avon b7 said: iOS is a closed retail environment and Apple is both the gatekeeper and middleman. That makes is radically different to most other retailer environments.
The radical difference versus standard retail is that Apple is not just providing a store to sell products in. They're directly producing the hardware, operating system and developer tools that make the product for sale possible in the first place. That means Apple has to be successful at selling the iPhone in order for developers to be interested in creating an iOS version of their app. It's not like Android or Windows where hardware makers can rise/fall and the app market remains viable.
avon b7 said: iOS is a closed retail environment and Apple is both the gatekeeper and middleman. That makes is radically different to most other retailer environments.
The radical difference versus standard retail is that Apple is not just providing a store to sell products in. They're directly producing the hardware, operating system and developer tools that make the product for sale possible in the first place. That means Apple has to be successful at selling the iPhone in order for developers to be interested in creating an iOS version of their app. It's not like Android or Windows where hardware makers can rise/fall and the app market remains viable.
I thought the success of the platform was a direct result of the app environment.
How well do you think the iPhone would sell without an app ecosystem?
I didn’t know that under capitalism you had to set price that is fair?
I thought the market would decide if it is fair or not??
I think the issue is that there are no competitive app stores on iOS - so i think the monopolies laws and regulations apply - abusive of market dominance
am no expert
That is definitely one of the key elements and the OP wasn't very fortunate with the comment anyway.
Just look at the F in FRAND and the fact that governments often take measures when 'abusive' pricing becomes a problem.
As the article touches on, if you are a de facto gatekeeper you have monopoly control over price structuring, commissions end up being passed onto consumers who can end up paying more through the lack of competition.
That is a complete misunderstanding of why FRAND exist for SEP's. When the government regulatory agency (for an industry) establish certain patents to be "Standard Essential Patent", the government eliminated the competition for the company that owns those patents. This because everyone in the industry must use those patents in order to be compatible with each other. Thus the government must ensure that the owners of SEP's do not abuse the "monopoly" that they were handed. This is not the case with Apple App Store on iOS. Not the case with Google Play on Android. Not the case with Microsoft Store for an Xbox. Not the case with Sony Store on a PlayStation. And yet they all charge about the same 15/30% commission. How it it that Apple is abusing their "monopoly control" when the others are not? And you can't even claim that Google has "monopoly control', when there's no way that the Google Play store is a "monopoly", by any account, on Android.
It's no different that when a municipality grants a company to be the only company to offer cable in their city. Or garbage service. Or gas and electricity. The city can regulate the prices they charge because the government handed them a "monopoly" (in their cities.). So the government regulates a price that is "fair" for consumers AND the company. Not just what's "fair" for the consumers. ATT could not charge any price they wanted for their services, even though they practically had 100% of the market. ATT was handed their monopoly when the US government deemed that it was more important to have one telecommunication standard where everyone can connect to each other at an affordable rate, than to have many telecommunication competing with different services. Thus ATT had to go through a government regulatory agency in order to raise their prices. Rates went up for consumers when the the government broke up ATT.
How is charging a 15% commission to 98% of the developers in the Apple App Store, not "fair" for consumers?
Let us be real, both you, me and a lot of people here know that the 30% commission mainly affects the profits of 2% of the biggest developers that are making billions in profit from being in the Apple App Store. And most through games IAP, that consumers are not forced to spend any money on. Remember, for every $3 Apple makes from the 2% of the most profitable developers, the developer made $7.
Do some research. Most of these 2% top developers have their own websites where their subscribers can pay for their subscriptions, without having to go through their apps and having to pay a commission. And yet there's no 30% or 15% savings for most of those consumers paying on their websites. Why not, if consumers are the one paying the commission? The commission for paid subscribers drops from 30% to 15% after a year. Have to ever gotten a 15% discount from any developers, after subscribing to their services for over a year? Why not, if you are the one paying the commission? I never saw a 30% or 15% saving on my Netflix subscription in over 12 years of paying for it with auto payment on my CC, instead of through their app on iOS. And this would be true for nearly all streaming services.
In CA, the top 1% pays about 50% of the State income tax collected. And there are plenty of people, politicians and maybe even you, that would say they are paying their "fair share". So why shouldn't the most profitable developers be paying their "fair share", so that Apple can pay for RD and maintain iOS to their best interest, keep commission low for 98% of their smaller developers and offer their users an app store where 90% of the apps are free? While still making a reasonable profit.
It seems the reference to 'capitalism' pegged onto 'fair', went over your head. There was no need to dig into the reasoning behind FRAND, just to understand that capitalism would make it irrelevant. But then of course 'fair' still holds its own weight in the context of my reply. Fair, in FRAND, still means 'fair' independently of context.
As for the 30%, it is irrelevant the percentage developers it affects. The issue remains the same and that is why it is being looked at virtually everywhere.
No
You were using the context of the "fair" in FRAND as an example that the government can determine what's "fair". And I explained to you why the government can do this with SEP's. FRAND has no relevance to you claiming that the government can, should or have determine what's "fair", in a market where a capitalistic market determines "fair". FRAND does not apply to a capitalistic market.
If consumers don't think it's "fair', then they don't have to buy it. This is not about products and services that are essential for consumers to maintain a minimum standard of living. Where the government should step in. This is not about the "fair" price one can charge for staples like milk, butter, eggs, fresh vegetables, rice, potatoes, can goods and such. Here the UK is getting involve in what? Game developers that are making billion of dollars in the app stores complaining about paying Apple and Google a commission that they don't think is fair, when their customers buy virtual money, to buy virtual items, for silly games they play on their expensive mobile devices? Consumers complaining about the extra cost of streaming subscriptions from the likes of Disney, HBO, Netflix, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, MLB, NFL, etc., because of apps stores commission? In the scheme of things, these are all "luxury" items and services that nearly all consumers can do without.
Do the government determine what's "fair" when luxury auto makers like BMW, Mercedes, Tesla and Porsche price of their vehicles? Why not? Do the government get involve on what's "fair" to pay for jewelry at Tiffany's or for a LV purse or Gucci luggage or a bottle of Dom Perignon Champagne or a bottle of Chanel perfume? Why not, if the government should be the one determining what's "fair" for a company to charge for their products, in order to protect the consumers? Why isn't the UK looking into how much Epic Games charges consumers for a "cool" looking virtual outfit in their Fortnite Store? Wouldn't you think charging $10 in real money, for a non perishable virtual item, that cost nearly nothing to produce, keep in stock and cost the same to produce as the not so "cool" looking virtual outfits that they sell for $4 (real money), isn't a "fair" price for Epic Games to charge consumers for the "cool" virtual outfit?
