• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Drama Epic Games vs Apple in court face off INCLUDING Tim Sweeney , LIVE !!!

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,532
1,486
835
Germany
If I may, it seems both sides are arguing different points. You seem focused on the low-level specifics of that particular case, versus the illustration of new laws being introduced retroactively as a high-level point on principles.

For mine, the crux of the argument is whether the three dominant platform holders in Windows, iOS and Android are too influential in global market economics to be tantamount as public utilities or not. They have unrivaled positions of power as gatekeepers. Without going down this particular rabbit hole, did we want Apple, Google, and Amazon to flex their collective muscle and say Parler as a business is not entitled to exist?

To not be allowed in the App store instantly deprives your product or service of access to over a billion users. I fail to see this as an arbitrary figure that is laughable.

But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
 
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,400
5,865
540
If I may, it seems both sides are arguing different points. You seem focused on the low-level specifics of that particular case, versus the illustration of new laws being introduced retroactively as a high-level point on principles.

How is a law introduced retroactively? They wait to pass the law until no one is committing the offense any longer?

In terms of applying a law retroactively, I think you'd have a really tough time providing an example in the US. At least in terms of crime or criminal penalty, maybe retroactively applied benefits of some kind with a welfare bill or something like that.

The Parler thing is ridiculous. They broke AWS's TOS on the hosting backend and just needed to move to another provider. Doubtful they'd find a US based home when they were actively facilitating domestic terror plots. I'm sure they found some servers in Russia somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
89
153
240
How is a law introduced retroactively? They wait to pass the law until no one is committing the offense any longer?

In terms of applying a law retroactively, I think you'd have a really tough time providing an example in the US. At least in terms of crime or criminal penalty, maybe retroactively applied benefits of some kind with a welfare bill or something like that.

The Parler thing is ridiculous. They broke AWS's TOS on the hosting backend and just needed to move to another provider. Doubtful they'd find a US based home when they were actively facilitating domestic terror plots. I'm sure they found some servers in Russia somewhere.
But you understand the premise. New legislation was introduced to directly deal with the pre-existing issue.

I don't want to entertain the rabbit hole of Parler, other than you can see the dilemma of the gatekeepers appointing themselves as arbiters of hate speech. They were not elected or appointed position by the public. There's no shortage of inflammatory language and comments elsewhere.

But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
Says you.

I've already made comments on the myriad of reasons to which people can be locked into the Apple ecosystem. The just sell/switch/move to Android commentary is often applicable for consumers. Less so for enterprises with established MDM solutions, line of business applications, and productivity app licenses.

Epic illustrated in the case earlier that the "just as easily" purchase of content is not true. Especially without access to a team of researchers.

I previously didn't think users were entitled to a pre-selection of web browsers before installing Windows. Let's see what the commissions and competition watchdogs say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02 and llien

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,952
2,781
455
But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
This argument will not fly, just because something is possible in theory doesn’t mean it’s viable in practice. Also, the current monopoly politics are shifting from ‘lower prices are good’ to taking a more holistic view on the effects dominant market players have. I recommend reading the Amazon Paradox, it’s a research paper of 80 pages, fairly good at explaining things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,354
945
the company was split up because of illegal market manipulation by anti-trust
The law that that is illegal was enacted POST FACTUM.
I would have expected that to be something easy to comprehend.
But that is perhaps too much to expect from Der Apfel's fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,400
5,865
540
I don't want to entertain the rabbit hole of Parler, other than you can see the dilemma of the gatekeepers appointing themselves as arbiters of hate speech. They were not elected or appointed position by the public. There's no shortage of inflammatory language and comments elsewhere.

True, true. This thread is derailed enough as it is.


The law that that is illegal was enacted POST FACTUM.
I would have expected that to be something easy to comprehend.
But that is perhaps too much to expect from Der Apfel's fans.

Not something that can be established in the case you referenced since the market manipulation/restraint to trade continued for 19 years after the law passed. Again, no one is denying that the new law provided the means or even that SO was on the minds of law makers when the Sherman Act was drafted (it obviously was, looking at the information available). However, the original argument that you made was that SO was taken to task with no laws on the books regarding their behavior, which implied that the related laws only came about from that action. Which is certainly not the case. Nor were they split 15 minutes after the passage of Sherman based on actions they had taken prior to its passage.

If that's not the argument you are trying to make, I'm not sure what it is. What law is ever created before any such offense has ever occurred? Would be some new Minority Report style legal system.
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Banned
Sep 25, 2020
2,971
4,589
410
MS have a OS and apps on a open platform not closed lol
They made deals with retailers to make their apps and OSS the only option.

