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

[mcnallym]

Based on my reading of the App Store guidelines, that app HDHomeRun may be breaking App Store guidelines ... it 'might' meet the guidelines under section 3.1.3 App Store Guidelines

Whether or not an App gets away with external processing, doesn't mean that it is not against the guidelines. The guidelines for apps that are allowed to have unlock-able content that was purchased outside the app is limited and restricted.

If you are going to say maybe breaking the App Store Guidelines then can you expand on where you think is breaking them.

Apple has had 5 years to look at the App and have taken no action against SiliconDust so either Apple aren't looking at the App in 5 years our do but don't find anything wrong themselves.

And I presume you aren't taking issue with any of the points in the post that I made and you replied too as haven't responded to them.

 

[webkit]

I have a feeling you aren’t going to understand my point.

I understand your point. I disagree with what you think should be done (or more so, what shouldn't be done) to handle app frauds, scams, etc, and competition, innovation, etc. now and for the future.

 

[I7guy]

A dominant company/product (such as Apple with iOS) engaging in anticompetitive behavior (such as restricting competition on a dominant platform) is breaking the law, and has been a potential example of an antitrust violation for ages.

It seems the US government disagrees with your opinion.

 

[mcnallym]

And pushing Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward is a good thing. Making iOS more open to app competition by allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. is a good thing.

Apple makes the OS improvements so that people continue to buy iPhones rather then buying Phones that run other OS. Google and the people that fork Android and add to it add improvements to get people to buy there SmartPhone rather then someone elses.
If there was no competition to iPhones and iOS then Apple wouldn't need to do Annual Releases and improvements to iOS to keep up with them.
This is what makes Apple move the product forward.

Much the same way that when AMD fell away for a time then Intel seems to slow. Once AMD came back then like a miracle Intel seemed to speed up with newer and better products.
Nvidia also seems to have more urgency when AMD got better more competitive products.
Google and Apple pretty much the same regarding Android and iOS

Apple is part of a larger market, not a separate market.
Psystar tried to argue that Apple Mac Computers were separate to the rest of the PC market and didn't go well for them.
People only have the same arguments around iPhone/iOS that Psystar had for Mac/Mac OS so if tried to argue that is separate market then would have the same failing result.

Certainly Apple being pushed to improve is a good thing however it doesn't need regulation to do so, competition from it's rivals is what does this.

More Apps Stores doesn't mean more Apps. It simply means more places that can get them, and basically would only need to goto them to get an App that for some reason is unable to remain on Apples own App Store.

First question anyone with common sense about online security is WHY it cannot remain on Apples own App Store.

Not claiming Apple to be infallible here just asking why an App cannot be put into the Apple App Store if nothing wrong with it.

If developers have an issue with Apple then why developing for the iPhone/iPad etc?
If users have an issue with Apple then why using iPhone/iPad etc?

 

[webkit]

It seems the US government disagrees with your opinion.

Actually, the U.S. government seems to agree with that opinion. The DOJ and various states have been in the process of preparing a case against Apple for a while.

 

[webkit]

Apple makes the OS improvements so that people continue to buy iPhones rather then buying Phones that run other OS. Google and the people that fork Android and add to it add improvements to get people to buy there SmartPhone rather then someone elses.
If there was no competition to iPhones and iOS then Apple wouldn't need to do Annual Releases and improvements to iOS to keep up with them.
This is what makes Apple move the product forward.

Much the same way that when AMD fell away for a time then Intel seems to slow. Once AMD came back then like a miracle Intel seemed to speed up with newer and better products.
Nvidia also seems to have more urgency when AMD got better more competitive products.
Google and Apple pretty much the same regarding Android and iOS

Apple is part of a larger market, not a separate market.
Psystar tried to argue that Apple Mac Computers were separate to the rest of the PC market and didn't go well for them.
People only have the same arguments around iPhone/iOS that Psystar had for Mac/Mac OS so if tried to argue that is separate market then would have the same failing result.

Certainly Apple being pushed to improve is a good thing however it doesn't need regulation to do so, competition from it's rivals is what does this.

The operating system is not necessarily where the focus is in creating competition; it's business activities related to the operating system where it is alleged that anticompetitive behavior is occurring e.g., restricting app access, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

iOS and Android are a duopoly in the mobile OS market but regulators aren’t in the position to force companies to create new mobile OS especially given the high costs/risks in doing so.

