that with tiny very cheap dedicated dumbphones.

The state of tech today is what it is because of chances taken some years ago. Someone else can still take a chance on a different approach. Make your own OS. Seems to be plenty of developers out there complaining about not making money on their apps. Well, make a Mobile OS. Contract with a handset maker, and build something new. Most apps can work or do work on websites already. Start there, and build up. The other players did. Stop expecting it to be handed to you and go make it.

There's as valid reasons for the dominance of Apple and Google as mobile OS, as there are for the continued dominance of Microsoft Windows in desktop computing: The entrenched ecosystem of third-party apps.

The barriers to entry are too high. Maybe not even technically, but economically.

Everybody can make their own desktop operating system and sell it. Even proprietary ones. You don't even have to develop from scratch - you can take an open-sourced licensed kernel and base system and built on top of that. Even with proprietary software (what Apple did).

If even Microsoft had to give in (and they had a very promising system with Windows Phone)

 

[kenaustus]

Let's see. I sorta like the Jags and BMW's. If I get some friends together to build our dream cars in our garage does that mean that they will be required to sell us the drive train, electrical systems, suspension, etc at a price we can afford. And, of course, they would have to pass on warranties. Both the Jags and BMWs currently have monopolistic commands and we just can't have that. Those monopolistic companies will also have to make payments to the CMA to ensure fairness in the industry for the consumers (us). That's one fair.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Let's see. I sorta like the Jags and BMW's.

They're sorta European so that's ok. (I know, Jaguar is owned by Tata)

 

[webkit]

Free browser, free access to web it. So how is this anything but BS?

“We note that Apple benefits financially from weakening competition in browsers via the browser engine ban.”

Apple somehow makes money on free?

I think an argument may be that by limiting browser engines on iOS to just Webkit, it helps reduce the chances that customers will bother to download what are essentially just browser skins for other browsers and therefore increases Safari usage which can be lucrative for Apple. Apple makes a boatload of money from Google by having Google as the default search on Safari.

 

[bn-7bc]

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.
[/QUOTE
Well the poir idiots in parliament (including but not limited to the PM and "lockdown parting" gang), mirgyt have other things to deail with, covid, cost if living crises, stagnant evonomy and not to menyon Vkadimir V putin and hus antics in Ukraine. Unfortunately things like cookie popups hardly register in comoarison, and at best orovides cheap talkinpoints that are swiftly forgitten by the people using them when the next partygate rolls around

 

[emulator]

This is an exaggeration. There are plenty of examples of significant tech advances that came from government labs and agencies.

Right, during the cold war. For political reasons, the governments had more money to burn to win whatever race. I still believe NASA could have been more innovative if they were funder privately instead.

 

[djphat2000]

Yes, specs matter. As does design.
But availability of popular apps is a sine qua non.
Your phone's specs can be as good as you like - without apps very few people will buy it (maybe a few camera enthusiasts, yes).

Again, I mostly disagree. Hardware first, then software. They need each other, but software needs hardware more.

In practice, you can't provide hundreds of MB of gaming, Maps or other in-app content as a website for offline use.

You aren't going to make image editing / manipulation accessible on a web site. Not even a calendar or note-taking app.

GoogleMaps, and Office 365 works well enough in a webpage. Same for Google docs. SharePoint has its limitations for web collaborations, but limits are ment to be broken. More bandwidth available to the masses helps a lot with that. If you can stream a game in a browser today. Even at 720p. Given a few more years. 1080, 4k, and 8K 120fps will be more commonly available.

I'm not disputing your point for many online services. I really wish more companies would provide better web apps rather than making me download their native apps.

Agreed. If they don't need a full client application. They should use the web. Plus, they don't have to pay Google or Apple anything.

As you said yourself: let's get really and get back to reality, once you try to sell a smartphone / mobile internet device and begin to tell people that they can't get their Facebook Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, local transit app, banking app, COVID certificate app, or just a mediocre app to control some bluetooth smart home devices...

...if you can't offer apps, people'll laugh at you and won't buy your device.

If it was easy, everyone would do it. I still don't see anyone (Google or Apple) preventing anyone else from giving it a go. People laughed at Apple a lot for a long time. Failure was always (and still) imminent. And for a while, many said Apple is only an iPhone company. Meanwhile they still make desktop computers (now without intel or AMD) and OS's which are popular but not anywhere near Windows OS or PC's. Apple should have given up long ago. But, they tried. Someone else needs to try too.

Looking at actual usage, it's hard to agree.
For most people, the phone functionality far from the most important one.
These devices have evolved to become mobile internet computing and communication devices.
Especially since you could replace that with tiny very cheap dedicated dumbphones.

