Apple and Google's Mobile Duopoly Likely To Face UK Antitrust Action (techcrunch.com) 53
The U.K.'s antitrust watchdog has given the clearest signal yet that interventions under an upcoming reform of the country's competition rules will target tech giants Apple and Google -- including their duopolistic command of the mobile market, via iOS and Android; their respective app stores; and the browsers and services bundled with mobile devices running their OSes. From a report: So it could mean good news for third-party developers trying to get oxygen for alternatives to dominant Apple and Google apps and services down the line. Publishing the first part of a wide-ranging mobile ecosystem market study -- which was announced this summer -- the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said today that it has "provisionally" found Apple and Google have been able to leverage their market power to create "largely self-contained ecosystems"; and that the degree of lock-in they wield is damaging competition by making it "extremely difficult for any other firm to enter and compete meaningfully with a new system." "The CMA is concerned that this is leading to less competition and meaningful choice for customers," the watchdog writes in a press release. "People also appear to be missing out on the full benefit of innovative new products and services -- such as so-called 'web apps' and new ways to play games through cloud services on iOS devices."
If lack of choice is the problem, then... (Score:4, Interesting)
How can we increase the freedom here?
This is actually an interesting case for my favored solution approach. I still haven't figured out a good tag for it, but my favorite short description is "pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation". The basic idea is to tax corporate profits based on market share, so the path to higher retained earnings would lead to big companies (especially the so-called too-big-to-fail companies) wanting to divide themselves into smaller companies that compete honestly, thus offering more choices and more freedom. The wrinkle here is that "market share" has to be linked to customer choice, which is tricky in this case. So let me clarify by explaining how the tax accountants and lawyers would defend this situation.
Apple's side would argue that most people are choosing non-Apple smartphones, so the market share isn't too bad there.
The google's defenders would argue that there are no profits for the google directly from Android, so that it doesn't matter how much the google dominates Android.
Maybe that means I can't see too much of a problem here? The customers' choices are not too limited? And yet I'd like to see the smartphone market be open to other approaches...
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no!!!! Not an FP. It was an accident and I really don't understand how it was allowed to happen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I think you should divide the profits up based on categories. In categories where the company is competing normally and the customers have free choices, then those profits should be taxed at the lower rates.
Or are you looking at the deeper problem of companies lying about where there profits are? But that's what audits are for, even if the managers of the business claim they can't figure out how the money works in their own businesses.
However, I also think it would be important to have channels for
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. There's an adage that whatever you don't measure doesn't happen. The corollary for government is whatever you do measure to tax, that's what they'll try to cheat.
So it's better to make it a simple measurement that can be observed externally. That makes it harder to cheat. You just assume they profit from it or else they wouldn't do it.
For non-profits being meaured this way, an additional requirement to keep their status might be that they have a working com
Re: (Score:2)
I really thank you for your thoughtful response. I've been working on this idea for a while, and mostly the only response I've been able to detect is a total lack of comprehension. I'm not qualified to say whether xor not it's a good idea, but I think there's something valuable in the idea and I'll try to explain below in terms of objectives.
But first I want to address the NPO issue. I now think that's the wrong way to think about it. It's defining your organization backwards based on something you don't wa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How can we increase the freedom here?
You can't because everyone took up client server software for both PC and phones over the last 23 years. It was intel, amd's, apples, valvles, and the rest of the content industries goal to kill general computing and computing devices as open platforms.
That is what trusted computing was all about, the advent of the mobile phone accelerated what was already underway in PC gaming via the game industry rebranding PC games as mmo's/f2p to steal their networking code and deny game ownership.
Valve and the rest h
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly seemed irrelevant to my comment, but rather an expression of your philosophic perspective of something else. Probably OSS or FOSS? If so, then by failing to establish relevance you failed to catch my interest though I looked it over.
My only reaction was probably tangential. It was to think about the absurdity of not being surprised by smartphones that receive updates on a daily basis. Why didn't they do the software right in the first place? Or what new features are they imagining I want?
(I actually
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly seemed irrelevant to my comment,
It's not irrelevant , every piece of "shut down" game, or application is irrational, you're paying more money for software thats is fundamentally broken and a second computer issues commands to control the client executable on your computer, meaning your computer is enslaved by a remote PC that has total access to your device, meaning you have no privacy and you are sharing your entire life with a foreign game/os/app company who may not have your best interests at heart.
