6 ms·

But doesn't this end up sending the message that you shouldn't share your OS and software with other companies? Keep everything proprietary like Apple and make

But doesn't this end up sending the message that you shouldn't share your OS and software with other companies? Keep everything proprietary like Apple and make your own phones. Because Apple seems to get away with everything. They basically removed the ability to have other browsers on iOS by restricting the performance of other browsers, so all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. And nothing happened to them.

simion314 8y ago
It is about monopoly abuse, an OS vendor should not abuse it's market share to get more web search market share. If Apple would have a monopoly in EU and forced it's other services then I think Apple will have same issue Google and Microsoft had. My opinion is that Apple should be forced to be repair friendly and give the user full control of his hardware(let me install what I want like in OSX) , so I am not an Apple fan.
- FussyZeus 8y ago
  I'm an Apple fan because I don't need to repair the device, nor do I require full control in order to use it. Android is fun to tinker on but when I'm stuck on the side of the road needing help, I'm sure glad I don't have a hacking project in my pocket.
  - askmike 8y ago
    I have an apple laptop and an android based phone (from One Plus). One has a broken keyboard that I'm desperately trying to hold together with tape and one hasn't. Hint: the not broken device was a third of the price of a new iPhone X, while the broken one is more than 3 times as expensive. I want you to be right so bad.. Just sticking to phones: I switched from iPhone to android years ago and honestly things are more stable over here (the legacy iOS I used back than VS any android version I tried).
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > I'm an Apple fan because I don't need to repair the device Given that Apple has no data recovery service for any of their products (even if you tell them that you'll give them a limitless pile of cash) and that they solder storage into most of their devices (that is paired to the CPU -- so you cannot remove the flash chip and put it onto a working board to recover data), this is a very bold claim. Maybe you don't need your phone to be repaired when it is water damaged and you can no longer get photos of your children (that you should've backed up, but didn't). Maybe you want to pay US$300 to replace an out-of-warranty phone when the only thing wrong with it is that a headphone jack got stuck inside the port[1]. Maybe you don't want to pay more than the device is worth to fix a brand-new device[2]. Apple devices aren't just hard to repair, Apple as a company is anti-repair -- and defending this practice is not a reasonable position to hold. I understand arguing that Apple products are easier to use, or that they are more consumer-friendly, or that consumers shouldn't have full control over their devices because they'll probably brick them, and so on. But arguing that them being irreparable is a good thing is not justifiable (even if you don't need your device repaired, someone else will, and out-right ignoring that is misinformed). [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5ZUl0Q-NI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5ZUl0Q-NI [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE
    - tekknik 8y ago
      Apple has had iCloud backup for some time now, including cloud camera rolls. For your second source there, this is pretty common practice. You take the device apart and damage it in the process then why should the company stand by that? They have to worry about legal issues because the fine consumers sue them for every little thing they do, therefore as a result they cover their own ass. Sony is also a big offender here, they won’t repair a playstation that you’ve attempted to mod. Your first source is just some guy talking and nobody has the time to watch that BS
      - zeveb 8y ago
        > Apple has had iCloud backup for some time now, including cloud camera rolls. I believe Apple have the ability to read any data in an iCloud backup. The data on my phone include my password file, encrypted with an easy-to-type-on-a-screen-keyboard password, which means that it's not a high-entropy password. There's no way that I would allow a cloud provider access to that file. Note, Apple do say on https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 that it's all end-to-end encrypted and they cannot read the backup, but they also say 'To access your data on a new device, you might have to enter the passcode for an existing or former device,' which implies that if one loses a device then one can buy a new device and enter the old device's passcode — which means that Apple themselves could just try passcodes iteratively. If it's possible for you to restore data from a lost device without typing in a high-entropy password, then it's possible for Apple to read the data without guessing a high-entropy password.
- ben_w 8y ago
  > If Apple would have a monopoly in EU and forced it's other services then I think Apple will have same issue Google and Microsoft had. I think that’s an accurate description of how Apple became a big phone company in the first place: Exploiting their monopoly of the MP3 player market.
  - danaris 8y ago
    First, I question your premise: did Apple, in fact, have a commanding share of the MP3 player market in 2007? (Not trying to claim you're lying here; I genuinely don't know offhand.) Second, I question the mechanism by which Apple parlayed this into making the iPhone as strong a player in the cell phone market as it is (and it is certainly not in anything like a commanding position). Buying an iPhone would pretty much mean replacing your iPod. It wasn't a situation where having an iPod meant you would only be able to effectively use them together by buying an iPhone. The only part of the puzzle I could see even remotely contributing to a "lock-in" factor was the DRM on the iTunes store. But by the time that was removed, in 2009, Apple still hadn't had a single quarter where they sold more than 8 million iPhones. No; I dispute your conclusion entirely. Apple became a big phone company by making a phone that people actually enjoyed using. It was the user-friendliness of the capacitive touchscreen and the overall iOS UI that made the difference, and continues to do so, not the long-since-defunct iTunes Store DRM or some other handwavy effect of their "monopoly of the MP3 player market".