I didn’t know that under capitalism you had to set price that is fair?
I thought the market would decide if it is fair or not??
I think the issue is that there are no competitive app stores on iOS - so i think the monopolies laws and regulations apply - abusive of market dominance
am no expert
That is definitely one of the key elements and the OP wasn't very fortunate with the comment anyway.
Just look at the F in FRAND and the fact that governments often take measures when 'abusive' pricing becomes a problem.
As the article touches on, if you are a de facto gatekeeper you have monopoly control over price structuring, commissions end up being passed onto consumers who can end up paying more through the lack of competition.
That is a complete misunderstanding of why FRAND exist for SEP's. When the government regulatory agency (for an industry) establish certain patents to be "Standard Essential Patent", the government eliminated the competition for the company that owns those patents. This because everyone in the industry must use those patents in order to be compatible with each other. Thus the government must ensure that the owners of SEP's do not abuse the "monopoly" that they were handed. This is not the case with Apple App Store on iOS. Not the case with Google Play on Android. Not the case with Microsoft Store for an Xbox. Not the case with Sony Store on a PlayStation. And yet they all charge about the same 15/30% commission. How it it that Apple is abusing their "monopoly control" when the others are not? And you can't even claim that Google has "monopoly control', when there's no way that the Google Play store is a "monopoly", by any account, on Android.
It's no different that when a municipality grants a company to be the only company to offer cable in their city. Or garbage service. Or gas and electricity. The city can regulate the prices they charge because the government handed them a "monopoly" (in their cities.). So the government regulates a price that is "fair" for consumers AND the company. Not just what's "fair" for the consumers. ATT could not charge any price they wanted for their services, even though they practically had 100% of the market. ATT was handed their monopoly when the US government deemed that it was more important to have one telecommunication standard where everyone can connect to each other at an affordable rate, than to have many telecommunication competing with different services. Thus ATT had to go through a government regulatory agency in order to raise their prices. Rates went up for consumers when the the government broke up ATT.
How is charging a 15% commission to 98% of the developers in the Apple App Store, not "fair" for consumers?
Let us be real, both you, me and a lot of people here know that the 30% commission mainly affects the profits of 2% of the biggest developers that are making billions in profit from being in the Apple App Store. And most through games IAP, that consumers are not forced to spend any money on. Remember, for every $3 Apple makes from the 2% of the most profitable developers, the developer made $7.
Do some research. Most of these 2% top developers have their own websites where their subscribers can pay for their subscriptions, without having to go through their apps and having to pay a commission. And yet there's no 30% or 15% savings for most of those consumers paying on their websites. Why not, if consumers are the one paying the commission? The commission for paid subscribers drops from 30% to 15% after a year. Have to ever gotten a 15% discount from any developers, after subscribing to their services for over a year? Why not, if you are the one paying the commission? I never saw a 30% or 15% saving on my Netflix subscription in over 12 years of paying for it with auto payment on my CC, instead of through their app on iOS. And this would be true for nearly all streaming services.
In CA, the top 1% pays about 50% of the State income tax collected. And there are plenty of people, politicians and maybe even you, that would say they are paying their "fair share". So why shouldn't the most profitable developers be paying their "fair share", so that Apple can pay for RD and maintain iOS to their best interest, keep commission low for 98% of their smaller developers and offer their users an app store where 90% of the apps are free? While still making a reasonable profit.
It seems the reference to 'capitalism' pegged onto 'fair', went over your head. There was no need to dig into the reasoning behind FRAND, just to understand that capitalism would make it irrelevant. But then of course 'fair' still holds its own weight in the context of my reply. Fair, in FRAND, still means 'fair' independently of context.
As for the 30%, it is irrelevant the percentage developers it affects. The issue remains the same and that is why it is being looked at virtually everywhere.
No
You were using the context of the "fair" in FRAND as an example that the government can determine what's "fair". And I explained to you why the government can do this with SEP's. FRAND has no relevance to you claiming that the government can, should or have determine what's "fair", in a market where a capitalistic market determines "fair". FRAND does not apply to a capitalistic market.
If consumers don't think it's "fair', then they don't have to buy it. This is not about products and services that are essential for consumers to maintain a minimum standard of living. Where the government should step in. This is not about the "fair" price one can charge for staples like milk, butter, eggs, fresh vegetables, rice, potatoes, can goods and such. Here the UK is getting involve in what? Game developers that are making billion of dollars in the app stores complaining about paying Apple and Google a commission that they don't think is fair, when their customers buy virtual money, to buy virtual items, for silly games they play on their expensive mobile devices? Consumers complaining about the extra cost of streaming subscriptions from the likes of Disney, HBO, Netflix, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, MLB, NFL, etc., because of apps stores commission? In the scheme of things, these are all "luxury" items and services that nearly all consumers can do without.
Do the government determine what's "fair" when luxury auto makers like BMW, Mercedes, Tesla and Porsche price of their vehicles? Why not? Do the government get involve on what's "fair" to pay for jewelry at Tiffany's or for a LV purse or Gucci luggage or a bottle of Dom Perignon Champagne or a bottle of Chanel perfume? Why not, if the government should be the one determining what's "fair" for a company to charge for their products, in order to protect the consumers? Why isn't the UK looking into how much Epic Games charges consumers for a "cool" looking virtual outfit in their Fortnite Store? Wouldn't you think charging $10 in real money, for a non perishable virtual item, that cost nearly nothing to produce, keep in stock and cost the same to produce as the not so "cool" looking virtual outfits that they sell for $4 (real money), isn't a "fair" price for Epic Games to charge consumers for the "cool" virtual outfit?
In the digital age consumers are losing choice and are very much 'required' to be on board the digital boat. The problem is that we are still in the digital infancy and legislation has yet to fully adapt to market realities but you can fully expect government to get very, very involved in this area. That is what is happening now.
Just look at the banks in Spain and all the recent criticism due to brick and mortar branches shutting down only to be replaced by digital means. Something that is economically and intellectually beyond many members of society. The so-called digital divide is something that needs government intervention and it will come.
Digital products are fast becoming 'staples' and the lack of digital platforms is a problem. That is why the EU is specifically using the term 'gatekeeper' in its proposed actions and investigations.
Can you name a carmaker that is a gatekeeper? A winemaker that is a gatekeeper?
You used to be able to authorise payments via signature (a very analogue method). The digital hardware specification still allows for it but many banks have simply deactivated the option for security reasons. There will always be a 'reason' but the fact remains. Choice is being restricted.
Fair in FRAND means fair. There is no need to contextualise that.
avon b7 said: iOS is a closed retail environment and Apple is both the gatekeeper and middleman. That makes is radically different to most other retailer environments.