What is a typical mobile app or mmo?
Re: (Score:2)
If relevance includes "interesting enough to read" then I must insist "No, it's even less relevant this time around." This time I only managed to get about halfway through it before giving up. Maybe it's just your style, but I think it's your special vocabulary ior your biases ior your heavy handed axe waving that makes it too tedious to struggle with. If being persuasive is included in your objectives for writing, then I doubt you can point at many "disciples". I sometimes read books like that, but it's a
Re: (Score:2)
If relevance includes "interesting enough to read" then I must insist "No, it's even less relevant this time around."
Dude you can't have "more choice" when companies can literally just streal the software and extort your stupid ass for a monthly free. You're whole notion of "market choice" is stupid because it ignores WE HAD THAT pre 2000 when the computer illiterate client-server software buying masses had not yet gone internet.
AKA we had choice then it was taken away from us because the average person is computer illiterate. Your whole post is a word salad of confusion. Your goal as a market participant is to gain MO
Re: (Score:2)
NAK.
Re: (Score:1)
"Freedom" for consumers isn't necessary freedom for corporations and vice versa. In the USA the courts generally have ruled that corporations are equivalent to people, which is silly in many cases, but it's what happens when your system is mostly a plutocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically a sad ACK. Can we extend the protocol for ACK-S or even SACK?
However my perspective is to focus on the customers' perspective of choice. Zero or one choice is really no choice at all. At the level of two options you begin to have a real choice, but the research on how we think suggests we can handle about 5 to 7 choices at each decision point. The aspect that is making this story so hard to analyze is that there are so many decision points. (Plus you get different outcomes depending on your sequen
Re: (Score:2)
If you looked at market share of the *apps stores* then you'd see a very different story - and that's what's really going on here. Effectively there you do have a duopoly - and it ties all the Android phone vendors to Google.
I can see a possible problem with your solution, not for phones or tech in general, but elsewhere, the "big" vendors just franchise off outlets and then claim that they're multiple small businesses and not part of the bigger one. Not impossible to solve for, but doubtless a loophole wai
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and the information about the British approach. Let me clarify that I don't think my suggested solution approach is the perfect and ultimate one. Whatever the rules are, there are some people who are going to try to cheat on the rules.
However my approach starts from the basic principle that freedom is a good thing. Even that may be saying too much for some people, but I think the choices should be there even if a lot of people prefer not to be bothered most of the time. H
The real goal (Score:3)
The real goal is to fuck up the functional, useful ecosystems and make using a phone more like cobbling together PC parts from 20 different vendors and just dealing with whatever constant bullshit that may come up as a result.
Assholes.
I don't see the problem (Score:3)
There is no shortage of "alternatives to dominant Apple and Google apps and services".
You can use any (or no) provider for email, cloud storage, or whatever, regardless of whose mobile OS you're using.
I don't see the "largely self-contained ecosystems" they're talking about.
Aren't people online mostly for the streaming services and the socials nowadays? Those aren't run by these companies.
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't people online mostly for the streaming services and the socials nowadays? Those aren't run by these companies.
Yeah, their social network attempt was a flop, but Google has a pretty big finger in the streaming pie. I’m assuming you’ve probably heard of YouTube. /s
Re: (Score:2)
You got me. I completely forgot that YouTube has started a paid tier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Youtube Premium is a thing (I don't know why, but it is).
Re: (Score:2)
There is no shortage of "alternatives to dominant Apple and Google apps and services".
On Android, that's mostly true. On iOS, not at all. You can't even change the app store (unless you hack the device). You can't have a browser using another engine than Apple's one. There isn't much choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Your choice is to go use Android, which offers these abilities.
Most Apple users don't care about this shit. I know I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a problem?
Why would I need another App Store? Would another 3rd party one be more secure and make sure all apps are compatible and comply with the rules Apple set out in theirs that helps protect privacy?
What's the great need for another browsers? Is Safari not displaying any page you like?
What is it missing that anoth
Re: (Score:1)
Streaming or using any commercial device these days involves installing a proprietary app from either Google's or Apple's store, which vendors increasing use to lock in users and control their behaviour. This is duopoly but it's built on the dichotomy of Android or iOS. The CMA has figured out that only two stores is a duopoly but says nothing about how to fix it. If they do what the EU does, fining Google and Apple that's just Government taking it's cut of the duopoly and driving up costs further for bus
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming or using any commercial device these days involves installing a proprietary app from either Google's or Apple's store, which vendors increasing use to lock in users and control their behaviour.
