Apple does a lot of very questionable stuff, but I'm still not convinced regulation is the solution here. It's still very easy to go with an Android variant that doesn't have some of these restrictions (though increasingly some Android phones are introducing their own annoyances).
For example for the given article users of dating apps can already use different payment providers, provided they go with a different phone. If these types of grievances are so bad, why don't users switch? It's worth considering these questions. Apple does certainly try to incentivize you to go-all in with Apple Watch/Fitness+ integrations, AirPod, AirTag, etc.
I believe Europe's general approach is just contributing to its brain drain. A large chunk of huge tech companies in the United States are founded by European nationals, not even children of immigrants. You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is regulation.
Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general.
Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be competition.
TLDR: Help foster strong competitive companies, stop wasting time trying to neuter Apple
>Are you arguing people can't easily switch between ios and android?
I mean... yes? Even just affording a new handset could be prohibitive if you want a parity of hardware features. But also, we shouldn't underrate the barrier presented to nontechnical users by having to learn a new interface, especially when Apple banks so hard on its (superficial) reputation for Just Working. I think we all know some (especially, but not exclusively, older) people who have just attained a sense of bare competency at driving their iPhones and will invite you to pull that from their cold dead hands.
There's a lot more than just free apps to consider in this scenario.
Paid apps will have to be re-purchased, your Airpods won't work as well, your Apple Watch won't work at all with Android, you won't be able to message your contacts who use iMessage without SMS, etc.
iPhone owners tend to buy into the Apple ecosystem which ends up being a whole bunch of vendor lock in, and it becomes unreasonable to switch platforms. The ability to switch to Android certainly doesn't give Apple a free pass here.
Why would you expect proprietary tech to work with anything, though.
That’s what I don’t get - people buy locked down stuff and then complain that it’s locked down. There are plenty of alternatives that aren’t locked down.
The defeatist mentality from my perspective is arguing that we shouldn't try to make locked down stuff less locked down.
And in many cases, you don't have a choice to use Signal or etc.
What if all your contacts are using iMessage? Sure, most of them will have SMS, but that's not guaranteed. There will always be edge cases of users who are locked in due to situations outside of their control. Shouldn't we be trying to make things less locked down for them?
The people I want to communicate with don't have Signal or any other messaging app. They have iMessage, which only allows you to communicate effectively with other apple devices.
Like what? Blackberry OS and Windows Phone are dead. There aren't any feasible smartphone platforms out there besides iOS and Android, unless you think your average consumer should be buying a Pinephone or something (and I wouldn't consider that anywhere close to feasible anyways).
Installing Windows on an Apple laptop is easy. There's no real reason it couldn't be easy to install Android on an iPhone. Apple has spent a lot of time building software controls to make it impossible, and sues people who try. It's really not asking that much of Apple here - they would save money if they stopped trying to make it artificially difficult to switch from iOS to Android.
> Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be competition.
If Microsoft wasn't able to successfully enter the smartphone space after spending billions and making a product many consumers loved, why should we expect the results to be different for new companies just by deregulating Europe?
Network effects are the primary challenge to competing with Google and Apple, not regulatory restrictions.
> If Microsoft wasn't able to successfully enter the smartphone space after spending billions and making a product many consumers loved, why should we expect the results to be different for new companies just by deregulating Europe?
Bluntly, it was two factors:
1. A network effect of developers - there was too much value in the other two platforms and supporting windows phone was priority #4 (after android, iOS, and the web)
2. Negative brand recognition. Consumers didn’t find carrying a blue screen in their pocket attractive
3. Negative retailer reaction. The phones just weren’t pushed in stores. If you didn’t come in looking for a windows phone, you might not have even been shown it as an option.
Agreed. The EU should honestly call their bluff then. If the citizens result then you have your answer to what the average person thinks of the situation.
Spotify had a first mover advantage and is now using network effects of playlists and recommendation to keep their market share.
If anything it's a testament to the power of Apple and Amazon that they were able to gain significant marketshare.
Trying to directly compete with Apple and Google in the mobile OS market would be like trying to compete with Boing/Airbus or TSMC/Samsung, in that the capital requirements are so astronomical without extreme forms of subsidies and protectionism.
Spotify doesn't have to sell you a phone and doesn't need thousands of developers (including Apple and Google) to build apps for that phone to make it a viable purchase option. Google famously refused to develop a YouTube app for Windows Phone and refused to allow Microsoft's home built app to connect to YouTube.
