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

[webkit]

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.

No, it’s not copying Android. That would be like saying there has been no innovation with cars as everything over the past 120+ years was just copying the original car.

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.

Innovation can be about bringing something new to iOS (sideloading, alternative app stores) and about improving or introducing new security technology to allow the OS to perform better for all types of user experiences. Something better than the restricted, artificial bubble.

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.

It gives developers more options to distribute apps, it gives customers more options to get apps, it pushes Apple to make iOS better which can push Google to do the same for Android, etc. All good.

 

[I7guy]

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

But in the end the result was objectively mediocre.

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

No it's not an improvement. It's opening up pandoras box of crapware.

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

Correct and Apple does not engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to the app store.

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.

You don't know that. Objectively what we know is where we are today.

 

[BaldiMac]

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

People keep repeating the same thing without any evidence. Innovation in what? Payment processing?!? The vast majority of the desktop and mobile devices are able to install from third-party sources. Why isn't the innovation and competition happening there? If it already is happening, then we certainly don't need Apple to create it.

In reality, the App Store model actually created the innovation and competition that people are claiming we'd see if we ended it.

 

[mcnallym]

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.

I actually said this myself that not everyone happy with everything in iOS, however CLEARLY if people that don't like the walled garden are still buying iPhones then clearly the walled garden outweighs the openess of Android. SO to those Users I say go buy and Android System and enjoy those features as they don't seem to have a massive uptake in usage, and deny Apple your $$$.

If people stop giving Apple there $$$ then Apple will look at WHY people aren't spending with them and adjust the product.

What Apple are doing with the iPhone must still be inline with what there target market wants as they are rather profitable and companies that are profitable tend to be

1.) Only Game in Town and clearly there are other Smartphones out there so cannot be that with Apple
2.) Providing the target audience with what the target audience wants

Historically Apple have developed products to meet certain identified target audience. They have not tried to be all things to all people.
Steve Jobs himself on video acknowledged that there will be people that don't like Apples direction and will buy other products instead and he was fine with it.

You cannot please everyone all of the time and Steve focussed on pleasing his target audience and everyone else could buy non-Apple.
If Apples product doesn't work for you then don't buy it.

You only have to look at the Mac Pro forum the past few years to see how people are finding the Mac Pro as Apple have moved the products doesn't suit there need and are moving away to something that does meet there needs.

As Apple aren't u-turning on Apple Silicon with the Mac Pro and the 3rd Party GPU then Apple clearly are OK with losing those $$$ despite what people say in the Mac Pro forum.

New Coke came about because Pepsi WON the Pepsi Challenge in that blind taste testing then people were showing a preference for the sweeter taste of Pepsi.

Coke developed a slightly sweeter drink and again blind taste testing gave Coke the feedback that people preferred this slightly sweeter taste.

Coke launched new and improved Coke that all of the blind taste research showed was what people said they wanted.

Went down well didn't it.

What you are seeing is the same effect as what happened with Coke just that the people that like Apple is they are are making noise beforehand rather then afterwards.

Again you keep saying that Side Loading and Multiple App Stores will improve competition and choice in the app market but you are unable to say how.

As I have repeatedly stated it will not add any new features to iOS that a developer could not use now and put in the App Store and you have not once provided anything to show how I am incorrect with those statements.

The only competition you will bring is in WHERE can get the Applications one. It isn't going to add more applications as if a developer wants to put the App on iOS then what is it in the App that they cannot do now that they would be able to do OTHER then avoid publishing in the Apple App Store.

Again I have repeatedly stated this and you have not once provided anything to show how I am incorrect with those statements.

If the reason they are not developing on iOS is have to publish via the Apple AppStore then not sure what users are missing as clearly the developer isn't bothered about catering to the iOS section of the Smartphone market.


Side Loading and Mutiple App Store is all about Developers like those of the Fortnite Game wanting to avoid the Apple App Store. Fortnite brought nothing in there court case about how there was something that they couldn't do in the game (other then avoid apples payment) or what they would be able to add for the user that couldn't do whilst distributing via the App Store.

In terms of accomodating users that don't want the walled garden well that is fairly central to Apples vision for what it wants to do. Also whilst Apple has about 30% rounded of the market share by volume then when it comes to revenue then way way higher then that. Pepople buying android phones spend less then people that buy iPhones.

So Apple get a much better ROI on iPhone then Samsung and others does on Android in terms of revenue generated
On the balance sheet it doesn't make sense to go after the lower revenue spending customers.
When it comes down to it then Apple like every company out there is $$$ orientated



.

 

[mcnallym]

Innovation can be about bringing something new to iOS (sideloading, alternative app stores) and about improving or introducing new security technology to allow the OS to perform better for all types of user experiences. Something better than the restricted, artificial bubble.

Again with the mantra but nothing to say HOW this will achieve it

Again your examples of NEW is something that already exists elsewhere so is NOT NEW and won't do anything for what you want.

