EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[bcortens]

Apple has a better power connector on the MacBook, it is named MagSafe, and it is used. And the same machine can be powered using USB-C for the ones who prefer USB-C, or when you travel.

MagSafe is not a better connector for everything though. That's the whole point of the law, basically all rechargeable electronic devices can be charged with one port.
Does MagSafe fit on an iPhone? An AirPods case? No? Why bring it up? The law does not prohibit additional types of charge ports only that the device must also support the universal charge port.

 

[icanhazmac]

The law does not prohibit additional types of charge ports only that the device must also support the universal charge port.

Thereby driving up costs to consumers. Magsafe is way better for laptops, as it builds in protection from cord accidents, now instead of paying for a single charging method we need to pay for two. Brilliant.

Before anyone points to the usbc magnetic cords on Amazon, please read the reviews first. Low wattage, HOT cables, weak magnets, etc.

 

[icanhazmac]

The idea that the EU has stuck us with USB-C from not to eternity is a fiction of your own imagination based on nothing but speculation. USB Micro-B was required (either on device or with an adaptor) and yet somehow USB-C was developed.

I never claimed we would be stuck from "not to eternity" as you put it, stop with the hyperbole. What I said was that few will put any time or money into developing the next great connector because now they need to fight not only the "tech world" but now they need to fight government bureaucracy as well.

I don't find "one size fits all" to ever work well, especially when it is mandated by know nothing bureaucrats.

 

[djphat2000]

Well here it is. You are free to remove DRM on software

Sure you can, if you are able to. However, you still don't own the song.

Sure, but it’s not the consumers job to procure the contract. The party who is responsible for the sale needs to supply the necessary documents and approval at point of sale.

I'm sure documents can be printed up and presented at any Apple Store upon demand. You don't need to open the box to figure out if you agree with it or not. And what is stopping anyone from going online and reading it before purchase? No personal responsibility in the EU? Why would it be at point of sale? Never-mind. Just note I disagree with this method.

well no, you can purchase let’s say 10.000 iPhones but you will be treated as a business establishment.

Ok, which I'm assuming you're then able to do with the product as you see fit. Resell it for profit, and everything is perfectly fine?

The fundamental difference between ‘implied licence’ that is used in UK and exists in USA and ‘exhaustion of the rights’ is that in the former, there is no exhaustion of the iprs but with the distribution of the physical product, the iprs embedded is also licensed to the buyer unless such implied license is expressly barred through contract. In the case of the latter, the effect is rather automatic as soon as the iprs embedded product is put into any distribution channel, i.e. the right to enforce the iprs is exhausted irrespective of any contractual bindings.

The only possible difference between the doctrines of ‘first sale’ in the USA and ‘exhaustion’ in EU is that while the former is controlled by laws of contract for sale while the latter establishes out-right exhaustion without any possibility of opt-out.

And this has been the case for decades.

Just as we had a case with big impact
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/docum...1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=2012237

different strokes for different folks.

Well there was a company that did sell Mac clones and got away with it as they just purchased legitimate OS X on disk.

For a while yes. But they got sued. They are perfectly fine purchasing OS X and using it however they see fit. They get no Apple support and they are not allowed to resell it without express permission from Apple. Now, Apple gives away the OS so long as it is on Mac hardware.

And EU isn’t enforcing it, it means it’s just considered theft or piracy. How does USA enforce DMCA?

As long as you're not stealing, redistributing, rebroadcasting, or otherwise profiting from the original work. You can do with it as you wish. Hack away. You can also freely inform others of the process. But, at no point do you own the product out-right or otherwise after you have "hacked it".

If you download say a movie from a torrent. Your ISP may block you or outright and or stop selling you access to the internet from them if the studios flag your ISP of the transgression. You can get a VPN and hide yourself as best you can to avoid detection. Hence bypassing the rules. Doesn't make it any easier to enforce the rules or make the process "right". It's still considered theft.

It’s not babysitting, just how Mac can install software outside the store, and I can with some trickery(not jailbreaking)install software from outside the iOS AppStore. Apple is actively trying to stop me from doing that.