The radical difference versus standard retail is that Apple is not just providing a store to sell products in. They're directly producing the hardware, operating system and developer tools that make the product for sale possible in the first place. That means Apple has to be successful at selling the iPhone in order for developers to be interested in creating an iOS version of their app. It's not like Android or Windows where hardware makers can rise/fall and the app market remains viable.
I thought the success of the platform was a direct result of the app environment.
How well do you think the iPhone would sell without an app ecosystem?
It's the "freeapp environment" that made both iOS and Android platforms successful. Free apps that neither Apple (or Google) collected a commission from but that many developers still made a profit from or gained customers satisfaction. Having a free app on iOS and/or Android is good PR. These are not the developers that are crying about the "fairness" of Apple and Google commission. And neither are the consumers that downloaded their free apps. The crybabies are the developers that are making billions off the platform and yet thinks that Apple and Google commission is "unfair" because they have this misconception that they are directly responsible for the platform success with their paid apps and not the other way around.
It's like the riddle of what came first ... the chicken or the egg.
But consider this. When Apple first open the Apple app store, they were charging a 30% commission to all developers (which dropped to 15% on subscriptions after a year) making money with apps in the Apple App Store. And yet these developers must have thought that was "fair" because they still flock in masses to develop for Apple iOS platform. This goes back to when there were less than 100M iPhones in the World. Now that there's over 1B iDevices in consumers hand, (in the World), how is a 15/30% commission no longer "fair"? Wouldn't you think paying a 15/30% commission is "fairer" now, that ten years ago? There's a "fair" reason why it cost more to advertise during the Super Bowl, than during a rerun of Gillian's Island.
Do some research. Most of these 2% top developers have their own websites where their subscribers can pay for their subscriptions, without having to go through their apps and having to pay a commission. And yet there's no 30% or 15% savings for most of those consumers paying on their websites. Why not, if consumers are the one paying the commission? The commission for paid subscribers drops from 30% to 15% after a year. Have to ever gotten a 15% discount from any developers, after subscribing to their services for over a year? Why not, if you are the one paying the commission? I never saw a 30% or 15% saving on my Netflix subscription in over 12 years of paying for it with auto payment on my CC, instead of through their app on iOS. And this would be true for nearly all streaming services.
Isn't it a condition of using IAP that a developer can't sell the same content for less via other means?
avon b7 said: iOS is a closed retail environment and Apple is both the gatekeeper and middleman. That makes is radically different to most other retailer environments.
The radical difference versus standard retail is that Apple is not just providing a store to sell products in. They're directly producing the hardware, operating system and developer tools that make the product for sale possible in the first place. That means Apple has to be successful at selling the iPhone in order for developers to be interested in creating an iOS version of their app. It's not like Android or Windows where hardware makers can rise/fall and the app market remains viable.
I thought the success of the platform was a direct result of the app environment.
How well do you think the iPhone would sell without an app ecosystem?
It's the "freeapp environment" that made both iOS and Android platforms successful. Free apps that neither Apple (or Google) collected a commission from but that many developers still made a profit from or gained customers satisfaction. Having a free app on iOS and/or Android is good PR. These are not the developers that are crying about the "fairness" of Apple and Google commission. And neither are the consumers that downloaded their free apps. The crybabies are the developers that are making billions off the platform and yet thinks that Apple and Google commission is "unfair" because they have this misconception that they are directly responsible for the platform success with their paid apps and not the other way around.
It's like the riddle of what came first ... the chicken or the egg.
But consider this. When Apple first open the Apple app store, they were charging a 30% commission to all developers (which dropped to 15% on subscriptions after a year) making money with apps in the Apple App Store. And yet these developers must have thought that was "fair" because they still flock in masses to develop for Apple iOS platform. This goes back to when there were less than 100M iPhones in the World. Now that there's over 1B iDevices in consumers hand, (in the World), how is a 15/30% commission no longer "fair"? Wouldn't you think paying a 15/30% commission is "fairer" now, that ten years ago? There's a "fair" reason why it cost more to advertise during the Super Bowl, than during a rerun of Gillian's Island.
All of that is irrelevant to the point.
The iPhone wouldn't have gained as much traction had it not been for the app ecosystem. The apps are what makes the iPhone (any smartphone) successful and once the commission came into affect it sprouted a multi billion dollar business for Apple which had absolute control over it.
The percentage within the store of free apps is irrelevant. The commissions themselves are irrelevant.
The lack of competition, the scarcity of platforms and the control imposed by gatekeepers is relevant. Lock in and interoperability are relevant. Gatekeepers themselves are relevant.
The situation today and the situation ten years ago are incomparable even if the commissions were the same.
When Internet Explorer hit the market with the 'free' label, and with the objective of pulling the rug out from under Netscape's feet by getting shipped on a dominant platform, it took years for authorities to deal with simply because at the start, the internet a nascent accessory to people's lives. That isn't the case today. The internet (and smartphones) are life for many people today.
This has very little to do with fairness. It basically comes down to people in positions of authority deciding that Apple can uniquely afford to pay for whatever intrusive penalties are levied against it without blowing up their whole business. There are many vendors who own systems that include third party produced add-ons that are only available as part of the system owner’s closed ecosystem.
Console games with third party produced game cartridges are an example of this at the consumer level, but if you look into other commercial, industrial, medical, security, aerospace, etc., systems you’ll see system add-ins from multiple vendors that are only usable within the scope of the system that is owned and controlled by the system vendor. In some cases these add on components can only be commissioned into the system if they possess an enabling device licensed by the system builder, e.g., a chip that performs certain protocol operations to allow the add-in device to communicate with the host.
At least in theory, these same authorities could go after every single one of these closed system vendors who are acting as “gatekeepers” and force them to open up their closed systems no matter how small or large the systems may be. Chances are that they never will because the scope is narrower, the financial compensation for those impacted is lower, and most notably the public attention and notoriety to be garnered from their Robin Hood adventure is inconsequential. Who would care? It’s quite possible that forcing some system vendors to open up their closed system could doom the system to failure, especially if the benefits of having the closed system, e.g., improved security or fault tolerance, are neutered when the system is opened up.
Apple on the other hand is a big fat juicy target that a lot of folks want to take a big bite out of. Apple can afford to be punished without destroying the company. Apple may have to change its logo to include another big bite out of the other side of the apple, but they would likely survive in a diminished state with a diminished influence, which is exactly what these authorities are pursuing. They have zero concern about the consumer and developer benefits that Apple’s closed ecosystem provides. They (and their secret sponsors) simply want to cut Apple down to size. Everyone loves a winner … until they win too much, or when they are not my team.
avon b7 said: The iPhone wouldn't have gained as much traction had it not been for the app ecosystem. The apps are what makes the iPhone (any smartphone) successful and once the commission came into affect it sprouted a multi billion dollar business for Apple which had absolute control over it.