More Apps Stores doesn't mean more Apps. It simply means more places that can get them, and basically would only need to goto them to get an App that for some reason is unable to remain on Apples own App Store.

First question anyone with common sense about online security is WHY it cannot remain on Apples own App Store.

Not claiming Apple to be infallible here just asking why an App cannot be put into the Apple App Store if nothing wrong with it.

If developers have an issue with Apple then why developing for the iPhone/iPad etc?
If users have an issue with Apple then why using iPhone/iPad etc?

Sideloading and more app stores can access to more apps for iOS users. Easier app access, more app stores, etc. can mean more choices for developers in where/how they choose to market their apps. It can also push app stores to become more creative in how they market their store to developers and users.

Apple's App Store won't have to go anywhere and developers and users will still be able to access apps as they have before. However, allowing sideloading and alternative app stores will push Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and will continue to do so to make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward. A good thing. A "stronger" iOS may push Android to innovate more as well. Also a good thing.

 

[I7guy]

Actually, the U.S. government seems to agree with that opinion. The DOJ and various states have been in the process of preparing a case against Apple for a while.

Actually what has happened this far? Anything? It’s not over till it’s over.

 

[webkit]

Actually what has happened this far? Anything? It’s not over till it’s over.

Investigations are ongoing and some cases are in process or pending in district courts. Your comment that the U.S. government "disagrees with my opinion" is wrong as the opinion of the U.S. prosecutors is indeed that Apple has been violating antitrust regulations by engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

Investigations are ongoing and some cases are in process or pending in district courts. Your comment that the U.S. government "disagrees with my opinion" is wrong as the opinion of the U.S. prosecutors is indeed that Apple has been violating antitrust regulations by engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

So nothing has happened except an investigation and something may or may not come of the investigation.

 

[webkit]

So nothing has happened except an investigation and something may or may not come of the investigation.

Apple is and has been involved in a mix of antitrust related activities including investigations, some lawsuits filed and pending next steps, at least one guilty ruling (the e-books case), case settlements, cases under appeal, etc.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is and has been involved in a mix of antitrust related activities including investigations, some lawsuits filed and pending next steps, at least one guilty ruling (the e-books case), case settlements, cases under appeal, etc.

The e-books is not recent. And of course all of this may not amount to a hill of beans.

 

[mcnallym]

Well I was responding to this

And pushing Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward is a good thing. Making iOS more open to app competition by allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. is a good thing.

where you said pushing Apple to make Operating System Improvements, I can only respond to what you put in your post.

The operating system is not necessarily where the focus is in creating competition; it's business activities related to the operating system where it is alleged that anticompetitive behavior is occurring e.g., restricting app access, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

iOS and Android are a duopoly in the mobile OS market but regulators aren’t in the position to force companies to create new mobile OS especially given the high costs/risks in doing so.

So let us deal with this then. When you buy an iPhone then you are buying what it comes with including the app store.

Android already offer all of these things

Web Engine - don't have to use the one that Android Offers, Firefox at least uses its own engine.
Sideloading - yep has that
Multple App Stores, - yep has that

So why is this not pushing Apple to improve when Apples competition is offering all of this. In fact one could say that if you want all of this then why not just buy one instead of buying an iPhone and then saying iPhone doesn't have them.

You could even say that for the majority of people the lack of them doesn't seem to be an issue as if they were then would not be buying iPhones. For me then I even buy them precisely because they are in the closed Apple Ecosystem.

If it is that big an issue for people buying iPhones then why are they buying them.

Surely If people stop buying iPhones then Apple will be forced to innovate to get people to come back to iPhones, certainly a lot quicker and more effectively then regulation will. Hit Apples bottom line and they will soon give you what they see people asking for.

I work a lot with Check Point Firewall products for the past 20 odd years. Seen the product change a lot over the time. If there is something that you want them to add or you believe missing then they have a request a feature page where can give them feedback on what you think that they are missing in the product.

First thing to fill out is what are you not buying from us as we don't currently have this feature you want. ie how much money we losing out on because of this.

If you want Apple to add this then quickest way is a balancesheet argument and how much dollars they losing in sales because they don't have sideloading and multiple app stores.