Yes, they are preventing it as that is not how they intended the product to work. I personally feel they should have the right to do that "since" there are alternatives to the iPhone and iOS. Also, this was not a case of bait and switch. Having had the ability and then taking it away. The difference in my view is between what people believe they own and what they are just consuming. Also, what people feel they are entitled to with these products. What rights they have on a product they didn't make.
The EU is more "people" sided. The US is more business sided. I'd personally be more people sided too, but people make the products in question. And in my view should be able to build it as they see fit within the laws of the time.

There’s only one platform though. To use a car analogy: class 8 trucks( we just call them lastbil), buses, cars and bicycles are all classified as vehicles. They all compete on on the same marketplace. But in actuality it would be comical to argue passenger cars are competing with motorcycles or that bicycles are competing against trucks.

View attachment 2283658

But, within that range of vehicles you have choices. There are many bikes, cars, buses for any passenger to pick from within their respective budgets. Some of the common parts that make them up are interchangeable with another brands make or model. With iPhone and Android. You can pick whichever you want. Apple provides many choices in price, color, look and feel, and performance. Same as any Android device. They run different operating systems and have different philosophies on how they are designed to work. But, they achieve practically the same ends. Neither exist in a bubble, and they compete against each other in an open market. Not within the same platforms. That would be like Mercedes trying to sell their engine in a Fiat. Or big electronic stores competing with another brands store "within" the same store without permisson. You have your store, I have my store. We can sell similar if not the same products within it for differing prices and levels of service/support. But, we don't compete within the same store.

If a consumer have a car(iPhone) and a truck( Samsung). And the trailer and car have a wide variety of options when it comes to external spare part and accessories(Samsung galaxy s11 and iPhone 11) provided by a variety of companies( cases, screen protectors, cables etc)

But when it comes to the need to do work on the engine(the Operating system) the truck can have the engine replaced(android forks) replacement parts, modifications and accessories for the interior of the vehicle from approved suppliers or brand specific dealers by the different manufacturers(play store, galaxy store, Amazon AppStore etc)

Yes.

But when it comes to the car(iPhone), it’s only through their approved dealers providing services and accessories only from their stores( Apple AppStore). Owners who tries to use unauthorised accessories, or purchase from the companies themselves are threatened with legal actions and actively prevent from doing anything.

Yes, as this is Apple's business model. You (and the EU) may not like it, but they don't exist in a bubble. You can choose as an informed consumer to purchase it or not knowing these things. If Apple was the only game in town (no Android existing). Then we should want Apple to open up. But, it does exist alongside Android with many options from handsets to flavors on the Android OS. All open and usable as any consumer may want it to be. There should be no issue here.

The software and engine of the car (iOS) if it discovers unauthorised access will prevent it from working. You can buy Bluetooth speakers from the store and will work as it has software signatures connected to you, the car and Apple. But if you buy the same speakers outside the store(side loading)will discover it won’t connect or work unless you falsify the signature.

All in the name of security. Again, this is their way. We don't have to agree it's the right way or the only way. But, it's "A" way. And we have the ability to say with our money, we don't like it or we do. And if we do, we buy it. If we don't we can buy another vendors product.

Well I think you should read what the implications are. EU have also a completely different philosophical understanding of what a market entails and what relevant parts are competing.

I'm understanding it. And I don't agree with it. But, that's me. Which is why I say, let them eat cake.

Apple and Samsung phones are competing: as consumers choose to purchase the device they want.

Yes, as it should be.

Google android and Apple iOS aren’t competing: consumers can’t acquire iOS outside the product and neither install android on their iPhones

No sir, they are competing. And the consumer has no entitlement to install either OS to either device. They are different businesses. And should not be forced to be directly compatible with each others hardware. If I made a device the way I wanted it to be, and sold it to the masses. People have the right to purchase it as I intended it to be or not. I shouldn't be forced to "open" it up to any other business if I don't want it to be. I can suffer the consequences of that choice when people stop purchasing my product, or reap the rewards if people do buy it.

Google android and different android fork is competing: both consumers and businesses can acquire android of different forks.

Yes. And this should be enough to satisfy any current laws against Apple. If it was only iOS and only iPhones in existence. Then we can work to open up Apples platform. But there is Android. They do compete, they do have competing philosophies and one is almost completely open, while Apple has a walled garden. Consumers have choice. But, they can't have the right to say "I want Android on iPhone, and I have the right to force Apple to make it work". Or "I have the right to force Apple to allow me to do whatever I want on a device they(Apple) made".
Again, this is my opinion. The EU can have whatever they wish.

