A new bill will try to stop big tech from preferring its own services over rivals

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    ITGUYINSD said:
    johnnyho said:
    A new bill will try to stop big restaurants from preferring its own food over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big religion from preferring its own God over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big governments from preferring its own laws over rivals...
    Again, do people go into Denny's looking for pancakes from IHOP?  When you're in Apple's App Store and you're looking for Spotify app, Apple Music shouldn't be the 1st search result, especially when Apple's App Store is the ONLY place to get Spotify.
    Not sure what you mean.  If I search for Spotify in the App Store, I don't see any Apple products at all, much less Apple Music.

    beowulfschmidtwilliamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 28
    johnnyho said:
    A new bill will try to stop big restaurants from preferring its own food over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big religion from preferring its own God over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big governments from preferring its own laws over rivals...
    This!  <3
  • Reply 23 of 28
    ITGUYINSD said:
    johnnyho said:
    A new bill will try to stop big restaurants from preferring its own food over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big religion from preferring its own God over rivals...
    A new bill will try to stop big governments from preferring its own laws over rivals...
    Again, do people go into Denny's looking for pancakes from IHOP?  When you're in Apple's App Store and you're looking for Spotify app, Apple Music shouldn't be the 1st search result, especially when Apple's App Store is the ONLY place to get Spotify.
    Nonsense, you can get Spotify in many other places too (spoiler: one looks like a green trash can) and one is called The Web.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 28
    Hmmm, but they think they understand Net neutrality. Like AT&T not counting data against watching HBO (Owned by AT&T) but they do for Netflix. They’re clueless when it comes to tech. 
  • Reply 25 of 28
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 645member
    Well I hope they heavily attack that Finsta stuff! SO socialist! Run a truck full of chickens right into it. 
  • Reply 26 of 28
    BosaBosa Posts: 74member
    So companies like Spotify and Epic wants to be greedy and step all over Apple IP App Store which took years to build is ok?

    F- That
  • Reply 27 of 28
    ITGUYINSD said:
    This is complicated by the fact that analogies don’t always take into account the unique aspects of the situation. Apple agreed to allow third-party apps because they believed (correctly) that it would improve the user experience, thereby improving the value of the product (which of course is beneficial to company’s sales prospects). In the same way, a restaurant might sell their own desserts alongside pies made by a famous local bakery. Should the restaurant be allowed to more heavily promote their own desserts, with more prominent positioning in the menu, or more favorable pricing? True, the only way to enjoy that pie in that particular setting is to order it off of the menu and pay whatever they’re asking, but it’s not true that it’s the only way to have the pie. Similarly, you can enjoy Spotify without the Apple App Store, you just can’t use it natively within iOS. There are lots of other ways to stream Spotify. If you make an app that can only be used as a native iOS app, you are relying heavily on Apple for their infrastructure, marketing, charge processing, etc., and it makes sense that you would relinquish a certain degree of control, as you would is you were making food that would be sold exclusively in one restaurant chain. 
    I agree with most of what you said, except in your example, if you made specialty pies and (for whatever reason) only sold them through one restaurant chain (exclusivity maybe?), and that chain puts their own baked pies at the top of the dessert menu and your pies mixed in with other desserts lower in the menu, wouldn't you find that just a bit unfair?  

    It's true that there are other ways to stream Spotify, but 100% of the people looking for Spotify in the App Store are using iOS and are not interested in other ways, so it's not a matter of choice for those people who are being fed Apple Music as the top pick when they want Spotify.
    If I chose to sell pies exclusively to that restaurant chain and it was a bad deal for me, why wouldn't I seek to negotiate a better deal and investigate alternative ways to sell my pies?

    If it's not a viable business except in the case where every little thing is in your favour... maybe it's not a good business to be in. Time to tell your investors that you weren't able to use their money as effectively as you hoped to, rather than let them continue throwing good money after bad.
    edited October 15
  • Reply 28 of 28
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    rob53 said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    Are they going to make Walmart take down all the ads for their own services in their own stores?

    The Law of Unintended Consequences is a thing.
    Depends.  Do people go into Walmart looking for non-Walmart services?  That's what this bill addresses. 
    All the time. Walmart sells things, they don't actually make any products. They do sell branded items like Total Wireless. Do they also allow Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile? If they do do they put Total Wireless at the top of the advertising list? In some communities, Walmart is the only store in town so they are looking for everything.
    Have you tried it?  I did.  I searched "Verizon phones" and Total Wireless did not come up.  I searched "AT&T phones" and Total Wireless did not come up.  I searched "T-Mobile phones" and guess what?  T-Mobile phones came up.  When you search a particular brand, that brand comes up first, not Walmart's brand.  Similarly, when I search Spotify on App Store, should Apple Music come up first?  That's what the article is about.
    You're not quite understanding what this article is about. When you search "Verizon phones" or "ATT phones" or "T-Mobile" phones, those are not "search queries" as mentioned in the article. Those are searches using a "keyword" and you will alway get Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile on top of the list in each search. But if you were to search "mobile carriers phones", then you will get a list of carriers that provides mobile phones, ranked by using an algorithm that only Google knows. This is what the article means by "search query" and Google placing their own services on top of the list. The article is not saying the Google is placing their services on the top of the search result when doing a search using a keyword.


    >More widely, it would prevent Google from putting its own services at the top of a search query.<

    For instance, if you search "Spotify"using Google search engine, that is using a "keyword" and Google top result will always be "Spotify". However, if you were do a search query using "music streaming providers" then Google search result should be a list of music streaming providers. With the top rank ones based on some confidential algorithm that Google uses. But what Google would do or can do, is to place Google YouTube Music on the top of the search result, regardless if YouTube Music deserves to be on top of the list. This is what this bill is addressing.

    >For example, it would prevent Apple from putting an ad for Apple Music on App Store search results for competitors like Tidal or Spotify.<

    The other is ad placement, which the article used Apple as a theoretical example by saying the bill would prevent Apple from placing ads for their competing services, on the search results in the Apple App Store. For example, if an iOS user were to search for the Spotify App in the Apple App Store, this bill if passed, would not allow Apple to place an ad for their own Apple Music, in the search result. This has nothing to do with putting Apple Music on top of the search result.  And i'm not aware that Apple places any ads of sorts, along with the search result in their Apple App Store.

    Amazon does this. When you search for a specific brand of a product, Amazon result would also include Amazon own brand related to the product in the search. When you search for Energizer batteries, the result will include Amazon own brand of batteries, usually near the top of the page with a banner reading "Amazon's Choice".  But all the batteries by Energizer available on Amazon are listed. It's not like you only get a list of Amazon batteries when you do a search for Energizer batteries.

    The problem is not even close to being as big as you make it seem. No one is obviously altering the search result that uses a "keyword" and replacing their own services on top of the search result.

    And really, if you were searching for say, Bounty paper towels at a Costco, what's the problem with seeing Costco own brand of paper towels at a much better price, right next to the Bounty. Or having Lucky's own Sunny Select brand of soda on the same shelves as Pepsi and Coca Cola, at half the price of Pepsi and Coca Cola.

    Using your Denny's and IHOP analogy. If you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest Denny's and when you get there, it's an IHOP, that's a problem but this is not what's happening. It's more like if you ask Google Map to direct you to the nearest diner that serves pancakes and you end up at a Denny's. Even if you were hoping to find an IHOP.  This happens when you search with a "query", instead of a "keyword".  

                
    edited October 15
Sign In or Register to comment.