Believe me SECURITY does not IMPROVE user experience and certainly does not make things perform better.
20+ years of working with IT security shows me this.
There is a reason why IoT such as smart lights, fridges etc came out WITHOUT security but connected to the Internet and that is because takes much more effort to do things securely which requires more resources so certainly won't perform better unless give the app more resource.
On the hardware then the App WITH Security will perform SLOWER then the one without because security takes hardware resources away from the system.

iOS will give better user experience and allow different types of apps by adding new capabilities for Apps to make use of.

As said previously but you desperately cling too as don't seem to have anything else to add App Distribtion doesn't add more features to iOS for Apps to use. Only ways to distribute the App.

It gives developers more options to distribute apps, it gives customers more options to get apps, it pushes Apple to make iOS better which can push Google to do the same for Android, etc. All good.

Again you say the ONE thing in that give developers more options to distribute and customers way to get them.
Again as well you fail completely to say HOW this pushes Apple to make iOS better by adding actual new capabilties that Apps can use.
Adding capabilities that Apps can use is what improves iOS, NOT having ways to distribute apps.

Show me how I am incorrect in what stating here.

 

[mcnallym]

Is interesting that people diverged off to the break up of AT&T.

The same EU Commissioner that is calling for Apple to open up is also calling for aConsolidation in the Telecoms Market within each country within the EU as the fragmentation is causing the telco's to not have the money to each make the investment for the next generation and wants to consolidate into a smaller number of telco's so can have the money.

So is calling for less competition in the overall market there,

But is calling for more competition within the iOS sub-market for SmartPhones.

 

[webkit]

But in the end the result was objectively mediocre.

The rend result was not mediocre and was far better than things would've realistically been if AT&T hadn’t been broken up.

No it's not an improvement. It's opening up pandoras box of crapware.

No, it would be an improvement as I opens the door for more competition, pushes companies to innovate by creating better security measures against potential malware, improving the App Store, etc.

Correct and Apple does not engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to the app store.

It's up to regulators and courts to decide. Restricting alternative app stores, app access, etc. on a major mobile OS platform can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior.

You don't know that. Objectively what we know is where we are today.

If AT&T had been allowed to continue to dominate the telecommunications market, they would've been less motivated to innovate due to lack of competition, less motivated to bring down prices due to lack of competition, potential competitors would've been less willing/able to move into that market due to AT&T significant control, etc. Again, things could've been far worse.

 

[webkit]

People keep repeating the same thing without any evidence. Innovation in what? Payment processing?!? The vast majority of the desktop and mobile devices are able to install from third-party sources. Why isn't the innovation and competition happening there? If it already is happening, then we certainly don't need Apple to create it.

Innovate by creating better/stronger security measures against potential malware, improving the App Store experience, etc.

In reality, the App Store model actually created the innovation and competition that people are claiming we'd see if we ended it.

How did the App Store create innovation and competition in app stores or app access when iOS, a major mobile OS, doesn't even allow app store competition and sideloading?

 

[webkit]

I actually said this myself that not everyone happy with everything in iOS, however CLEARLY if people that don't like the walled garden are still buying iPhones then clearly the walled garden outweighs the openess of Android. SO to those Users I say go buy and Android System and enjoy those features as they don't seem to have a massive uptake in usage, and deny Apple your $$$.

If people stop giving Apple there $$$ then Apple will look at WHY people aren't spending with them and adjust the product.

What Apple are doing with the iPhone must still be inline with what there target market wants as they are rather profitable and companies that are profitable tend to be

1.) Only Game in Town and clearly there are other Smartphones out there so cannot be that with Apple
2.) Providing the target audience with what the target audience wants

Historically Apple have developed products to meet certain identified target audience. They have not tried to be all things to all people.
Steve Jobs himself on video acknowledged that there will be people that don't like Apples direction and will buy other products instead and he was fine with it.

You cannot please everyone all of the time and Steve focussed on pleasing his target audience and everyone else could buy non-Apple.
If Apples product doesn't work for you then don't buy it.

You only have to look at the Mac Pro forum the past few years to see how people are finding the Mac Pro as Apple have moved the products doesn't suit there need and are moving away to something that does meet there needs.

As Apple aren't u-turning on Apple Silicon with the Mac Pro and the 3rd Party GPU then Apple clearly are OK with losing those $$$ despite what people say in the Mac Pro forum.

New Coke came about because Pepsi WON the Pepsi Challenge in that blind taste testing then people were showing a preference for the sweeter taste of Pepsi.

Coke developed a slightly sweeter drink and again blind taste testing gave Coke the feedback that people preferred this slightly sweeter taste.

Coke launched new and improved Coke that all of the blind taste research showed was what people said they wanted.

Went down well didn't it.

What you are seeing is the same effect as what happened with Coke just that the people that like Apple is they are are making noise beforehand rather then afterwards.