How you explain the failures of Microsoft's mobile phone venture or Amazon's Fire phone? Those had apps too. The reality is that having apps isn't a guarantee of anything at all. Apps don't automatically make the public run out and buy your product. Why aren't all Android hardware vendors equally successful in terms of sales? Obviously any Android phone from any vendor has access to the same app ecosystem, right?
avon b7 said: The iPhone wouldn't have gained as much traction had it not been for the app ecosystem. The apps are what makes the iPhone (any smartphone) successful and once the commission came into affect it sprouted a multi billion dollar business for Apple which had absolute control over it.
How you explain the failures of Microsoft's mobile phone venture or Amazon's Fire phone? Those had apps too. The reality is that having apps isn't a guarantee of anything at all. Apps don't automatically make the public run out and buy your product. Why aren't all Android hardware vendors equally successful in terms of sales? Obviously any Android phone from any vendor has access to the same app ecosystem, right?
What you are describing is the exact situation the EU is seeking to correct.
The iPhone app ecosystem is what the platform is built on. Without it the iPhone would not be what it is. Apps are everything to its viability. Make no mistake of that.
The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
This also applies to Google in a non-Android sense, Meta etc.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
Do some research. Most of these 2% top developers have their own websites where their subscribers can pay for their subscriptions, without having to go through their apps and having to pay a commission. And yet there's no 30% or 15% savings for most of those consumers paying on their websites. Why not, if consumers are the one paying the commission? The commission for paid subscribers drops from 30% to 15% after a year. Have to ever gotten a 15% discount from any developers, after subscribing to their services for over a year? Why not, if you are the one paying the commission? I never saw a 30% or 15% saving on my Netflix subscription in over 12 years of paying for it with auto payment on my CC, instead of through their app on iOS. And this would be true for nearly all streaming services.
Isn't it a condition of using IAP that a developer can't sell the same content for less via other means?
That is correct. Which means that any saving of the commission from Apple or Google from this suit, can not be passed on to Apple and Google users unless every platform gets the same saving. So if Epic discounted Fortnight Bucks for Apple and Google players by 20%, they would also have to discount Fortnite Buck for Xbox, PlayStation and computer players by the same. Microsoft and Sony would not allow Epic to sell discounted Fortnite Bucks on iOS or Android, as that would lead to their players buying discounted virtual items on iOS and Android and still have those virtual items when they play on an Xbox or Playstation.
it's the MFN cause that is the reason why it's hard to find the same item, sold by the same seller, cheaper online elsewhere, if they sell it on Amazon. Its origin is with World trade but businesses use the same concept.
When Epic violated Apple App Store policy and provided a link to their website where Fortnite players could buy Fortnite Bucks at a 20% discount, Epic also lowered the price of Fortnite Bucks on the Xbox and Playstation (for the same period of time). They had to, because of the MFN clause they, and most developers, signed with each platform. Same with Disney, Hulu, HBO, WSJ, Microsoft, etc.. Which is why these developers can't even sell their products or services discounted on their own website.
Which is why it's silly to think that any saving on the commission due to this lawsuit would result in savings for consumers. The developers will keep the discount for themselves . The only benefit to consumers would be if the developers are selling apps and the apps only works on one platform. Most subscriptions and IAP's are cross platforms. Thus it would not be "fair" for Microsoft, if Epic lowered the price of Fortnite Bucks for iOS and Android players and not provide the same discount to Xbox players.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
In fact, it is just one of the many elements that are being looked at for the EU's DMA.
I would expect the UK to be looking at the exact same elements but perhaps with different names.
Only now, after years of feet being dragged is it getting easier to migrate data from platform to platform.
I actually got a call from someone with a Windows phone IIRC back in the day, who had a simple question. How to move Chrome bookmarks to a different browser. The official way, as per Google help pages at the time, was to use a computer. She didn't have one. I don't remember how I resolved that one but it wasn't a straightforward process. Systems are riddled with pot holes that make migration harder than it should be.
Apps are the lifeblood of all mobile systems and in spite of the existence of web apps.
I'm currently on a migration path to HarmonyOS (for tablets) which does not have a trace of GMS in it so represents a perfect opportunity for me to really see how far Google's tentacles dig into our lives. So I can see, first hand, the difficulties involved in moving off GMS both from a consumer and business perspective.
Believe me, the current situation (the mobile duopoly) is not good for consumers and the more fragmentation from a platform perspective, the better.
It's a lot of fun to see how fast HMS is developing with updates almost daily but not even I would be able to comfortably switch out to HMS in one go.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Ironically, Huawei is in the process of creating new technologies to run Android apps on Windows. That will be another HarmonyOS 'feature' and eventually support for Android apps will be expanded to include HarmonyOS apps on Windows. Microsoft could theoretically take Open Harmony (the open source version of HarmonyOS) and get back into the phone business (Chinese market first) and then ride the coat tails of HarmonyOS to the rest of the world.
The problem is that the mobile industry is now moving into the automotive industry and Microsoft has it own plans there. I can't see Microsoft supporting a system on phones that already has a shipping HarmonyOS Cockpit solution on the market for cars.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
In fact, it is just one of the many elements that are being looked at for the EU's DMA.
I would expect the UK to be looking at the exact same elements but perhaps with different names.
Only now, after years of feet being dragged is it getting easier to migrate data from platform to platform.
I actually got a call from someone with a Windows phone IIRC back in the day, who had a simple question. How to move Chrome bookmarks to a different browser. The official way, as per Google help pages at the time, was to use a computer. She didn't have one. I don't remember how I resolved that one but it wasn't a straightforward process. Systems are riddled with pot holes that make migration harder than it should be.
Apps are the lifeblood of all mobile systems and in spite of the existence of web apps.
I'm currently on a migration path to HarmonyOS (for tablets) which does not have a trace of GMS in it so represents a perfect opportunity for me to really see how far Google's tentacles dig into our lives. So I can see, first hand, the difficulties involved in moving off GMS both from a consumer and business perspective.
Believe me, the current situation (the mobile duopoly) is not good for consumers and the more fragmentation from a platform perspective, the better.
It's a lot of fun to see how fast HMS is developing with updates almost daily but not even I would be able to comfortably switch out to HMS in one go.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Ironically, Huawei is in the process of creating new technologies to run Android apps on Windows. That will be another HarmonyOS 'feature' and eventually support for Android apps will be expanded to include HarmonyOS apps on Windows. Microsoft could theoretically take Open Harmony (the open source version of HarmonyOS) and get back into the phone business (Chinese market first) and then ride the coat tails of HarmonyOS to the rest of the world.
