avon b7 said:

leehericks said:

Boo EU.

Apple is not a digital gatekeeper, they are a product company, like Nintendo.

Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services. 

The only definition of a "gatekeeper" that the EU is concern about is that Apple is one of the big 5 US tech companies. All other criteria of being a "gatekeeper" is to exclude any company that are not one of the big 5 US techs. 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-tech-rules-should-only-target-dominant-companies-eu-lawmaker-says-2021-06-01/

>BRUSSELS, June 1 (Reuters) - Draft rules aimed at reining in the power of Facebook Inc(FB.O), Alphabet Inc unit Google (GOOGL.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and Apple Inc(AAPL.O)should only target these U.S. tech giants, a leading EU lawmaker said, signalling a tougher stand than EU antitrust regulators.<

https://www.ft.com/content/2036d7e9-daa2-445d-8f88-6fcee745a259

>“We are particularly concerned about recent comments by the European Parliament rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act, Andreas Schwab, who suggested the DMA should unquestionably target only the five biggest US firms,” said the email, seen by the Financial Times and dated June 9.<

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: The problems arise when you attain gatekeeper status and can actively impede the advance and success of competing platforms. That was the failing of the Amazon and Microsoft efforts (although not the only one).

How did Apple "actively impede" Microsoft or Amazon when it comes to selling mobile phones? They did have apps and you've previously stated your opinion that apps are what makes phone hardware successful. 

'Lock in'.  'Stickiness' or whatever word you want to use. 

Both Apple and Google are under the microscope for activities that have a direct influence on how users can move between platforms.

In fact, it is just one of the many elements that are being looked at for the EU's DMA. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349

I would expect the UK to be looking at the exact same elements but perhaps with different names.

Only now, after years of feet being dragged is it getting easier to migrate data from platform to platform. 

I actually got a call from someone with a Windows phone IIRC back in the day, who had a simple question. How to move Chrome bookmarks to a different browser. The official way, as per Google help pages at the time, was to use a computer. She didn't have one. I don't remember how I resolved that one but it wasn't a straightforward process. Systems are riddled with pot holes that make migration harder than it should be. 

Apps are the lifeblood of all mobile systems and in spite of the existence of web apps. 

I'm currently on a migration path to HarmonyOS (for tablets) which does not have a trace of GMS in it so represents a perfect opportunity for me to really see how far Google's tentacles dig into our lives. So I can see, first hand, the difficulties involved in moving off GMS both from a consumer and business perspective. 

Believe me, the current situation (the mobile duopoly) is not good for consumers and the more fragmentation from a platform perspective, the better. 

It's a lot of fun to see how fast HMS is developing with updates almost daily but not even I would be able to comfortably switch out to HMS in one go. 

It's also costing Huawei billions in the process but the system got traction thanks to a pre-existing Chinese market. Microsoft had no such pre-existing market to get traction from. 

Ironically, Huawei is in the process of creating new technologies to run Android apps on Windows. That will be another HarmonyOS 'feature' and eventually support for Android apps will be expanded to include HarmonyOS apps on Windows. Microsoft could theoretically take Open Harmony (the open source version of HarmonyOS) and get back into the phone business (Chinese market first) and then ride the coat tails of HarmonyOS to the rest of the world. 

The problem is that the mobile industry is now moving into the automotive industry and Microsoft has it own plans there. I can't see Microsoft supporting a system on phones that already has a shipping HarmonyOS Cockpit solution on the market for cars. 

Gee, you could have just bought an Amazon Fire tablet to do the same experiment. Both Amazon Fire and Huawei HarmonyOS are forks of Android. So I find it amusing that you are wondering how far Google tentacles dig into our lives by using an OS that was developed, is maintained and kept up to date by Google. Huawei HarmonyOS wouldn't even exist without Google providing Android for free, as Open Source. Android from the ground up was developed by Google with mobile services in mind. Take your tablet, side load the Google Play store and most of the Android apps will run, no problem. The only ones that won't would be he ones that require some other Goole services like G-Mail, One Drive, Google Map, Google Doc, etc.. but all those can also be side loaded.  How much you want to bet that when there's a security bug in HarmonyOS, Google will fix it first and then Huawei will apply the fix and take the credit.  

Right now, Huawei HarmonyOS is nothing but Android 10 underneath. 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/harmonyos-hands-on-huaweis-android-killer-is-just-android/

>After hours of poking around on HarmonyOS, I couldn't point to a single substantive change compared to Android. Other than a few renamed items, nothing is different. If anyone at Huawei wants to dispute this, I would welcome an example of a single thing in the emulator that is functionally or even aesthetically different from Android. If anyone wants to cry "it's just a beta!," Huawei says this OS will be shipping in commercial phones this year. There does not appear to be time to do a major overhaul from "Android" to "Not Android."

Forking Android and launching your own rebranded operating system is totally fine. But be upfront about that. Say "HarmonyOS is a fork of Android" instead of "HarmonyOS is not a copy of Android." Don't call HarmonyOS "all-new" when pretty much the opposite is true.<

And as for Huawei creating new technology to link their OS with Microsoft Windows. That technology already exist. Harmony OS is just Android. Huawei don't have to create anything new to do this. Though they will probably take the credit for it. 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/android/wsa/

https://9to5google.com/2022/04/01/microsoft-android/ ;


I sure hope I didn't spoil your little experiment. Sounded like it was going to be entertaining and fun.  Kind of remind me of the time quite a few years back where I opened a G-mail account just because I wanted to activate an Android tablet (if a recall. it was JellyBean on a tablet made by RCA). That's all i did with the G-mail.. Never gave the address out to anyone or sent emails with it. But after a month or so of playing around with the Android tablet, downloading apps, side loading, browsing internet, etc., I check the G-mail account and it was full of ads and spam. Of course I didn't start off wondering about this. But wasn't surprise. Probably could have avoided a lot of this if i took the time use the filters available.     

avon b7 said:

kkqd1337 said:

geekmee said:

I didn’t know that under capitalism you had to set price that is fair?