Again you keep saying that Side Loading and Multiple App Stores will improve competition and choice in the app market but you are unable to say how.

As I have repeatedly stated it will not add any new features to iOS that a developer could not use now and put in the App Store and you have not once provided anything to show how I am incorrect with those statements.

The only competition you will bring is in WHERE can get the Applications one. It isn't going to add more applications as if a developer wants to put the App on iOS then what is it in the App that they cannot do now that they would be able to do OTHER then avoid publishing in the Apple App Store.

Again I have repeatedly stated this and you have not once provided anything to show how I am incorrect with those statements.

If the reason they are not developing on iOS is have to publish via the Apple AppStore then not sure what users are missing as clearly the developer isn't bothered about catering to the iOS section of the Smartphone market.


Side Loading and Mutiple App Store is all about Developers like those of the Fortnite Game wanting to avoid the Apple App Store. Fortnite brought nothing in there court case about how there was something that they couldn't do in the game (other then avoid apples payment) or what they would be able to add for the user that couldn't do whilst distributing via the App Store.

In terms of accomodating users that don't want the walled garden well that is fairly central to Apples vision for what it wants to do. Also whilst Apple has about 30% rounded of the market share by volume then when it comes to revenue then way way higher then that. Pepople buying android phones spend less then people that buy iPhones.

So Apple get a much better ROI on iPhone then Samsung and others does on Android in terms of revenue generated
On the balance sheet it doesn't make sense to go after the lower revenue spending customers.
When it comes down to it then Apple like every company out there is $$$ orientated

Again with the mantra but nothing to say HOW this will achieve it

Again your examples of NEW is something that already exists elsewhere so is NOT NEW and won't do anything for what you want.

Believe me SECURITY does not IMPROVE user experience and certainly does not make things perform better.
20+ years of working with IT security shows me this.
There is a reason why IoT such as smart lights, fridges etc came out WITHOUT security but connected to the Internet and that is because takes much more effort to do things securely which requires more resources so certainly won't perform better unless give the app more resource.
On the hardware then the App WITH Security will perform SLOWER then the one without because security takes hardware resources away from the system.

iOS will give better user experience and allow different types of apps by adding new capabilities for Apps to make use of.

As said previously but you desperately cling too as don't seem to have anything else to add App Distribtion doesn't add more features to iOS for Apps to use. Only ways to distribute the App.

Again you say the ONE thing in that give developers more options to distribute and customers way to get them.
Again as well you fail completely to say HOW this pushes Apple to make iOS better by adding actual new capabilties that Apps can use.
Adding capabilities that Apps can use is what improves iOS, NOT having ways to distribute apps.

Show me how I am incorrect in what stating here.

Many people buy Android-based devices and many people buy iOS-based devices, which is more popular can vary by country. Many of those people buying iOS-devices do so DESPITE the "walled garden" because they like other features of the iPhone. This is an opportunity for Apple to innovate and make iOS stronger and more secure for sideloading which can push Android to do the same thereby making the mobile experience better for everyone with improved products and choices e.g., the positives of iOS PLUS sideloading and access to alternative app stores and related features for those interested.

Things aren't going get better if we stick with an artificial bubble approach and don't try to push industries and companies to be open to more competition and innovate to make things better, stronger for more or broader uses now and for the future.

 

[BaldiMac]

Innovate by creating better/stronger security measures against potential malware, improving the App Store experience, etc.

Those things are already happening. The App Store is a significant part of that security.

How did the App Store create innovation and competition in app stores or app access when iOS, a major mobile OS, doesn't even allow app store competition and sideloading?

The App Store model is an innovation and provides competition to previously existing models. It created a platform for innovation and competition by elevating consumer trust in downloading new apps.

 

[mrochester]

Many people buy Android-based devices and many people buy iOS-based devices, which is more popular can vary by country. Many of those people buying iOS-devices do so DESPITE the "walled garden" because they like other features of the iPhone. This is an opportunity for Apple to innovate and make iOS stronger and more secure for sideloading which can push Android to do the same thereby making the mobile experience better for everyone with improved products and choices e.g., the positives of iOS PLUS sideloading and access to alternative app stores and related features for those interested.

Things aren't going get better if we stick with an artificial bubble approach and don't try to push industries and companies to be open to more competition and innovate to make things better, stronger for more or broader uses now and for the future.

I love your optimism but we are never going to get nothing but positives. It’s almost like some people never learn that tech utopia is not a thing. There will be downsides and we will all have to live with them.

 

[I7guy]

The rend result was not mediocre and was far better than things would've realistically been if AT&T hadn’t been broken up.

We’ll disagree in this point.

No, it would be an improvement as I opens the door for more competition, pushes companies to innovate by creating better security measures against potential malware, improving the App Store, etc.

No it will be worse as I noted previously. We’ll disagree in this point.

It's up to regulators and courts to decide. Restricting alternative app stores, app access, etc. on a major mobile OS platform can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior.