The problem is that the mobile industry is now moving into the automotive industry and Microsoft has it own plans there. I can't see Microsoft supporting a system on phones that already has a shipping HarmonyOS Cockpit solution on the market for cars.
Gee, you could have just bought an Amazon Fire tablet to do the same experiment. Both Amazon Fire and Huawei HarmonyOS are forks of Android. So I find it amusing that you are wondering how far Google tentacles dig into our lives by using an OS that was developed, is maintained and kept up to date by Google. Huawei HarmonyOS wouldn't even exist without Google providing Android for free, as Open Source. Android from the ground up was developed by Google with mobile services in mind. Take your tablet, side load the Google Play store and most of the Android apps will run, no problem. The only ones that won't would be he ones that require some other Goole services like G-Mail, One Drive, Google Map, Google Doc, etc.. but all those can also be side loaded. How much you want to bet that when there's a security bug in HarmonyOS, Google will fix it first and then Huawei will apply the fix and take the credit.
Right now, Huawei HarmonyOS is nothing but Android 10 underneath.
>After hours of poking around on HarmonyOS, I couldn't point to a single substantive change compared to Android. Other than a few renamed items, nothing is different. If anyone at Huawei wants to dispute this, I would welcome an example of a single thing in the emulator that is functionally or even aesthetically different from Android. If anyone wants to cry "it's just a beta!," Huawei says this OS will be shipping in commercial phones this year. There does not appear to be time to do a major overhaul from "Android" to "Not Android."
Forking Android and launching your own rebranded operating system is totally fine. But be upfront about that. Say "HarmonyOS is a fork of Android" instead of "HarmonyOS is not a copy of Android." Don't call HarmonyOS "all-new" when pretty much the opposite is true.<
And as for Huawei creating new technology to link their OS with Microsoft Windows. That technology already exist. Harmony OS is just Android. Huawei don't have to create anything new to do this. Though they will probably take the credit for it.
I sure hope I didn't spoil your little experiment. Sounded like it was going to be entertaining and fun. Kind of remind me of the time quite a few years back where I opened a G-mail account just because I wanted to activate an Android tablet (if a recall. it was JellyBean on a tablet made by RCA). That's all i did with the G-mail.. Never gave the address out to anyone or sent emails with it. But after a month or so of playing around with the Android tablet, downloading apps, side loading, browsing internet, etc., I check the G-mail account and it was full of ads and spam. Of course I didn't start off wondering about this. But wasn't surprise. Probably could have avoided a lot of this if i took the time use the filters available.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
I think you're confusing "better product" with "illegal advantage" - Apple made a wildly successful device because Apple took the time to design a more usable system. Nobody else had "the full internet" on a phone, publishers had to create WAP versions of their sites. Nobody else had a touchscreen-only device that was designed to be synced with a Mac. Even without copy/paste or a removable battery (things that, at the time, were seen as necessary) the iPhone was a smash hit. Apple was not trying to enter the enterprise market with the iPhone, they were seeking to get a foothold in the consumer handset market.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Microsoft had and still maintains a massive market share in the enterprise market. I think it's laughable to argue that MS did not have a pre-existing market to leverage; what they did NOT have was the ability to leverage their presence in the consumer market - a market that the majority of IT enthusiasts and commentators viewed as less important. Microsoft spent more than 10 years trying to get a cut-down version of Windows on a phone, thinking that they knew what their customers wanted. We should be saying MS failed to execute rather than failed to have the opportunity.
I am surprised that this court action has made it this far. Exhibit A should be the price of mobile phone software before Apple's App Store. Anyone remember the price of apps for Windows Mobile circa 2007? Because I recall prices in the range of US$25-40 and that's not the norm now.
Funnily enough, while trying to do some pricing research I came across this article (https://uk.pcmag.com/windows-mobile-apps/24428/windows-mobile-60) which mentions that a WinMo v6 device takes around 40 seconds to boot, and that you bought separate app versions depending on whether or not you were using WinMo Standard or Professional.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
In fact, it is just one of the many elements that are being looked at for the EU's DMA.
I would expect the UK to be looking at the exact same elements but perhaps with different names.
Only now, after years of feet being dragged is it getting easier to migrate data from platform to platform.
I actually got a call from someone with a Windows phone IIRC back in the day, who had a simple question. How to move Chrome bookmarks to a different browser. The official way, as per Google help pages at the time, was to use a computer. She didn't have one. I don't remember how I resolved that one but it wasn't a straightforward process. Systems are riddled with pot holes that make migration harder than it should be.
Apps are the lifeblood of all mobile systems and in spite of the existence of web apps.
I'm currently on a migration path to HarmonyOS (for tablets) which does not have a trace of GMS in it so represents a perfect opportunity for me to really see how far Google's tentacles dig into our lives. So I can see, first hand, the difficulties involved in moving off GMS both from a consumer and business perspective.
Believe me, the current situation (the mobile duopoly) is not good for consumers and the more fragmentation from a platform perspective, the better.
It's a lot of fun to see how fast HMS is developing with updates almost daily but not even I would be able to comfortably switch out to HMS in one go.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Ironically, Huawei is in the process of creating new technologies to run Android apps on Windows. That will be another HarmonyOS 'feature' and eventually support for Android apps will be expanded to include HarmonyOS apps on Windows. Microsoft could theoretically take Open Harmony (the open source version of HarmonyOS) and get back into the phone business (Chinese market first) and then ride the coat tails of HarmonyOS to the rest of the world.
The problem is that the mobile industry is now moving into the automotive industry and Microsoft has it own plans there. I can't see Microsoft supporting a system on phones that already has a shipping HarmonyOS Cockpit solution on the market for cars.
Gee, you could have just bought an Amazon Fire tablet to do the same experiment. Both Amazon Fire and Huawei HarmonyOS are forks of Android. So I find it amusing that you are wondering how far Google tentacles dig into our lives by using an OS that was developed, is maintained and kept up to date by Google. Huawei HarmonyOS wouldn't even exist without Google providing Android for free, as Open Source. Android from the ground up was developed by Google with mobile services in mind. Take your tablet, side load the Google Play store and most of the Android apps will run, no problem. The only ones that won't would be he ones that require some other Goole services like G-Mail, One Drive, Google Map, Google Doc, etc.. but all those can also be side loaded. How much you want to bet that when there's a security bug in HarmonyOS, Google will fix it first and then Huawei will apply the fix and take the credit.