Of course the problem you have there is when you look at profitability and revenue shares of Apple compared to the other mobile vendors. iPhone buyers tend to spend more on the handset and then more on Apps then other mobile vendors. This shows up as if a person buying an Android device isn't spending money on Apps then why are they going to spend more if they buy an iPhone. People don't suddenly have more disposable income to spend on Apps as they changed from Android to iPhone.

Whilst people are rarely 100% happy with everything then clearly to buy an iPhone over its competition then what iPhone HAS is more important then what it HAS NOT compared to the competition and what giving up by buying an iPhone.

Surely for people buying iPhone then the trade off is worth it. If it isn't then why are they paying Apple money for a phone if they would rather have Androids features.

Sideloading and more app stores can access to more apps for iOS users. Easier app access, more app stores, etc. can mean more choices for developers in where/how they choose to market their apps. It can also push app stores to become more creative in how they market their store to developers and users.

Apple's App Store won't have to go anywhere and developers and users will still be able to access apps as they have before. However, allowing sideloading and alternative app stores will push Apple to make operating system improvements (innovate!) to accommodate the changes and will continue to do so to make the product better, stronger, etc. for more and more users going forward. A good thing. A "stronger" iOS may push Android to innovate more as well. Also a good thing.

Sideloading - I have to be aware of the app already and then go to a website and download a file.
Then install the app from the phone.

So here need to be aware of what the app is called so can locate on the Internet. Then download it and then install it. Or have seen it being advertised whilst browsing, which many people complain about advertised at already. Look at the amount of privacy VPN you see being pushed as people are buying them.

vs

Look for App in Apple AppStore and click install.

So how is the sideloading easier for me as looks like got to do more with that then the AppStore. So how is this EASIER for me.


Multiple App Stores - OK so if there are now say 5 App Stores I have to now search in 5 places for the App I want as opposed to 1 place as developer has decided not to put in App Store. Again how is this EASIER for me where before could just look in 1 place. If the developer still happy to put in the App Store then don't need others.

If a user is going to say I won't use the Apple AppStore then they aren't going to buy an iPhone anyway.

Yes someone could develop an App that searches through the multiple appstores to find the App so know where to go however that is simply solving the problem that multiple app stores created in the first place of having to search multiple locations and is a tacit admission that isn't easier for the user.

So far not seeing any improvements for ease for the user here. Just more places to search for what am after.

Access to more Apps - Only Apps that cannot remain in the Apple App Store would be given access to by users that they don't have access too by allowing Side Loading or alternative App Stores. If the App is that good that need it then would just be buying an Android handset at that point, or you would find that Apple would buy them. Look at how many companies that they have acquired for Maps alone to improve Maps App.
A developer coming up with a killer app that everyone wants and cannot do without and they won't develop on Android - now really reaching.

Other then running Apples Apps ie Garage Band, FCP, Logic etc then struggling to think of an app type that does something on iPhone that cannot do on an Android device with an alternative App.

Obviously Apple would have to make changes to iOS to allow side loading and more app stores however not sure how you can say that this will make Apple innovate as lets face it Android has it already so adding something someone else has is hardly innovation is it? Other then changes to accomodate multiple app stores and allow app loading then it won't in itself add anything to iOS that Apple cannot do anyway. I am not one of those people that thinks making midnight grey an option is innovation.

What do you think it would lead to Apple changing due to having multiple app stores and sideloading. This is as I said simply distribution of Apps it does NOTHING for what the Apps can do, and means that instead of a simple, single location there are multiple places to search for.

More telling is the bit where you mention

Easier app access, more app stores, etc. can mean more choices for developers in where/how they choose to market their apps.

Sideloading and alternative app stores are DEVELOPER focussed changes. Not USER focussed changes.

 

[webkit]

So let us deal with this then. When you buy an iPhone then you are buying what it comes with including the app store.

Android already offer all of these things

Web Engine - don't have to use the one that Android Offers, Firefox at least uses its own engine.
Sideloading - yep has that
Multple App Stores, - yep has that

So why is this not pushing Apple to improve when Apples competition is offering all of this. In fact one could say that if you want all of this then why not just buy one instead of buying an iPhone and then saying iPhone doesn't have them.

You could even say that for the majority of people the lack of them doesn't seem to be an issue as if they were then would not be buying iPhones. For me then I even buy them precisely because they are in the closed Apple Ecosystem.

If it is that big an issue for people buying iPhones then why are they buying them.

