Can anyone explain why the Australian government has this perverse fascination with Apple? Do they try to exert similar domination over automobiles, home appliances, power tools, garden tractors, etc?
What next? Wal-Mart not allowed to sell their in-house brands? Restaurants have to give customers “choice” on prepared ingredients? YouTube having to allow PornHub videos? DuckDuckGo giving users the “choice” to run Google ads instead? BMW allowing customers the “choice” to preinstall Ferrari engines?
Do these sound stupid to you? So should Apple not being allowed to run its software the way they need to. And if this sounds extreme, remember, the government works in baby steps.
No. Walmart can sell its in-house brands and Apple can propose its own apps for things like email.
The rest of your post is simply an exercise in ignoring both the issues at hand and the proposed solutions to them.
After the much publicised browser wars and what Microsoft was required to do, you should have no trouble understanding this current situation.
Oh, you mean like the choice screens for browsers during the 90's DoJ suit against Microsoft? And how did that end?
Yeah, keep spouting your bullshit
How about the EU case? Multi million dollar fine, choice screen and an end to the growing dominance of Internet Explorer on the desktop.
What next? Wal-Mart not allowed to sell their in-house brands? Restaurants have to give customers “choice” on prepared ingredients? YouTube having to allow PornHub videos? DuckDuckGo giving users the “choice” to run Google ads instead? BMW allowing customers the “choice” to preinstall Ferrari engines?
Do these sound stupid to you? So should Apple not being allowed to run its software the way they need to. And if this sounds extreme, remember, the government works in baby steps.
No. Walmart can sell its in-house brands and Apple can propose its own apps for things like email.
The rest of your post is simply an exercise in ignoring both the issues at hand and the proposed solutions to them.
After the much publicised browser wars and what Microsoft was required to do, you should have no trouble understanding this current situation.
The browser wars were completely different. Microsoft used its monopoly (>90% of PC and Mac market)s to actively seek and destroy competitors. It wasn't just that they bundled it with Windows. It's that they made it hard for Netscape to even compete. They'd work with developers to favor their product over Netscape's product ("best viewed with Internet Explorer). They literally paid developers with the documented intention of destroying Netscape.
Now let's look at Apple and Google. Globally, Google (Android) is about 80%. Apple is about 20%. In the U.S. only it's closely split (Android 51%, Apple 49%). So, you could call this a duopoly. Both companies bundle apps and also run app stores. Their apps are competing with third parties in marketplaces they own. There are accusations that they favor their apps in search results, though that has not been proven to any reasonable degree. So the accusation boils down to "by making their apps default apps, they are illegally harming competitors and consumers."
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The average customer has no problem looking for and finding apps. They know Apple includes certain default apps and they are more than willing to use them as they see fit. There are literally thousands of choices for Mail apps, for example. What benefit does a "choice screen" have to the consumer? Most people just want their phones to work. Now they have to choose which apps to check their email with? This is all nonsensical.
Assuming you don't own an iPhone, is the iPhone supposed to come without apps software installed? No email, no browser, no maps, no Apple watch, FaceTime, no clock, no FindMy, no calendar, no contacts, Health apps, exercise apps, ...?
If you're upgrading to a new iPhone, I suppose you'll still be able to reinstall from backup.
Frankly, I've never had an issue with being locked in by Apple's default apps. It simply means have got a reasonably functioning ecosystem from the beginning and these products became more useful, and my expertise increased, I was able to configure my devices as I wished.
Certainly, Apple competitors are at a disadvantage in they have to do something special to become your alternative.
But, most of us realize Apple's apps are not the best in class, however one might define that. For me, my needs almost never require best in class.
What next? Wal-Mart not allowed to sell their in-house brands? Restaurants have to give customers “choice” on prepared ingredients? YouTube having to allow PornHub videos? DuckDuckGo giving users the “choice” to run Google ads instead? BMW allowing customers the “choice” to preinstall Ferrari engines?
Do these sound stupid to you? So should Apple not being allowed to run its software the way they need to. And if this sounds extreme, remember, the government works in baby steps.