Play store and Apple AppStore isn’t competing: as before a consumer can’t access the alternatives store without switching their main device and for a developer the targeted.

No different than leaving one physical store and going across the street to another physical store.

The DMA defines when a large online platform qualifies as a “gatekeeper”. These are digital platforms that provide an important gateway between business users and consumers – whose position can grant them the power to act as a private rule maker, and thus creating a bottleneck in the digital economy and act independently from competition

I don't mind a regulator/regulatory board that monitors such things. So long as it applies to all, and that would include gaming consoles, mobile devices, etc. But the starting point puts Apple in the "you're breaking the rules" right away. So, not a fan of it.

It’s not just about consumer choice, but it’s also about market forces having a fair choice, if Apple still end up having 99.9% of the market that will be completely legal.

Till it isn't.

And
Oh we absolutely need competition within the same platform. The thing you’re missing is that android and iOS aren’t competing or compatible. People don’t purchase android or iOS, but iPhones, Samsung, pixel, Huawei etc

Do you want Apple and Google to sell a device void of software? If I am not mistaken some company makes that too.
I can't put Mac OS on a PC hardware, nor Windows OS on mac M series hardware. I can't fit any car engine in any car frame. And so on. My point is it shouldn't be a requirement. You should be able to build what you want as long as it is within the law to do so. You should not have to "work" with other companies or businesses if you choose not to. Want to build something totally from scratch? Go for it! And if the market decides they like your product, you should reap the rewards of your work. And if they don't, you fail and life goes on.

You get stuck on users, but it’s a mixture of business and user interaction.
These obligations will help to open up possibilities for companies to contest markets and challenge gatekeepers based on the merits of their products and services, giving them more space to innovate.

In America, Cooperations are people.
I simply don't agree that the promise of innovation merits the added security risks of the iPhone.

When a gatekeeper engages in practices, such as favoring their own services or preventing business users of their services from reaching consumers, this can prevent competition, leading to less innovation, lower quality and higher prices.

I haven't seen Apple raise prices on the commission ever. If anything it has gone down.
And it's not like Android doesn't already have these options, and most people don't use it. It's also the most popular OS for mobile phones. So the promise and "can" are already proven invalid. Again, I don't buy this deal.

When a gatekeeper engages in unfair practices, such as imposing unfair access conditions to their app store or preventing installation of applications from other sources, consumers are likely to pay more or are effectively deprived of the benefits that alternative services might have brought.

All of which is solved on Android. And as above, it's not proving to be worth it. Plus by doing so, you eliminate a choice for consumers that want it the way it is on iOS. Having a closed system is a choice when you can also choose an open one.

Web apps aren’t able to do anything of substance on the device and not a viable alternative.

ok.

 

[bcortens]

I never claimed we would be stuck from "not to eternity" as you put it, stop with the hyperbole. What I said was that few will put any time or money into developing the next great connector because now they need to fight not only the "tech world" but now they need to fight government bureaucracy as well.

I don't find "one size fits all" to ever work well, especially when it is mandated by know nothing bureaucrats.

You have been complaining that innovation will stop (without evidence), the logical extension of your complaining is that no one is going to build a new connector - thus we will be stuck with it forever. So, if it won't last forever, are you now admitting that people will create a new port? And this won't actually stop port innovation?

Your assertion that this was mandated by know nothing bureaucrats is also backed by nothing.

They chose USB-Micro-B because it was the only universal port available that phones, headphones, and other devices of that size at the time they were deciding. As soon as a better port was available (which somehow wasn't stopped from existing despite the mandate for USB Micro-B) they tried to use it instead (fought tooth and nail by Apple) which slowed down the adoption of USB-C vs Micro-B... so corporate meddling and obstruction slowed down the bureaucratic process rather than the bureaucrats...

Thereby driving up costs to consumers. Magsafe is way better for laptops, as it builds in protection from cord accidents, now instead of paying for a single charging method we need to pay for two. Brilliant.

Before anyone points to the usbc magnetic cords on Amazon, please read the reviews first. Low wattage, HOT cables, weak magnets, etc.

