The UK is a small, unimportant market, so Apple and Google would do well to mutually pull out of that market for five years minimum as a courtesy to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority.
This is such a laughable and ignorant statement, many of the less informed (and of course those with their heads far up Apple's ass) here like to peddle it. For a start Apple bends over backwards to please the Chinese government whenever they make a demand rather than pulling out, even if it's against their supposed moral values. Apparently those values don't apply when it might harm profit. Secondly there are many competition investigations against Apple right now, should Apple pull out of every country where they are happening? So the US and EU too? Thirdly, dropping one of Apple's traditionally best-performing countries because of an investigation into their rules is on the same level of a toddler having a tantrum for being told to share their toys. Sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
Actually it a great idea!
Thanks for the support. There are too many people that think it's pointless to try to fight any government, or that if you try to fight the government you will lose. On the contrary, those who never fight the government will find themselves losing the most.
NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework.
I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....
In reality, wouldn’t this be up to the app developers? If Apple and Google decided that all app developers have to be able to help users switch platforms, then the developers would be angry, no?
Why would the developers be angry? They are going to get their money from the same user in either of the platforms and cross-platform development tools are available to make this easier for the developers. Not sure I understand your point in this case.
NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework.
I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....
It would have to be legislated to ensure everybody plays by the same rules on a level playing field and they would have to go through everything with a fine tooth comb to make sure nothing falls under the radar.
In the same way as current 'migration' assistants work, a unified, platform migration tool should be made available (with the option of local backup of cloud content).
There are too many 'little' things that just shouldn't work the way they do.
Like WhatsApp chat backups, which are normally 'tied' to respective platforms, and in the case of Apple, sometimes might require a paid iCloud subscription.
Chat backups should be able to go to the service the user chooses, independently of the platform they are using. That means Android users should be free to use Drive if it is offered or iCloud if it is a service they use, and iOS users should be able to choose Google Drive if they have a Google account.
There are a ton of things that need to be picked over.
I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact, which you don't address, that pulling out of a market would make the people really upset with their government, and they would elect a government that wasn't so paranoid about big tech. If Apple doesn't put up a fight, totalitarian governments will win and keep demanding more from Apple and other companies. At some point Apple needs to put up a fight, but you seem to want Apple to accede to every demand. Following your approach, Apple will lose in the long run.
There is a world of difference between a company pulling out of a market and a company being told to leave by the Government.
Not if the company left the country because the government made it impossible to make money if the new policy, when implemented world-wide, would break their profits.
So if the policy was implemented worldwide and the company's profits would be "broken", then there are two scenarios: all companies of a greater than N size are "broken", or the company pulls out of every market. Seems you've thought that one through about as well as you did your first post.
The UK is a small, unimportant market, so Apple and Google would do well to mutually pull out of that market for five years minimum as a courtesy to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority.
This is such a laughable and ignorant statement, many of the less informed (and of course those with their heads far up Apple's ass) here like to peddle it. For a start Apple bends over backwards to please the Chinese government whenever they make a demand rather than pulling out, even if it's against their supposed moral values. Apparently those values don't apply when it might harm profit. Secondly there are many competition investigations against Apple right now, should Apple pull out of every country where they are happening? So the US and EU too? Thirdly, dropping one of Apple's traditionally best-performing countries because of an investigation into their rules is on the same level of a toddler having a tantrum for being told to share their toys. Sounds like a pretty dumb idea.
I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact, which you don't address, that pulling out of a market would make the people really upset with their government, and they would elect a government that wasn't so paranoid about big tech. If Apple doesn't put up a fight, totalitarian governments will win and keep demanding more from Apple and other companies. At some point Apple needs to put up a fight, but you seem to want Apple to accede to every demand. Following your approach, Apple will lose in the long run.
You fail to address the point about Apple pulling out of the US and EU markets, which are both about as unlikely as them pulling out of any other market due to regulator issues - otherwise they wouldn't still be in China. Until you address that, your claim that people would be upset with their government is a moot point. Either way as others have said, people here and elsewhere see the big tech companies as leeches who don't play by the same rules as smaller domestic companies, and people are generally very on board with making the big tech companies toe the same lines as everyone else. So if they were to pull out, there would be very little blame laid on the government and plenty on the companies who do exit. And please do point to where Apple has done anything other than roll over when an actual totalitarian government (you may want to look up the definition, it's not in the countries you think it is) - i.e. China - demands something.
