The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Well that just makes it worse, as that implies that as Apple knows iOS users are "trapped" in the iOS ecosystem, they'll just have to suck up whatever rules they impose; and therein lies the issue. iOS users can't exit the ecosystem without financial penalty, mainly though re-buying all the apps again on Android, and re-buying USB-C versions of their accessories. IMO that is where the issue ultimately lies - rather than the 30% commission itself, because Apple can impose rules on developers that affect existing iOS users, and users they have little choice but to accept, if they don't want to spend hundreds replacing their phone, accessories etc.
More drivel from you about how iOS users are trapped in the iOS ecosystem because of the cost to switch. What about game consoles? Can X-Box owners play the hundreds of dollars (or thousands of dollars) of X-Box 360 games that they purchased on a disc from Target, on a Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Wii? They can't even play them on a computer. Games downloaded from the Microsoft Store do not play on any other game consoles. (But they might on a PC with Microsoft Windows 10) You don't think game console players don't invest in hundreds of dollars in accessories, that only works on an X-Box? Are they trapped into using the ecosystem where they have invested thousands of dollars in games? If they are, why haven't there been any anti-trust issue with game consoles, which existed decades before the iPhone? Plus a game console is nearly useless without buying games for it. But an iPhone is perfectly functional, without ever paying for a single app.
Plus you ALWAYS make it seem as though the iOS devices and accessories that someone has after switching to Android are a total loss. These no longer needed devices and accessories can be sold or traded in to mitigate the cost of switching. And in case you haven't notice, even apps and accessories for an iPhone, might not work with the next iPhone, let alone when switching to an Android device.
If having to buy new software all over again is a cost issue when switching, then why haven't Microsoft been sued for "trapping" users into the Windows ecosystem? Windows software do not run on a Mac running MacOS, without having to buy more expensive software to run Windows on a Mac, plus a retail copy of Windows. Are PC and Mac owners just as "trapped" as iOS users, because of the cost to switch?
Millions (if not 10's of millions) of iOS users switch to Android every year and vice versa. And quite a few of them are switching back, after trying the other side. In the US, there are over 100M iPhones users (not including iPads). There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World. If just 1% of US iPhone users were to switch to Android in any given year, that's 1M iOS users switching to Android.
If iOS users are" trapped" in any way, it's from the peace of mind from knowing that iOS is the best ecosystem to be using when security and privacy matters. Even Sweeney admits to this. Surely, you don't think Sweeney is "trapped" in an ecosystem that he considers a "monopoly" being abused by Apple.
Perhaps you are generalising too much here.
The games console example is probably the poorest one as even our parents understand (and many grandparents too) that buying a console, like PlayStation for example, means using games designed for PlayStation and that without those games the console isn't worth much.
With phones that isn't exactly the case. You can get up and running on a phone and be quite happy with its functionality out of the box. The experience can be improved via third party apps but isn't strictly necessary.
I can see the case for wanting more competition at store level and also the case for making switching at app/developer level a completely cost free experience for the user.
Telephone numbers are transferable between carriers. That is actually written into law where I live so making licence codes transferable between apps would be something to look into.
The 'amount of users' always needs a bit of readjusting in the public eye. AFAIK, companies do not speak of 'users' per se and instead use the term 'installed base'.
No doubt because some people have multiple Apple devices. I am currently using six Apple devices but I don't represent six users.
On top of that, none of the devices are actually earning Apple any revenue in spite of having my AppleID associated with them.
Like in the early days of the web, advertising agencies were interested in 'unique visitors' (now the metrics are far more complex).
Every single day Apple could dish out a number of 'unique' Apple users. Well anyone could do the same with their own numbers.
Apple (and nobody else) actually provides those numbers as they would take all the sheen off what you are bringing up.
Of course, and just like with advertising, Apple also knows exactly how its users are behaving. How active or inactive they are. How 'profitable' they are. How many switch etc.
Is there a case for forcing these companies to report these numbers in a transparent, structured manner? Possibly.
Is there a case for users to be completely independent of platform gatekeepers? No Apple ID, Google account etc. That's an interesting one.