No. Walmart can sell its in-house brands and Apple can propose its own apps for things like email.
The rest of your post is simply an exercise in ignoring both the issues at hand and the proposed solutions to them.
After the much publicised browser wars and what Microsoft was required to do, you should have no trouble understanding this current situation.
The browser wars were completely different. Microsoft used its monopoly (>90% of PC and Mac market)s to actively seek and destroy competitors. It wasn't just that they bundled it with Windows. It's that they made it hard for Netscape to even compete. They'd work with developers to favor their product over Netscape's product ("best viewed with Internet Explorer). They literally paid developers with the documented intention of destroying Netscape.
Now let's look at Apple and Google. Globally, Google (Android) is about 80%. Apple is about 20%. In the U.S. only it's closely split (Android 51%, Apple 49%). So, you could call this a duopoly. Both companies bundle apps and also run app stores. Their apps are competing with third parties in marketplaces they own. There are accusations that they favor their apps in search results, though that has not been proven to any reasonable degree. So the accusation boils down to "by making their apps default apps, they are illegally harming competitors and consumers."
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The average customer has no problem looking for and finding apps. They know Apple includes certain default apps and they are more than willing to use them as they see fit. There are literally thousands of choices for Mail apps, for example. What benefit does a "choice screen" have to the consumer? Most people just want their phones to work. Now they have to choose which apps to check their email with? This is all nonsensical.
The cases are very similar in that the apps come/came preinstalled and preset basically as defaults. iMessage/Messages was the default option for messaging and SMS/MMS content was automatically funnelled into it after it replaced the Text app - completely bypassing cellular networks for messaging between iOS users and impacting revenue streams for carriers at the time. In terms of messaging, iMessage was your one stop shop. How many people actually saw (or see today) it as an SMS app? Very few I would imagine. That was by design.
At the end of the day the similarities are very much there.
Can anyone explain why the Australian government has this perverse fascination with Apple? Do they try to exert similar domination over automobiles, home appliances, power tools, garden tractors, etc?
Regulators throughout the world are grandstanding, trying to regulate portions of the software stack they don't understand.
No 3rd party app is a perfect replacement for one of the builtin apps controlled by Apple, and Apple as a company has the right to improve the software experience of its users by implementing changes in both the builtin apps and underlaying frameworks.
Apple devices deliver a complete experience, and forcing Apple to document and publish all interactions between apps and OS frameworks and allow competitive apps to absorb this information and wait for them to implement changes will stifle innovation and slow progress.
Take Markup in email for instance - if Apple had to publish all interfaces and wait for all 3rd party email vendors to implement Markup changes we'd still be waiting for the feature.
Australia is competing with Russia to be the first market that Apple pulls out of.
Alternatively, Apple just has to remove the App Store from Australia. The phone could come as-is, without any software store for anyone in Australia. Australia cannot forced Apple to install a feature like an App Store.
Why isn't Australia going after the fact that Apple prohibits timekeeping apps from third parties in watchOS?? There is no competition in that market... it's a real "monopoly." ("Timeopoly"?)
This topic is like a red rag to a bull... and the bull dust is swirling around this one. What you suggest is not Apple's way.
If the recently surfaced SJ comment about no 3rd-party natives is to be believed, it is Apple’s way.
The OP is right, why burn the platform and be forced to adopt the design the incompetents when you can just shut out 3rd-party apps altogether.
It’s also doubly complicated because many of Apple’s apps serve to uncover hardware functionality of the device.
Finally many of the concerns don’t hold water the moment we put them into perspective of other products. Should a car maker not be permitted to offer a highly integrated sound system, for concern of shutting out after market stereos?
As mentioned by the good Avon B7, how the Microsoft browser war panned out is a great example of the problematic sides of it. They integrated piles of (de)functionality into IE forcing companies and user to stick to IE AND Windows. It seriously obstructed the development of browsers and web services. The integration hit them seriously in the face when even Microsoft realised that IE was totally obsolete and they had to come up with a new OS as Windows turned more and more miserable. It took Microsoft years and years to straighten out Windows, and it took them years and years to get rid of IE. Thanks to moronic integration.
