Answering line by line seems childish. Fighting to keep everything closed when some are known to work with larger populations in more countries is a hard sell. It makes Apple look greedy towards US consumers and out of step with the Trump administration.
Cook should rethink his approach to regulation. This won’t help the brand or give him friends.
Since when do you not answer in court line by line when judges and lawyers are involved that’s the only thing they understand? And if you don’t answer everything up front at the trial/appeal, those very same lawyers/judges (ie..vultures) say well why didn’t you bring up that point during the proceedings,…
Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.
It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference. And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.
YOU bought the device knowing exactly what the deal was. Don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Onecast recently added the ability to use Xbox Cloud, which I have really been enjoying. I generally use it to play on iPad or Mac, as the screen on the iPhone isn’t optimal for games made for much larger screens.
This is in addition to streaming from your home console.
Quality is really good, battery life also, syncing has so far been without a hitch. Little to complaint about. There’s even a new 1080 HQ option. You won’t get 4k out of it just yet, but I can see that day coming sometime soon.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.
It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference. And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.
YOU bought the device knowing exactly what the deal was. Don’t like it, don’t buy it.
That argument wouldn't even reach court.
The truth is you cannot make statements like that because there is nothing in the purchase process that spells out the Apple imposed limitations (which Apple could make perfectly clear - but doesn't).
But, running with your idea, do you think these limitations should be made clear to users prior to purchase? If not, why not?
In my opinion there should be two options for customers when they first open an iPhone: - Freedom without guarantees - Apple standard
Let the market decide.
This is already the case. You can buy any iPhone, hack it and do whatever you want without support from Apple. The market has already decided. Very few people do that.
Are you serious right now? Is this really what they do?
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
If you own an iPhone, how could you not know what you were buying, considering what you are upset about? It’s never been a secret, and pretty well talked about in media for over a decade. And Apple hasn’t made claims to the contrary.
Conservatives have long railed against over-regulation. Why isn’t this over-regulation?
A smartphone is not what we have traditionally had in desktop and laptop computers.
A smartphone, and especially the iPhone, contain more sensitive information, such as health information, protected access to your financial information and more, that were not held on computers in the first 40 years of computers.
We got used to buying software for computers from the software publishers direct or as boxed software from stores. The iPhone changed that. It was a new device with many patented inventions in hardware and software that had much more integration of hardware and software.
Apple market share the first year it was out was 100% for the new product category it was—because it was so different than any previous smartphone. Android phones emerged while the market was still largely untapped. Samsung was shown to have changed their design to copy Apple’s interface and hardware features—well documented on these pages by Erin Dilger. They switched from a ‘chicklet’ mechanical keyboard to a software capacitive touch keyboard. Apple sued over infringement. Samsung dragged out the legal proceedings for enough years to where the judge in the case had seen the interface so long that it seemed obvious. It wasn’t until it seemed that way due to the nature of our short term memory .
Tim Cook visiting President Trump in President Trump’s first term had nothing to do with a Huawei ban. Huawei had been investigated and suspect since President George W. Bush was in office.
From Google AI summary, and in line with my recollection:
“…Concerns from U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and NSA, about Huawei's potential security threats date back at least to the mid-2000s
.
Here's a timeline of significant events indicating these concerns:
2007: The NSA launched "Shotgiant," an operation aimed at potentially discovering ties between Huawei and the Chinese military and compromising Huawei technology to infiltrate networks of Huawei customers in target countries.
2008: The U.S. government blocked Huawei's attempt to buy the tech company 3Com, citing national security concerns.
2010: The Obama administration banned Huawei from developing Sprint's mobile network, again referencing national security concerns.
2012: A report from the U.S. House Intelligence Committee warned that Huawei and another Chinese company, ZTE, posed a national security threat to the U.S.