It not even possible to Apple to the same as MS because iPhone is already closed for the good.
what you mean by saying "an Os on a open platform" ? pls explain better
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,400
5,865
540
what you mean by saying "an Os on a open platform" ? pls explain better

He's referring to the fact that Windows never enforced any policy regarding applications that could run on it. Anyone can write a bat or exe file in notepad and be up and running, there is no vetting or review process. Even with MS's own store, that did vet apps until recently, the OS continued to support executables outside that store. This isn't very groundbreaking since digital distribution really wasn't a thing when Windows was introduced.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Sep 25, 2020
2,971
4,589
410
He's referring to the fact that Windows never enforced any policy regarding applications that could run on it. Anyone can write a bat or exe file in notepad and be up and running, there is no vetting or review process. Even with MS's own store, that did vet apps until recently, the OS continued to support executables outside that store. This isn't very groundbreaking since digital distribution really wasn't a thing when Windows was introduced.
and where is wrote that ms cannot (probably to their detriment) change the way apps are vetted / reviewed? We saw that they was just doing it with uwp. it would be enough to leave the compatibility with the old apps in emulation mode or something like that but nobody forbids Microsoft to "close" THEIR OWNED operating system. if their are not doing it , it is because ms is afraid of losing market dominance not because they can't. The open platform thing is just a legend on how Ms promoted their OS...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

A.Romero

Member
Feb 23, 2009
3,749
2,541
1,250
Mexico
www.lavejota.com
I was going to maybe stick this in its own Off Topic Thread but decided not to at the moment unless we think it might confused the thread.

Senators target Apple’s App Store exclusivity in new bill - The Verge

The app store fights move to Congress - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech

If they manage to force them to use their own payment systems, they will find a new way to compensate for the lost revenue. Some ideas:

- Charge developers for having their apps listed in the store or increase the fees to publish or a fee per download
- Increase device prices

I think the model is OK as it is.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
I was going to maybe stick this in its own Off Topic Thread but decided not to at the moment unless we think it might confused the thread.

Senators target Apple’s App Store exclusivity in new bill - The Verge

The app store fights move to Congress - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech

I think this bill sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

If I created an OS (mobile or otherwise), and it was centered around a single storefront that I also created, why does Apple/Epic/Google/et cetera get to come in and force me to allow their storefronts to work on my OS so that consumers can bypass my storefront? If they don't like my prices then they don't have to put their content on my OS/storefront. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: A.Romero

FritzJ92

Member
Jul 19, 2020
462
712
305
I think this bill sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

If I created an OS (mobile or otherwise), and it was centered around a single storefront that I also created, why does Apple/Epic/Google/et cetera get to come in and force me to allow their storefronts to work on my OS so that consumers can bypass my storefront? If they don't like my prices then they don't have to put their content on my OS/storefront. It's as simple as that.
I mean windows literally went through this and the argument was also why do I have to share the space that I created for my software. The answer is pretty simple, once you’ve gotten so big that people can’t compete, you have to allow other a chance to compete or else the whole monopoly thing.
Apple can offer better deals to devs and users to incentivize them to stay on their storefront.
 

kikkis

Member
Aug 13, 2020
288
396
290
I mean windows literally went through this and the argument was also why do I have to share the space that I created for my software. The answer is pretty simple, once you’ve gotten so big that people can’t compete, you have to allow other a chance to compete or else the whole monopoly thing.
Apple can offer better deals to devs and users to incentivize them to stay on their storefront.
How do you get so big in os space that other companies can't compete. I mean there is no barrier of entry like something tied to land resources. Monopoly means there is literally one provider, it's infuriating when people say there is monopoly in mobile or desktop space.

I also don't see how os only provider could compete if these regulations pass, making quality os must cost at least billion and margins are razer thin on mid range phones so no manufacturer is willing to pay even 10 bucks per device with new os.

Whole thing just sounds like Google and Apple built mall with billions and timmy wants some rent free space.
 

FritzJ92

Member
Jul 19, 2020
462
712
305
How do you get so big in os space that other companies can't compete. I mean there is no barrier of entry like something tied to land resources. Monopoly means there is literally one provider, it's infuriating when people say there is monopoly in mobile or desktop space.

I also don't see how os only provider could compete if these regulations pass, making quality os must cost at least billion and margins are razer thin on mid range phones so no manufacturer is willing to pay even 10 bucks per device with new os.

