UK Probe Into Apple's Mobile Browser Restrictions Shut Down After Apple Argues Regulators Waited Too Long to Open Investigation

[jlc1978]

And webkit has 100% marketshare on iPhone & iPad. Your point?

There are viable options beyond Apple products, Apple is not the majority of the overall market.

Render the web our way, no choice. People say webkit is open source. So what? You can't make any modifications to it and run it on iPhone or iPad.

However, you can on other devices. People have a choice, just not on Apple products.

The "browsers" that are available are like skins, the features are just cosmetic. Like if all the cars that could drive on american highways were all forced to use one engine, from one manufacturer.

More like if you want to drive on our private highway created wih our money here are the rules.

 

[Asbow]

Apple wants to have its cake and eat it ‘My platform, my rules’. iOS is a mature OS with a mature ecosystem and that’s exactly why this needs to change.

Yes you have bought a shiny new iPhone, but you can only do with it what we allow you to do. It’s ironic that a company that used to pride itself with ‘Think different’ and ‘I’m a Mac’ is now becoming/is end user hostile.

 

[cocky jeremy]

I guess you missed the part about the duopoly. The choice between ”do business our way” and ”don’t do business” is not an actual choice. Want to do business? You are forced to follow those rules. It’s not healthy for any kind of market.

Then find another market. Make Windows apps. Make Mac apps.

 

[HiVolt]

There are viable options beyond Apple products, Apple is not the majority of the overall market.

It's not that easy of a switch as you may think, for someone who is deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem. And not all apps are available on both platforms, and if you have many purchased software you can't just bring those purchases over to the other side even if they do exist.

That's why these actions are monopolistic, because they've got you by the balls and you can't easily switch, especially if you're not wealthy.

 

[jlc1978]

It's not that easy of a switch as you may think, for someone who is deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem. And not all apps are available on both platforms, and if you have many purchased software you can't just bring those purchases over to the other side even if they do exist.

That's why these actions are monopolistic, because they've got you by the balls and you can't easily switch, especially if you're not wealthy.

High switching costs do not a monopoly make.

 

[HiVolt]

High switching costs do not a monopoly make.

It does not make it consumer choice friendly.

 

[Stiksi]

Then find another market. Make Windows apps. Make Mac apps.

Yes, let’s not bother fixing a broken system, let’s just make everyone change professions. Is this something you apply to every mono- / duopoly or just the ones you identify with? What do you like most about duopolies?

 

[Vref]

The UK says this?

Pot meet kettle 😂

 

[jlc1978]

It does not make it consumer choice friendly.

No, but that is not illegal. In the end, consumers need to decide what they want and the type of ecosystem that meets those wants.

Yes, let’s not bother fixing a broken system, let’s just make everyone change professions.

Developers chose what OS they will focus on knowing the ground rules; and those who develop for iOS likely saw that iOS is a profitable OS and that made it attractive. No one forced them into that choice.

Is this something you apply to every mono- / duopoly or just the ones you identify with? What do you like most about duopolies?

Perhaps because, while 2 OS's are dominant, there are plenty of manufacturers of phones for the consumer to chose, it isn't a duopoly. Even the top 2 vendors have less than a 50% market share. There are phones all at various price points and feature levels, giving the consumer plenty of choices as what to buy. They can even chose a phone that uses a different OS, if they chose, and still interact with the 2 major OS's.

All this whining about choice comes down to how to divide the profits, not to help the consumer with lower prices. Look at what happened when Apple lowered their cut to 15% for small developers - how many of them said "Hey, Apple just reduced our costs so we'll pass on the savings to help out the consumer?" versus simply taking the windfall profit?

 

[cocky jeremy]

Yes, let’s not bother fixing a broken system, let’s just make everyone change professions. Is this something you apply to every mono- / duopoly or just the ones you identify with? What do you like most about duopolies?

No one is stopping someone else from coming along and making a phone OS. Instead of wasting energy complaining about a company doing what they want with their own OS, go make your own and run it how you want.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

No one is stopping someone else from coming along and making a phone OS. Instead of wasting energy complaining about a company doing what they want with their own OS, go make your own and run it how you want.

Dear me

 

[Stiksi]

No one is stopping someone else from coming along and making a phone OS. Instead of wasting energy complaining about a company doing what they want with their own OS, go make your own and run it how you want.

Ah, the ”do it yourself” approach. What you don’t seem to get is, the mobile OS market is in total control of two giants. Every ant in the business was stepped on long ago and even Microsoft’s efforts died early. There is no market outside these two and there never will be unless there’s another tech revolution that makes the current system obsolete.

Another example of how this is bad for the consumer is that Apple is trying to limit data transfer and charging speed on non-Apple usb-c cables so they can continue selling their own cables at a massive markup even after the forced switch from lightning. Which would never have happened if the EU hadn’t forced Apple.

Or it might be that understand all this all too well and then all your arguments amount to ”shut up, Apple is best!” which, to be fair, is pretty common here.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Ah, the ”do it yourself” approach. What you don’t seem to get is, the mobile OS market is in total control of two giants. Every ant in the business was stepped on long ago and even Microsoft’s efforts died early. There is no market outside these two and there never will be unless there’s another tech revolution that makes the current system obsolete.

Another example of how this is bad for the consumer is that Apple is trying to limit data transfer and charging speed on non-Apple usb-c cables so they can continue selling their own cables at a massive markup even after the forced switch from lightning. Which would never have happened if the EU hadn’t forced Apple.

Or it might be that understand all this all too well and then all your arguments amount to ”shut up, Apple is best!” which, to be fair, is pretty common here.