How has this driven up costs for Apple customers? If they want to charge all of their devices with one port we can use USB-C. If we want to use MagSafe we have it for both iPhones and Laptops.

MagSafe is way better but it is too big for phones so they use inductive MagSafe charging for phones instead. If a consumer chooses to use the various different MagSafe ports on each device yes that is more expensive, but this doesn't drive up costs for the consumer unless the consumer chooses to buy the different MagSafe connections. It doesn't drive up costs for consumers that choose to use the standard (USB-C) in fact they can save money. A single charger (99W) and cable can now charge my laptop, my phone, my iPad, my AirPods, etc... that is really nice for travelling.

 

[icanhazmac]

Your assertion that this was mandated by know nothing bureaucrats is also backed by nothing.

LOL

You have been complaining that innovation will stop (without evidence)

I don't need evidence to express an opinion. I don't care for the connector, I don't feel it is robust or sturdy enough for heavy use. I worked in IT for over 20 years and continue to be involved in tech. I know how a connector feels. I try to be careful in how I make statements, making clear whether I am stating opinion or fact. I have made it clear to you that I was expressing opinion but you keep trying to imply that I was stating fact.

Again, I am not a fan of "one size fits all", USBC is not the end all be all for every device but now we are stuck with it. It certainly has its place but... square pegs don't fit in round holes, just square ones, unless you hammer (the EU) is big enough.

I also stand by my opinion that individual companies will not invest in any research or development for connectors as the chance for implementation is too small. Again, lets say Apple creates a great, far superior connector. Not only does that connector need to get past a competitor in, lets say, Samsung and their connector but they also need to convince the EU that their connector is the way to go. In the end everyone throws up their hands and takes the path of least resistance, which is to do little or nothing.

When was the last time we saw any advancements in home electrical outlets? I am very sure that no one (today) has a perfect outlet that cannot be improved upon but you have a better chance of moving a mountain than you do of introducing a better home outlet.

How has this driven up costs for Apple customers?

Apple could have released their laptops with only magsafe charging, which by your own admission is superior, but they cannot because they need to support USB-C charging as well. There are certainly costs associated with building two charging methods into laptops.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because, as I have said many times, this stifles innovation. Now that USBC has been forced on us there will be very little time, money or effort placed towards innovation in this space. Literally tomorrow someone could invent a far superior connector but we won't get to see it because of the mandate. If Apple creates a better connector, like magsafe for laptops, they should be able to use it. If Samsung wants to use micro-usb (giggle) then they should be able to do so without regulatory interference.

What do you actually think the regulation is mandating? There nothing that prevents you from using micro-usb, MagSafe or som proprietary port.

The requirement is a singular typ C-port according to the USB-IF electrical standard that provides a minimum changing standard.

But if you only want one port that charges then it must be a Typ-C port.

Remember, the EU tried to stick us with micro-usb, would you have been happy about that?

They did for 4 year.

Edit: if apple wants to use a wireless mgsafe charging they could

 

[icanhazmac]

But if you only want one port that charges then it must be a Typ-C port.

Again, not a fan of "one size fits all", IMHO this connector will not hold up well under heavy use. Not a fan of mandates either.

MagSafe is not a better connector for everything though.

So what. It's better for laptops so it should be able to be used as the only method if a manufacturer chooses. One size never fits all.

That's the whole point of the law, basically all rechargeable electronic devices can be charged with one port.

No single connector is. USBC is not great for some uses either. One size never fits all.

Why bring it up?

Exactly. Choice is always better. One size never fits all.

The law does not prohibit additional types of charge ports only that the device must also support the universal charge port.

Thereby driving up costs. Being forced to support USBC as well as any other port increases the cost of the device. My guess is that Apple will probably drop Magsafe again versus supporting 2 charging methods and that will be a sad day.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

LOL



I don't need evidence to express an opinion. I don't care for the connector, I don't feel it is robust or sturdy enough for heavy use. I worked in IT for over 20 years and continue to be involved in tech. I know how a connector feels. I try to be careful in how I make statements, making clear whether I am stating opinion or fact. I have made it clear to you that I was expressing opinion but you keep trying to imply that I was stating fact.

Again, I am not a fan of "one size fits all", USBC is not the end all be all for every device but now we are stuck with it. It certainly has its place but... square pegs don't fit in round holes, just square ones, unless you hammer (the EU) is big enough.