    - ben_w 8y ago
      First: http://fortune.com/2008/01/29/how-to-grow-the-ipod-as-the-mp3-player-market-shrinks/ http://fortune.com/2008/01/29/how-to-grow-the-ipod-as-the-mp... Second: Good argument! :) My line of reasoning was: iPod+iTunes -> lots of people with big music collections tied into iTunes -> release of iPhone, which requires iTunes to sync with desktop -> iPhone becoming a major player in phone world.
      - mercer 8y ago
        From what I remember all sorts of iPods were available for years (close to a decade?) after the iPhone was released, so I don't think that kind of lock-in played that much of a role. There was a point where I got a Touch version of the iPod because it was much cheaper (thinner) than the equivalent iPhone at that time, and I was fine with whatever other phone I had. I'm pretty sure this was at a time when the iPhone was already extremely popular.
- cube2222 8y ago
  Does Google have a monopoly though? What's the percentages of Android vs Apple use in Europe?
  - r3bl 8y ago
    According to StatCounter, Android has 74.2%, while iOS has 24.15% of the European market. For comparison, in the USA, from the same source: Android 47.39%, iOS 52.19%.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jdietrich 8y ago
Apple don't have anything like a dominant position in the smartphone market, with about 15% global market share. The European Commission's ruling was strongly influenced by the fact that Android devices represent the majority of the market and that the Android OS is really the only choice for device manufacturers. Android has become the Windows of mobile, so it's inevitable that Google will face far more scrutiny than Apple. The greatest single issue in the Google antitrust case was that Google were found to be using their dominance in one area (mobile operating systems) to support their dominance in another area (search). There are serious antitrust concerns about the iTunes Store, with a relevant case due to be heard by the US Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  > 15% global market share Maybe that's true globally, but it's not true of first world countries. iPhone's market-share is over 40% in the USA, for instance. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/
mikestew 8y ago
Because Apple seems to get away with everything. It's funny how in a different discussion, it will be crowed that Android runs on 84% of smartphones world-wide. But when it's time to pull out the whataboutisms, Apple is first against the wall as a monopolist, while poor, beleaguered Android tries to fight them off. I just pulled that number out my arse, but Apple has nowhere a monopoly on smartphone operating systems, so they can do what ever they please. Don't like it? They have competitors that would love for you to buy one of their phones.
- admax88q 8y ago
  It's also funny how all criticism of apple are deflected as "but they don't have a monopoly so its okay, use something else if you don't like it."
WillPostForFood 8y ago
They basically removed the ability to have other browsers on iOS by restricting the performance of other browsers, so all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. And nothing happened to them. This isn't accurate, and Chrome and Firefox are viable, performant, alternatives to Safari. All browsers are using WKWebView engine, and at least for the last 2.5 years, all have access to Nitro JS engine, so there is no performance penalty for third party browsers. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-is-finally-as-fast-and-stable-as-safari/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...
- admax88q 8y ago
  > All browsers are using WKWebView engine > all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. That's what he's saying. You can't implement your own JIT on iOS. Even if you have a better idea/algorithm than Nitro JS, you're limited to how fast safari is.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    To me "restricting performance" reads to mean they are slower than Safari, which is not true (though it had been during the initial Nitro rollout, which only Safari had access to). At this point, core engine speed isn't what is distinguishing browsers, they are all fast.
globetrotter33m 8y ago
>> so all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. really? didn't know that. and I've been using Chrome thinking it's better than Safari. Little did I know...
simonh 8y ago
>But doesn't this end up sending the message that you shouldn't share your OS and software with other companies? Keep everything proprietary like Apple and make your own phones. Sharing Android with other manufacturers is absolutely ok, that's not what the EU fined them for. It was the anti-competitive contractual clauses they used to strong-arm licensees on order to get preferential treatment in other ways that were deemed illegal. Apple isn't using it's market position to coerce anybody though. There's no law telling Apple that they have to provide an App Store at all. The equivalent case would be if Apple were to make approving a company's App on the App Store conditional on the company agreeing to some other contractual conditions preferential to Apple, using app store approval to hold companies ransom. That sort of extortion would clearly be an abuse. For example Apple only approving App Store apps showing ads if they used Apple's own ad network might be a step too far. In the case of browsers, Apple isn't using approval of other browsers on the App Store as leverage to extort anything out of anyone. They are simply selling a product that has this feature (a browser) and not this other feature (the ability to install browsers based on a different rendering engine). It's the extortion that's the problem.