Well, sure, at the end, this is the customer who pays ! What a revelation !
You suppose they realize that taxes are also paid by the end consumer?
Yes, in particular - value added tax. It is just passed to the consumer - from the very beginning to the very end - through out the whole chain of product/service creation.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Well that just makes it worse, as that implies that as Apple knows iOS users are "trapped" in the iOS ecosystem, they'll just have to suck up whatever rules they impose; and therein lies the issue. iOS users can't exit the ecosystem without financial penalty, mainly though re-buying all the apps again on Android, and re-buying USB-C versions of their accessories. IMO that is where the issue ultimately lies - rather than the 30% commission itself, because Apple can impose rules on developers that affect existing iOS users, and users they have little choice but to accept, if they don't want to spend hundreds replacing their phone, accessories etc.
More drivel from you about how iOS users are trapped in the iOS ecosystem because of the cost to switch. What about game consoles? Can X-Box owners play the hundreds of dollars (or thousands of dollars) of X-Box 360 games that they purchased on a disc from Target, on a Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Wii? They can't even play them on a computer. Games downloaded from the Microsoft Store do not play on any other game consoles. (But they might on a PC with Microsoft Windows 10) You don't think game console players don't invest in hundreds of dollars in accessories, that only works on an X-Box? Are they trapped into using the ecosystem where they have invested thousands of dollars in games? If they are, why haven't there been any anti-trust issue with game consoles, which existed decades before the iPhone? Plus a game console is nearly useless without buying games for it. But an iPhone is perfectly functional, without ever paying for a single app.
Plus you ALWAYS make it seem as though the iOS devices and accessories that someone has after switching to Android are a total loss. These no longer needed devices and accessories can be sold or traded in to mitigate the cost of switching. And in case you haven't notice, even apps and accessories for an iPhone, might not work with the next iPhone, let alone when switching to an Android device.
If having to buy new software all over again is a cost issue when switching, then why haven't Microsoft been sued for "trapping" users into the Windows ecosystem? Windows software do not run on a Mac running MacOS, without having to buy more expensive software to run Windows on a Mac, plus a retail copy of Windows. Are PC and Mac owners just as "trapped" as iOS users, because of the cost to switch?
Millions (if not 10's of millions) of iOS users switch to Android every year and vice versa. And quite a few of them are switching back, after trying the other side. In the US, there are over 100M iPhones users (not including iPads). There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World. If just 1% of US iPhone users were to switch to Android in any given year, that's 1M iOS users switching to Android.
If iOS users are" trapped" in any way, it's from the peace of mind from knowing that iOS is the best ecosystem to be using when security and privacy matters. Even Sweeney admits to this. Surely, you don't think Sweeney is "trapped" in an ecosystem that he considers a "monopoly" being abused by Apple.
Perhaps you are generalising too much here.
The games console example is probably the poorest one as even our parents understand (and many grandparents too) that buying a console, like PlayStation for example, means using games designed for PlayStation and that without those games the console isn't worth much.
With phones that isn't exactly the case. You can get up and running on a phone and be quite happy with its functionality out of the box. The experience can be improved via third party apps but isn't strictly necessary.
I can see the case for wanting more competition at store level and also the case for making switching at app/developer level a completely cost free experience for the user.
Telephone numbers are transferable between carriers. That is actually written into law where I live so making licence codes transferable between apps would be something to look into.
The 'amount of users' always needs a bit of readjusting in the public eye. AFAIK, companies do not speak of 'users' per se and instead use the term 'installed base'.
No doubt because some people have multiple Apple devices. I am currently using six Apple devices but I don't represent six users.
On top of that, none of the devices are actually earning Apple any revenue in spite of having my AppleID associated with them.
Like in the early days of the web, advertising agencies were interested in 'unique visitors' (now the metrics are far more complex).
Every single day Apple could dish out a number of 'unique' Apple users. Well anyone could do the same with their own numbers.
Apple (and nobody else) actually provides those numbers as they would take all the sheen off what you are bringing up.
Of course, and just like with advertising, Apple also knows exactly how its users are behaving. How active or inactive they are. How 'profitable' they are. How many switch etc.
