Australian antitrust watchdog goes after preinstalled iOS apps
As part of an investigation into app store dominance, namely Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission this week called for the two tech giants to give users more choice when it comes to preinstalled apps.
In an interim report (PDF link), the ACCC voiced concern over Apple and Google's handling of preinstalled apps, reports ZDNet. Specifically, the body notes the two companies, which share an effective mobile operating system duopoly, could prefer their own apps over competing third-party software.
"There is a need for consumers to have more choice through an ability to change any preinstalled default app on their device that is not a core phone feature," the report reads. "This would provide consumers with more control to choose the app that best meets their needs, and promote more robust competition in downstream markets for apps."
So-called "choice screens" are being investigated as a potential solution. Seen on Android, the feature presents users with the option of downloading alternative search engines and browsers, but could be broadened in Australia to include preinstalled apps.
In Russia, Apple implements a similar feature to adhere to local law, albeit with government-approved apps. Elsewhere, iOS 14 users are able to change the system default browser, email app and search engine in the Settings app.
The ACCC notes Google's Android and Apple's iOS account for nearly 100% of the global mobile OS market (not including China) split 73% and 27%, respectively. In Australia, market share is about even.
A number of concerns are addressed in the 165-page report, and focus is paid to measures that address payment option limitations; increase transparency and address risk of self-preferencing; options for rating and reviewing first-party apps; greater choice of default apps; malicious and harmful apps; and misuse of commercial information. The ACCC found discrepancies in both app stores related to restrictions on developer ability to access app users, the app review process, and dispute resolution, ZDNet notes.
Also of concern is first-party information Apple and Google could leverage to create better apps that outdo the competition.
Most recently, the ACCC examined Apple and Google's dominance in the mobile web browser space, reaching many of the same conclusions outlined in the new report.
The app store report is part of the ACCC's wider Digital Platform Services Inquiry.
In an interim report (PDF link), the ACCC voiced concern over Apple and Google's handling of preinstalled apps, reports ZDNet. Specifically, the body notes the two companies, which share an effective mobile operating system duopoly, could prefer their own apps over competing third-party software.
"There is a need for consumers to have more choice through an ability to change any preinstalled default app on their device that is not a core phone feature," the report reads. "This would provide consumers with more control to choose the app that best meets their needs, and promote more robust competition in downstream markets for apps."
So-called "choice screens" are being investigated as a potential solution. Seen on Android, the feature presents users with the option of downloading alternative search engines and browsers, but could be broadened in Australia to include preinstalled apps.
In Russia, Apple implements a similar feature to adhere to local law, albeit with government-approved apps. Elsewhere, iOS 14 users are able to change the system default browser, email app and search engine in the Settings app.
The ACCC notes Google's Android and Apple's iOS account for nearly 100% of the global mobile OS market (not including China) split 73% and 27%, respectively. In Australia, market share is about even.
A number of concerns are addressed in the 165-page report, and focus is paid to measures that address payment option limitations; increase transparency and address risk of self-preferencing; options for rating and reviewing first-party apps; greater choice of default apps; malicious and harmful apps; and misuse of commercial information. The ACCC found discrepancies in both app stores related to restrictions on developer ability to access app users, the app review process, and dispute resolution, ZDNet notes.
Also of concern is first-party information Apple and Google could leverage to create better apps that outdo the competition.
Most recently, the ACCC examined Apple and Google's dominance in the mobile web browser space, reaching many of the same conclusions outlined in the new report.
The app store report is part of the ACCC's wider Digital Platform Services Inquiry.
Comments
Smartphone makers compete with software features such as apps, many of which are homemade.
Do these sound stupid to you? So should Apple not being allowed to run its software the way they need to. And if this sounds extreme, remember, the government works in baby steps.
The rest of your post is simply an exercise in ignoring both the issues at hand and the proposed solutions to them.
After the much publicised browser wars and what Microsoft was required to do, you should have no trouble understanding this current situation.
For free apps that come with the device, including those which are downloaded automatically, these already formed part of the user’s choice in selecting the device. The cost of the Apple device is not limited to the hardware, and there is no ability to buy the hardware without the software included.
For example a person may purchase an iPad because it comes ready to go with a suit of high quality desktop publishing tools. This isn’t a competition issue for Microsoft, the consumer made the choice of the iPad with apple’s software over an alternative device. Assuming otherwise ignores that (1) consumers choose devices for a variety of reasons, (2) app markers are free to entice device makers to pre-install their apps and (3) not all device makers share the same business model.
It’s also doubly complicated because many of Apple’s apps serve to uncover hardware functionality of the device. Should it be a matter of competition if a 3rd party later comes to duplicate functionality of pre-installed app (which is already against the guidelines).
Finally many of the concerns don’t hold water the moment we put them into perspective of other products. Should a car maker not be permitted to offer a highly integrated sound system, for concern of shutting out after market stereos?
Alternatively, Apple just has to remove the App Store from Australia. The phone could come as-is, without any software store for anyone in Australia. Australia cannot forced Apple to install a feature like an App Store.
Why isn't Australia going after the fact that Apple prohibits timekeeping apps from third parties in watchOS?? There is no competition in that market... it's a real "monopoly." ("Timeopoly"?)
They have still not been able to streamline Windows properly, and Edge is still not on par with the rest of the browsers. Thankfully Apple has far better control over their operative systems, but the "political" issue is related.
The car makers pacs a lot of stuff into their "stereo unit" and when something goes wrong they charge obscene prices to replace the entire unit, and it's 100% deliberate. Hey, some of the manufacturers of electric cars charge more for the battery pack unit than they charge for a replacement car with the very identical battery pack unit.
Not familiar with Aussie law and the international convention they have committed themselves to, but to solve a specific issue, it's quite normal to implement a general law or regulation which in turn cover the problem at stake. Apple certainly could, but I seriously doubt that they ever will.
Compare the iOS/macOS ecosystem to geeky Arch Linux. If you use Arc you will get the OS and adapt it to your needs, with some applications. If you want more than Arch offers you'll have to use semi external/internal AUR which is slightly more risky, but still controlled. External app shops already exists for Apple products, such as SetApp. What you loose is the Apple policies wrt privacy and security. Like you kind of do in Arch too.
If Australia were to mandate implementation of a Russia-style choice of services Apple will simply comply in the name of profit.
The problem with forcing people to have preinstalled software is eventually creating grounds for monopolistic behaviors. In case of Apple it may be expressed as "building ecosystem". Yes ecosystem is good, but not closed one. iMessage was one of examples of this attempt where Apple execs took wrong decision and derailed telecommunication standard called SMS/MMS by diverting messaging to their system. It resulted in people who went Android to not receive SMS/MMS on their phones as well as misdelivery to wrong devices (and never to iPhone for example which I had that problem and spoke with Apple technicians to help solve it). Apple had even lawsuit for this. It was not technical glitch - it was example of making attempt to derail standards to create monopolistic behavior under guise of echosystem.
Yeah, keep spouting your bullshit