February 2018: Six top U.S. intelligence chiefs, including the heads of the CIA and NSA, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, advising against the use of Huawei products or services by American citizens and in critical infrastructure. …”
I could burst more bubbles I saw, maybe line-by-line, but nah, I’ve said enough.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
That's all well and good but has no relevance to what is happening in jurisdictions around the world.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
That's all well and good but has no relevance to what is happening in jurisdictions around the world.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
I’ve responded to your take on that in the past. Users confirm the EULA before they can start using the device, and have a reasonable window to return it for a refund if they don’t like it. Making them read and sign it in the store before they can purchase it is untenable and ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the same rule be applied to every other purchase you make? Forcing people to sign an agreement before they can even buy it wouldn’t result in better-informed consumers. It would further reduce the already minuscule number of people who read those things in the first place.
Congratulations on submitting the same nonsense in the EU.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
That's all well and good but has no relevance to what is happening in jurisdictions around the world.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
I’ve responded to your take on that in the past. Users confirm the EULA before they can start using the device, and have a reasonable window to return it for a refund if they don’t like it. Making them read and sign it in the store before they can purchase it is untenable and ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the same rule be applied to every other purchase you make? Forcing people to sign an agreement before they can even buy it wouldn’t result in better-informed consumers. It would further reduce the already minuscule number of people who read those things in the first place.
Congratulations on submitting the same nonsense in the EU.
Gatekeeper scenarios in the digital era are a completely new game and my proposal isn't so much for consumers (current legislation is doing that already) but for Apple.
It could be a way to get it completely off the hook with its limitations.
The EULA is clearly not enough and AFAIK, the limitations aren't even clearly spelt out.
Clicking an accept button on a document that is full of legal terms and legal styling definitely wouldn't cut it in the EU for this purpose.
My question remains though. If the limitations Apple wants to impose are so good for comsmers, why not have them sign off on them after being outlined in crystal clear language prior to purchase?
Especially if such an agreement/acceptance would maybe get Apple completely of the hook?
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
That's all well and good but has no relevance to what is happening in jurisdictions around the world.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
I’ve responded to your take on that in the past. Users confirm the EULA before they can start using the device, and have a reasonable window to return it for a refund if they don’t like it. Making them read and sign it in the store before they can purchase it is untenable and ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the same rule be applied to every other purchase you make? Forcing people to sign an agreement before they can even buy it wouldn’t result in better-informed consumers. It would further reduce the already minuscule number of people who read those things in the first place.
Congratulations on submitting the same nonsense in the EU.
Gatekeeper scenarios in the digital era are a completely new game and my proposal isn't so much for consumers (current legislation is doing that already) but for Apple.
It could be a way to get it completely off the hook with its limitations.
The EULA is clearly not enough and AFAIK, the limitations aren't even clearly spelt out.
Clicking an accept button on a document that is full of legal terms and legal styling definitely wouldn't cut it in the EU for this purpose.
My question remains though. If the limitations Apple wants to impose are so good for comsmers, why not have them sign off on them after being outlined in crystal clear language prior to purchase?
Especially if such an agreement/acceptance would maybe get Apple completely of the hook?
What you’re calling limitations aren’t limitations from Apple’s perspective. The App Store is a means to safely deliver third party apps to consumers, using a secure transactions via your Apple account. The apps are required to meet minimum standards for privacy, security, and basic performance, and Apple screens them for you to be sure those standards are met. Apple has never made this business model a secret. And they are never going to describe that approach as a “limitation.” Nor should they.
Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
That's a lot of spin. Apple literally created a mobile app market that did not exist in any relevant way prior to the opening of the iPhone app store. Before that, software applications for any computing device came either on physical media in boxes with thick user manuals, or via a nascent wild west of online sales, either directly from developers or via third-party stores or virtual online flea markets or whatever. When purchasing online, buying directly from trusted developers would minimize the risk of malware, but you were on your own to check for possible compatibility issues with operating systems, hardware and even other applications running on your device. The third-party stores or unknown small developers had all those problems, plus a very real danger of malware, adware, or other forms of bloat tacked on to whatever you were downloading. As for the cost for apps, they came generally as freeware (with a very high risk of malware or other bloat), or expensive.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
That's all well and good but has no relevance to what is happening in jurisdictions around the world.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
I’ve responded to your take on that in the past. Users confirm the EULA before they can start using the device, and have a reasonable window to return it for a refund if they don’t like it. Making them read and sign it in the store before they can purchase it is untenable and ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the same rule be applied to every other purchase you make? Forcing people to sign an agreement before they can even buy it wouldn’t result in better-informed consumers. It would further reduce the already minuscule number of people who read those things in the first place.