I also stand by my opinion that individual companies will not invest in any research or development for connectors as the chance for implementation is too small. Again, lets say Apple creates a great, far superior connector. Not only does that connector need to get past a competitor in, lets say, Samsung and their connector but they also need to convince the EU that their connector is the way to go. In the end everyone throws up their hands and takes the path of least resistance, which is to do little or nothing.

When was the last time we saw any advancements in home electrical outlets? I am very sure that no one (today) has a perfect outlet that cannot be improved upon but you have a better chance of moving a mountain than you do of introducing a better home outlet.

Well we have seen great improvements of outlets in EU
And have tried to achieve a standardized plug

Apple could have released their laptops with only magsafe charging, which by your own admission is superior, but they cannot because they need to support USB-C charging as well. There are certainly costs associated with building two charging methods into laptops.

Well Apple already had USB ports with charging capabilities. And added the new MagSafe long before this passed.
At the economic impact kind of disagree with you

 

[tranceme]

It's not just an Apple thing. The EU regulations apply to all companies meeting "gatekeeper" status who are engaging in "anticompetitive behavior." For example, if Android restricted things like sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. like Apple/iOS does, they would be facing similar consequences.

I hear ya. But, every car does this. Heck, even on plans. Airlines get to decided what goes no their info systems. My app can't be there. I don't hear of them doing this to others outside Microsoft, Google and Apple. But, maybe they do. And, they seem to only care if the company is popular/succesful.

 

[webkit]

I hear ya. But, every car does this. Heck, even on plans. Airlines get to decided what goes no their info systems. My app can't be there. I don't hear of them doing this to others outside Microsoft, Google and Apple. But, maybe they do. And, they seem to only care if the company is popular/succesful.

Every car doesn't dominant the automotive market like iOS and Android dominate the mobile OS market as the only two major players (a duopoly). That's why the Apple/iOS and Google/Android situation is different.

It's only natural that regulators care about "popular/successful" companies as antitrust laws are designed to regulate companies with dominant positions as those companies have the greatest ability to influence, control, etc. particular markets. It's not the companies with something like 5% market share.

Companies with dominant positions (like Apple with iOS and Google with Android) are going to be popular./successful but it's the "dominance" combined with "anticompetitive behavior" (e.g., restricting alternative app stores or browser engines) that is the trigger.

 

[mrochester]

Every car doesn't dominant the automotive market like iOS and Android dominate the mobile OS market as the only two major players (a duopoly). That's why the Apple/iOS and Google/Android situation is different.

It's only natural that regulators care about "popular/successful" companies as antitrust laws are designed to regulate companies with dominant positions as those companies have the greatest ability to influence, control, etc. particular markets. It's not the companies with something like 5% market share.

Companies with dominant positions (like Apple with iOS and Google with Android) are going to be popular./successful but it's the "dominance" combined with "anticompetitive behavior" (e.g., restricting alternative app stores or browser engines) that is the trigger.

Makes you wonder why they don’t enact regulation to reduce the dominance of android and iOS. Create market conditions for other competitors to exist.

 

[webkit]

Makes you wonder why they don’t enact regulation to reduce the dominance of android and iOS. Create market conditions for other competitors to exist.

I think they may be trying to make competition in activities related to the operating systems (like app access) more open first. Depending on how that goes, regulators or courts very well could end up ruling to separate the operating system business from the rest of the company similar to how the U.S. court ruled in the Microsoft/Windows case; although that breakup was later overturned.

Would you like to see iOS become its own company separate from the rest of Apple? Would you like to see Android become its own company separate from the rest of Google/Alphabet? Maybe it will happen.

 

[mrochester]

I think they may be trying to make competition in activities related to the operating systems (like app access) more open first. Depending on how that goes, regulators or courts very well could end up ruling to separate the operating system business from the rest of the company similar to how the U.S. court ruled in the Microsoft/Windows case; although that breakup was later overturned.

Would you like to see iOS become its own company separate from the rest of Apple? Would you like to see Android become its own company separate from the rest of Google/Alphabet? Maybe it will happen.

Creating more operating systems would solve the issue of any one/two platforms being dominant by having multiple competitors in the market. There’d be no need for regulation relating to ‘activities related to the operating system’ at that point.