simion314 8y ago

It is about monopoly abuse, an OS vendor should not abuse it's market share to get more web search market share. If Apple would have a monopoly in EU and forced it's other services then I think Apple will have same issue Google and Microsoft had. My opinion is that Apple should be forced to be repair friendly and give the user full control of his hardware(let me install what I want like in OSX) , so I am not an Apple fan.

FussyZeus 8y ago
I'm an Apple fan because I don't need to repair the device, nor do I require full control in order to use it. Android is fun to tinker on but when I'm stuck on the side of the road needing help, I'm sure glad I don't have a hacking project in my pocket.
- askmike 8y ago
  I have an apple laptop and an android based phone (from One Plus). One has a broken keyboard that I'm desperately trying to hold together with tape and one hasn't. Hint: the not broken device was a third of the price of a new iPhone X, while the broken one is more than 3 times as expensive. I want you to be right so bad.. Just sticking to phones: I switched from iPhone to android years ago and honestly things are more stable over here (the legacy iOS I used back than VS any android version I tried).
- cyphar 8y ago
  > I'm an Apple fan because I don't need to repair the device Given that Apple has no data recovery service for any of their products (even if you tell them that you'll give them a limitless pile of cash) and that they solder storage into most of their devices (that is paired to the CPU -- so you cannot remove the flash chip and put it onto a working board to recover data), this is a very bold claim. Maybe you don't need your phone to be repaired when it is water damaged and you can no longer get photos of your children (that you should've backed up, but didn't). Maybe you want to pay US$300 to replace an out-of-warranty phone when the only thing wrong with it is that a headphone jack got stuck inside the port[1]. Maybe you don't want to pay more than the device is worth to fix a brand-new device[2]. Apple devices aren't just hard to repair, Apple as a company is anti-repair -- and defending this practice is not a reasonable position to hold. I understand arguing that Apple products are easier to use, or that they are more consumer-friendly, or that consumers shouldn't have full control over their devices because they'll probably brick them, and so on. But arguing that them being irreparable is a good thing is not justifiable (even if you don't need your device repaired, someone else will, and out-right ignoring that is misinformed). [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5ZUl0Q-NI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR5ZUl0Q-NI [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE
  - tekknik 8y ago
    Apple has had iCloud backup for some time now, including cloud camera rolls. For your second source there, this is pretty common practice. You take the device apart and damage it in the process then why should the company stand by that? They have to worry about legal issues because the fine consumers sue them for every little thing they do, therefore as a result they cover their own ass. Sony is also a big offender here, they won’t repair a playstation that you’ve attempted to mod. Your first source is just some guy talking and nobody has the time to watch that BS
    - zeveb 8y ago
      > Apple has had iCloud backup for some time now, including cloud camera rolls. I believe Apple have the ability to read any data in an iCloud backup. The data on my phone include my password file, encrypted with an easy-to-type-on-a-screen-keyboard password, which means that it's not a high-entropy password. There's no way that I would allow a cloud provider access to that file. Note, Apple do say on https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 that it's all end-to-end encrypted and they cannot read the backup, but they also say 'To access your data on a new device, you might have to enter the passcode for an existing or former device,' which implies that if one loses a device then one can buy a new device and enter the old device's passcode — which means that Apple themselves could just try passcodes iteratively. If it's possible for you to restore data from a lost device without typing in a high-entropy password, then it's possible for Apple to read the data without guessing a high-entropy password.
ben_w 8y ago
> If Apple would have a monopoly in EU and forced it's other services then I think Apple will have same issue Google and Microsoft had. I think that’s an accurate description of how Apple became a big phone company in the first place: Exploiting their monopoly of the MP3 player market.
- danaris 8y ago
  First, I question your premise: did Apple, in fact, have a commanding share of the MP3 player market in 2007? (Not trying to claim you're lying here; I genuinely don't know offhand.) Second, I question the mechanism by which Apple parlayed this into making the iPhone as strong a player in the cell phone market as it is (and it is certainly not in anything like a commanding position). Buying an iPhone would pretty much mean replacing your iPod. It wasn't a situation where having an iPod meant you would only be able to effectively use them together by buying an iPhone. The only part of the puzzle I could see even remotely contributing to a "lock-in" factor was the DRM on the iTunes store. But by the time that was removed, in 2009, Apple still hadn't had a single quarter where they sold more than 8 million iPhones. No; I dispute your conclusion entirely. Apple became a big phone company by making a phone that people actually enjoyed using. It was the user-friendliness of the capacitive touchscreen and the overall iOS UI that made the difference, and continues to do so, not the long-since-defunct iTunes Store DRM or some other handwavy effect of their "monopoly of the MP3 player market".
  - ben_w 8y ago
    First: http://fortune.com/2008/01/29/how-to-grow-the-ipod-as-the-mp3-player-market-shrinks/ http://fortune.com/2008/01/29/how-to-grow-the-ipod-as-the-mp... Second: Good argument! :) My line of reasoning was: iPod+iTunes -> lots of people with big music collections tied into iTunes -> release of iPhone, which requires iTunes to sync with desktop -> iPhone becoming a major player in phone world.
    - mercer 8y ago
      From what I remember all sorts of iPods were available for years (close to a decade?) after the iPhone was released, so I don't think that kind of lock-in played that much of a role. There was a point where I got a Touch version of the iPod because it was much cheaper (thinner) than the equivalent iPhone at that time, and I was fine with whatever other phone I had. I'm pretty sure this was at a time when the iPhone was already extremely popular.
cube2222 8y ago
Does Google have a monopoly though? What's the percentages of Android vs Apple use in Europe?
- r3bl 8y ago
  According to StatCounter, Android has 74.2%, while iOS has 24.15% of the European market. For comparison, in the USA, from the same source: Android 47.39%, iOS 52.19%.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jdietrich 8y ago