Sure. MR members aren’t the court, jury or final say.

If AT&T had been allowed to continue to dominate the telecommunications market, they would've been less motivated to innovate due to lack of competition, less motivated to bring down prices due to lack of competition, potential competitors would've been less willing/able to move into that market due to AT&T significant control, etc. Again, things could've been far worse.

We’ll disagree in this point. Today we have 3 mediocre carriers with a bunch of MVNOs that bottom feed off of them. Lucent, arguably the best tech lab ever with more innovation in one minute than the three telecoms displayed in decades, was destroyed in the process.

Things could have been far better.

 

[mcnallym]

Many people buy Android-based devices and many people buy iOS-based devices, which is more popular can vary by country. Many of those people buying iOS-devices do so DESPITE the "walled garden" because they like other features of the iPhone. This is an opportunity for Apple to innovate and make iOS stronger and more secure for sideloading which can push Android to do the same thereby making the mobile experience better for everyone with improved products and choices e.g., the positives of iOS PLUS sideloading and access to alternative app stores and related features for those interested.

Things aren't going get better if we stick with an artificial bubble approach and don't try to push industries and companies to be open to more competition and innovate to make things better, stronger for more or broader uses now and for the future.

Do you actually read, i see failed to look up what innovate means still! Must have been to the same school as Phil Schiller as he doesn't seem to know what innovate means either.

Like I said People will buy what suits there need. Clearly if buying iOS then whatever they find positive in iOS outweighs the desire for Side Loading and Multiple App Stores or whatever else people want bringing in from Android.
Nice to see you agree with me but you don't seem to realise that either. You just saying it a different way.

You say that despite the walled garden then like other features of iPhone. I say that people buy them as they prefer the other features that iPhones have and they outweigh what they don't like. You are saying the same thing as I am but in a different way, but still saying the same thing. Other features on iOS outweigh the absence of sideloading and multiple app stores for people that buy iPhones.



For the umpteenth time, Android already has Side Loading so adding it to iOS is not going to push Google to do anything so the only thing will achieve is an amusing advert from Samsung which can usually be gauranteed to raise a chuckle where they show how Apple copying them adding something they had for years.


You don't need to make iOS stronger in terms of security to support side loading. You need to make iOS Security Stronger to identify apps that attempting malicious activity. Contrary to popular belief Apples App Store is not infallible in preventing malicious apps making it too the users phones.

These 17 iPhone apps have been removed from the Apple App Store for delivering malware

Researchers uncover malicious iPhone applications in Apple's official marketplace after apps bypassed security measures by hiding code behind a C&C server.

www.zdnet.com

The security for installation and operation of an app via side loading is no more then what is needed for installation of an app via Apples App Store or any other method you want of installing apps.

The process of installation of the app is irrelevant in terms of security that required so side loading doesn't need additional security to support it.

Security wise then ANY APP no matter WHERE or HOW installed should be observed as installing to see what doing as installs and then what the App is doing during operation. And that is needed whether App comes from Apples App Store or any other method. And that is true of any platform mobile or desktop.

Again you talk about improved products and choices from side loading and multiple app stores but FAIL to provide a SINGLE improvement or choice (other then can choose how/where to install from) It will add no actual features to iOS other then where/how can install an App. It doesn't provide anything else to iOS adding these and they won't push Google as they already have those features.

Yes Apple would introduce OTHER new features at the same time as not going to have an iOS launch where the ONLY difference is that supports Side Loading/Multiple App Stores but they would be OTHER new features that give capability to Apps NOT the Side Loading/Multiple App Stores

What NEW Features are available to an app in iOS, bearing in mind that only thing adding with side loading and more app stores is WHERE and HOW can install. You don't change what an App can and cannot do on iOS as don't add anything that is available for the Apps to use.

For instance Photo Editing on iOS. There are numerous Photo Editing Apps on iOS. These all compete with each other and drive each other to improve there App. They already have that drive from competing Apps to improve, so how does multiple app stores or side loading suddenly add more drive to the developers of the photo editing apps.

To get Google to respond then Apple needs ACTUALLY NEW features that are available to Apps.

To answer regarding things won't improve in the walled garden then look at an original iPhone and it's OS and then look at the current iPhone and it's iOS as what you can do and tell me that nothing has improved over the years.
They have improved as iPhone and iOS have COMPETITION from the OTHER Smartphones and Apple has to improve to keep people buying iPhones rather then the competition.

Apple don't stop ANYONE developing and marketing and selling mobile phones. All a company has to is raise the resources required to do so.

Creating new Processors is also a high entry barrier yet Apple managed to do it by investing the resource to develop first the SoC for its own mobile devices and then developing further for the M Series SoC appearing in it's. And did this with the artificial handicap it imposed on its self by deciding would keep the products for own use only as opposed to making them available to others, and thus reducing the oppurtunities to recoup the costs.

