avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
Modern mobile digital devices are entirely dependent on 3rd party software. In that aspect, platform 'satisfaction' is irrelevant.
Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Satisfaction will always play second fiddle to app development because without those apps you simply would not buy the phone and with that, any chance of satisfaction goes out the window.
Look at the Mac. Same satisfaction you would argue, but when key software went AWOL, users had little option but to switch to another platform.
Your purchasing needs will always override any satisfaction requirement, not least because part of your satisfaction is directly tied to the availability of platform software.
Some third party software is beneficial but not critical if the Apple store (ecosystem) was only one thousand apps (programs) the number of iPhones, Mac’s, iPads, and Apple Watches sold would be the same, aside from the OS itself the only critical must have programs are email, web browser and a message program.
When i was evaluating options for my smartphone purchase about 10 years ago - Windows Phone Vs Android phone was my first decision point (iPhones were out of my budget). Guess what settled the issue for me? "Availability of apps in the respective app stores". With so much progress in the last 10 years, it is beyond SILLY to suggest that "Availability of 3rd party Apps" do NOT matter. Take out App Store - iPhone is useless to most of the people who buy them. Take out Google Play Store - Android phones are useless to most of the people who buy them (which is why Huawei is having a hard time selling the phones in rest of the world without Google Play Store). Very small percentage (I would assume it is <1%) of smartphone using population can live with just 1st party apps on both ecosystems (iOS and Android). For the vast majority of smartphone buyers - Availability of App/Play store would be a make/break decision point.
"availability of apps" is the straw man in your and avon b7's argument. I'm haven't seen anything wrt to the EU banning 3rd party apps, merely an attempt to level the playing field by forcing Apple to allow 3rd party app stores. Even with that, I don't think that 3rd party stores will ever match the popularity of Apple's app store. Either way, the doom and gloom is gaslighting bullshit.
Read the thread. You are taking posts out of context and commenting on situations that no one has even said are on the table.
avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.
But none of that changes what I said.
No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it.
<snip>
You don't think Apple Pay is a step in this direction?
Apple is not a digital gatekeeper, they are a product company, like Nintendo.
Apple operates an Appstore and that is the reason it is designated as a gatekeeper and hence will be subject to provisions of DMA. Same is the case with Google, due to its Playstore. EU lawmakers are not stupid.
DSA, on the other hand will be more stringent on Google and Facebook, apart from others, but Apple is not exempt either. Apple currently identifies customers through a unique ID that is persistent across apps, which is not allowed under DSA. Bye Bye Apple's advantage that it got for itself by implementing ATT that not only advatnged itself, but also disadvantaged other third-party advertisers. That will vanish.
Apple developed the Advertising ID as a compromise to stop developers trying to access the Device ID and track the device across absolutely every activity. No point having regulation that targets the device and OS; instead, target the surveillance industry that is trying to exploit the capabilities provided.
Compare it to a firearm. The capabilities of the device are known, the potential for harm is known, but the manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the wielder. Regulation prohibits all sorts of uses of a firearm but allows for a narrow selection of activities that are recognised as beneficial.
Regulation, however, is not a simple thing. In cases where the potential harms have significant impact, it's better to explicitly state what is allowed and have the default stance that anything not listed is illegal. In other (and I would say most) cases, it's more important to cultivate innovation and experimentation, so the approach should be listing what is definitely not allowed and the default stance is that anything not listed is legal. I think a lot of confusion arises because there needs to be a mix of these approaches and most people only want a single approach for all legislation.
avon b7 said: iPhone depends on third party software.
And third party iOS developers depend on consumers buying an iPhone with iOS installed. That's always going to be the first part of the sales process.
No. Consumers will follow the apps. Remove the apps from the equation and the hardware proposal loses steam - fast.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Uhm, your thesis is profoundly, if not fatally, flawed.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
Apple can only curate the apps that are presented. Take that away and the proposal isn't viable.
The 'ecosystem' is primarily apps on iPhones (any phone). No apps. No go.
The rest isn't compelling without apps.
The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
Simple example. Remove GMS apps, Meta Apps and digital age essentials (banking, health, government...) and watch your user base dry up fast.
No amount of 'ecosystem' could turn the tide and that is a sign of how much power these companies have accumulated.
I agree - if the software isn't available, the user won't buy the device. Note that it's not just commercial availability of software that matters; if I'm able to write the software for a manageable cost (personally, or by contracting it out) then that wouldn't put me off a device purchase.
The chance of software not being available today, however, is miniscule. The size and potential value of the smartphone software market has generated stiff competition amongst developers and just about everything of significance is available through a web browser. So I disagree with your assessment of risk; users simply assume the software they need will be there and prioritise other factors for their purchasing decision.
But the platform owners have indeed accumulated an astonishing amount of power. We saw it happen with Microsoft in the 1990s too - but MS stopped dominating IT when another company developed something new and something better and was able to bring it to market. Regulation needs to foster and protect this ability, with as few harmful side-effects as possible. Regulation does not need to pick winners and losers. It's a fine line to walk, especially given the scrutiny that is applied by the (now global) commentariat.
Comments
Compare it to a firearm. The capabilities of the device are known, the potential for harm is known, but the manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the wielder. Regulation prohibits all sorts of uses of a firearm but allows for a narrow selection of activities that are recognised as beneficial.
Regulation, however, is not a simple thing. In cases where the potential harms have significant impact, it's better to explicitly state what is allowed and have the default stance that anything not listed is illegal. In other (and I would say most) cases, it's more important to cultivate innovation and experimentation, so the approach should be listing what is definitely not allowed and the default stance is that anything not listed is legal. I think a lot of confusion arises because there needs to be a mix of these approaches and most people only want a single approach for all legislation.
I agree - if the software isn't available, the user won't buy the device. Note that it's not just commercial availability of software that matters; if I'm able to write the software for a manageable cost (personally, or by contracting it out) then that wouldn't put me off a device purchase.
The chance of software not being available today, however, is miniscule. The size and potential value of the smartphone software market has generated stiff competition amongst developers and just about everything of significance is available through a web browser. So I disagree with your assessment of risk; users simply assume the software they need will be there and prioritise other factors for their purchasing decision.
But the platform owners have indeed accumulated an astonishing amount of power. We saw it happen with Microsoft in the 1990s too - but MS stopped dominating IT when another company developed something new and something better and was able to bring it to market. Regulation needs to foster and protect this ability, with as few harmful side-effects as possible. Regulation does not need to pick winners and losers. It's a fine line to walk, especially given the scrutiny that is applied by the (now global) commentariat.