Is there a case for forcing these companies to report these numbers in a transparent, structured manner? Possibly.
Is there a case for users to be completely independent of platform gatekeepers? No Apple ID, Google account etc. That's an interesting one.
Instead of making stuff up, look it up. The numbers are real and comes from different sources, other than only from Apple.
Take note of point #11 and #12. #11 is referring to iPhone units in the US (in which you might own several of them) and #12 is referring to iPhone users in the US (in which you count as 1).
So no, you owning 6 iOS devices, do not count as 6 users. And no one is saying that.
This is actually no different than the stat that there are over 390M guns in the US, therefore every man woman and child in the US owns at least one gun. But digging deeper, only about 32% of the US pop. own a gun. It's just that many gun owners, owns more that one gun.
The only real stat that always seem to get misrepresented are the quarterly sales stat that are use to represent marketshare. In the latest quarter, over 60% of mobile devices sold in the US were using iOS and only 35% using Android. That's because Apple came out with new iPhone and iPad at the end of 2020. With most normal quarters, the split is usually about 47% iOS and 52% Android. But people like to use the latest quarterly sales report to represent true marketshare and say that Apple has dominant marketshare in the US and is a monopoly. No way did Apple all of a sudden gain over 15% marketshare in the US, in 3 months.
But at least you agree that a game console user is no more "trapped" to an ecosystem than an iPhone user, because of the cost to replace software.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Well that just makes it worse, as that implies that as Apple knows iOS users are "trapped" in the iOS ecosystem, they'll just have to suck up whatever rules they impose; and therein lies the issue. iOS users can't exit the ecosystem without financial penalty, mainly though re-buying all the apps again on Android, and re-buying USB-C versions of their accessories. IMO that is where the issue ultimately lies - rather than the 30% commission itself, because Apple can impose rules on developers that affect existing iOS users, and users they have little choice but to accept, if they don't want to spend hundreds replacing their phone, accessories etc.
More drivel from you about how iOS users are trapped in the iOS ecosystem because of the cost to switch. What about game consoles? Can X-Box owners play the hundreds of dollars (or thousands of dollars) of X-Box 360 games that they purchased on a disc from Target, on a Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Wii? They can't even play them on a computer. Games downloaded from the Microsoft Store do not play on any other game consoles. (But they might on a PC with Microsoft Windows 10) You don't think game console players don't invest in hundreds of dollars in accessories, that only works on an X-Box? Are they trapped into using the ecosystem where they have invested thousands of dollars in games? If they are, why haven't there been any anti-trust issue with game consoles, which existed decades before the iPhone? Plus a game console is nearly useless without buying games for it. But an iPhone is perfectly functional, without ever paying for a single app.
Plus you ALWAYS make it seem as though the iOS devices and accessories that someone has after switching to Android are a total loss. These no longer needed devices and accessories can be sold or traded in to mitigate the cost of switching. And in case you haven't notice, even apps and accessories for an iPhone, might not work with the next iPhone, let alone when switching to an Android device.
If having to buy new software all over again is a cost issue when switching, then why haven't Microsoft been sued for "trapping" users into the Windows ecosystem? Windows software do not run on a Mac running MacOS, without having to buy more expensive software to run Windows on a Mac, plus a retail copy of Windows. Are PC and Mac owners just as "trapped" as iOS users, because of the cost to switch?
Millions (if not 10's of millions) of iOS users switch to Android every year and vice versa. And quite a few of them are switching back, after trying the other side. In the US, there are over 100M iPhones users (not including iPads). There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World. If just 1% of US iPhone users were to switch to Android in any given year, that's 1M iOS users switching to Android.
If iOS users are" trapped" in any way, it's from the peace of mind from knowing that iOS is the best ecosystem to be using when security and privacy matters. Even Sweeney admits to this. Surely, you don't think Sweeney is "trapped" in an ecosystem that he considers a "monopoly" being abused by Apple.
Perhaps you are generalising too much here.
The games console example is probably the poorest one as even our parents understand (and many grandparents too) that buying a console, like PlayStation for example, means using games designed for PlayStation and that without those games the console isn't worth much.