Congratulations on submitting the same nonsense in the EU.
Gatekeeper scenarios in the digital era are a completely new game and my proposal isn't so much for consumers (current legislation is doing that already) but for Apple.
It could be a way to get it completely off the hook with its limitations.
The EULA is clearly not enough and AFAIK, the limitations aren't even clearly spelt out.
Clicking an accept button on a document that is full of legal terms and legal styling definitely wouldn't cut it in the EU for this purpose.
My question remains though. If the limitations Apple wants to impose are so good for comsmers, why not have them sign off on them after being outlined in crystal clear language prior to purchase?
Especially if such an agreement/acceptance would maybe get Apple completely of the hook?
What you’re calling limitations aren’t limitations from Apple’s perspective. The App Store is a means to safely deliver third party apps to consumers, using a secure transactions via your Apple account. The apps are required to meet minimum standards for privacy, security, and basic performance, and Apple screens them for you to be sure those standards are met. Apple has never made this business model a secret. And they are never going to describe that approach as a “limitation.” Nor should they.
They are imposed limitations and even Apple can't shy away from that.
Something different is how they try to defend them. What you are calling 'perspective'
Apple knows full well that the App Store for example limits competition. It also knows full well that it is not the only company that can offer secure services which include, and even go beyond, what you have stated.
It simply does not want competition with its own setup to exist. The DoJ case is tackling some aspects of the situation but of course there will technicalities to everything. Apple going through everything with a fine tooth comb and will try its best to find something. It's logical.
That will not work if they are deemed to harm choice and competition. We are seeing that play out all over the place. No matter what Apple thinks or claims.
In my view there are only two ways that might calm the waters.
1. Going 100% first party, which is impossible.
2. Getting users to sign off on those imposed limitations.
There is no guarantee that that second option would work but there is a chance it might.
All Apple would need to do is simply inform it's users of what it imposes.
Now, in my view, in spite of using those limitations as a defence, Apple would never voluntarily give users the information and make them sign off on it because they know it would affect sales.
Apple wants to have its cake and eat it.
Some people like to claim that everyone who buys an iPhone already knows about the limitations and agrees to them.
If that is the case, where is the problem in officially making users sign off on them if the 'prize' is escaping regulatory action in those areas?
Comments
Onecast recently added the ability to use Xbox Cloud, which I have really been enjoying. I generally use it to play on iPad or Mac, as the screen on the iPhone isn’t optimal for games made for much larger screens.
This is in addition to streaming from your home console.
Quality is really good, battery life also, syncing has so far been without a hitch. Little to complaint about. There’s even a new 1080 HQ option. You won’t get 4k out of it just yet, but I can see that day coming sometime soon.
No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.
They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed.
Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.
She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access.
My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability.
And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much.
The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions.
Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit.
Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple.
Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes.
Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely.
And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough.
Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources.
It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc.
And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning.
"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market".
Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive?
But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort.
In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.
If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes.
Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it.
Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).
The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly.
But, getting back to the point of the quote.
Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset.
What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).
Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it.
Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to.
In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go.
The truth is you cannot make statements like that because there is nothing in the purchase process that spells out the Apple imposed limitations (which Apple could make perfectly clear - but doesn't).
But, running with your idea, do you think these limitations should be made clear to users prior to purchase? If not, why not?
A smartphone is not what we have traditionally had in desktop and laptop computers.