I'm ignorant of iOS, but none of this matches my experience on Android. First, there are other ways to get the apps. I've never had a Google account, but I have used Netflix and Amazon Prime Video on Android. Second, how does Google use the Play Store to "control users' behaviour"?
Regulators must regulate (Score:3)
In order for a company to be successful, their products must be accepted by the market. In the case of smart devices, that involves getting sufficient market penetration that third parties will produce software for them. Third parties don't want to produce software for limited-market products if THEY are to be successful.
So, the market will tend to go to the leaders. The leaders are "Apple" and "Not Apple" (also known as "Android"). All the others were marginalized by no one supporting them.
So, who do the regulators go after? "Apple" and "Not Apple". Who will benefit by regulators going after them? Regulators, by the fines they'll generate.
One of the Better Duopolies (Score:3)
I understand the principals of "more competition is better" and "no competition is antithetical to the systems, but what are the problems of THIS duopoly?
- Apple bundles their hardware with their OS has the premium-priced product with a bit more security in place in their App Store process than Android.
- Google's Android is just the software and you can find an unlocked Android smartphone for $63 at Best Buy. In the UK (where this action is being considered), you can get an Android phone from a major retailer for 50GBP. Android is FREE to users and manufacturers, but manufacturers do have to pay licensing to install GMail, Google Play, and other apps.
Why aren't people trying to push Google out of the ultra-cheap smartphone markets? Because it's REALLY difficult to develop software that competes with Android in quality AND price.
What about their app stores? Well, as much as I hate being told what I can or can't install on my own device, given the amount of sensitive information I keep on my smartphone and the frequency with which each app can send and receive data, I'm pretty comfortable with the reduced choice/freedom. Security of my phone/email/phonebook/photos/passwords/etc. is much more important to me than being able to download a seemingly cool utility whose coder doesn't want to go through the normal security protocols.
And then there's the bundled browsers and services. Bloatware, really, because I never end up using a default browser except in rare acts of desperation to check compatibility issues. Both app stores allow users to download replacements to default utilities. Some bloatware can be uninstalled completely.
So... what's the problem?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
what's the problem?
One mobile platform is the product of an advertising company (where you are literally the product), and the other major mobile platform locks you out of hardware you ostensibly own.
Justify the one you picked however you want, but two lousy choices are still two lousy choices.
Or as South Park put it.. (Score:2)
It’s like a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
the other major mobile platform locks you out of hardware you ostensibly own.
So, what hardware is Apple locking me out of? I can do anything I want to with my phone. The number of actual, meaningful "lockouts" I actually encounter on a daily, weekly or monthly basis: 0.
If I determine that is an issue, I can switch to Android.
Previous poster is right. What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here's a beef with Apple: Say you have an iPhone 11. You get a notification that there's an update for your phone, so you install it. Now your phone runs like shit - there's delays in simply scrolling the screen and it drives you nuts. But can you go back to the previous OS version that worked fine? Nope, because it's been de-authorized. You're fucked - deal with the shitty performance, or go spend more money on a new phone that you really don't need.
My wife is dealing with that exact scenario r
Re: One of the Better Duopolies (Score:2)
I dunno. But that's not a problem I face.
Besides that, just because a software update is available does not mean you have to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
"you don't have to install it" is super helpful after the fact, when there is an unnecessary and artificial block from being able to uninstall it. Which is kind of the point - even if this behavior is incidental or accidental, what's to stop Apple from doing it maliciously to degrade performance enough to drive sales from their customers that aren't interested in shifting ecosystems?
The fact that you cannot revert a software install, even if that means wiping the device, is a big fucking problem. It's not
Re: One of the Better Duopolies (Score:2)
Monopoly (Score:3)
I feel like it should only be antitrust only if Apple is doing things that make it hard to leave Apple for a better product. Basically, Apple is monopolistic if someone makes an awesome phone with superior battery life, 5G, camera etc. that people want to switch to but cannot because Apple is holding onto something that makes it costly or super inconvenient to switch.
I think they sort of are:
iMessages - They should make or allow an Android solution. You cannot switch out of iMessages without switching to text messaging which is annoying. Also, it has end to end encryption that works seamlessly with laptops/desktop and no mobile phone required. Getting your friends or family to switch to something like Skype a pain because that means one person dictates which messaging solution others need to have. I guess that is not the fault of Apple.