With phones that isn't exactly the case. You can get up and running on a phone and be quite happy with its functionality out of the box. The experience can be improved via third party apps but isn't strictly necessary.
I can see the case for wanting more competition at store level and also the case for making switching at app/developer level a completely cost free experience for the user.
Telephone numbers are transferable between carriers. That is actually written into law where I live so making licence codes transferable between apps would be something to look into.
The 'amount of users' always needs a bit of readjusting in the public eye. AFAIK, companies do not speak of 'users' per se and instead use the term 'installed base'.
No doubt because some people have multiple Apple devices. I am currently using six Apple devices but I don't represent six users.
On top of that, none of the devices are actually earning Apple any revenue in spite of having my AppleID associated with them.
Like in the early days of the web, advertising agencies were interested in 'unique visitors' (now the metrics are far more complex).
Every single day Apple could dish out a number of 'unique' Apple users. Well anyone could do the same with their own numbers.
Apple (and nobody else) actually provides those numbers as they would take all the sheen off what you are bringing up.
Of course, and just like with advertising, Apple also knows exactly how its users are behaving. How active or inactive they are. How 'profitable' they are. How many switch etc.
Is there a case for forcing these companies to report these numbers in a transparent, structured manner? Possibly.
Is there a case for users to be completely independent of platform gatekeepers? No Apple ID, Google account etc. That's an interesting one.
Instead of making stuff up, look it up. The numbers are real and comes from different sources, other than only from Apple.
Take note of point #11 and #12. #11 is referring to iPhone units in the US (in which you might own several of them) and #12 is referring to iPhone users in the US (in which you count as 1).
So no, you owning 6 iOS devices, do not count as 6 users. And no one is saying that.
This is actually no different than the stat that there are over 390M guns in the US, therefore every man woman and child in the US owns at least one gun. But digging deeper, only about 32% of the US pop. own a gun. It's just that many gun owners, owns more that one gun.
The only real stat that always seem to get misrepresented are the quarterly sales stat that are use to represent marketshare. In the latest quarter, over 60% of mobile devices sold in the US were using iOS and only 35% using Android. That's because Apple came out with new iPhone and iPad at the end of 2020. With most normal quarters, the split is usually about 47% iOS and 52% Android. But people like to use the latest quarterly sales report to represent true marketshare and say that Apple has dominant marketshare in the US and is a monopoly. No way did Apple all of a sudden gain over 15% marketshare in the US, in 3 months.
But at least you agree that a game console user is no more "trapped" to an ecosystem than an iPhone user, because of the cost to replace software.
This is what you said:
"There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World"
Now, I simply qualified that statement with a little more context.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
You are making claims about why people buy into Apple but they are irrevelant to why they are being investigated.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
You are making claims about why people buy into Apple but they are irrevelant to why they are being investigated.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
But that’s not true. Epic, Facebook and others are waging a public war on Apple because they want the benefits of access to the iOS platform and its customers, but without any of the restrictions or costs currently associated with that.
If this push is successful to force Apple to allow side loading, third-party stores, etc., there will be significant app developers that either refuse to go through the App Store or use the additional leverage to undermine Apple’s App Store requirements for things like asking permission before tracking users.
So no, iOS users won’t have the same choice to just stay with apps that come through the App Store. Right now, for instance, you can choose to buy an iPhone, install the Facebook app on it and say “no” to Facebook doing cross platform tracking of you through that app. You don’t get that with other devices and operating systems.
If Apple is forced to open its system as described above, Facebook (and others) are all but guaranteed to take the path that doesn’t restrict them from tracking users and selling their data. The result will be that customers who currently choose Apple because of those increased security and privacy protections, even when using apps like Facebook, will be deprived of those choices. That’s less choice for customers, not more.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
You are making claims about why people buy into Apple but they are irrevelant to why they are being investigated.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
But that’s not true. Epic, Facebook and others are waging a public war on Apple because they want the benefits of access to the iOS platform and its customers, but without any of the restrictions or costs currently associated with that.
If this push is successful to force Apple to allow side loading, third-party stores, etc., there will be significant app developers that either refuse to go through the App Store or use the additional leverage to undermine Apple’s App Store requirements for things like asking permission before tracking users.