 

[webkit]

Those things are already happening. The App Store is a significant part of that security.

What security does the App Store provide iOS for sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.? It's innovation in those areas that would improve the experience. Improving the App Store experience would be a separate matter that can come from additional competition.

The App Store model is an innovation and provides competition to previously existing models. It created a platform for innovation and competition by elevating consumer trust in downloading new apps.

Apple's App Store does provide competition but app stores were around before Apple’s. The issue is that iOS restrictions prevent competition on a major mobile OS.

 

[webkit]

Do you actually read, i see failed to look up what innovate means still! Must have been to the same school as Phil Schiller as he doesn't seem to know what innovate means either.

I think it is you who fails to understand what innovate means and if you don’t think that coming up with new ways to protect against things like software security matters can't be innovative then I can't help you.

Like I said People will buy what suits there need. Clearly if buying iOS then whatever they find positive in iOS outweighs the desire for Side Loading and Multiple App Stores or whatever else people want bringing in from Android.
Nice to see you agree with me but you don't seem to realise that either. You just saying it a different way.
You say that despite the walled garden then like other features of iPhone. I say that people buy them as they prefer the other features that iPhones have and they outweigh what they don't like. You are saying the same thing as I am but in a different way, but still saying the same thing. Other features on iOS outweigh the absence of sideloading and multiple app stores for people that buy iPhones.

For the umpteenth time, Android already has Side Loading so adding it to iOS is not going to push Google to do anything so the only thing will achieve is an amusing advert from Samsung which can usually be gauranteed to raise a chuckle where they show how Apple copying them adding something they had for years.

Having alternatives does not negate Antitrust laws. Having alternatives does not give a company a right to engage in antiicompetitive behavior. The DOJ went after Microsoft (Windows) in the 1990s even though there were several alternatives existed including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

You don't need to make iOS stronger in terms of security to support side loading. You need to make iOS Security Stronger to identify apps that attempting malicious activity. Contrary to popular belief Apples App Store is not infallible in preventing malicious apps making it too the users phones.

Making iOS stronger in terms of security would definitely eliminate some (not all) of the concerns people have regarding sideloading.

These 17 iPhone apps have been removed from the Apple App Store for delivering malware

Researchers uncover malicious iPhone applications in Apple's official marketplace after apps bypassed security measures by hiding code behind a C&C server.

www.zdnet.com

The security for installation and operation of an app via side loading is no more then what is needed for installation of an app via Apples App Store or any other method you want of installing apps.

The process of installation of the app is irrelevant in terms of security that required so side loading doesn't need additional security to support it.

Security wise then ANY APP no matter WHERE or HOW installed should be observed as installing to see what doing as installs and then what the App is doing during operation. And that is needed whether App comes from Apples App Store or any other method. And that is true of any platform mobile or desktop.

Again you talk about improved products and choices from side loading and multiple app stores but FAIL to provide a SINGLE improvement or choice (other then can choose how/where to install from) It will add no actual features to iOS other then where/how can install an App. It doesn't provide anything else to iOS adding these and they won't push Google as they already have those features.

Yes Apple would introduce OTHER new features at the same time as not going to have an iOS launch where the ONLY difference is that supports Side Loading/Multiple App Stores but they would be OTHER new features that give capability to Apps NOT the Side Loading/Multiple App Stores

What NEW Features are available to an app in iOS, bearing in mind that only thing adding with side loading and more app stores is WHERE and HOW can install. You don't change what an App can and cannot do on iOS as don't add anything that is available for the Apps to use.

For instance Photo Editing on iOS. There are numerous Photo Editing Apps on iOS. These all compete with each other and drive each other to improve there App. They already have that drive from competing Apps to improve, so how does multiple app stores or side loading suddenly add more drive to the developers of the photo editing apps.

To get Google to respond then Apple needs ACTUALLY NEW features that are available to Apps.

To answer regarding things won't improve in the walled garden then look at an original iPhone and it's OS and then look at the current iPhone and it's iOS as what you can do and tell me that nothing has improved over the years.
They have improved as iPhone and iOS have COMPETITION from the OTHER Smartphones and Apple has to improve to keep people buying iPhones rather then the competition.

If definitely would improve things especially if it pushed Apple to innovate by creating better/stronger security measures against potential malware, improving the App Store experience, etc. As I've said a few times, improvements can come from lower prices, more choices for users, more choices for developers, etc.

Apple don't stop ANYONE developing and marketing and selling mobile phones. All a company has to is raise the resources required to do so.

The issue here is about Apple engaging in anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. Besides, Microsoft wasn't stopping anyone from developing and marketing desktop operating systems in the 1990s when the DOJ went after them. In fact several alternatives existed and had come to market including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

The issue here is about Apple engaging in anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. […]

There is no finding.

 

[webkit]

There is no finding.