Right now, Huawei HarmonyOS is nothing but Android 10 underneath.
>After hours of poking around on HarmonyOS, I couldn't point to a single substantive change compared to Android. Other than a few renamed items, nothing is different. If anyone at Huawei wants to dispute this, I would welcome an example of a single thing in the emulator that is functionally or even aesthetically different from Android. If anyone wants to cry "it's just a beta!," Huawei says this OS will be shipping in commercial phones this year. There does not appear to be time to do a major overhaul from "Android" to "Not Android."
Forking Android and launching your own rebranded operating system is totally fine. But be upfront about that. Say "HarmonyOS is a fork of Android" instead of "HarmonyOS is not a copy of Android." Don't call HarmonyOS "all-new" when pretty much the opposite is true.<
And as for Huawei creating new technology to link their OS with Microsoft Windows. That technology already exist. Harmony OS is just Android. Huawei don't have to create anything new to do this. Though they will probably take the credit for it.
I sure hope I didn't spoil your little experiment. Sounded like it was going to be entertaining and fun. Kind of remind me of the time quite a few years back where I opened a G-mail account just because I wanted to activate an Android tablet (if a recall. it was JellyBean on a tablet made by RCA). That's all i did with the G-mail.. Never gave the address out to anyone or sent emails with it. But after a month or so of playing around with the Android tablet, downloading apps, side loading, browsing internet, etc., I check the G-mail account and it was full of ads and spam. Of course I didn't start off wondering about this. But wasn't surprise. Probably could have avoided a lot of this if i took the time use the filters available.
No, you didn't spoil my experiment. You simply made me laugh out loud.
Have you not read my own comments at ARS?
Could you not see just how poor that article was?
Yes, the code that ARS tried to look at was based on Android AOSP but HarmonyOS (and even EMUI) are much, much more than that.
No, the author most definitely did not have to send a copy of his passport to Huawei. That was just one of the options open to him. All laid out (in English and publicly available) on the Huawei developer site. There were others but every non-corporate developer is required to identify themselves as a security measure. It is one of the core measures for AppGallery distribution.
Fork you say? Yes but only in one context and by the same logic, iOS is a fork of Darwin, which is a fork of....
In fact, HarmonyOS was officially released in 2019. If only ARS had done that piece then because they wouldn't have found a trace of even AOSP! The kernel of that version could sit in 10kB of memory.
How could that be, if HarmonyOS is just a mere fork of Android? It very much looks like you are making the same shoddy conclusions as ARS, but as you seem to be drawing your own information from that piece, I should not be surprised I suppose.
Of the various HarmonyOS devices I use daily, the only ones that have an Android fork are the tablet and phone. And sideloading the PlayStore or using Gspace is precisely what I didn't want to do!
So what gives?
Why is HarmonyOS able to do things that Android can't? Like the near instantaneous connection of devices? Why is the entire TEE entirely different?
Why is such a core part of the system different? Did ARS give you an answer to that?
Weird because Huawei did an entire tour and tech briefing (in English) with a lot of key information (yes, including networking) and yet there wasn't a whiff of any of that in the article.
It's also surprising that the author of the piece didn't sit through the three-hour HDC keynote (which was broadcast with simultaneous English translation and is available on YouTube) to even get an idea of what the system is, and more importantly, where it is going. Shocking!
And here you are, regurgitating the same information. Have you done your own research?
Microsoft's effort to get Android apps onto Windows is what Huawei will play off but the Windows base doesn't tie in with HarmonyOS on a collaborative level so a new technology was needed and that will allow for the installation of AppGallery (sanctions, of course play a part here too) and HarmonyOS developed apps.
HarmonyOS on smartphones/tablets needs to run Android compatible apps. HarmonyOS on IoT, cars, routers, TVs, audio devices, wearables etc does not.
That is why the system is designated as 'multi kernel' at this point. ARS seems to have skipped that gigantic detail (even though a non-Android based system had been on devices since 2019!). In fact, elements of HarmonyOS have been tucked away in other Huawei systems for a few years now.
So HarmonyOS will handle all aspects of the CE side of things and OpenEuler will handle the cloud/business/industrial side of things. The two will work in harmony (no pun intended) and as you should be realising by now, AOSP will be quite insignificant in the wider scheme of things.
avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful.
'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
I think you're confusing "better product" with "illegal advantage" - Apple made a wildly successful device because Apple took the time to design a more usable system. Nobody else had "the full internet" on a phone, publishers had to create WAP versions of their sites. Nobody else had a touchscreen-only device that was designed to be synced with a Mac. Even without copy/paste or a removable battery (things that, at the time, were seen as necessary) the iPhone was a smash hit. Apple was not trying to enter the enterprise market with the iPhone, they were seeking to get a foothold in the consumer handset market.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Microsoft had and still maintains a massive market share in the enterprise market. I think it's laughable to argue that MS did not have a pre-existing market to leverage; what they did NOT have was the ability to leverage their presence in the consumer market - a market that the majority of IT enthusiasts and commentators viewed as less important. Microsoft spent more than 10 years trying to get a cut-down version of Windows on a phone, thinking that they knew what their customers wanted. We should be saying MS failed to execute rather than failed to have the opportunity.
We are talking exclusively about Microsoft in the handset space, not the enterprise/consumer PC market.
Better product and an illegal advantage are not mutually exclusive although, as a user of both iOS (old on my devices and modern on my wife's), I much prefer the Android hardware/software combo.
avon b7 said: 'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
How does the EU/Congress reconcile customer satisfaction with the idea of "lock in"? Answer: they just ignore customer satisfaction. How does the EU/Congress reconcile having to repurchase 3rd party software when switching platforms with the idea of "lock in"? Answer: they just ignore 3rd party software repurchasing.
avon b7 said: 'Lock in'. 'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
How does the EU/Congress reconcile customer satisfaction with the idea of "lock in"? Answer: they just ignore customer satisfaction. How does the EU/Congress reconcile having to repurchase 3rd party software when switching platforms with the idea of "lock in"? Answer: they just ignore 3rd party software repurchasing.
Those are irrelevant to the issue at hand and one does not have to depend on the other.
Comments
How well do you think the iPhone would sell without an app ecosystem?
You were using the context of the "fair" in FRAND as an example that the government can determine what's "fair". And I explained to you why the government can do this with SEP's. FRAND has no relevance to you claiming that the government can, should or have determine what's "fair", in a market where a capitalistic market determines "fair". FRAND does not apply to a capitalistic market.