Whole thing just sounds like Google and Apple built mall with billions and timmy wants some rent free space.
The goal is to prevent a monopoly, not that it exist currently. I get that it looks like Apple have to give up what they built, but they aren’t giving it up. They still have control over their App Store, they just can’t prevent another company from offering an App Store on their device for competition sake.
Amazon has an App Store and compete with the Play Store, Google isn’t losing money they just offer a better experience to lock their users in.
 

rnlval

Member
Jun 26, 2017
1,375
1,123
460
Sector 001
gpucuriosity.wordpress.com







Epic brought Steve Jobs into this !!!!



Tons of documents including emails from 2009 between Epic executives


LIVE Audio from Court


Live updates from the court

New U.S. Bill Would Require Companies Like Apple, Google to Give up App Store Power; Open up Sideloading, More


A new bipartisan antitrust bill was introduced today by senators Richard Blumenthal, Marsha Blackburn, and Amy Klobuchar, and it targets Apple and Google, along with the power they wield on their app stores. If the bill passes, then Apple and Google would have to support third-party payments options and other changes, which have been discussed at length here.


-----------------------------

Apple is acting like a medieval government in the iOS serfdom.
 

Swoopsail

Member
Apr 18, 2021
677
672
305
Man I can't stand that giant money-gargling company. I sure hope that other money-gargling company shows them who is boss.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: IFireflyl

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
I mean windows literally went through this and the argument was also why do I have to share the space that I created for my software. The answer is pretty simple, once you’ve gotten so big that people can’t compete, you have to allow other a chance to compete or else the whole monopoly thing.
Apple can offer better deals to devs and users to incentivize them to stay on their storefront.

The issue with Apple vs Microsoft was that Microsoft had a massive monopoly on the x86-based PC OS market, and Microsoft was using that monopoly to stifle any competition. What we're talking about is wholly different. Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile OS market. Apple isn't stifling competition by only offering their app store. If a developer doesn't like the terms set by Apple/Google et cetera, they can go a different route. This could be choosing a competing OS to develop on, or by having their own store available through a web browser, et cetera.

Let's take Fortnite for example. There is already a login. The in-game currency, V-Bucks, does not carry over when you log into your Fortnite account from a different platform. So if you have 10,000 V-Bucks on the iPhone, you won't see that when you log into your same account on Android. That is 100% a restriction from Epic, though. I know this, because content purchased with V-Bucks DOES transfer over. So if you spend that 10,000 V-Bucks on the iPhone and THEN go to Android, your character will have that purchased content.

All Epic has to do to bypass Apple's ruling is to allow V-Bucks to be purchased from their website, and then allow V-Bucks to be tied to the account rather than the platform (which is exactly how content purchased with the V-Bucks works). They could even offer a discount for purchasing the V-Bucks through their own website (which would not use Apple or Google's payment processor) to encourage people to use the Safari or Chrome browser to purchase V-Bucks rather than buying them via the in-app purchase option.

If I'm missing something here, please let me know. But it doesn't seem like this is anything like the Apple vs Microsoft monopoly issue, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile OS market.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
Man I can't stand that giant money-gargling company. I sure hope that other money-gargling company shows them who is boss.

I'd be happy if they both went bankrupt. The problem is that the outcome of this could seriously impact smaller non-money-gargling companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swoopsail

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
The issue with Apple vs Microsoft was that Microsoft had a massive monopoly on the x86-based PC OS market, and Microsoft was using that monopoly to stifle any competition. What we're talking about is wholly different. Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile OS market. Apple isn't stifling competition by only offering their app store. If a developer doesn't like the terms set by Apple/Google et cetera, they can go a different route. This could be choosing a competing OS to develop on, or by having their own store available through a web browser, et cetera.

If I'm missing something here, please let me know. But it doesn't seem like this is anything like the Apple vs Microsoft monopoly issue, because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile OS market.

The problem is that you have a duopoly with effectively the same rules for devs and they are getting even closer with the recent Google play store changes. As a dev, you can't ignore the duopoly sadly cause its tantamount to asking devs to develop for Linux/Mac if you had issues with Windows in 90%. There are very few services that would be big enough to cause meaningful os share movement.

Apple also doesn't allow devs to highlight the fact that you can buy vbucks online which is another shitty move. Epic could have done that cause it was the old status quo but they clearly think this is the right time to join the Coalition of App Fairness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FritzJ92

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
The problem is that you have a duopoly with effectively the same rules for devs and they are getting even closer with the recent Google play store changes. As a dev, you can't ignore the duopoly sadly cause its tantamount to asking devs to develop for Linux/Mac if you had issues with Windows in 90%. There are very few services that would be big enough to cause meaningful os share movement.