 

[mcnallym]

Makes you wonder why they don’t enact regulation to reduce the dominance of android and iOS. Create market conditions for other competitors to exist.

Because the market place already exists for people to create competitors

After all Nokia used to dominate phones, no market regulation had to be created to allow Apple to create a competitor.

Apple simply got on and created a product that people chose to buy.

If you need market regulation to allow a competitor to be created then how on earth did Apple manage to do this without it, followed by Google creating Android.

What exactly is stopping another company creating a competitor?

 

[mrochester]

Because the market place already exists for people to create competitors

After all Nokia used to dominate phones, no market regulation had to be created to allow Apple to create a competitor.

Apple simply got on and created a product that people chose to buy.

If you need market regulation to allow a competitor to be created then how on earth did Apple manage to do this without it, followed by Google creating Android.

What exactly is stopping another company creating a competitor?

Good question, one for the regulators to tackle. We certainly have a distinct lack of anyone trying, so it indicates there is a problem.

 

[I7guy]

Every car doesn't dominant the automotive market like iOS and Android dominate the mobile OS market as the only two major players (a duopoly). That's why the Apple/iOS and Google/Android situation is different.

It's only natural that regulators care about "popular/successful" companies as antitrust laws are designed to regulate companies with dominant positions as those companies have the greatest ability to influence, control, etc. particular markets. It's not the companies with something like 5% market share.

Companies with dominant positions (like Apple with iOS and Google with Android) are going to be popular./successful but it's the "dominance" combined with "anticompetitive behavior" (e.g., restricting alternative app stores or browser engines) that is the trigger.

No matter how its sliced apple doesn’t dominate the smartphone market by brand. And the US judicial system agrees.

 

[bcortens]

Creating more operating systems would solve the issue of any one/two platforms being dominant by having multiple competitors in the market. There’d be no need for regulation relating to ‘activities related to the operating system’ at that point.

Android and iOS have over 15 years of development invested within them, add to that developers would have to support another platform (not a huge problem for large devs but prohibitive for small ones) and it should be come clear that it would be nearly impossible for any company to get into the OS market at this point.

To do so would, as I’ve pointed out before, would require; an enormous war chest to fund the development of a new mobile OS, a willingness to lose money for a very long time, and the funds to bankroll the porting of large numbers of apps to the platform. Any company attempting to do so would also need a hardware partner, or go into hardware themselves, and they would likely want to compete with the premium smartphones to help attract the developer support required.

Microsoft attempted this but even they couldn’t do it because they just weren’t willing to keep dumping money into the project. Do you know of some other company that is positioned to even have some hope of breaking into this market?

Edit: no one trying to break into this is not because there is a market regulation problem but a momentum problem. You can’t really regulate away time, or regulate developer interest.

 

[mrochester]

Android and iOS have over 15 years of development invested within them, add to that developers would have to support another platform (not a huge problem for large devs but prohibitive for small ones) and it should be come clear that it would be nearly impossible for any company to get into the OS market at this point.

To do so would, as I’ve pointed out before, would require; an enormous war chest to fund the development of a new mobile OS, a willingness to lose money for a very long time, and the funds to bankroll the porting of large numbers of apps to the platform. Any company attempting to do so would also need a hardware partner, or go into hardware themselves, and they would likely want to compete with the premium smartphones to help attract the developer support required.

Microsoft attempted this but even they couldn’t do it because they just weren’t willing to keep dumping money into the project. Do you know of some other company that is positioned to even have some hope of breaking into this market?

Edit: no one trying to break into this is not because there is a market regulation problem but a momentum problem. You can’t really regulate away time, or regulate developer interest.

So the barriers to market entry are too high.

 

[bcortens]

No matter how its sliced apple doesn’t dominate the smartphone market by brand. And the US judicial system agrees.

Doesn’t matter to the market regulations in the EU… the US judicial system is pretty bad at preventing predatory behaviours and market abuse so I wouldn’t use it as an exemplar of sound decision making.

So the barriers to market entry are too high.

Yes - but what regulation could possibly lower them? You can’t change history and any company that has had 15 years to invest in their platform is going to be at an advantage over a startup. You shouldn’t be able to force developers to build their apps for platforms they don’t want to. What regulation could you actually use to lower those barriers?