If consumers don't think it's "fair', then they don't have to buy it. This is not about products and services that are essential for consumers to maintain a minimum standard of living. Where the government should step in. This is not about the "fair" price one can charge for staples like milk, butter, eggs, fresh vegetables, rice, potatoes, can goods and such. Here the UK is getting involve in what? Game developers that are making billion of dollars in the app stores complaining about paying Apple and Google a commission that they don't think is fair, when their customers buy virtual money, to buy virtual items, for silly games they play on their expensive mobile devices? Consumers complaining about the extra cost of streaming subscriptions from the likes of Disney, HBO, Netflix, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, MLB, NFL, etc., because of apps stores commission? In the scheme of things, these are all "luxury" items and services that nearly all consumers can do without.
Do the government determine what's "fair" when luxury auto makers like BMW, Mercedes, Tesla and Porsche price of their vehicles? Why not? Do the government get involve on what's "fair" to pay for jewelry at Tiffany's or for a LV purse or Gucci luggage or a bottle of Dom Perignon Champagne or a bottle of Chanel perfume? Why not, if the government should be the one determining what's "fair" for a company to charge for their products, in order to protect the consumers? Why isn't the UK looking into how much Epic Games charges consumers for a "cool" looking virtual outfit in their Fortnite Store? Wouldn't you think charging $10 in real money, for a non perishable virtual item, that cost nearly nothing to produce, keep in stock and cost the same to produce as the not so "cool" looking virtual outfits that they sell for $4 (real money), isn't a "fair" price for Epic Games to charge consumers for the "cool" virtual outfit?
Just look at the banks in Spain and all the recent criticism due to brick and mortar branches shutting down only to be replaced by digital means. Something that is economically and intellectually beyond many members of society. The so-called digital divide is something that needs government intervention and it will come.
Digital products are fast becoming 'staples' and the lack of digital platforms is a problem. That is why the EU is specifically using the term 'gatekeeper' in its proposed actions and investigations.
Can you name a carmaker that is a gatekeeper? A winemaker that is a gatekeeper?
You used to be able to authorise payments via signature (a very analogue method). The digital hardware specification still allows for it but many banks have simply deactivated the option for security reasons. There will always be a 'reason' but the fact remains. Choice is being restricted.
Fair in FRAND means fair. There is no need to contextualise that.
It's like the riddle of what came first ... the chicken or the egg.
But consider this. When Apple first open the Apple app store, they were charging a 30% commission to all developers (which dropped to 15% on subscriptions after a year) making money with apps in the Apple App Store. And yet these developers must have thought that was "fair" because they still flock in masses to develop for Apple iOS platform. This goes back to when there were less than 100M iPhones in the World. Now that there's over 1B iDevices in consumers hand, (in the World), how is a 15/30% commission no longer "fair"? Wouldn't you think paying a 15/30% commission is "fairer" now, that ten years ago? There's a "fair" reason why it cost more to advertise during the Super Bowl, than during a rerun of Gillian's Island.
The iPhone wouldn't have gained as much traction had it not been for the app ecosystem. The apps are what makes the iPhone (any smartphone) successful and once the commission came into affect it sprouted a multi billion dollar business for Apple which had absolute control over it.
The percentage within the store of free apps is irrelevant. The commissions themselves are irrelevant.
The lack of competition, the scarcity of platforms and the control imposed by gatekeepers is relevant. Lock in and interoperability are relevant. Gatekeepers themselves are relevant.
The situation today and the situation ten years ago are incomparable even if the commissions were the same.
When Internet Explorer hit the market with the 'free' label, and with the objective of pulling the rug out from under Netscape's feet by getting shipped on a dominant platform, it took years for authorities to deal with simply because at the start, the internet a nascent accessory to people's lives. That isn't the case today. The internet (and smartphones) are life for many people today.
Console games with third party produced game cartridges are an example of this at the consumer level, but if you look into other commercial, industrial, medical, security, aerospace, etc., systems you’ll see system add-ins from multiple vendors that are only usable within the scope of the system that is owned and controlled by the system vendor. In some cases these add on components can only be commissioned into the system if they possess an enabling device licensed by the system builder, e.g., a chip that performs certain protocol operations to allow the add-in device to communicate with the host.
At least in theory, these same authorities could go after every single one of these closed system vendors who are acting as “gatekeepers” and force them to open up their closed systems no matter how small or large the systems may be. Chances are that they never will because the scope is narrower, the financial compensation for those impacted is lower, and most notably the public attention and notoriety to be garnered from their Robin Hood adventure is inconsequential. Who would care? It’s quite possible that forcing some system vendors to open up their closed system could doom the system to failure, especially if the benefits of having the closed system, e.g., improved security or fault tolerance, are neutered when the system is opened up.
Apple on the other hand is a big fat juicy target that a lot of folks want to take a big bite out of. Apple can afford to be punished without destroying the company. Apple may have to change its logo to include another big bite out of the other side of the apple, but they would likely survive in a diminished state with a diminished influence, which is exactly what these authorities are pursuing. They have zero concern about the consumer and developer benefits that Apple’s closed ecosystem provides. They (and their secret sponsors) simply want to cut Apple down to size. Everyone loves a winner … until they win too much, or when they are not my team.
The iPhone app ecosystem is what the platform is built on. Without it the iPhone would not be what it is. Apps are everything to its viability. Make no mistake of that.
The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).
This also applies to Google in a non-Android sense, Meta etc.
it's the MFN cause that is the reason why it's hard to find the same item, sold by the same seller, cheaper online elsewhere, if they sell it on Amazon. Its origin is with World trade but businesses use the same concept.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-382-3637?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
When Epic violated Apple App Store policy and provided a link to their website where Fortnite players could buy Fortnite Bucks at a 20% discount, Epic also lowered the price of Fortnite Bucks on the Xbox and Playstation (for the same period of time). They had to, because of the MFN clause they, and most developers, signed with each platform. Same with Disney, Hulu, HBO, WSJ, Microsoft, etc.. Which is why these developers can't even sell their products or services discounted on their own website.
Which is why it's silly to think that any saving on the commission due to this lawsuit would result in savings for consumers. The developers will keep the discount for themselves . The only benefit to consumers would be if the developers are selling apps and the apps only works on one platform. Most subscriptions and IAP's are cross platforms. Thus it would not be "fair" for Microsoft, if Epic lowered the price of Fortnite Bucks for iOS and Android players and not provide the same discount to Xbox players.
Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.
In fact, it is just one of the many elements that are being looked at for the EU's DMA.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349
I would expect the UK to be looking at the exact same elements but perhaps with different names.
Only now, after years of feet being dragged is it getting easier to migrate data from platform to platform.