Surely If people stop buying iPhones then Apple will be forced to innovate to get people to come back to iPhones, certainly a lot quicker and more effectively then regulation will. Hit Apples bottom line and they will soon give you what they see people asking for.

I work a lot with Check Point Firewall products for the past 20 odd years. Seen the product change a lot over the time. If there is something that you want them to add or you believe missing then they have a request a feature page where can give them feedback on what you think that they are missing in the product.

First thing to fill out is what are you not buying from us as we don't currently have this feature you want. ie how much money we losing out on because of this.

If you want Apple to add this then quickest way is a balancesheet argument and how much dollars they losing in sales because they don't have sideloading and multiple app stores.

Of course the problem you have there is when you look at profitability and revenue shares of Apple compared to the other mobile vendors. iPhone buyers tend to spend more on the handset and then more on Apps then other mobile vendors. This shows up as if a person buying an Android device isn't spending money on Apps then why are they going to spend more if they buy an iPhone. People don't suddenly have more disposable income to spend on Apps as they changed from Android to iPhone.

Whilst people are rarely 100% happy with everything then clearly to buy an iPhone over its competition then what iPhone HAS is more important then what it HAS NOT compared to the competition and what giving up by buying an iPhone.

Surely for people buying iPhone then the trade off is worth it. If it isn't then why are they paying Apple money for a phone if they would rather have Androids features.


Sideloading - I have to be aware of the app already and then go to a website and download a file.
Then install the app from the phone.

So here need to be aware of what the app is called so can locate on the Internet. Then download it and then install it. Or have seen it being advertised whilst browsing, which many people complain about advertised at already. Look at the amount of privacy VPN you see being pushed as people are buying them.

vs

Look for App in Apple AppStore and click install.

So how is the sideloading easier for me as looks like got to do more with that then the AppStore. So how is this EASIER for me.


Multiple App Stores - OK so if there are now say 5 App Stores I have to now search in 5 places for the App I want as opposed to 1 place as developer has decided not to put in App Store. Again how is this EASIER for me where before could just look in 1 place. If the developer still happy to put in the App Store then don't need others.

If a user is going to say I won't use the Apple AppStore then they aren't going to buy an iPhone anyway.

Yes someone could develop an App that searches through the multiple appstores to find the App so know where to go however that is simply solving the problem that multiple app stores created in the first place of having to search multiple locations and is a tacit admission that isn't easier for the user.

So far not seeing any improvements for ease for the user here. Just more places to search for what am after.

Access to more Apps - Only Apps that cannot remain in the Apple App Store would be given access to by users that they don't have access too by allowing Side Loading or alternative App Stores. If the App is that good that need it then would just be buying an Android handset at that point, or you would find that Apple would buy them. Look at how many companies that they have acquired for Maps alone to improve Maps App.
A developer coming up with a killer app that everyone wants and cannot do without and they won't develop on Android - now really reaching.

Other then running Apples Apps ie Garage Band, FCP, Logic etc then struggling to think of an app type that does something on iPhone that cannot do on an Android device with an alternative App.

Apple may rather play up and persuade people that the "walled garden is better" rather than have to deal with making iOS more open to app, app store, etc. competition and better able to handle sideloading.

Obviously Apple would have to make changes to iOS to allow side loading and more app stores however not sure how you can say that this will make Apple innovate as lets face it Android has it already so adding something someone else has is hardly innovation is it? Other then changes to accomodate multiple app stores and allow app loading then it won't in itself add anything to iOS that Apple cannot do anyway. I am not one of those people that thinks making midnight grey an option is innovation.

What do you think it would lead to Apple changing due to having multiple app stores and sideloading. This is as I said simply distribution of Apps it does NOTHING for what the Apps can do, and means that instead of a simple, single location there are multiple places to search for.

More telling is the bit where you mention

Making iOS better able (more secure) to handle sideloading is the type of innovation I was referring to. Up until now, they've had little motivation to do so (at least as far as any public releases) since it is a "closed" platform.

Sideloading and alternative app stores are DEVELOPER focussed changes. Not USER focussed changes.

It's a bit of both.

 

[Zest28]

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.

Why regulate? There used to be others (Microsoft, Symbian, and so on ….) but they got beaten by iOS and Android.

Other simply suck and have no reason to exist which we have seen in the past. Microsoft will never be able to beat iOS and Android, they tried and failed miserably.

The only reason the EU is mad is that iOS and Android are from USA companies.