Music - it is a pain in the ass to share and export your music collection if you switch out. People with a large library would not want to switch to an Android phone even if the phone itself was a lot better.
Apps - There should be a seamless way to export your list of apps so that you can automatically download and install the android versions of them while keeping your data.
Basically think, if you switch from iPhone to android what would you have to give up that are not actual software or hardware features.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh give me a fucking break.
Go look at the pain and millions of dollars involved in switching your ERP, from say, PeopleSoft to SAP, and get back to me about how evil and unfair Apple is with respect to making it "difficult" to switch to Android.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between a limitation because someone hasn't done something and a limitation because someone has done something.
I lock my car to prevent its theft. But I have a tree that's probably worth as much these days, and nobody takes it despite the lack of a lock. The effort required to steal a tree passes its value. The effort required to steal a car does not; until you add the lock.
It is unreasonable to expect Apple or Google to honour the app purchases made on the other's app store. But if Ap
Re: Monopoly (Score:2)
Sure. But if you are unhappy with Apple's policy, you are free to go buy an Android phone or any other phone that has policies more to your liking. Apple is not doing anything that prevents you from doing so. The fact that you don't WANT to do so, or that you find doing so inconvenient for any number of reasons isn't Apple's problem or it's fault. The fact that you don't switch can't really be blamed on anyone but you.
Nevertheless...my point was that crying foul on Apple because it doesn't make iMessage ava
Android Allows App Stores (Score:2)
At least with Android, you can easily install other app stores. I have FDroid and Amazon in addition to Google on my phone. So on the app store front, Google is in a much better legal position than Apple. For Google, it's just a matter of what's preinstalled, and whether they're pushing vendors to do so.
Of course, there's also the issue of whether the app store's take on sales is abusive, but at least it wasn't a case where it started low and then jumped up as their market position solidified.
Are consumers being harmed? (Score:1)
There is an argument that iOS consumer's lack choice, since there's only one sheriff allowed. But how does the Play Store limit consumer ( or even developer ) choice on Android?
I suppose they could regulate the Play Store to be as bad as other stores, so as to level the playing field, but that's not helping consumers. I suppose you could argue Play Store has the pre-installed advantage. So you might require new Android installations to show a list of Stores and let the user pick which ones they want install
MS ignored...again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the "Mobile" part in all this. Microsoft was never an actual contender in the "Mobile" market.
Re: (Score:2)
They had Windows Mobile (previously known as PocketPC) and it sucked so bad, everyone jumped on the iPhone as soon as it was an option. Then they tried again around 2010 and also failed. It wasn't for lack of investment in the platform either. They had a product very few liked.
There's also the issue that supporting multiple platforms is expensive for ISVs. Microsoft's last attempt failed to get much traction on the app side. Small developers didn't want to commit the resources to a third platform. If
Break them up (Score:2)
Android and iOS should both be broken off of their respective parent companies. This would greatly help seed the market for innovators.
Re: (Score:2)
How would Android make any money for development costs? Who would want iOS as a stand-alone product? Seems like anti-business people just come up with brain dead ideas that have no footing in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way any other Linux Distribution makes money for development costs.
Call the new company Nokia. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can return to the crap fest that was Symbian. Or maybe Nokia could resurrect the Windows 8 based mobile OS from when Microsoft owned them. Another winner with consumers.
Much better than no ecosystem (Score:2)
the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said today that it has "provisionally" found Apple and Google have been able to leverage their market power to create "largely self-contained ecosystems"; and that the degree of lock-in they wield is damaging competition by making it "extremely difficult for any other firm to enter and compete meaningfully with a new system."
These guys completely missed the forest for the trees, and they must be too young to remember the days of Palm, when there was *no* ecosystem. Every Palm app (didn't even have that word then) developer had to find its own way to receive money from its users, it was a huge PITA for both users and developers. And as a result, most Palm app was either free, or cost as much as PC programs, ranging around 15-30 bucks. For users/developers outside the US, it was a hit-or-miss for payment to go through, not eve
More Nonsensical Euro-Twittery (Score:2)
Apple competes in only the premium phone market, Android has some of those, and now prui.sm is starting to ship their more expensive phone in a better period. They're still far from a strong competitor for share - but I don't see their angle being crushed.
Seriously Europe, correlation is not causation. The low to mid end market is flooded with mediocre offerings but people frequently choose co