Apple also doesn't allow devs to highlight the fact that you can buy vbucks online which is another shitty move. Epic could have done that cause it was the old status quo but they clearly think this is the right time to join the Coalition of App Fairness.

My point is that a monopoly where you're forcing out competition is illegal. Apple and Google have a duopoly, but that isn't illegal. Especially since they aren't preventing others from competing. Look at Microsoft. Apple and Google didn't use their duopoly to force them out if business. They allowed Microsoft to sink or swim on their own.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
My point is that a monopoly where you're forcing out competition is illegal. Apple and Google have a duopoly, but that isn't illegal. Especially since they aren't preventing others from competing. Look at Microsoft. Apple and Google didn't use their duopoly to force them out if business. They allowed Microsoft to sink or swim on their own.
Google does/did have some dodgy rules about not allowing OEMs to fork Android and also having any Android products. That does make creating an competitive mobile OS a very big risk. There is a chicken and egg situation to mobile os development which means its hard or impossible to create a competitive 3rd player. It gets extra complicated if you think Apple is actively hindering development of PWA's. Is that a good situation for consumers and/or dev?

The Senate isn't saying that they are currently doing is illegal, causes it is not. The question is currently whether the current laws and understanding of consumer harm is still valid.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
89
153
240
Google does/did have some dodgy rules about not allowing OEMs to fork Android and also having any Android products. That does make creating an competitive mobile OS a very big risk. There is a chicken and egg situation to mobile os development which means its hard or impossible to create a competitive 3rd player. It gets extra complicated if you think Apple is actively hindering development of PWA's. Is that a good situation for consumers and/or dev?

The Senate isn't saying that they are currently doing is illegal, causes it is not. The question is currently whether the current laws and understanding of consumer harm is still valid.
Yes, absolutely.

Even Microsoft with all its' resources could not find a foothold in the market as a third-player. There were reports they were actively trying to persuade app developers to create an app on their platform with bags of money and they still rejected them e.g. Snapchat.

When you're in a situation like that and you can't even pay for an equivalent app/service - what is the road-map for a successful third-player?

The duopoly is also a bit self-serving with the money Google hands over every year to be the default search engine on iOS.
 

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
463
708
315
Togliatti, Russian Federation
The problem is that you have a duopoly with effectively the same rules for devs and they are getting even closer with the recent Google play store changes. As a dev, you can't ignore the duopoly sadly cause its tantamount to asking devs to develop for Linux/Mac if you had issues with Windows in 90%. There are very few services that would be big enough to cause meaningful os share movement.

Apple also doesn't allow devs to highlight the fact that you can buy vbucks online which is another shitty move. Epic could have done that cause it was the old status quo but they clearly think this is the right time to join the Coalition of App Fairness.
The thing though is that Apple and Google don't operate in the same environment. Google is more like Microsoft, and more subject to the anti-monopoly considerations, as they're only making software for generically made devices. Anybody can make an OS to replace Android if they want to, it's just the software component of your device.

With Apple, their devices are part of an integrated platform. They have absolute power within that platform, but that's only natural. They and only they, make both the hardware and the software. They allow third parties to make software that runs on their platform because it makes business sense to them, but they can restrict it if they feel they should.

I feel vaguely unclean, having to defend Apple when I'm so against walled gardens everywhere and on PC specifically, but I won't bend on the fact that self-established closed platforms have their right to exist. And the rules they establish for themselves, are no-one's but theirs to change. Nobody should be able to force a device maker to grant the license to make their device to someone else, just because the device is successful and broadly used. Same with software, which is not forced to become open-source when immensely popular and seen as vital for many professions. Same with platforms, even if they take the form of a smartphone with an OS that is so similar to a competing "open" platform that is much more free with its internals. The App Store only sells iOS apps. Apple's iOS is only available on Apple devices. Apple devices only come with iOS. It's a closed loop, an integrated platform that third parties are only allowed to participate in making content for. It should not be subject to monopoly rules unless the platform as a whole dominates its market segment, which it clearly doesn't - not when there are so many more things besides iPhones and iPads, and not when those things collectively are more popular by far.
 

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
463
708
315
Togliatti, Russian Federation
what is the road-map for a successful third-player?
Make your own OS, make your own basic apps, distribute your own device with that OS and those apps at whatever market strategy you deem feasible. Make your OS and basic infrastructure that comes with it freely available to everyone.

You probably won't make any inroads with another closed platform, not when the two biggest players are already closed and offer way more advantages than you do. Go open and free, offer unique advantages if you can, the more your platform offers from the get-go and the more it does to distinguish itself from the others in a positive way, the better.