Why is the EU not after ASML which has a dominant position in chip manufacturing? It is because it is an EU company.

 

[webkit]

Why is the EU not after ASML which has a dominant position in chip manufacturing? It is because it is an EU company.

Being a monopoly or having a dominant position in a market is not necessarily illegal. It's that combined with anticompetitive behavior. What anticompetitive behavior has ASML been engaging in?

ASML has to follow antitrust laws too. They have a "Competition Law Compliance Policy" which they claim is to make sure antitrust laws are followed.

Code of conduct - Corporate governance

Read about ASML’s commitment to upholding ethical behavior based on our company values, learn how to report an incident, and download our policies.

www.asml.com

 

[Zest28]

Being a monopoly or having a dominant position in a market is not necessarily illegal. It's that combined with anticompetitive behavior. What anticompetitive behavior has ASML been engaging in?

ASML has to follow antitrust laws too. They have a "Competition Law Compliance Policy" which they claim is to make sure antitrust laws are followed.

Code of conduct - Corporate governance

Read about ASML’s commitment to upholding ethical behavior based on our company values, learn how to report an incident, and download our policies.

www.asml.com

So why is ASML not forced to open up their technologies to competitors, like how certain USA companies are forced to? Because it's an EU company.

The only way how competitors can make use of the technologies from ASML is by hacking / spying, like what China is doing.

 

[webkit]

So why is ASML not forced to open up their technologies to competitors, like how certain USA companies are forced to? Because it's an EU company.

The only way how competitors can make use of the technologies from ASML is by hacking / spying, like what China is doing.

What types of ASML technologies are not being "opened up" to competitors that are similar to what is being asked to be opened up by Google, Apple, etc.?

No one is requiring Apple to make iOS, macOS, watchOS, etc. open source. No one is requiring Apple to "open up" any proprietary technology related to their A-Series Bionic or M-series chips. No one is requiring Apple to "open up" any proprietary technology related to Siri. No one is requiring Apple to "open up" Pages, Keynote, Numbers, Safari, etc. and/or make them available on non-Apple products. Etc. Etc. Etc.

ASML has several global offices and does business in many countries. If they were violating antitrust laws, I imagine the U.S., UK, Japan, etc. would be going after them just as they go after other companies. Do you have examples of antitrust violations countries are pursing against ASML that the EU isn't?

 

[SactoGuy18]

It's likely we'll see multiple App Stores inside the App Store app first. That could happen fairly soon. Apple is not thrilled at app sideloading given on Android it's often not something that a less-experienced user could safely do. And app sideloading runs the risk of loading malware, intentional or not.

 

[mcnallym]

Making iOS better able (more secure) to handle sideloading is the type of innovation I was referring to. Up until now, they've had little motivation to do so (at least as far as any public releases) since it is a "closed" platform.

How is copying another OS innovative.
This is just "Make iOS more like Android"

Innovation is doing something new and different. Not sure how Side Loading counts as new and different when already around on other platform.

There is a reason Phil Schiller got panned with the Trashcan launch and his comment about " can't innovate my ass".

The pressure to improve the product comes from the other Smartphones on the market not from within Apps run on iOS. If Google Maps is improved on iOS then that drives Apple to improve Apple Maps application not iOS.

Android is improved as Google and by extension the other Mobile phones that use Android want to get people to buy there phone rather then an iPhone.

iPhone development comes through from Apple wanting people to buy iPhones instead of Android Phones.

What drives iPhone and iOS development will not change by being an "open" platform as opposed to a "closed "ecosystem.

So you think that opening an attack vector and then trying to secure the attack vector is more secure and an improvement then just not offering the attack vector in the first place? Rather unusual view in terms of IT Security that!

Apples growth since 2007 and the launch of the iPhone shows that despite being a "closed system" they seem to be able to attract users in so they must be doing something right.

Apple may rather play up and persuade people that the "walled garden is better" rather than have to deal with making iOS more open to app, app store, etc. competition and better able to handle sideloading.

And yet you offered nothing to refute what I raised with your response. Surely if the "walled garden" is worse for the people inside it and there are parts outside it that they want then users will move out.

Multiple App Stores don't bring improvements to iOS. It is simply another source to get Apps from. What capability within iOS platform will a second non-Apple operated bring to iOS.

It is not going to create any more API's to talk to iOS to bring new features as you need the Apple API's to have the features.

