Apple & Google have unfair 'vice-like grip' on smartphone markets, says UK regulator

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    stompystompy Posts: 409member
    rmoo said:
    stompy said:

    The whole report is blissfully ignorant of how the software development community actually works.

    Remember that Apple at one point also was a huge advocate of cross-platform web apps (when there was still a huge threat of Microsoft shifting their PC dominance to mobile leading to developers following along ... this would have been a way to get developers to make apps that would run on both Windows CE/Mobile and iOS). It wasn't until iOS and its app store became so dominant so fast - which absolutely no one at the time expected - that Apple shifted positions. 
    Schiller, Levinson, others within Apple had been pressing Jobs to allow third party native apps, even before the January 2007 iPhone announcement. And Jobs -- according to the Isaacson biography -- was initially against it, and also wanted to focus on the iPhone launch first. 

    So I think 
    you're referring to Steve Jobs' "very sweet solution" presented to developers in June 2007?

    The iPhone SDK was announced in October 2007, released March 2008. A lot went into that SDK release, the steps leading up to the March release -- 9 months after iPhone launched -- are more than we saw in public.

    rmoo said:
    ...that Apple shifted positions. 
    Except that some apps reverted back to web apps and now there is canned code to take your desktop website and convert it to a smartphone compatible web app. 

    It’s all now dependent on the company who wants an online presence.  Some don’t want to hire app developers and also don’t want to deal with Apple and Google every time they need to update their app. 
    The more fronts developers have to address, the easier it is to justify cross-platform.
    watto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 22 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    The duopoly is the fault of three companies.  Microsoft, Blackberry and HP, for fudging up their own competitors.  Hell, Microsoft fouled up twice, in Symbian and Windows Mobile. 

    I do now think the market is now practically impenetrable to any other competitors, which is not good, but I have no idea how you'd correct that.  Would be cool to see an appealing third alternative, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.
    watto_cobraelijahg
  • Reply 23 of 33
    Everything was done legally and properly. 

    Just because these two are enormously successful - so much so that it’s hard to compete with them - does not mean they are somehow inexplicably in the wrong. 

    You can’t just move the goalposts whenever you don’t like the winning team. 

    The UK opinion is pure idiocy. So the message they are pushing is “don’t actually be successful. That’s bad.”
    mike1watto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 24 of 33
    This just reminded me of how much I liked Palm's webOS when it was released. Its "card" based multitasking greatly influenced both IOS and android, and they moved away from Physical buttons way before everyone else.  The Palm Pre was such a good phone, unfortunately it was a Sprint exclusive at a really bad time for Sprint.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 33
    thttht Posts: 5,550member
    crowley said:
    The duopoly is the fault of three companies.  Microsoft, Blackberry and HP, for fudging up their own competitors.  Hell, Microsoft fouled up twice, in Symbian and Windows Mobile. 

    I do now think the market is now practically impenetrable to any other competitors, which is not good, but I have no idea how you'd correct that.  Would be cool to see an appealing third alternative, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.
    There are other companies that affect the success of new smartphone entrants and new operating system entrants. 

    All the companies who have a dominant or monopolistic service or apps help determine the success of smartphone entrants and operating system entrants. 

    Native YouTube; Facebook, WhatsApp & Messenger; Exchange Server client, Netflix, Amazon, etc, will determine the success of a new entrant. Even a native Spotify client will determine success or failure. No Unreal Engine means no support for a lot of games. There’s a core set of apps and services that are needed, and the smartphone entrant has no real control over it. 

    Then, the carriers and operators themselves is an arbiter of success or failure. 

    It’s a cut throat business from end to end. All it will take for Apple to fail is for Facebook to drop support. Or name some other app or service. Uber? Netflix? Twitter? 

    No MS Office support on macOS? That will drive sale to half. 
  • Reply 26 of 33
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,390member
    Absolutely and utterly preposterous.  Government is the entity that puts the vice grip on everyone, companies and individuals included.  And when they run dry milking you, they then turn to someone else.  

    There were plenty of phones in the market prior to iPhone.  It just so happened that iPhone was cool and refreshingly different, so a lot of people started buying it.  Then the copycats came out. (Android was basically an iPhone rip-off.)  Some of those smartphone companies still exist, but others are no longer in the market because again, consumers dictate which product wins.  People still think iPhone is cool, so guess what?  They still buy it.  And Apple gets bigger.  Imagine that.  But here's the thing...  Smart people invest.  And who these days doesn't invest in AAPL either directly or indirectly via mutual fund?  So you are getting something back from your favorite Big Tech company. They literally do pay dividends.  And guess who taxes those dividends like mad?  Yep.  Your beloved governments!

    So when silly governments label tech companies as "big tech" they are foolishly slamming YOU AND ME for having dared chosen winners in the marketplace!  That's right, big tech didn't become big by accident or chance.  It became big and continues to grow because of how consumers FREELY CHOOSE to spend their money.  And yeah, when other competitors drop out because nobody want's their phone, the choices become fewer, but consumers aren't "limited" because THAT IS THEIR FREE MARKET CHOICE!