Basically act like you're among PCs and are trying to make Linux a viable competitor when there's already Windows and MacOS. Valve seems to think they've found a way to do it, so we can look at what happens there and judge if it's possible or not.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
just because t not when there are so many more things besides iPhones and iPads, and not when those things collectively are more popular by far.

In the US, Apple has the majority of mobile devices so given that Congress is only technically applying laws for the US, it makes sense. 57%-56% of phones in the US. Whilst it's not dominating, it's the more popular mobile os.

I don't particularly concern myself about the type of os it is but more interested in the percentage of the market that it has and the impact that it has on developers and consumers. I can see the principled arguments but think sadly we have to be a bit pragmatic at times.

The stuff around Tile is a massive red flag to myself in terms of abuse of power.
 

FritzJ92

Member
Jul 19, 2020
462
712
305
My point is that a monopoly where you're forcing out competition is illegal. Apple and Google have a duopoly, but that isn't illegal. Especially since they aren't preventing others from competing. Look at Microsoft. Apple and Google didn't use their duopoly to force them out if business. They allowed Microsoft to sink or swim on their own.
Actually Google worked really hard to force MS out by not putting Google services on their platform but that’s a different situation.
 

FritzJ92

Member
Jul 19, 2020
462
712
305
Make your own OS, make your own basic apps, distribute your own device with that OS and those apps at whatever market strategy you deem feasible. Make your OS and basic infrastructure that comes with it freely available to everyone.

You probably won't make any inroads with another closed platform, not when the two biggest players are already closed and offer way more advantages than you do. Go open and free, offer unique advantages if you can, the more your platform offers from the get-go and the more it does to distinguish itself from the others in a positive way, the better.

Basically act like you're among PCs and are trying to make Linux a viable competitor when there's already Windows and MacOS. Valve seems to think they've found a way to do it, so we can look at what happens there and judge if it's possible or not.
Windows tried that but you can’t be a competing 3rd party without the support of Google services. Too many people rely on it. You platform won’t pick up traction and you’ll find yourself wasting energy and effort. Especially how cheap current androids are, there is no price advantage you could offer that android can’t beat you in.
 

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
89
153
240
Make your own OS, make your own basic apps, distribute your own device with that OS and those apps at whatever market strategy you deem feasible. Make your OS and basic infrastructure that comes with it freely available to everyone.

You probably won't make any inroads with another closed platform, not when the two biggest players are already closed and offer way more advantages than you do. Go open and free, offer unique advantages if you can, the more your platform offers from the get-go and the more it does to distinguish itself from the others in a positive way, the better.

Basically act like you're among PCs and are trying to make Linux a viable competitor when there's already Windows and MacOS. Valve seems to think they've found a way to do it, so we can look at what happens there and judge if it's possible or not.
In a world where consumers actively make their decisions on; familiarity, ease of use, accessibility, breadth of apps, and security - you can't compete with what you've proposed in a meaningful way. Nor would it be worth the investment if you're cutting out any kind of shared app revenue. Then being on the receiving end of constant calls for its' death\re-branding by the media destroying your brand reputation.
 

Unknown?

Member
Jan 5, 2016
5,120
3,866
560
In a world where consumers actively make their decisions on; familiarity, ease of use, accessibility, breadth of apps, and security - you can't compete with what you've proposed in a meaningful way. Nor would it be worth the investment if you're cutting out any kind of shared app revenue. Then being on the receiving end of constant calls for its' death\re-branding by the media destroying your brand reputation.
And it's sad because both OSs are spyware. Really wish Linux phones would take off but these companies are small and can't manufacture them in high capacities. People wait like 6 months for their order of the Librem 5.

Anyone who has a compatible android phone should flash a degoogled android ROM like Calyx or Graphene OS.
 

Kdad

Member
Sep 20, 2018
2,084
3,919
480
I mean windows literally went through this and the argument was also why do I have to share the space that I created for my software. The answer is pretty simple, once you’ve gotten so big that people can’t compete, you have to allow other a chance to compete or else the whole monopoly thing.
Apple can offer better deals to devs and users to incentivize them to stay on their storefront.
Popularity =/= monopoly. If Apple was acting predatory in such a way that they prevented entry of competitors to the cell phone space itself then sure....but any decently funded tech company could create a phone and competing OS if they wanted to. Windows went through this because they acted in a predatory way denying OEMs their software if the OEMS added other software (such as Netscape) to the computer...its a different thing as Windows wasn't tied to inhouse hardware like iOS is, it was meant to be sold on other OEM hardware....its actually closer to the bullshit Google pulls with the PlayStore.
 

rnlval

Member
Jun 26, 2017
1,375
1,123
460
Sector 001
gpucuriosity.wordpress.com
Actually Google worked really hard to force MS out by not putting Google services on their platform but that’s a different situation.
Google has anti-competitive contracts with handset OEMs.