But they are still phones. Otherwise, someone could have made a similarly sized device and not included the phone functions. Cellular would just be there for mobile data use.

There's as valid reasons for the dominance of Apple and Google as mobile OS, as there are for the continued dominance of Microsoft Windows in desktop computing: The entrenched ecosystem of third-party apps.

Did not stop Apple from competing with Microsoft (even when they invested in Apple). No one is signing praises for the iWork apps of Pages, Numbers and Keynote. But, they are there. Microsoft gave up on mobile and that was their dumb mistake. They had CE/Windows Mobile/Metro. They just didn't execute very well. BlackBerry was way ahead of both Google and Apple, but they didn't make anything "really" for the consumer market. Not Apple's or Googles fault others tried and failed. That's how it goes.

The barriers to entry are too high. Maybe not even technically, but economically.

So what? There was a time people though a private company couldn't go to space. Now we have 3 companies doing it. JFK "not because they are easy, but because they are hard". Try harder. Take the chance.

Everybody can make their own desktop operating system and sell it. Even proprietary ones. You don't even have to develop from scratch - you can take an open-sourced licensed kernel and base system and built on top of that. Even with proprietary software (what Apple did).

Maybe the EU and these other government bodies can think this way too.

If even Microsoft had to give in (and they had a very promising system with Windows Phone)

Failure is always part of the game. They won the desktop and for a good period of time, the server OS. They beat out Novel and the Unix's of the world. Now Linux is pretty much everywhere. But not so much on the desktop. Apple's macOS is still kicking around and getting better. Apple will most likely never win the desktop OS but they have a good foothold in the mobile space. I doubt Google will be much bigger on the desktop, but Mobile they very well will continue to be the biggest player.

Unless someone else tries to do something better.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Hardware first, then software

If that were the case, Apple wouldn't sell as many devices.
Samsung, Google or some Chinese company would quickly snap up their market share and Apple would be gone from the smartphone market. Why? You said it yourself: if specs matter, someone else will sell a smartphone to rival the iPhone at hundreds of dollars less.

I still don't see anyone (Google or Apple) preventing anyone else from giving it a go.

I have little doubt they'll try to, by leveraging their patent portfolio, if a viable competitor emerged.

But the companies aren't actively preventing others much from giving it a go.
Sure, they're trying to entice and "tie" customers to their ecosystem ...but so does everyone else.

It is - and don't think you'll disagree with me on this - a result current market conditions that discourage other competitors from "giving it a go" and emerge. It costs billions to develop a physical product - and since "everyone" already has a smartphone and is invested in the app and services ecosystems and, more generally, used to its user interfaces and way of working, it's very uncertain whether enough people are going to switch to an emerging competitor's system - while they'll be bleeding billions of dollars.

I think what we're (probably) disagreeing on is this

You'd probably argue along these lines:
"The market has decided (at least for the time being).
On which mobile OS and App Stores are popular with whom and why.
The companies developed their products as they pleased - and customers adopted them as they liked the products - by exercising true choice.
That's what lead to current market conditions and should be respected and not be interfered with by government intervention and regulation."

And I'd say customers choice is severely limited - because there's just two dominant platforms whose policies are often so similar that they seem to be implicitly colluding. And that operators are abusing their gatekeeping role for anticompetitive behaviour.
Again, these companies aren't much at fault for current state of the market, for the dominance they've achieved. It's just that the results are (sometimes) undesirable.

But they are still phones. Otherwise, someone could have made a similarly sized device and not included the phone functions. Cellular would just be there for mobile data use.

Technically yes, they're cellphones. But I don't see or know people that are using them primarily as cellphones. They're using them as messengers, internet browser, etc. Much more than as a cell phone.

There was a time people though a private company couldn't go to space

Going to space is largely funded by the government or government entities - not consumers.

Apple will most likely never win the desktop OS

👉 Why not? What do you think are the reasons? Their OS is pretty good, isn't it?

 

[Radeon85]

I'd rather a duopoly than have many different companies competing creating a huge fragmented market with crap apps. If I want to get into the mobile business then not only do I have to have a mobile that a good majority want I have to have an OS that goes with it, then there is developer support because without them the OS is doomed to fail. It's an ultra hard market to even compete let alone start from scratch.

There is a reason windows mobile, blackberry died and companies dropped out of making hardware, crappy hardware, poorly designed UI's and lack of developer support. Can you imagine if developers were forced to make quality apps for a dozen extremely different OS's along with all the variants of those operating system over the years, what a bloody mess that future would be.

If people aren't happy they move on to something else, there is a duopoly because people are at the moment happy with iOS and Android, both are great operating systems and both have great hardware along with great developer support.

I wish the EU along with the UK would keep its meddling bloody nose out.