Microsoft has a dominant position in the desktop market and it is nearly impossible for a new OS to gain significant market share. The steam deck has a niche but it really is more of a gaming console than a proper desktop OS. macOS has a small but profitable share but has never been able to claw much more (this is half on Apple though since they don’t care to compete at the low end).

The barriers to entry are always going to be high or near impossible in some markets - and in those markets the companies that control the market should be regulated. Electricity distribution is another market that the barrier to entry is too high to actually expect competition to occur.

In markets where the barrier to entry is too high for regulation to address the companies that control the market get regulated to ensure a healthy market.

 

[webkit]

Creating more operating systems would solve the issue of any one/two platforms being dominant by having multiple competitors in the market. There’d be no need for regulation relating to ‘activities related to the operating system’ at that point.

Antitrust regulators can't force companies to go into a market (especially when the costs/risks to do so can be so high), they can only try to make competition in a market more open. As I stated above, regulators or courts very well could end up ruling under certain circumstances to separate an operating system business (like iOS or Android) from the rest of the company (like Apple or Google/Alphabet) similar to one of the U.S. court rulings in the Microsoft/Windows case which was later overturned. Requiring iOS and Android to have to "fend for themselves" more could create more competition in that space but I don’t think regulators are there yet.

 

[mrochester]

Doesn’t matter to the market regulations in the EU… the US judicial system is pretty bad at preventing predatory behaviours and market abuse so I wouldn’t use it as an exemplar of sound decision making.


Yes - but what regulation could possibly lower them? You can’t change history and any company that has had 15 years to invest in their platform is going to be at an advantage over a startup. You shouldn’t be able to force developers to build their apps for platforms they don’t want to. What regulation could you actually use to lower those barriers?

Microsoft has a dominant position in the desktop market and it is nearly impossible for a new OS to gain significant market share. The steam deck has a niche but it really is more of a gaming console than a proper desktop OS. macOS has a small but profitable share but has never been able to claw much more (this is half on Apple though since they don’t care to compete at the low end).

The barriers to entry are always going to be high or near impossible in some markets - and in those markets the companies that control the market should be regulated. Electricity distribution is another market that the barrier to entry is too high to actually expect competition to occur.

In markets where the barrier to entry is too high for regulation to address the companies that control the market get regulated to ensure a healthy market.

I don’t see anything wrong with forcing developers to make apps available for all platforms if it prevents one platform from being able to gatekeep certain apps.

Sounds like we need to nationalise these operating systems since competition has failed.

 

[mrochester]

Antitrust regulators can't force companies to go into a market (especially when the costs/risks to do so can be so high), they can only try to make competition in a market more open. As I stated above, regulators or courts very well could end up ruling under certain circumstances to separate an operating system business (like iOS or Android) from the rest of the company (like Apple or Google/Alphabet) similar to one of the U.S. court rulings in the Microsoft/Windows case which was later overturned. Requiring iOS and Android to have to "fend for themselves" more could create more competition in that space but I don’t think regulators are there yet.

I very much agree that forcing Google to divest Android would be beneficial to the market. I don’t see the same benefit from forcing Apple to divest iOS since iOS is self-limiting by only being available on Apple hardware.

iOS would just sell itself back to Apple again so there’d be no difference there.

But if Android had to start charging a license fee because it couldn’t be subsidised by Google’s advertising business, I think that would generate an opening in which competition could thrive.

 

[webkit]

No matter how its sliced apple doesn’t dominate the smartphone market by brand. And the US judicial system agrees.

It's not about the smartphone market, it's about the mobile OS market with Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) being the only two major players. One thing that may be somewhat comparable in the automotive world related to tech would be telematics and if CarPlay and Android Auto somehow became the only two major players in that space, it possibly could raise regulatory issues but we're not there and may never be. We are there in the mobile OS market.

 

[webkit]

I very much agree that forcing Google to divest Android would be beneficial to the market. I don’t see the same benefit from forcing Apple to divest iOS since iOS is self-limiting by only being available on Apple hardware.

iOS would just sell itself back to Apple again so there’d be no difference there.

It doesn't matter that it's only available on iPhones, it's about the portion of the mobile OS market and the fact there is only one other major player. As such, both would/could be required to follow the same laws.