Just because it's possible to compete in one product area doesn't mean its possible to compete in all of them. A smartphone experience is networks on networks on networks to the point that breaking in is next to impossible despite the fact that one of them is based on an open source OS.
There are far too many axes to weigh when switching products/providers every time a single point is handled poorly. Is it really reasonable for someone to make a choice on changing all of the things associated with their mobile phone based on whether or not dating apps are treated fairly?
> It's still very easy to go with an Android variant
It's still not very common knowledge. Most people wouldn't even know this is happening; keep in mind that Apple's rules also prohibit you from mentioning that alternate payment options exist (even if those are on other platforms).
Also, most people don't have the disposable cash to just throw away their iPhone and go buy an Android when encountering this issue. Frankly, it's still probably more rational to just pay the 30% tax than forego a significant chunk of value off the phone by buying a new Android replacement.
Android also has its own problems (including with privacy, etc) which hopefully will be addressed at some point, but for now it's not a silver bullet, simply a different set of tradeoffs.
I believe the role of a competition watchdog is to prevent anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers as a whole. I don't think it's far-fetched to strike down stupid rules that don't provide any value beyond allowing assholes to seek rent.
> Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general.
IMO, the US model allows a minority to legally screw the rest of the population and get rich off it, offloading the negative externalities onto society. This Apple rule is an example, albeit very small in the grand scheme of things when you consider what is possible and routinely done in the US.
> Help foster strong competitive companies
To a certain extent that's what the EU is doing here. Keep in mind that in the last couple decades a lot of business ideas & markets have been monopolized by US-based companies who are now using anti-competitive practices to prevent viable competition from emerging. The problem with the EU isn't primarily regulation (though it makes a lot of user-hostile business models impossible - a good thing in my book), it's the lack thereof that allowed US-based companies to monopolize many markets even in Europe.
Many of these problems result from lack of regulation.
Regulations are necessary to preserve free and open markets, prevent monopolies and protect competition.
Two companies having total control over the app economy and taking 15-30% of revenues stifles innovation. Lack of antitrust enforcement stifles innovation. You're against antitrust enforcement, yet it would increase economic freedom, not reduce it, by allowing smaller companies to compete.
You also want Europe to come up with its dominant search engine or mobile OS. There's no longer any chance of that happening, because of network effects. There is simply no way for any European company to come up with a superior OS, or superior social network, since they lack the network effects; since they can't have a superior product, they can never compete, and can never displace US incumbents.
The only way Europe will have its own tech giants in current markets (not in some new markets, like VR, that's still perfectly possible) is if they do what China did: ban US tech, and aggressively fund alternatives. Both of which would be against your economic preferences. "Free markets" have certain benefits, but they won't achieve what you believe they will; actually quite the opposite.
Dating apps cannot use alternate payment methods within their Google Play App and are subject to the same 30% fee.
In order to avoid the fee, they would have to distribute the app through an alternative store or as an APK which has just as many if not more hoops than what regulators are objecting to here, although they do get to keep the last 27% compared to the Apple situation.
Apple may do whatever they please on their Appstore app.
But they should stop trying to control a phone they SOLD to customer and allow unimpeded running any app the customer needs, including competing stores or directly installed apps.
>You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is regulation.
The tech industry in US has so much money that is just burned on shitty products, so I am not a bit surprised if you start too many projects and also buy your way into the market you get on top. There are examples where big US companies bought competitors so it is clear that money is keeping this giants on top.
I could try to explain the history but I am not an expert in it, I would for sure hurt some feelings and obtain nothing from it.
Sorry I won't reveal the actual reason and just tell you a reason that is not it.
My point is that you can't blame GDPR or some "regulation" for the reason an european FB did not popped and rapidly increased 10 years ago. This is a lame excused used by anti-regulation dudes.
For example for the given article users of dating apps can already use different payment providers, provided they go with a different phone. If these types of grievances are so bad, why don't users switch? It's worth considering these questions. Apple does certainly try to incentivize you to go-all in with Apple Watch/Fitness+ integrations, AirPod, AirTag, etc.
I believe Europe's general approach is just contributing to its brain drain. A large chunk of huge tech companies in the United States are founded by European nationals, not even children of immigrants. You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is regulation.
Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general.
Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be competition.
TLDR: Help foster strong competitive companies, stop wasting time trying to neuter Apple