They have still not been able to streamline Windows properly, and Edge is still not on par with the rest of the browsers. Thankfully Apple has far better control over their operative systems, but the "political" issue is related.
The car makers pacs a lot of stuff into their "stereo unit" and when something goes wrong they charge obscene prices to replace the entire unit, and it's 100% deliberate. Hey, some of the manufacturers of electric cars charge more for the battery pack unit than they charge for a replacement car with the very identical battery pack unit.
Which EV manufacturers charge more for the battery pack than a new car?
Which EV manufacturers charge more for the battery pack than a new car?
This is off course dependant of the pricing strategy in individual markets, but I've seen it with Mitsubishi I-MiEV (130% + labour), Hyundai Kona and MG ZS. Several manufacturers are close to 100%, and for others that don't disclose prices for the full battery pack: If you add up the price of modules it is VERY expensive compared to the price of a new car.
Wish to stress that they reckon it's normal to replace modules or cells in modules. But the prices are still criminally high.
Comments
https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/cases.html
Tell me, how did it end in your view?
The browser wars were completely different. Microsoft used its monopoly (>90% of PC and Mac market)s to actively seek and destroy competitors. It wasn't just that they bundled it with Windows. It's that they made it hard for Netscape to even compete. They'd work with developers to favor their product over Netscape's product ("best viewed with Internet Explorer). They literally paid developers with the documented intention of destroying Netscape.
Now let's look at Apple and Google. Globally, Google (Android) is about 80%. Apple is about 20%. In the U.S. only it's closely split (Android 51%, Apple 49%). So, you could call this a duopoly. Both companies bundle apps and also run app stores. Their apps are competing with third parties in marketplaces they own. There are accusations that they favor their apps in search results, though that has not been proven to any reasonable degree. So the accusation boils down to "by making their apps default apps, they are illegally harming competitors and consumers."
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The average customer has no problem looking for and finding apps. They know Apple includes certain default apps and they are more than willing to use them as they see fit. There are literally thousands of choices for Mail apps, for example. What benefit does a "choice screen" have to the consumer? Most people just want their phones to work. Now they have to choose which apps to check their email with? This is all nonsensical.
Assuming you don't own an iPhone, is the iPhone supposed to come without apps software installed? No email, no browser, no maps, no Apple watch, FaceTime, no clock, no FindMy, no calendar, no contacts, Health apps, exercise apps, ...?
If you're upgrading to a new iPhone, I suppose you'll still be able to reinstall from backup.
Frankly, I've never had an issue with being locked in by Apple's default apps. It simply means have got a reasonably functioning ecosystem from the beginning and these products became more useful, and my expertise increased, I was able to configure my devices as I wished.
Certainly, Apple competitors are at a disadvantage in they have to do something special to become your alternative.
But, most of us realize Apple's apps are not the best in class, however one might define that. For me, my needs almost never require best in class.
At the end of the day the similarities are very much there.
No 3rd party app is a perfect replacement for one of the builtin apps controlled by Apple, and Apple as a company has the right to improve the software experience of its users by implementing changes in both the builtin apps and underlaying frameworks.
Apple devices deliver a complete experience, and forcing Apple to document and publish all interactions between apps and OS frameworks and allow competitive apps to absorb this information and wait for them to implement changes will stifle innovation and slow progress.
Take Markup in email for instance - if Apple had to publish all interfaces and wait for all 3rd party email vendors to implement Markup changes we'd still be waiting for the feature.
The OP is right, why burn the platform and be forced to adopt the design the incompetents when you can just shut out 3rd-party apps altogether.
A more accurate WalMart comparison would be more like if the WalMart greeter stuffed your bug full of house brands as you walked in the door.
Having said that, it's a stupid proposal, and I think more and more governments are going to try similar things.
Wish to stress that they reckon it's normal to replace modules or cells in modules. But the prices are still criminally high.