The EU does find that dominant (gatekeeper) platforms that don't allow sideloading or alternative app stores are anticompetitive. The U.S. DOJ appears to have similar findings but is still in the process of putting together its case against Apple and where that goes will depend at least in part on how the DOJ case against Google turns out.

 

[I7guy]

The EU does find that dominant (gatekeeper) platforms that don't allow sideloading or alternative app stores are anticompetitive. The U.S. DOJ appears to have similar findings but is still in the process of putting together its case against Apple and where that goes will depend at least in part on how the DOJ case against Google turns out.

The EU had to thread the needle to catch apple in its web of bad government regulations. Taking them to trial wouldn’t have been as easy.

As far as the DOJ until there is a finding there is no finding.

 

[mcnallym]

I think it is you who fails to understand what innovate means and if you don’t think that coming up with new ways to protect against things like software security matters can't be innovative then I can't help you.

Oh I see you do actually know what innovate means and have actually come up with an example that actually WOULD be some innovation from Apple instead of as dropped repeating your mantra of side loading and additional app stores when these are not something NEW or DIFFERENT.

You have now CHANGED your example of something innovative to something that I agree are ACTUALLY innovative

What I have been saying to you all along is that Side Loading and App Stores are NOT INNOVATITIVE not that Apple doesn't need to innovate. Copying features from another OS are not examples of innovation from Apple to do so and I see you have dropped trying to claim them as such.

Software Security as I said is separate to this and doesn't need to be any different for Side Load, App Store Brand X or Apple App Store application or if you on an Enterprise device then from your Enterprise MDM.

Having alternatives does not negate Antitrust laws. Having alternatives does not give a company a right to engage in antiicompetitive behavior. The DOJ went after Microsoft (Windows) in the 1990s even though there were several alternatives existed including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

The issue here is about Apple engaging in anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. Besides, Microsoft wasn't stopping anyone from developing and marketing desktop operating systems in the 1990s when the DOJ went after them. In fact several alternatives existed and had come to market including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

Why are you claiming OPERATING SYSTEMS as alternatives when the DoJ was about WEB BROWSER Bundling and tieing products to Windows.

The DoJ Action was regarding the bundling of IE with its Windows OS. The FTC (not the DoJ) had launched investigation into Microsoft in 1990 regarding the tieing of Microsoft Products to Windows ie if you want Windows you have to also take Product X from us as well. However the FTC could not agree and closed in 1993.

In 1994 then the DoJ launched a fresh investigation to this and the outcome was that Microsoft agreed not to tie sales of Microsoft Products to Sales of Windows. ie if you buy a Windows License then you do not have to buy a Microsoft Office License as well. However they could still bundle features in the OS.

The later 1998 action was around IE and its bundling with Windows. Microsoft tied buying a License for IE to buying a License for Windows and that IE was to be installed and that negotiated deals with service provider so would not make aware of alternatives to IE advertised to ISP customers and that was Microsoft was ACTIVELY engaging in trying to prevent Netscape (dominant browser of the time) from gaining traction and have IE supplant Netscape as the Browser that people used as was the Browser in front of them.

What Microsoft feared was that by moving to a non-Microsoft Browser then the API for development would move to non-Microsoft. By making the Browser where people work then removed the need for Microsoft Windows to be the OS and thus reduce the dominance of Windows in the Desktop OS. If Netscape was the Dominant Browser then users could move to ANY OS that bundled a Netscape Browser.

Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft for Unlawfully Monopolizing Computer Software Markets

----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would:

-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will have a real choice. Computer manufacturers would have the option of deleting either browser. If Microsoft does not want to include Netscape, it must unbundle its own browser and let it compete on the merits.

-- Require Microsoft to give computer manufacturers the right to modify the initial bootup sequence, so that the manufacturers will be able to offer consumers greater choices in the products and services installed on their machines;

-- Require Microsoft to give computer manufacturers additional options for installing and removing browser software on new computers; and

-- Forbid Microsoft from enforcing contractual provisions that condition participation by internet and online service providers and internet content providers in the windows desktop on their agreeing to limit their distribution and promotion of competing browsers.

Microsoft's own documents, quoted in the complaint filed today, make clear that Microsoft executives did not believe that Microsoft could win the browser war through competition on the merits and instead had to use its Windows monopoly advantage to tilt the playing field in its favour,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTHING in the filing related to removing Microsoft Windows dominance of the Desktop OS, but was all about IE and FORCING computer manufacturers to bundle IE on the machines to try and ensure that users ended up using IE rather then other Web Browser in the Form of Netscape or other Browsers.

As we know then the outcome was simply that when startup Windows Installation then get asked to choose your Web Browser and it installs your browser of choice and makes it the default web browser for Windows.

Now IF you KNEW this when you posted about the DoJ Action then why would you use Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS as examples for the DoJ Action as alternatives when what should have been quoting as examples was Web Browsers!

I can only go by what you post and people that read about the DoJ action wouldn't be quoting OS as alternatives to IE.