All you are doing is creating competition for where to sell your Application. You are not creating any innovation or improvement to the iOS OS itself or improvements to the Apps.
The only people really "forced" to develop on iOS are people like the NHS in the UK, banks and other essentially free applications.

Just got a new credit card and installed the app on phone so can track and use it. If the credit card didn't support iOS then wouldn't have gone with the card. That app is also available on Android so not stuck with iPhone.

I have Mac Studio, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, iTunes Library, grant you don't have a watch however as have phone on me anyway then don't feel need for a watch full stop, but pretty much otherwise the full Apple range.

Of those then all that tied to Apple with is the iTunes Library which simply requires AppleTV.

Recorded Video/DVD//Bluray all ready in Plex (so outside of Apple Ecosystem) on NAS and then use Plex Client on AppleTV to view Plex.

The rest can easily be swapped out for

Windows PC, Android Phone, Android Tablet, so people hardly "locked" in the "Walled Garden"

If Android started to offer something that I wanted and Apple didn't provide it then would be replacing at next cycle with Android etc.

Unless running an Apple specific App like FCP X or Logic Pro X and you are so inflexible that you are unable to learn an equivalent application to do what doing in FCP X etc then people can escape quite easily.

And if that inflexible that cannot learn another App then even if Apple made the Garden open knocking down all the walls then the user still wouldn't change off Apple.

Historically Apple have developed products to meet certain identified target audience. They have not tried to be all things to all people.

There is even a video of Steve Jobs basically explaining this not long after he came back and someone in the audience was complaining about being left out with the new products.
Steve politelyexplained Apple makes certain decisons and accepts that won't please everyone. Unfortunately yes some people won't like what Apple does.

Or in more blunt language, if our product doesn't do what you want, find a product that does and buy that.

The BEST way that people can get change at Apple is with the dollar or more accurately the lack of dollar by STOP
BUYING Apple Products and make it clear to Apple why not buying there product anymore.

If was selling Apple Juice then at the moment people are doing this

Going to Apple and buying the Juice but saying I prefer the sweeter Juice that Google offers.
You then go back and buy more Juice from Apple despite telling them you prefer the sweeter Juice.

Apple sees you may want that sweeter Juice from Google but you are still buying Juice from them so clearly prefer Apples Juice.

Yes is simplified but shows the current situation.

 

[webkit]

How is copying another OS innovative.
This is just "Make iOS more like Android"

Innovation is doing something new and different. Not sure how Side Loading counts as new and different when already around on other platform.

There is a reason Phil Schiller got panned with the Trashcan launch and his comment about " can't innovate my ass".

The pressure to improve the product comes from the other Smartphones on the market not from within Apps run on iOS. If Google Maps is improved on iOS then that drives Apple to improve Apple Maps application not iOS.

Android is improved as Google and by extension the other Mobile phones that use Android want to get people to buy there phone rather then an iPhone.

iPhone development comes through from Apple wanting people to buy iPhones instead of Android Phones.

What drives iPhone and iOS development will not change by being an "open" platform as opposed to a "closed "ecosystem.

So you think that opening an attack vector and then trying to secure the attack vector is more secure and an improvement then just not offering the attack vector in the first place? Rather unusual view in terms of IT Security that!

Apples growth since 2007 and the launch of the iPhone shows that despite being a "closed system" they seem to be able to attract users in so they must be doing something right.

It wouldn't be copying another OS, it would be pushing Apple to innovate and make iOS better and more secure for a broader range of users. It would be pushing Apple make iOS able to accommodate those who may want to stay within the "walled garden" (only use Apple’s App Store, not sideload, etc.) and those who want more options (using alternative app stores, sideloading, etc.). It would be pushing Apple to make a better overall OS.

And yet you offered nothing to refute what I raised with your response. Surely if the "walled garden" is worse for the people inside it and there are parts outside it that they want then users will move out.

Multiple App Stores don't bring improvements to iOS. It is simply another source to get Apps from. What capability within iOS platform will a second non-Apple operated bring to iOS.

It is not going to create any more API's to talk to iOS to bring new features as you need the Apple API's to have the features.

All you are doing is creating competition for where to sell your Application. You are not creating any innovation or improvement to the iOS OS itself or improvements to the Apps.
The only people really "forced" to develop on iOS are people like the NHS in the UK, banks and other essentially free applications.