So no, iOS users won’t have the same choice to just stay with apps that come through the App Store. Right now, for instance, you can choose to buy an iPhone, install the Facebook app on it and say “no” to Facebook doing cross platform tracking of you through that app. You don’t get that with other devices and operating systems.
If Apple is forced to open its system as described above, Facebook (and others) are all but guaranteed to take the path that doesn’t restrict them from tracking users and selling their data. The result will be that customers who currently choose Apple because of those increased security and privacy protections, even when using apps like Facebook, will be deprived of those choices. That’s less choice for customers, not more.
Epic, Facebook and others can only bring their complaints and testimonies to the table. They have no say in the final ruling. That is independent.
Anyone that thinks Apple is the victim here and that it is being persecuted, can sit back and relax. If it is as clear cut as some here are implying the whole thing will fail and business will continue as normal.
I'm not in that group or at the other extreme either but I definitely think this is anything clear cut.
Right now, the main problem is a distinct lack of choice and competition. That is why many of the investigations are underway.
No one has mentioned sideloading.
Competing app stores would definitely be one option but, as I've said on numerous occasions, some kind of obligatory acceptance agreement might be enough to keep everyone happy.
Well, maybe not Apple because having to tell your customers they are signing into an agreement which sees Apple pull all the competition strings would surely be cause for reflection in most purchases and anti Apple marketing would do the rest.
If there is a silver lining to that scenario it's that everyone else in a similar position would be affected in the same way.
If Apple is forced to open its eco-system, users will have the option to ignore alternative options. That is true choice.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
You are making claims about why people buy into Apple but they are irrevelant to why they are being investigated.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
But that’s not true. Epic, Facebook and others are waging a public war on Apple because they want the benefits of access to the iOS platform and its customers, but without any of the restrictions or costs currently associated with that.
If this push is successful to force Apple to allow side loading, third-party stores, etc., there will be significant app developers that either refuse to go through the App Store or use the additional leverage to undermine Apple’s App Store requirements for things like asking permission before tracking users.
So no, iOS users won’t have the same choice to just stay with apps that come through the App Store. Right now, for instance, you can choose to buy an iPhone, install the Facebook app on it and say “no” to Facebook doing cross platform tracking of you through that app. You don’t get that with other devices and operating systems.
If Apple is forced to open its system as described above, Facebook (and others) are all but guaranteed to take the path that doesn’t restrict them from tracking users and selling their data. The result will be that customers who currently choose Apple because of those increased security and privacy protections, even when using apps like Facebook, will be deprived of those choices. That’s less choice for customers, not more.
Epic, Facebook and others can only bring their complaints and testimonies to the table. They have no say in the final ruling. That us independent.
Anyone that thinks Apple is the victim here and that it is being persecuted, can sit back and relax. If it is as clear cut as some here are implying the whole thing will fail and business will continue as normal.
I'm not in that group or at the other extreme either but I definitely think this is anything clear cut.
Right now, the main problem is a distinct lack of choice and competition. That is why many of the investigations are underway.
No one has mentioned sideloading.
Competing app stores would definitely be one option but, as I've said on numerous occasions, some kind of obligatory acceptance agreement might be enough to keep everyone happy.
Well, maybe not Apple because having to tell your customers they are signing into an agreement which sees Apple pull all the competition strings would surely be cause for reflection in most purchases and anti Apple marketing would do the rest.
If there is a silver lining to that scenario it's that everyone else in a similar position would be affected in the same way.
If Apple is forced to open its eco-system, users will have the option to ignore alternative options. That is true choice.
Please see the previous post. This is precisely the thing that I pointed out as untrue and explained clearly why.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
No, most iPhone owners aren't going to tell you they looked at app store distribution models or any of that. They will tell you that they chose the iPhone because it's easy to use, and it just works. They might also mention they like Apple's focus on user privacy and security, though they probably won't much go into how that's achieved.