The issue here is about Apple engaging in anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. Besides, Microsoft wasn't stopping anyone from developing and marketing desktop operating systems in the 1990s when the DOJ went after them. In fact several alternatives existed and had come to market including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.

Ok so lets deal with this head on

anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

Browser Engine restriction was 2007 on day one of launch of iPhone. So 0% market share growing to 5% by the end of 2007. And number 5 by market share. Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Others, iOS.

App Stores/Side Loading was 2008 with the launch of the Apple App Store. By then iOS had overtaken Others to become Number 4. and market share 11% by end of the year.

Percentages are Global Market Share as behaviour is Global in those decisions with iOS.

Hard to argue that iOS was a dominant mobile os when had 0% market share in 2007 and was 4th place in 2008.

Certainly not a Duopoly with Android when did these actions.

How have these actions lead to iOS become dominant?

Could argue that whilst small then doesn't matter that anti-competitive however at that point you are arguing that new entries to a market can be anti-competitive until they become a dominant market player.

ie launch a new product and enact anti-competitive behaviour to remove your competition and promote your own product until it becomes a dominant product.

Of course why has it taken till now to do something.
Android/iOS took Number 1 and 2 with 50.93% and 23.79% of smartphone market back in 2011 so 12 years ago which I suppose is better then them taking the 15/16 years to when the decisions made.

I am just going by what you post and you are saying the "on a dominant mobile os" and you saying anti-competitive.

 

[mcnallym]

The EU had to thread the needle to catch apple in its web of bad government regulations. Taking them to trial wouldn’t have been as easy.

As far as the DOJ until there is a finding there is no finding.

Exactly. Having to argue that iOS is a separate market to other smartphones and taken them over a decade to get here.

Once you admit to iOS being part of a larger smartphone market then the argument starts to fall apart quickly.

Psystar tried to argue that Mac OS was a separate market to Windows and Linux PC's and they weren't successful in court with that.


Is interesting that whilst arguing iOS is anti-competitive then the same commissioner is also arguing that the mobile operators is suffering from too much competition as they operators cannot make the investment individually to move forward with next gen of network.

And is arguing for consolidation of mobile operators to make it easier for them to make the investment which will lead to less competition and choice for ALL mobile users not just iOS.

So wants more competition for iOS users within iOS but less competition regarding there choice of mobile network to use.

Just another reason why people get fed up with the EU at times and why is about business with things like this not users.

 

[BaldiMac]

What security does the App Store provide iOS for sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.? It's innovation in those areas that would improve the experience. Improving the App Store experience would be a separate matter that can come from additional competition.

I didn't say anything about that because it's a complete non sequitur. The security innovation that the App Store provides is eliminating those vectors.

Apple's App Store does provide competition but app stores were around before Apple’s. The issue is that iOS restrictions prevent competition on a major mobile OS.

Again, nothing to do with what I said.

 

[webkit]

The EU had to thread the needle to catch apple in its web of bad government regulations. Taking them to trial wouldn’t have been as easy.

As far as the DOJ until there is a finding there is no finding.

The EU may have more specifically defined dominance and anticompetitive behavior but it follows typical antitrust laws that have been around for ages. Again, the EU finding is that iOS is a dominant/gatekeeper platform and Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

 

[webkit]

Oh I see you do actually know what innovate means and have actually come up with an example that actually WOULD be some innovation from Apple instead of as dropped repeating your mantra of side loading and additional app stores when these are not something NEW or DIFFERENT.

You have now CHANGED your example of something innovative to something that I agree are ACTUALLY innovative

What I have been saying to you all along is that Side Loading and App Stores are NOT INNOVATITIVE not that Apple doesn't need to innovate. Copying features from another OS are not examples of innovation from Apple to do so and I see you have dropped trying to claim them as such.

Software Security as I said is separate to this and doesn't need to be any different for Side Load, App Store Brand X or Apple App Store application or if you on an Enterprise device then from your Enterprise MDM.

Why are you claiming OPERATING SYSTEMS as alternatives when the DoJ was about WEB BROWSER Bundling and tieing products to Windows.

The DoJ Action was regarding the bundling of IE with its Windows OS. The FTC (not the DoJ) had launched investigation into Microsoft in 1990 regarding the tieing of Microsoft Products to Windows ie if you want Windows you have to also take Product X from us as well. However the FTC could not agree and closed in 1993.

In 1994 then the DoJ launched a fresh investigation to this and the outcome was that Microsoft agreed not to tie sales of Microsoft Products to Sales of Windows. ie if you buy a Windows License then you do not have to buy a Microsoft Office License as well. However they could still bundle features in the OS.

The later 1998 action was around IE and its bundling with Windows. Microsoft tied buying a License for IE to buying a License for Windows and that IE was to be installed and that negotiated deals with service provider so would not make aware of alternatives to IE advertised to ISP customers and that was Microsoft was ACTIVELY engaging in trying to prevent Netscape (dominant browser of the time) from gaining traction and have IE supplant Netscape as the Browser that people used as was the Browser in front of them.