Epic also alleges that Google “prevented LG from pre-installing the Epic Games app on LG devices” because — in LG’s words, apparently — LG had a contract “to block side downloading off Google Play Store this year.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: FritzJ92

rnlval

Member
Jun 26, 2017
1,375
1,123
460
Sector 001
gpucuriosity.wordpress.com
In the US, Apple has the majority of mobile devices so given that Congress is only technically applying laws for the US, it makes sense. 57%-56% of phones in the US. Whilst it's not dominating, it's the more popular mobile os.

I don't particularly concern myself about the type of os it is but more interested in the percentage of the market that it has and the impact that it has on developers and consumers. I can see the principled arguments but think sadly we have to be a bit pragmatic at times.

The stuff around Tile is a massive red flag to myself in terms of abuse of power.
In India, Google's anti-side load contract with LG is not valid. Sovereign government power can impose pro-competitive measures on Google.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
In India, Google's anti-side load contract with LG is not valid. Sovereign power can impose pro-competitive measures on Google.
I didn't know about the India ruling but its great for me to have empowered regulators. The android browser ballot was in response to something from the EU, if I recall correctly.
 

ReBurn

Member
Dec 6, 2008
13,561
5,016
1,405
SC USA
My point is that a monopoly where you're forcing out competition is illegal. Apple and Google have a duopoly, but that isn't illegal. Especially since they aren't preventing others from competing. Look at Microsoft. Apple and Google didn't use their duopoly to force them out if business. They allowed Microsoft to sink or swim on their own.
This isn't about Microsoft's ability to enter and compete in the mobile device market, though. This is about the ability of companies to compete against the Apple app store and Google Play store on those devices. Can Microsoft open an app store that customers can download directly from Microsoft and install on their iOS device that then allows customers to buy, download and install apps directly from Microsoft?

The answer to that is no, and that's the issue. Microsoft already lost the lawsuit that prevents them from having a monopoly over content delivered to devices running their operating system. Apple has a monopoly that prevents competitors from delivering content to devices running their operating system and prevents customers from buying content from where they choose.

Also, duopolies aren't always legal just like monopolies aren't always illegal. Duopolies can engage in illegal practices if there is collusion between the two companies to control a market and fix prices. There's a strong argument that the models of the Apple and Google app stores are structured in a way that prevents anyone else from entering and competing in the app store market. "Someone else can just create their own mobile platform if they want their own mobile store" is a ridiculously high barrier to entry if that's what it takes to compete in the app market on devices consumers have bought and paid for.

Console platform owners are definitely paying attention to this. Sony's decision to stop allowing digital sales of PlayStation titles outside of their own app store could come under scrutiny. Microsoft and Nintendo still allow sales of digital content by third parties and customers can often get digital titles cheaper on stores like Amazon.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
Google does/did have some dodgy rules about not allowing OEMs to fork Android and also having any Android products. That does make creating an competitive mobile OS a very big risk. There is a chicken and egg situation to mobile os development which means its hard or impossible to create a competitive 3rd player. It gets extra complicated if you think Apple is actively hindering development of PWA's. Is that a good situation for consumers and/or dev?

The Senate isn't saying that they are currently doing is illegal, causes it is not. The question is currently whether the current laws and understanding of consumer harm is still valid.

I completely get that, and it sounds good on its face. The issue that I have is that this sets a dangerous precedent. I'd be perfectly happy to see Apple go bankrupt, so don't think I'm shilling for a corporation here. My biggest concern is that a bill like this essentially says, "You can't use the software you created in the way that you wanted, even though you weren't hurting anyone." Regulations are supposed to keep things fair. There is nothing unfair about Apple creating an ecosystem with a paywall, especially when they are not a monopoly. They can set the prices to whatever they want, and developers can chose not to develop for that software.

Windows can be installed on any PC. MacOS can be installed on any PC. Heck, even Android is free to be installed on any device (although manufacturers need to pay a license fee for installing Google apps like Gmail, Play Store, et cetera). By contrast, iOS is NOT allowed to be installed by an end user on any device. It is only available for iPhones released by Apple. But now Apple is being told that their closed OS essentially has to be opened up, and to allow third-parties to do whatever they want inside the OS.