Apple changed all that with the App Store. It was a whole new thing where users could download software applications that were either free or 99¢, would have no compatibility issues and virtually no risk for malware or bloat. Standardized, intuitive user interfaces flattened the learning curve and virtually eliminated the need for user manuals. Transactions were handled by Apple, so users didn't have to give out financial information to each developer or sketchy third-party stores. By eliminating almost all risk on the users end, this exploded into an entirely new software development industry that did not exist before. Android and others have since tapped into that market by riding Apple's coat tails. And Apple remains the most desirable platform for developers because Apple users are more likely to actually spend money. Why? Because doing so on iOS is still very low-risk.
Key to all of that was maintaining a single App Store run by Apple that served as the only way to get third-party software onto an iPhone. This is how Apple built the first hardware and software platform designed to always be connected to the internet. Android seeks to mimic the iOS interface, but is otherwise essentially built on the same security-compromised paradigm as pre-internet, standalone PC operating systems. This is why Apple's iPhone remains as the one platform still centered around user security and privacy. This is a choice that consumers want. The only people clamoring for Apple to become more like its competitors are the competitors who would gain advantage by eliminating a differentiating consumer choice.
It has literally no bearing on anything that is being argued about in these cases, which is that that situation is wrong and needs to change.
As I said, Apple has changed in some areas, but only because it was forced to or saw black clouds on the horizon. It clearly was not enough.
As for 'spin' , how is that possible when I'm simply outlining many of the situations that have led to the current lines of action by governments around the globe?
Virtually every single investigation has found fault with Apple's practices and required change. Not only Apple but others too.
Let's not even talk about the fines.
And let's be clear here. Just not clearly informing users of limitations imposed by the company is harming consumer choice.
Give me a reason why users shouldn't be informed of the limitations up front. After all, they are serious limitations that harm competition.
I have contributed to the UK investigation on mobile platforms and market distortion and my work has been accepted. I have been asked to lift the confidentiality veil, which I have agreed to.
I did not mention this side of things as it was more focused on 'mobile services' (mainly Google and Apple) and the harm to competition that they cause but I think it's maybe time to highlight these points in a more formal manner and see where it goes.
It's more of a case for the legal experts and, in the EU at least, I would reference the Spanish 'cláusulas suelo' in mortgage contracts which reached the ECJ and which was later ruled to be 'legal' but 'unfair' as consumers were not informed about the clauses in language easily understood by laymen. That, in spite of the clauses being clearly presented in the mortgage deeds and often read out aloud by public notaries at the signing of the contract.
It could be a way to get it completely off the hook with its limitations.
The EULA is clearly not enough and AFAIK, the limitations aren't even clearly spelt out.
Clicking an accept button on a document that is full of legal terms and legal styling definitely wouldn't cut it in the EU for this purpose.
My question remains though. If the limitations Apple wants to impose are so good for comsmers, why not have them sign off on them after being outlined in crystal clear language prior to purchase?
Especially if such an agreement/acceptance would maybe get Apple completely of the hook?
Something different is how they try to defend them. What you are calling 'perspective'
Apple knows full well that the App Store for example limits competition. It also knows full well that it is not the only company that can offer secure services which include, and even go beyond, what you have stated.
It simply does not want competition with its own setup to exist. The DoJ case is tackling some aspects of the situation but of course there will technicalities to everything. Apple going through everything with a fine tooth comb and will try its best to find something. It's logical.
That will not work if they are deemed to harm choice and competition. We are seeing that play out all over the place. No matter what Apple thinks or claims.
In my view there are only two ways that might calm the waters.
1. Going 100% first party, which is impossible.
2. Getting users to sign off on those imposed limitations.
There is no guarantee that that second option would work but there is a chance it might.
All Apple would need to do is simply inform it's users of what it imposes.
Now, in my view, in spite of using those limitations as a defence, Apple would never voluntarily give users the information and make them sign off on it because they know it would affect sales.
Apple wants to have its cake and eat it.
Some people like to claim that everyone who buys an iPhone already knows about the limitations and agrees to them.
If that is the case, where is the problem in officially making users sign off on them if the 'prize' is escaping regulatory action in those areas?
It would be the biggest prize of all.