What Microsoft feared was that by moving to a non-Microsoft Browser then the API for development would move to non-Microsoft. By making the Browser where people work then removed the need for Microsoft Windows to be the OS and thus reduce the dominance of Windows in the Desktop OS. If Netscape was the Dominant Browser then users could move to ANY OS that bundled a Netscape Browser.

Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft for Unlawfully Monopolizing Computer Software Markets

----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would:

-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will have a real choice. Computer manufacturers would have the option of deleting either browser. If Microsoft does not want to include Netscape, it must unbundle its own browser and let it compete on the merits.

-- Require Microsoft to give computer manufacturers the right to modify the initial bootup sequence, so that the manufacturers will be able to offer consumers greater choices in the products and services installed on their machines;

-- Require Microsoft to give computer manufacturers additional options for installing and removing browser software on new computers; and

-- Forbid Microsoft from enforcing contractual provisions that condition participation by internet and online service providers and internet content providers in the windows desktop on their agreeing to limit their distribution and promotion of competing browsers.

Microsoft's own documents, quoted in the complaint filed today, make clear that Microsoft executives did not believe that Microsoft could win the browser war through competition on the merits and instead had to use its Windows monopoly advantage to tilt the playing field in its favour,
-------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTHING in the filing related to removing Microsoft Windows dominance of the Desktop OS, but was all about IE and FORCING computer manufacturers to bundle IE on the machines to try and ensure that users ended up using IE rather then other Web Browser in the Form of Netscape or other Browsers.

As we know then the outcome was simply that when startup Windows Installation then get asked to choose your Web Browser and it installs your browser of choice and makes it the default web browser for Windows.

Now IF you KNEW this when you posted about the DoJ Action then why would you use Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS as examples for the DoJ Action as alternatives when what should have been quoting as examples was Web Browsers!

I can only go by what you post and people that read about the DoJ action wouldn't be quoting OS as alternatives to IE.

Ok so lets deal with this head on

anticompetitive behavior on a dominant mobile OS by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

Browser Engine restriction was 2007 on day one of launch of iPhone. So 0% market share growing to 5% by the end of 2007. And number 5 by market share. Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Others, iOS.

App Stores/Side Loading was 2008 with the launch of the Apple App Store. By then iOS had overtaken Others to become Number 4. and market share 11% by end of the year.

Percentages are Global Market Share as behaviour is Global in those decisions with iOS.

Hard to argue that iOS was a dominant mobile os when had 0% market share in 2007 and was 4th place in 2008.

Certainly not a Duopoly with Android when did these actions.

How have these actions lead to iOS become dominant?

Could argue that whilst small then doesn't matter that anti-competitive however at that point you are arguing that new entries to a market can be anti-competitive until they become a dominant market player.

ie launch a new product and enact anti-competitive behaviour to remove your competition and promote your own product until it becomes a dominant product.

Of course why has it taken till now to do something.
Android/iOS took Number 1 and 2 with 50.93% and 23.79% of smartphone market back in 2011 so 12 years ago which I suppose is better then them taking the 15/16 years to when the decisions made.

I am just going by what you post and you are saying the "on a dominant mobile os" and you saying anti-competitive.

Apple (and/or others) absolutely could innovate in the areas of OS security.

Regarding the DOJ Microsoft case, one of key issues was operating system dominance (with Windows) and restricting access (e.g., browsers) on that platform which is similar to the Apple situation with operating system dominance (with iOS) and restricting access (e.g., sideloading, alternative browner engines, alternative app stores, etc.) on that platform. One of the judge's ruling, which was later overturned, was to breakup Microsoft into two companies, one for Windows and the other for essentially everything else (browser, Office software, etc.).

It doesn't matter what Apple and/or Android were doing in the early years as they didn't have dominant or duopoly positions in mobile OS. The situation changed over time as iOS and Android became the only two major players in that space. That is why both are potential targets for antitrust laws.

 

[webkit]

I didn't say anything about that because it's a complete non sequitur. The security innovation that the App Store provides is eliminating those vectors.

It provides nothing to help improve security with sideloading or alternative app stores which would be the task at hand.

Again, nothing to do with what I said.

Nothing to do with what you said? Your comment was, "The App Store model is an innovation and provides competition to previously existing models..." and I agreed that the app store provides competition but the issue is that app and app store competition is restricted on a major OS. Internet Explorer provided competition in the browser market too but the issue was that competition was unfairly restricted on Windows.

 

[I7guy]

The EU may have more specifically defined dominance and anticompetitive behavior but it follows typical antitrust laws that have been around for ages. Again, the EU finding is that iOS is a dominant/gatekeeper platform and Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

We’ll no because there is no findings and the laws were created specifically to regulate a business model. From what I understand, that’s typical EU behavior.