I'm torn here because I want to say, "Screw Apple. They suck." But at the same time, I don't like slippery-slopes that can lead to great companies and startups being screwed over because one day we thought it'd be fun to take Apple down a notch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Same ol G and Kdad

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
This isn't about Microsoft's ability to enter and compete in the mobile device market, though. This is about the ability of companies to compete against the Apple app store and Google Play store on those devices. Can Microsoft open an app store that customers can download directly from Microsoft and install on their iOS device that then allows customers to buy, download and install apps directly from Microsoft?

The answer to that is no, and that's the issue. Microsoft already lost the lawsuit that prevents them from having a monopoly over content delivered to devices running their operating system. Apple has a monopoly that prevents competitors from delivering content to devices running their operating system and prevents customers from buying content from where they choose.

Also, duopolies aren't always legal just like monopolies aren't always illegal. Duopolies can engage in illegal practices if there is collusion between the two companies to control a market and fix prices. There's a strong argument that the models of the Apple and Google app stores are structured in a way that prevents anyone else from entering and competing in the app store market. "Someone else can just create their own mobile platform if they want their own mobile store" is a ridiculously high barrier to entry if that's what it takes to compete in the app market on devices consumers have bought and paid for.

Console platform owners are definitely paying attention to this. Sony's decision to stop allowing digital sales of PlayStation titles outside of their own app store could come under scrutiny. Microsoft and Nintendo still allow sales of digital content by third parties and customers can often get digital titles cheaper on stores like Amazon.

This goes back to my previous point though. You're saying Apple has a monopoly the same way that Microsoft had a monopoly, but that's false. Microsoft wasn't accused of having a monopoly on internet browsers. It was accused of having a monopoly on the x86-based OS for PC market. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile market. Developers can go to Google, and they can sideload their own market place. Amazon has had it's own Android marketplace almost since the beginning of Android. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the App store. The OS itself is designed around only having one app store, and it's owned and operated by Apple. There are alternatives to this, and that is to go with Android. On that platform (which has a greater market share than Apple, by the way) you can have your own app store.

Again, I hate Apple. But introducing legislation that says you can't create a product to be used the way you want it to be used because people are complaining that it isn't fair, even though they are choosing to use that product and they also have alternatives, is ridiculous. That isn't something that needs to be legislated. Do you also expect Microsoft to allow the PSN network to be installed on an Xbox? Because that's what this bill results in. It's chaos.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Same ol G and Kdad

Same ol G

Member
Apr 24, 2017
217
406
500
Netherlands
I completely get that, and it sounds good on its face. The issue that I have is that this sets a dangerous precedent. I'd be perfectly happy to see Apple go bankrupt, so don't think I'm shilling for a corporation here. My biggest concern is that a bill like this essentially says, "You can't use the software you created in the way that you wanted, even though you weren't hurting anyone." Regulations are supposed to keep things fair. There is nothing unfair about Apple creating an ecosystem with a paywall, especially when they are not a monopoly. They can set the prices to whatever they want, and developers can chose not to develop for that software.

Windows can be installed on any PC. MacOS can be installed on any PC. Heck, even Android is free to be installed on any device (although manufacturers need to pay a license fee for installing Google apps like Gmail, Play Store, et cetera). By contrast, iOS is NOT allowed to be installed by an end user on any device. It is only available for iPhones released by Apple. But now Apple is being told that their closed OS essentially has to be opened up, and to allow third-parties to do whatever they want inside the OS.

I'm torn here because I want to say, "Screw Apple. They suck." But at the same time, I don't like slippery-slopes that can lead to great companies and startups being screwed over because one day we thought it'd be fun to take Apple down a notch.

This goes back to my previous point though. You're saying Apple has a monopoly the same way that Microsoft had a monopoly, but that's false. Microsoft wasn't accused of having a monopoly on internet browsers. It was accused of having a monopoly on the x86-based OS for PC market. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile market. Developers can go to Google, and they can sideload their own market place. Amazon has had it's own Android marketplace almost since the beginning of Android. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the App store. The OS itself is designed around only having one app store, and it's owned and operated by Apple. There are alternatives to this, and that is to go with Android. On that platform (which has a greater market share than Apple, by the way) you can have your own app store.