The "there's nothing stopping you building your own OS" comments always amuse, it's a completely frivolous arugument.

It is, practical terms, impossible to compete with Google/Apple in terms of mobile platforms. They are far too entrenched, that is exactly why they are getting regulatory scrutiny.

Neither Apple or Google built their business without large helpings of VC funding. Funding that no startup would possibly get even if they had great tech and a solid business plan. What investor is going fund someone to try to compete with iOS and Android?

 

[cocky jeremy]

Ah, the ”do it yourself” approach. What you don’t seem to get is, the mobile OS market is in total control of two giants. Every ant in the business was stepped on long ago and even Microsoft’s efforts died early. There is no market outside these two and there never will be unless there’s another tech revolution that makes the current system obsolete.

Another example of how this is bad for the consumer is that Apple is trying to limit data transfer and charging speed on non-Apple usb-c cables so they can continue selling their own cables at a massive markup even after the forced switch from lightning. Which would never have happened if the EU hadn’t forced Apple.

Or it might be that understand all this all too well and then all your arguments amount to ”shut up, Apple is best!” which, to be fair, is pretty common here.

No one else has their own OS because no one else has come up with something people like more than iOS or Android. Nothing is stopping them from doing it. They just can't because those two offer everything people want and other people just try stupid, gimicky garbage.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

No one else has their own OS because no one else has come up with something people like more than iOS or Android. Nothing is stopping them from doing it. They just can't because those two offer everything people want and other people just try stupid, gimicky garbage.

You seemingly have absolutely no idea how tech businesses are built.

Who is going to provide funding for a business to compete with two of the richest companies in the world in a market where they have most of the world sown up?

 

[mrochester]

The "there's nothing stopping you building your own OS" comments always amuse, it's a completely frivolous arugument.

It is, practical terms, impossible to compete with Google/Apple in terms of mobile platforms. They are far too entrenched, that is exactly why they are getting regulatory scrutiny.

Neither Apple or Google built their business without large helpings of VC funding. Funding that no startup would possibly get even if they had great tech and a solid business plan. What investor is going fund someone to try to compete with iOS and Android?

So if the market conditions aren't right to allow a competing operating system to emerge, why aren't regulators doing something about it?

 

[mrochester]

You seemingly have absolutely no idea how tech businesses are built.

Who is going to provide funding for a business to compete with two of the richest companies in the world in a market where they have most of the world sown up?

Why aren't regulators doing something about it then?

These discussions always seem to come to the same conclusion that a market with only 2 competitors is bad for competition and the market conditions do not allow for more competitors to exist.

Yet regulators are doing absolutely NOTHING about that, instead forcing changes to the 2 competitors as opposed to creating MORE competitors, which is what we actually need/want.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Why aren't regulators doing something about it then?

They are?

 

[mrochester]

They are?

Are they? I can't see any evidence of action that regulators are taking that is going to result in more operating systems for users to choose from.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Are they? I can't see any evidence of action that regulators are taking that is going to result in more operating systems for users to choose from.

The issue isn't one of more operating sytems, i don't think most people see that as a problem in and of itself.

The question is if companies that are the current entrenched players (Apple/Google) are abusing their position to prevent other businesses competing with them in other markets. We are now seeing regulators step in, in several of these instances.

A case in point being the EU ruling that Apple breached antitrust law in the Spotify case.

 

[mrochester]

The issue isn't one of more operating sytems, i don't think most people see that as a problem in and of itself.

The question is if companies that are the current entrenched players (Apple/Google) are abusing their position to prevent other businesses competing with them in other markets. We are now seeing regulators step in, in several of these instances.

A case in point being the EU ruling that Apple breached antitrust law in the Spotify case.

Well apparently people do see it as an issue given the complaints about there being a duopoly.

 

[Stiksi]

The "there's nothing stopping you building your own OS" comments always amuse, it's a completely frivolous arugument.

It is, practical terms, impossible to compete with Google/Apple in terms of mobile platforms. They are far too entrenched, that is exactly why they are getting regulatory scrutiny.

Neither Apple or Google built their business without large helpings of VC funding. Funding that no startup would possibly get even if they had great tech and a solid business plan. What investor is going fund someone to try to compete with iOS and Android?

Somehow they are never prepared to front the couple billion a year you would need to get off the ground. I have no idea what the problem there is, I’m completely prepared to take a shot at it if that happens!

 

[mrochester]

Somehow they are never prepared to front the couple billion a year you would need to get off the ground. I have no idea what the problem there is, I’m completely prepared to take a shot at it if that happens!

Would it take that much? Developers and consumers alike are desperate for more operating system options.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Well apparently people do see it as an issue given the complaints about there being a duopoly.

The issue is when that duopoly are able to use that poistion to harm competition.

Would it take that much? Developers and consumers alike are desperate for more operating system options.

Almost certainly to get to a level where you could lay a glove on Apple or Google. Its hypothetical, as soon as you became competitive they would crush you. VCs know this.

 

[Stiksi]

Well apparently people do see it as an issue given the complaints about there being a duopoly.

It’s not really either / or, every trillion dollar company has gotten that big by stifling competition. The existence of only two major operators in a market this large already means it’s being run by ”bad” operators. Competition works in the consumer’s favour only when there are many fairly small operators in the market consumers are free to easily switch between. A duopoly inevitably leads to cartel like behaviour and rising prices.

Would it take that much? Developers and consumers alike are desperate for more operating system options.

Not for development but for legal fees and political donations to combat the two sumo wrestlers laying on top of you. probably you would need more, to be honest. Apple and Alphabet have nearly infinite cash reserves.