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
None of that tackles the issues currently being investigated.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
That doesn't make any sense at all. All the things I mentioned contribute to buyer choice when selecting a phone or tablet. Buyers need not acknowledge they've been informed of every single granular detail that might have contributed to their choice in purchasing a device for those contributing factors to be considered relevant to the consumer's selection of that device. They don't need to be told why the closed-system app store model contributes to the security and reliability of the device they chose. If that was necessary, just what level of granular detail would be considered relevant? Does the buyer have to initial a description explaining the App Store's review process as compared to the dangers of side-loading un-reviewed applications? Do they have to be told about required security protocols in the app's code, or how the developer API kits work? I don't think so.
Apple's customers buy iPhones because of a total package with a reputation for reliability, privacy and security. Forcing Apple to break the app store system to allow side-loading apps and in-app transactions not governed by App Store processes and protocols would undermine the iPhone buyer's experience and expectations. This is entirely relevant to Apple's position that their closed-system OS and App Store is a defining feature of the devices they sell and a basis upon which their customers choose those devices over the competition.
You are making claims about why people buy into Apple but they are irrevelant to why they are being investigated.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
But that’s not true. Epic, Facebook and others are waging a public war on Apple because they want the benefits of access to the iOS platform and its customers, but without any of the restrictions or costs currently associated with that.
If this push is successful to force Apple to allow side loading, third-party stores, etc., there will be significant app developers that either refuse to go through the App Store or use the additional leverage to undermine Apple’s App Store requirements for things like asking permission before tracking users.
So no, iOS users won’t have the same choice to just stay with apps that come through the App Store. Right now, for instance, you can choose to buy an iPhone, install the Facebook app on it and say “no” to Facebook doing cross platform tracking of you through that app. You don’t get that with other devices and operating systems.
If Apple is forced to open its system as described above, Facebook (and others) are all but guaranteed to take the path that doesn’t restrict them from tracking users and selling their data. The result will be that customers who currently choose Apple because of those increased security and privacy protections, even when using apps like Facebook, will be deprived of those choices. That’s less choice for customers, not more.
Epic, Facebook and others can only bring their complaints and testimonies to the table. They have no say in the final ruling. That us independent.
Anyone that thinks Apple is the victim here and that it is being persecuted, can sit back and relax. If it is as clear cut as some here are implying the whole thing will fail and business will continue as normal.
I'm not in that group or at the other extreme either but I definitely think this is anything clear cut.
Right now, the main problem is a distinct lack of choice and competition. That is why many of the investigations are underway.
No one has mentioned sideloading.
Competing app stores would definitely be one option but, as I've said on numerous occasions, some kind of obligatory acceptance agreement might be enough to keep everyone happy.
Well, maybe not Apple because having to tell your customers they are signing into an agreement which sees Apple pull all the competition strings would surely be cause for reflection in most purchases and anti Apple marketing would do the rest.
If there is a silver lining to that scenario it's that everyone else in a similar position would be affected in the same way.
If Apple is forced to open its eco-system, users will have the option to ignore alternative options. That is true choice.
Please see the previous post. This is precisely the thing that I pointed out as untrue and explained clearly why.
And as I pointed out. I see things differently and explained why.
Comments
The games console example is probably the poorest one as even our parents understand (and many grandparents too) that buying a console, like PlayStation for example, means using games designed for PlayStation and that without those games the console isn't worth much.
With phones that isn't exactly the case. You can get up and running on a phone and be quite happy with its functionality out of the box. The experience can be improved via third party apps but isn't strictly necessary.
I can see the case for wanting more competition at store level and also the case for making switching at app/developer level a completely cost free experience for the user.
Telephone numbers are transferable between carriers. That is actually written into law where I live so making licence codes transferable between apps would be something to look into.
The 'amount of users' always needs a bit of readjusting in the public eye. AFAIK, companies do not speak of 'users' per se and instead use the term 'installed base'.
No doubt because some people have multiple Apple devices. I am currently using six Apple devices but I don't represent six users.
On top of that, none of the devices are actually earning Apple any revenue in spite of having my AppleID associated with them.
Like in the early days of the web, advertising agencies were interested in 'unique visitors' (now the metrics are far more complex).
Every single day Apple could dish out a number of 'unique' Apple users. Well anyone could do the same with their own numbers.