I thought the market would decide if it is fair or not??

I think the issue is that there are no competitive app stores on iOS - so i think the monopolies laws and regulations apply - abusive of market dominance 

am no expert 

That is definitely one of the key elements and the OP wasn't very fortunate with the comment anyway. 

Just look at the F in FRAND and the fact that governments often take measures when 'abusive' pricing becomes a problem. 

As the article touches on, if you are a de facto gatekeeper you have monopoly control over price structuring, commissions end up being passed onto consumers who can end up paying more through the lack of competition. 

That is a complete misunderstanding of why FRAND exist for SEP's. When the government regulatory agency (for an industry) establish certain patents to be "Standard Essential Patent", the government eliminated the competition for the company that owns those patents. This because everyone in the industry must use those patents in order to be compatible with each other. Thus the government must ensure that the owners of SEP's do not abuse the "monopoly" that they were handed. This is not the case with Apple App Store on iOS. Not the case with Google Play on Android. Not the case with Microsoft Store for an Xbox. Not the case with Sony Store on a PlayStation. And yet they all charge about the same 15/30% commission. How it it that Apple is abusing their "monopoly control" when the others are not? And you can't even claim that Google has "monopoly control', when there's no way that the Google Play store is a "monopoly", by any account, on Android.

It's no different that when a municipality grants a company to be the only company to offer cable in their city. Or garbage service. Or gas and electricity. The city can regulate the prices they charge because the government handed them a "monopoly" (in their cities.). So the government regulates a price that is "fair" for consumers AND  the company. Not just what's "fair" for the consumers. ATT could not charge any price they wanted for their services, even though they practically had 100% of the market. ATT was handed their monopoly when the US government deemed that it was more important to have one telecommunication standard where everyone can connect to each other at an affordable rate, than to have many telecommunication competing with different services. Thus ATT had to go through a government regulatory agency in order to raise their prices. Rates went up for consumers when the the government broke up ATT. 

And then you have this. 

https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/30/report-98-of-devs-15-percent-commission/

How is charging a 15% commission to 98% of the developers in the Apple App Store, not "fair" for consumers?  

Let us be real, both you, me and a lot of people here know that the 30% commission mainly affects the profits of 2% of the biggest developers that are making billions in profit from being in the Apple App Store. And most through games IAP, that consumers are not forced to spend any money on. Remember, for every $3 Apple makes from the 2% of the most profitable developers, the developer made $7. 

Do some research. Most of these 2% top developers have their own websites where their subscribers can pay for their subscriptions, without having to go through their apps and having to pay a commission. And yet there's no 30% or 15% savings for most of those consumers paying on their websites. Why not, if consumers are the one paying the commission? The commission for paid subscribers drops from 30% to 15% after a year. Have to ever gotten a 15% discount from any developers, after subscribing to their services for over a year? Why not, if you are the one paying the commission? I never saw a 30% or 15% saving on my Netflix subscription in over 12 years of paying for it with auto payment on my CC, instead of through their app on iOS. And this would be true for nearly all streaming services. 

In CA, the top 1% pays about 50% of the State income tax collected. And there are plenty of people, politicians and maybe even you, that would say they are paying their "fair share". So why shouldn't the most profitable developers be paying their "fair share", so that Apple can pay for RD and maintain iOS to their best interest, keep commission low for 98% of their smaller developers and offer their users an app store where 90% of the apps are free? While still making a reasonable profit. 

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/7

"TikTok assures US officials it has strong data security, denies recent report"

Isn't that like the fox telling the chicken coop owner that his chickens are safe because he's guarding the hen house? 

kimberly said:

davidw said:

Anilu_777 said:

I wonder how many developers actually pay 30% and is Google also under the microscope for its 30% fee? 🤔 

The developers for over 90% of the apps in both app stores, pays 0% commission because their apps are free. This would not be the case if Apple or Google charged a set fee per downloaded app, rather than a commission. 

3% of the biggest developers are responsible for over 95% of app stores revenues. Most from IAP from games that are a free app in the app stores. Consumers are not forced to spend any money on IAP, in order to play the games. And for the most part, these game developers are not complaining about the 30% commission they also have to pay Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo or Steam, to be in their stores. And they are not flocking in masses to be in the Epic Game Store, where they would only pay a 12% commission.    

If you make a statement e.g. "3% of the biggest developers are responsible for over 95% of app stores revenues." to support an argument, then a reference is required.

It' pretty common knowledge and have been cited in several more articles. 
 
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/app-store-gets-2-revenue-from-small-developers/article33330964.ece

Just 25 game developers account for over 50% of app store revenue. 25 game developers is not close to 3% of the developers in either app stores.

https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/top-25-us-developers-account-half-app-revenue

98% of the developers accounts for 7% of the revenue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/18/apple-will-cut-app-store-fees-by-half-to-15percent-for-small-developers.html#:~:text=Cramer-,Apple will cut App Store commissions by,15% for small app makers&amp;amp;text=Apple said it will cut,net sales on its platform.

The top 1% publishers generated 93% of app revenue