Just got a new credit card and installed the app on phone so can track and use it. If the credit card didn't support iOS then wouldn't have gone with the card. That app is also available on Android so not stuck with iPhone.

I have Mac Studio, iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, iTunes Library, grant you don't have a watch however as have phone on me anyway then don't feel need for a watch full stop, but pretty much otherwise the full Apple range.

Of those then all that tied to Apple with is the iTunes Library which simply requires AppleTV.

Recorded Video/DVD//Bluray all ready in Plex (so outside of Apple Ecosystem) on NAS and then use Plex Client on AppleTV to view Plex.

The rest can easily be swapped out for

Windows PC, Android Phone, Android Tablet, so people hardly "locked" in the "Walled Garden"

If Android started to offer something that I wanted and Apple didn't provide it then would be replacing at next cycle with Android etc.

Unless running an Apple specific App like FCP X or Logic Pro X and you are so inflexible that you are unable to learn an equivalent application to do what doing in FCP X etc then people can escape quite easily.

And if that inflexible that cannot learn another App then even if Apple made the Garden open knocking down all the walls then the user still wouldn't change off Apple.

Historically Apple have developed products to meet certain identified target audience. They have not tried to be all things to all people.

There is even a video of Steve Jobs basically explaining this not long after he came back and someone in the audience was complaining about being left out with the new products.
Steve politelyexplained Apple makes certain decisons and accepts that won't please everyone. Unfortunately yes some people won't like what Apple does.

Or in more blunt language, if our product doesn't do what you want, find a product that does and buy that.

The BEST way that people can get change at Apple is with the dollar or more accurately the lack of dollar by STOP
BUYING Apple Products and make it clear to Apple why not buying there product anymore.

If was selling Apple Juice then at the moment people are doing this

Going to Apple and buying the Juice but saying I prefer the sweeter Juice that Google offers.
You then go back and buy more Juice from Apple despite telling them you prefer the sweeter Juice.

Apple sees you may want that sweeter Juice from Google but you are still buying Juice from them so clearly prefer Apples Juice.

Yes is simplified but shows the current situation.

It's about being not so restrictive. It's about giving users and develops choices. Some people may buy iOS devices DESPITE the walled garden and some BECAUSE of the walled garden. Innovating to make iOS better would allow it to satisfy BOTH types of customers and allow greater competition and choice in the app market.

 

[I7guy]

It wouldn't be copying another OS, it would be pushing Apple to innovate and make iOS better and more secure for a broader range of users.

Nonsense. The breakup of AT&T should provide some clues as to why regulation doesn’t always produce the desired effect.

It would be pushing Apple make iOS able to accommodate those who may want to stay within the "walled garden" (only use Apple’s App Store, not sideload, etc.) and those who want more options (using alternative app stores, sideloading, etc.). It would be pushing Apple to make a better overall OS.

No it’s a path to making apple a garbage dump.

It's about being not so restrictive.

We agree, if you want freedom buy Android.

It's about giving users and develops choices.

Buy Android, they have all of the choices.

Some people may buy iOS devices DESPITE the walled garden and some BECAUSE of the walled garden.

Consumers get to vote with the $$$.

Innovating to make iOS better would allow it to satisfy BOTH types of customers and allow greater competition and choice in the app market.

Yes Apple innovating their core business will make it better. Governmental regulations won’t.

 

[webkit]

Nonsense. The breakup of AT&T should provide some clues as to why regulation doesn’t always produce the desired effect.

There are all sorts of potential antitrust regulations. No one is yet asking to break up Apple. However, the breakup of AT&T did achieve many of the goals including more competition and consumer choices, lower prices, faster innovations in digital networking and data services, advances in fiber optic technologies, accelerated development of wireless/mobile networks and services, etc.

No it’s a path to making apple a garbage dump.

Only if you think Apple isn't capable of improving iOS to make it better and more secure overall.

We agree, if you want freedom buy Android.

Only if you feel there are no other benefits to iOS or iPhones besides the "walled garden" If that's a widely held view, it doesn't say much for Apple's hardware, software, ecosystem, etc.

Buy Android, they have all of the choices.

Again, only if you feel there are no other benefits to iOS or iPhones besides the "walled garden." If that’s a widely held view, it doesn't say much for Apple's hardware, software, ecosystem, etc.

Yes Apple innovating their core business will make it better. Governmental regulations won’t.