Again, I hate Apple. But introducing legislation that says you can't create a product to be used the way you want it to be used because people are complaining that it isn't fair, even though they are choosing to use that product and they also have alternatives, is ridiculous. That isn't something that needs to be legislated. Do you also expect Microsoft to allow the PSN network to be installed on an Xbox? Because that's what this bill results in. It's chaos.
This is exactly how i feel about this, i hate Apple with a passion including all their fanboys.
But to force them to open up their system so a few can profit of their hard work is ridiculous.
I also don't understand why people keep calling it a monopoly it's far from it, their devices are also expensive so a lot of people can't even afford it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: A.Romero

prinz_valium

Gold Member
Oct 15, 2013
2,974
3,401
1,005
This goes back to my previous point though. You're saying Apple has a monopoly the same way that Microsoft had a monopoly, but that's false. Microsoft wasn't accused of having a monopoly on internet browsers. It was accused of having a monopoly on the x86-based OS for PC market. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the mobile market. Developers can go to Google, and they can sideload their own market place. Amazon has had it's own Android marketplace almost since the beginning of Android. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the App store. The OS itself is designed around only having one app store, and it's owned and operated by Apple. There are alternatives to this, and that is to go with Android. On that platform (which has a greater market share than Apple, by the way) you can have your own app store.

Again, I hate Apple. But introducing legislation that says you can't create a product to be used the way you want it to be used because people are complaining that it isn't fair, even though they are choosing to use that product and they also have alternatives, is ridiculous. That isn't something that needs to be legislated. Do you also expect Microsoft to allow the PSN network to be installed on an Xbox? Because that's what this bill results in. It's chaos.
Apple has a Monopoly on IOS.
Google has a Monopoly on Android outside China.
Both have a Duopoly on ARM based Mobile OS.

Always depends what angle you look at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArgleBargleFooferah

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,160
13,093
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Apple has a Monopoly on IOS.
Google has a Monopoly on Android outside China.
Both have a Duopoly on ARM based Mobile OS.

Always depends what angle you look at.

That would extend to consoles as well. Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch are all monopolies in that case. I think this is a dangerous road to go down forcing a company to open up to competition if it destroys the business model in place.
 

prinz_valium

Gold Member
Oct 15, 2013
2,974
3,401
1,005
That would extend to consoles as well. Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch are all monopolies in that case. I think this is a dangerous road to go down forcing a company to open up to competition if it destroys the business model in place.
Yes they are, but all those are irrelevant markets.

Compared to IOS and Apple, where commerce in excess of $1tr yearly is done in the future.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
That would extend to consoles as well. Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch are all monopolies in that case. I think this is a dangerous road to go down forcing a company to open up to competition if it destroys the business model in place.
True but those of those 3 monopolies all 'effectively' compete for users and developers via exclusives, marketing deals and Indies program. Google and Apple don't really anymore especially in the US. Slightly different in markets were WhatsApp or something similar is the main messaging app.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2020
4,160
13,093
645
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Yes they are, but all those are irrelevant markets.

Compared to IOS and Apple, where commerce in excess of $1tr yearly is done in the future.

Not being as large a market doesn't make them irrelevant. Laws are made from precedent. The decisions made with Apple and Google could very easily impact smaller markets as well.
 

IFireflyl

Member
Aug 22, 2020
739
1,194
370
Apple has a Monopoly on IOS.
Google has a Monopoly on Android outside China.
Both have a Duopoly on ARM based Mobile OS.

Always depends what angle you look at.

Android and iOS are products, not a market. A monopoly is when someone is the sole player in a market. The ARM-based mobile OS is a market. And as stated before, simply being the sole player in a market isn't illegal in and of itself. Nor is being one of two players in a market (e.g. a duopoly).

True but those of those 3 monopolies all 'effectively' compete for users and developers via exclusives, marketing deals and Indies program. Google and Apple don't really anymore especially in the US. Slightly different in markets were WhatsApp or something similar is the main messaging app.

I have no clue what point you're trying to make, especially since WhatsApp has nothing to do with Apple or Google and their duopoly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Topher

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,264
4,968
425
I have no clue what point you're trying to make, especially since WhatsApp has nothing to do with Apple or Google and their duopoly.

In markets like China, where there is a universal service like WeChat aka messaging, purchases and all the other shit. The cost of switching OS is smaller therefore it happens more often.

In the UK, if you primarily use the phone for messaging and social media and you are using whatsapp, the cost of switching os is small. This is not true for markets where imessage is the dominant messaging platform.

Regarding the other point, the Senate doesn't need to concerns so much if it is currently illegal, just whether it is good for consumers and producers and then they will legislate accordingly.
 
Last edited:

prinz_valium

Gold Member
Oct 15, 2013
2,974
3,401
1,005
Android and iOS are products, not a market. A monopoly is when someone is the sole player in a market. The ARM-based mobile OS is a market. And as stated before, simply being the sole player in a market isn't illegal in and of itself. Nor is being one of two players in a market (e.g. a duopoly).



I have no clue what point you're trying to make, especially since WhatsApp has nothing to do with Apple or Google and their duopoly.
So Windows and the Browser as a way to enter it were also just products and not markets.