I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact, which you don't address, that pulling out of a market would make the people really upset with their government, and they would elect a government that wasn't so paranoid about big tech. If Apple doesn't put up a fight, totalitarian governments will win and keep demanding more from Apple and other companies. At some point Apple needs to put up a fight, but you seem to want Apple to accede to every demand. Following your approach, Apple will lose in the long run.
There is a world of difference between a company pulling out of a market and a company being told to leave by the Government.
Not if the company left the country because the government made it impossible to make money if the new policy, when implemented world-wide, would break their profits.
So if the policy was implemented worldwide and the company's profits would be "broken", then there are two scenarios: all companies of a greater than N size are "broken", or the company pulls out of every market. Seems you've thought that one through about as well as you did your first post.
I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to understand your point. Although I did understand your personal insult.
OK. So Airbus and Boeing, clearly in a duopole situation on commercial airplanes, are to be fined , dismantled ? (to leave room for China, of course ...)
I'll tell you what "could be creating problems for consumers and the businesses that want to reach people through their phones": This stupid government!
As a developer, I don't want to have 20 different mobile phone operating systems to code for. I want one or two, because every extra platform costs me time and money, but there aren't *more* consumers to sell my apps to.
When a coffee shop opens on a street, you get, say 40% of people trying it. Another one opens, but 40% of the remaining 60% don't suddenly want a coffee. There is a market of consumers, and they have decided that Apple and Google are just fine. They decided against the Facebook phone, and they decided against the Windows Phone. The market has already decided.
If the CMA decide that the two companies, Apple and Google, have "too much power", maybe they should go after, oh I don't know, the Conservatives and Labour? Those two political parties have "power" all sewn up between them!
Wish I could upvote this more than once.
There was a chance, once Apple released the iPhone, that multiple contenders would emerge in the smartphone space. But Android sucked all the potential profit out of building an alternative OS by firstly being "free" for the manufacturers to use and secondly by appealing to coders by claiming to be "open." Anyone wanting to sell software could initially make money on iOS, and for a while could ignore Android - but once the market for Android devices climbed into the hundreds of millions, you had to at least look at developing for both. Windows Phone, despite MS paying developers to create software for it, never took off because manufacturers didn't want to pay for it and developers already had a choice of popular platform they could declare as their favourite.
The process that developers settled on for cross-platform development was largely to create the app UI in a web view and use the native methods for navigation between views - ironically this would make it relatively easy to support more than the two dominant OSes, but by that time developers were starting to realise that people don't pay for software (people pay for experiences) and figured that supporting the top two was enough to reach the vast majority of the addressable market. Anything else could be reached via the web browser - and hey, a business needs a website anyway, and the UI for the app can be cribbed from or translated into a website pretty easily if it's all HTML5.
At the heart of this issue is that most people want to deal with just one of something and to mock the folks who choose the alternative. Your personal choice has to be either objectively better than the alternative, or be more popular than the "better" option.
There is a market of consumers, and they have decided that Apple and Google are just fine. They decided against the Facebook phone, and they decided against the Windows Phone. The market has already decided.
that’s not strictly true as while Android and Apple became the two major dominant platforms, some consumers still liked Microsoft and RIM. Those private companies chose to shut down their cellphone business though, if they were still in operation, they likely would have a user base, albeit much smaller than android and Apple.
Those companies chose to shut down their cellphone business precisely because there were not enough customers and they weren't selling enough phones. So @darkpaw is right in saying that the market decided the iOS-Android choice was enough.
No company would continue to make phones and bleed money if they weren't selling enough.
But you have to remember that from a government point of view, they tend to prefer that consumers in any market place have choice. So no one or two suppliers grow so dominant as to stifle innovation and prevent competition. This is the government world view: to protect consumer choice.
Do you really believe that? Really? I mean, really?
government regulatory authorities initiate this kind of investigation for two reasons, and two reasons only: profile raising and budget securing. It’s why these types of investigation ( the other good one I’d fuel prices) happen in the period just before Treasuries start finalising next year’s budget.
Think is, some market categories tend to fall into natural duopolies. Think Windows and Mac, iOS and Android etc. one is in the majority of product, the other more a niche.
NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework.
I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....
In reality, wouldn’t this be up to the app developers? If Apple and Google decided that all app developers have to be able to help users switch platforms, then the developers would be angry, no?
Why would the developers be angry? They are going to get their money from the same user in either of the platforms and cross-platform development tools are available to make this easier for the developers. Not sure I understand your point in this case.
My point was if we can switch from say iOS to Android and take our apps with us the developers would lose out. Right now we have to “rebuy” all those apps. Part of the argument I’m hearing is it’s too difficult to change platforms because of the walled garden approach.
NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework.
I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....
In reality, wouldn’t this be up to the app developers? If Apple and Google decided that all app developers have to be able to help users switch platforms, then the developers would be angry, no?
Why would the developers be angry? They are going to get their money from the same user in either of the platforms and cross-platform development tools are available to make this easier for the developers. Not sure I understand your point in this case.
My point was if we can switch from say iOS to Android and take our apps with us the developers would lose out. Right now we have to “rebuy” all those apps. Part of the argument I’m hearing is it’s too difficult to change platforms because of the walled garden approach.
In theory, I agree with you that the app developers would lose out on additional revenue if "rebuy" requirement is eliminated. But in practice, "rebuy" requirement has only served as a barrier to switch platforms. It has NOT helped the developers to make additional revenue through the switchers. So not much impact (very small hit, if any) for developers in helping users switch platforms.
NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework.
I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....
In reality, wouldn’t this be up to the app developers? If Apple and Google decided that all app developers have to be able to help users switch platforms, then the developers would be angry, no?
Why would the developers be angry? They are going to get their money from the same user in either of the platforms and cross-platform development tools are available to make this easier for the developers. Not sure I understand your point in this case.
Oh good. The lowest common denominator approach to software development.
I suspect this has something to do with the failed NHS ‘track and trace’ app. The UK wanted to be able to do this without using the Apple/Google API but in the end were forced to. Then they got blocked by Apple and Google for breaking the rules. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56713017
Comments
In the same way as current 'migration' assistants work, a unified, platform migration tool should be made available (with the option of local backup of cloud content).
There are too many 'little' things that just shouldn't work the way they do.
Like WhatsApp chat backups, which are normally 'tied' to respective platforms, and in the case of Apple, sometimes might require a paid iCloud subscription.
Chat backups should be able to go to the service the user chooses, independently of the platform they are using. That means Android users should be free to use Drive if it is offered or iCloud if it is a service they use, and iOS users should be able to choose Google Drive if they have a Google account.
There are a ton of things that need to be picked over.
There was a chance, once Apple released the iPhone, that multiple contenders would emerge in the smartphone space. But Android sucked all the potential profit out of building an alternative OS by firstly being "free" for the manufacturers to use and secondly by appealing to coders by claiming to be "open." Anyone wanting to sell software could initially make money on iOS, and for a while could ignore Android - but once the market for Android devices climbed into the hundreds of millions, you had to at least look at developing for both. Windows Phone, despite MS paying developers to create software for it, never took off because manufacturers didn't want to pay for it and developers already had a choice of popular platform they could declare as their favourite.
The process that developers settled on for cross-platform development was largely to create the app UI in a web view and use the native methods for navigation between views - ironically this would make it relatively easy to support more than the two dominant OSes, but by that time developers were starting to realise that people don't pay for software (people pay for experiences) and figured that supporting the top two was enough to reach the vast majority of the addressable market. Anything else could be reached via the web browser - and hey, a business needs a website anyway, and the UI for the app can be cribbed from or translated into a website pretty easily if it's all HTML5.
At the heart of this issue is that most people want to deal with just one of something and to mock the folks who choose the alternative. Your personal choice has to be either objectively better than the alternative, or be more popular than the "better" option.
No company would continue to make phones and bleed money if they weren't selling enough.
government regulatory authorities initiate this kind of investigation for two reasons, and two reasons only: profile raising and budget securing. It’s why these types of investigation ( the other good one I’d fuel prices) happen in the period just before Treasuries start finalising next year’s budget.
Think is, some market categories tend to fall into natural duopolies. Think Windows and Mac, iOS and Android etc. one is in the majority of product, the other more a niche.