Government regulations can help push companies to innovate, can help open the door for new competition, etc.

 

[I7guy]

There are all sorts of potential antitrust regulations. No one is yet asking to break up Apple. However, the breakup of AT&T did achieve many of the goals including more competition and consumer choices, lower prices, faster innovations in digital networking and data services, advances in fiber optic technologies, accelerated development of wireless/mobile networks and services, etc.

It's not about the breakup of Apple it's the story about how a once great AT&T morphed into 3 mediocre telco companies where much of the world surpasses the US in cell phone quality and service. That's the takeaway.

Only if you think Apple isn't capable of improving iOS to make it better and more secure overall.

Apple is not under obligation to gather requirements and make changes because of some internet posts. Sideloading due to regulations is not an improvement it will result in everything that is bad about the app store to be worse and overshadow what could be some very small positives.

Only if you feel there are no other benefits to iOS or iPhones besides the "walled garden" If that's a widely held view, it doesn't say much for Apple's hardware, software, ecosystem, etc.

Doesn't matter what it says. Apple products and services sell. Don't like the products or services, then vote with your $$$.

Again, only if you feel there are no other benefits to iOS or iPhones besides the "walled garden." If that’s a widely held view, it doesn't say much for Apple's hardware, software, ecosystem, etc.

Again vote with your $$$.

Government regulations can help push companies to innovate, can help open the door for new competition, etc.

No it really can't. The 3 mediocre teleco companies are an example of that.

 

[mcnallym]

It wouldn't be copying another OS, it would be pushing Apple to innovate and make iOS better and more secure for a broader range of users. It would be pushing Apple make iOS able to accommodate those who may want to stay within the "walled garden" (only use Apple’s App Store, not sideload, etc.) and those who want more options (using alternative app stores, sideloading, etc.). It would be pushing Apple to make a better overall OS.

Yes it is copying Android.

You want to introduce two things to iOS that are already present in Android and don't in iOS

That is in Plain Straightforward English Language copying Android.

How is this innovative. Innovation is to bring something new or different to iOS. Instead you want to bring something that already exists.

So apparently Innovation is adding features that already existed for years on another OS that Apple hadn't felt necessary before until forceed too by regulation.

If this is what people think is innovation then no wonder Apple don't introduce much as setting an exceptionally low barrier.

ALL you are doing with this adding a way for developers to distribute their apps without using the Apple Store.

I can imagine the Samsung video's if apple added these feature pointing out how Android has had it for years.

Give me ONE extra feature other then additional distribution points for developers that will bring.

Will it bring new capability to iOS other then additional distribution points for developers.

What will it bring that will allow an app to do something that cannot currently do anyway as it isn't going to add additional capabilty beyond avoiding Apples AppStore which is the ONE AND ONLY thing it will do.

Is it going to improve what can be done with Mapping Applications?
Is it going to improve use of the Neural Engine for image processing?
Is it going to improve messaging capabilities?

What will push Apple to add more capability to iOS is to counter development of Android as it gets more capabilties and Apple wants to keep people buying iPhones. More ways to distribute Apps but no extra features in iOS other then Side Loading and Multiple App Stores won't do that. That is what will push Apple to improve.

Yet again you fail to actually bring anything to say HOW Side Loading and App Stores will push Apple to improve iOS.

It is like a brexiteers mantra where seized on a phrase and don't know how to get off.

 

[webkit]

It's not about the breakup of Apple it's the story about how a once great AT&T morphed into 3 mediocre telco companies where much of the world surpasses the US in cell phone quality and service. That's the takeaway.

Again, the breakup of AT&T achieved many of the desired results.

Apple is not under obligation to gather requirements and make changes because of some internet posts. Sideloading due to regulations is not an improvement it will result in everything that is bad about the app store to be worse and overshadow what could be some very small positives.

Sideloading due to regulations is an improvement as it opens the door for more competition, pushes companies to innovate, etc.

Doesn't matter what it says. Apple products and services sell. Don't like the products or services, then vote with your $$$.

Again vote with your $$$.

Android and Google products and services sell too but that doesn't mean dominant companies should be allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

No it really can't. The 3 mediocre teleco companies are an example of that.

Things could've been far worse if AT&T had been allowed to continue to dominate/control the telecommunications market. We'd be seeing higher prices, less and slower innovation, fewer options, etc.