I actually got a call from someone with a Windows phone IIRC back in the day, who had a simple question. How to move Chrome bookmarks to a different browser. The official way, as per Google help pages at the time, was to use a computer. She didn't have one. I don't remember how I resolved that one but it wasn't a straightforward process. Systems are riddled with pot holes that make migration harder than it should be.
Apps are the lifeblood of all mobile systems and in spite of the existence of web apps.
I'm currently on a migration path to HarmonyOS (for tablets) which does not have a trace of GMS in it so represents a perfect opportunity for me to really see how far Google's tentacles dig into our lives. So I can see, first hand, the difficulties involved in moving off GMS both from a consumer and business perspective.
Believe me, the current situation (the mobile duopoly) is not good for consumers and the more fragmentation from a platform perspective, the better.
It's a lot of fun to see how fast HMS is developing with updates almost daily but not even I would be able to comfortably switch out to HMS in one go.
It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from.
Ironically, Huawei is in the process of creating new technologies to run Android apps on Windows. That will be another HarmonyOS 'feature' and eventually support for Android apps will be expanded to include HarmonyOS apps on Windows. Microsoft could theoretically take Open Harmony (the open source version of HarmonyOS) and get back into the phone business (Chinese market first) and then ride the coat tails of HarmonyOS to the rest of the world.
The problem is that the mobile industry is now moving into the automotive industry and Microsoft has it own plans there. I can't see Microsoft supporting a system on phones that already has a shipping HarmonyOS Cockpit solution on the market for cars.
Right now, Huawei HarmonyOS is nothing but Android 10 underneath.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/harmonyos-hands-on-huaweis-android-killer-is-just-android/
>After hours of poking around on HarmonyOS, I couldn't point to a single substantive change compared to Android. Other than a few renamed items, nothing is different. If anyone at Huawei wants to dispute this, I would welcome an example of a single thing in the emulator that is functionally or even aesthetically different from Android. If anyone wants to cry "it's just a beta!," Huawei says this OS will be shipping in commercial phones this year. There does not appear to be time to do a major overhaul from "Android" to "Not Android."
Forking Android and launching your own rebranded operating system is totally fine. But be upfront about that. Say "HarmonyOS is a fork of Android" instead of "HarmonyOS is not a copy of Android." Don't call HarmonyOS "all-new" when pretty much the opposite is true.<
And as for Huawei creating new technology to link their OS with Microsoft Windows. That technology already exist. Harmony OS is just Android. Huawei don't have to create anything new to do this. Though they will probably take the credit for it.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/android/wsa/
https://9to5google.com/2022/04/01/microsoft-android/ ;
I sure hope I didn't spoil your little experiment. Sounded like it was going to be entertaining and fun. Kind of remind me of the time quite a few years back where I opened a G-mail account just because I wanted to activate an Android tablet (if a recall. it was JellyBean on a tablet made by RCA). That's all i did with the G-mail.. Never gave the address out to anyone or sent emails with it. But after a month or so of playing around with the Android tablet, downloading apps, side loading, browsing internet, etc., I check the G-mail account and it was full of ads and spam. Of course I didn't start off wondering about this. But wasn't surprise. Probably could have avoided a lot of this if i took the time use the filters available.
Microsoft had and still maintains a massive market share in the enterprise market. I think it's laughable to argue that MS did not have a pre-existing market to leverage; what they did NOT have was the ability to leverage their presence in the consumer market - a market that the majority of IT enthusiasts and commentators viewed as less important. Microsoft spent more than 10 years trying to get a cut-down version of Windows on a phone, thinking that they knew what their customers wanted. We should be saying MS failed to execute rather than failed to have the opportunity.
Funnily enough, while trying to do some pricing research I came across this article (https://uk.pcmag.com/windows-mobile-apps/24428/windows-mobile-60) which mentions that a WinMo v6 device takes around 40 seconds to boot, and that you bought separate app versions depending on whether or not you were using WinMo Standard or Professional.
Apple really has hurt consumers.
Have you not read my own comments at ARS?
Could you not see just how poor that article was?
Yes, the code that ARS tried to look at was based on Android AOSP but HarmonyOS (and even EMUI) are much, much more than that.
No, the author most definitely did not have to send a copy of his passport to Huawei. That was just one of the options open to him. All laid out (in English and publicly available) on the Huawei developer site. There were others but every non-corporate developer is required to identify themselves as a security measure. It is one of the core measures for AppGallery distribution.
Fork you say? Yes but only in one context and by the same logic, iOS is a fork of Darwin, which is a fork of....
In fact, HarmonyOS was officially released in 2019. If only ARS had done that piece then because they wouldn't have found a trace of even AOSP! The kernel of that version could sit in 10kB of memory.
How could that be, if HarmonyOS is just a mere fork of Android? It very much looks like you are making the same shoddy conclusions as ARS, but as you seem to be drawing your own information from that piece, I should not be surprised I suppose.
Of the various HarmonyOS devices I use daily, the only ones that have an Android fork are the tablet and phone. And sideloading the PlayStore or using Gspace is precisely what I didn't want to do!
So what gives?
Why is HarmonyOS able to do things that Android can't? Like the near instantaneous connection of devices? Why is the entire TEE entirely different?
Why is such a core part of the system different? Did ARS give you an answer to that?
Weird because Huawei did an entire tour and tech briefing (in English) with a lot of key information (yes, including networking) and yet there wasn't a whiff of any of that in the article.
It's also surprising that the author of the piece didn't sit through the three-hour HDC keynote (which was broadcast with simultaneous English translation and is available on YouTube) to even get an idea of what the system is, and more importantly, where it is going. Shocking!
And here you are, regurgitating the same information. Have you done your own research?
Microsoft's effort to get Android apps onto Windows is what Huawei will play off but the Windows base doesn't tie in with HarmonyOS on a collaborative level so a new technology was needed and that will allow for the installation of AppGallery (sanctions, of course play a part here too) and HarmonyOS developed apps.
HarmonyOS on smartphones/tablets needs to run Android compatible apps. HarmonyOS on IoT, cars, routers, TVs, audio devices, wearables etc does not.
That is why the system is designated as 'multi kernel' at this point. ARS seems to have skipped that gigantic detail (even though a non-Android based system had been on devices since 2019!). In fact, elements of HarmonyOS have been tucked away in other Huawei systems for a few years now.
So HarmonyOS will handle all aspects of the CE side of things and OpenEuler will handle the cloud/business/industrial side of things. The two will work in harmony (no pun intended) and as you should be realising by now, AOSP will be quite insignificant in the wider scheme of things.
Better product and an illegal advantage are not mutually exclusive although, as a user of both iOS (old on my devices and modern on my wife's), I much prefer the Android hardware/software combo.