    The best thing Big Brother can do is just leave us all alone.  End the foolishness. Stop the meddling.  Let the market be free. Over time things will change.  For truly, does anyone here honestly think we will still be using smartphones, as we know them today, 100 years hence?  And I assure you, that change will be because of consumer spending and corporation innovation, not because of governmental meddling.  The only thing Big Brother invents is a new way to tax or control you while making anything outside their control appear to be bad.  

    It's high time we the people of the world start putting the brakes on Big Government.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 33
    I only bought my iPhone because I needed better texting than my flip-phone could provide.  I ended up choosing Apple over Android due to the history of shoddy support from Android bundlers, and I don’t like the idea of somebody browsing through my data.  If there were a third option that cost less than an iPhone—don’t need all these apps on my phone—but that still offered years worth of support and had decent texting capabilities, I would have bought that.  

    Long story short—I think there’s definitely room for a third option in phones.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    robaba said:
    I only bought my iPhone because I needed better texting than my flip-phone could provide.  I ended up choosing Apple over Android due to the history of shoddy support from Android bundlers, and I don’t like the idea of somebody browsing through my data.  If there were a third option that cost less than an iPhone—don’t need all these apps on my phone—but that still offered years worth of support and had decent texting capabilities, I would have bought that.  

    Long story short—I think there’s definitely room for a third option in phones.
    If all you want is texting, then new Nokia's KaiOS feature phones are pretty solid
    robabamuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 29 of 33
    robabarobaba Posts: 228member
    crowley said:
    robaba said:
    I only bought my iPhone because I needed better texting than my flip-phone could provide.  I ended up choosing Apple over Android due to the history of shoddy support from Android bundlers, and I don’t like the idea of somebody browsing through my data.  If there were a third option that cost less than an iPhone—don’t need all these apps on my phone—but that still offered years worth of support and had decent texting capabilities, I would have bought that.  

    Long story short—I think there’s definitely room for a third option in phones.
    If all you want is texting, then new Nokia's KaiOS feature phones are pretty solid
    Huh, wasn’t aware.  I’ll check it out when this used iPhone needs replacing.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,081member
    Consumers in the USA and EU can now rest assure that they do not have a duopoly in tech illiterate politicians attempting to regulate tech. 
  • Reply 31 of 33
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,393member
    stompy said:
    MplsP said:
    ....
    Ultimately, with things like smartphones, within reason I think a duopoly is better - there's still competition, but the limited number of platforms mean developers are not spread too thin trying to create and support apps for 10 different systems. If you look at the number of apps available on the App Store, it's hard to argue that there's no competition.
    Agree with everything you said. And to expand a bit: ultimately the more platforms the are, the more likely app developers are to abandon native apps for a single, cross-platform app. How does that create more "... competition and meaningful choice for customers."

    The whole report is blissfully ignorant of how the software development community actually works.

    That platform exists in Web Apps made better every year by teams at Apple and Google. Yet developers and consumers have not embraced it. Nor have Apple or Google done anything at all to stop it from being a viable alternative for the consumer. 

    So where is the duolopy abuse of consumer trust?

  • Reply 32 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    mattinoz said:
    stompy said:
    MplsP said:
    ....
    Ultimately, with things like smartphones, within reason I think a duopoly is better - there's still competition, but the limited number of platforms mean developers are not spread too thin trying to create and support apps for 10 different systems. If you look at the number of apps available on the App Store, it's hard to argue that there's no competition.
    Agree with everything you said. And to expand a bit: ultimately the more platforms the are, the more likely app developers are to abandon native apps for a single, cross-platform app. How does that create more "... competition and meaningful choice for customers."

    The whole report is blissfully ignorant of how the software development community actually works.

    That platform exists in Web Apps made better every year by teams at Apple and Google. Yet developers and consumers have not embraced it. Nor have Apple or Google done anything at all to stop it from being a viable alternative for the consumer. 
    Apple haven't exactly encouraged it.  Google and Microsoft both allow developers to list web apps on their stores.  Apple do not.  And they have a lot of limitations that other platforms don't have.

    https://www.koombea.com/blog/can-you-put-a-pwa-on-the-app-store/
  • Reply 33 of 33
    rmoo said:
    stompy said:

    The whole report is blissfully ignorant of how the software development community actually works.

    Remember that Apple at one point also was a huge advocate of cross-platform web apps (when there was still a huge threat of Microsoft shifting their PC dominance to mobile leading to developers following along ... this would have been a way to get developers to make apps that would run on both Windows CE/Mobile and iOS). It wasn't until iOS and its app store became so dominant so fast - which absolutely no one at the time expected - that Apple shifted positions
    I'd like to read more about this. Can you provide a citation? In my personal use of the platform over the decades, it's primarily been about Macintosh applications. Getting Microsoft to commit to native Mac version of Office was very big deal. And the Adobe suite staying on the platform. Etc. Which era was it when Apple favored web apps over native applications?

    Surely you're not referring to the short time between the original iPhone launch and the SDK released soon after? Which per the bio was very likely in the works, but could not release on Day 1 because Jobs wanted to focus their initial product offering on shoring up the foundation and security of the native frameworks. The "sweet solution" was just Jobs spinning until he could announce.

    No, Apple's stance over the decades has remained pretty consistent -- naive apps provide the best UX.
    edited December 2021 williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.