Apple (and nobody else) actually provides those numbers as they would take all the sheen off what you are bringing up.
Of course, and just like with advertising, Apple also knows exactly how its users are behaving. How active or inactive they are. How 'profitable' they are. How many switch etc.
Is there a case for forcing these companies to report these numbers in a transparent, structured manner? Possibly.
Is there a case for users to be completely independent of platform gatekeepers? No Apple ID, Google account etc. That's an interesting one.
https://kommandotech.com/statistics/iphone-statistics/
Take note of point #11 and #12. #11 is referring to iPhone units in the US (in which you might own several of them) and #12 is referring to iPhone users in the US (in which you count as 1).
So no, you owning 6 iOS devices, do not count as 6 users. And no one is saying that.
This is actually no different than the stat that there are over 390M guns in the US, therefore every man woman and child in the US owns at least one gun. But digging deeper, only about 32% of the US pop. own a gun. It's just that many gun owners, owns more that one gun.
The only real stat that always seem to get misrepresented are the quarterly sales stat that are use to represent marketshare. In the latest quarter, over 60% of mobile devices sold in the US were using iOS and only 35% using Android. That's because Apple came out with new iPhone and iPad at the end of 2020. With most normal quarters, the split is usually about 47% iOS and 52% Android. But people like to use the latest quarterly sales report to represent true marketshare and say that Apple has dominant marketshare in the US and is a monopoly. No way did Apple all of a sudden gain over 15% marketshare in the US, in 3 months.
But at least you agree that a game console user is no more "trapped" to an ecosystem than an iPhone user, because of the cost to replace software.
"There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World"
Now, I simply qualified that statement with a little more context.
Your link doesn't change anything that I said.
What am I making up exactly?
All those decisions are in part based, however, on how the App Store functions. It's easy to buy and install apps with no knowledge of how computers work. The apps almost never crash your device or create conflicts with the function of other apps. If you subscribe to something in an app, you can easily find and track those purchases, and you can easily cancel a subscription and delete the app with no hassle or questions asked.
People buy iPhones and iPads because of all of that, and forcing a fundamental change to how all that works would undermine the quality of the iPhone user's experience. Buyer choice happens when the device is purchased. Forcing the device to be more like its competitors doesn't enhance consumer choice, it reduces it.
You'll will likely find that the points you raised are not even considered. That is because competition regulators often deal with issues that regular consumers are often unaware of. Something similar is true of 'right to repair'.
Your last point may be relevant but buyer choice can only really be qualified as such if the relevant information (concerning the issues being investigated) is clearly presented to the buyer prior to purchase. That does not happen now.
As an aside, Apple may be facing an uphill struggle if they end up falling foul to regulators on both issues.
Once any negative rulings are out in the open, Apple PR will have to work overtime to turn things around, as many of those 'happy' customers may turn out to be not so happy and then we would really know if they bought into the definition of 'choice' that you are suggesting.
Buyers don't need to know everything in granular detail. They would (hypothetically) need to know what consumer protection regulations require them to know from a competition perspective.
No one is talking about side loading anything.
Reliability, security and privacy are NOT Apple exclusive features and in any eventual negative outcome, I would imagine that the Apple App Store would retain its current protections. People would literally have choice if other stores could exist alongside the App Store.
Anyone that thinks Apple is the victim here and that it is being persecuted, can sit back and relax. If it is as clear cut as some here are implying the whole thing will fail and business will continue as normal.
I'm not in that group or at the other extreme either but I definitely think this is anything clear cut.
Right now, the main problem is a distinct lack of choice and competition. That is why many of the investigations are underway.
No one has mentioned sideloading.
Competing app stores would definitely be one option but, as I've said on numerous occasions, some kind of obligatory acceptance agreement might be enough to keep everyone happy.
Well, maybe not Apple because having to tell your customers they are signing into an agreement which sees Apple pull all the competition strings would surely be cause for reflection in most purchases and anti Apple marketing would do the rest.
If there is a silver lining to that scenario it's that everyone else in a similar position would be affected in the same way.
If Apple is forced to open its eco-system, users will have the option to ignore alternative options. That is true choice.