Apple don't have anything like a dominant position in the smartphone market, with about 15% global market share. The European Commission's ruling was strongly influenced by the fact that Android devices represent the majority of the market and that the Android OS is really the only choice for device manufacturers. Android has become the Windows of mobile, so it's inevitable that Google will face far more scrutiny than Apple. The greatest single issue in the Google antitrust case was that Google were found to be using their dominance in one area (mobile operating systems) to support their dominance in another area (search). There are serious antitrust concerns about the iTunes Store, with a relevant case due to be heard by the US Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
> 15% global market share Maybe that's true globally, but it's not true of first world countries. iPhone's market-share is over 40% in the USA, for instance. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/

mikestew 8y ago

Because Apple seems to get away with everything. It's funny how in a different discussion, it will be crowed that Android runs on 84% of smartphones world-wide. But when it's time to pull out the whataboutisms, Apple is first against the wall as a monopolist, while poor, beleaguered Android tries to fight them off. I just pulled that number out my arse, but Apple has nowhere a monopoly on smartphone operating systems, so they can do what ever they please. Don't like it? They have competitors that would love for you to buy one of their phones.

admax88q 8y ago
It's also funny how all criticism of apple are deflected as "but they don't have a monopoly so its okay, use something else if you don't like it."

WillPostForFood 8y ago

They basically removed the ability to have other browsers on iOS by restricting the performance of other browsers, so all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. And nothing happened to them. This isn't accurate, and Chrome and Firefox are viable, performant, alternatives to Safari. All browsers are using WKWebView engine, and at least for the last 2.5 years, all have access to Nitro JS engine, so there is no performance penalty for third party browsers. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-is-finally-as-fast-and-stable-as-safari/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...

admax88q 8y ago
> All browsers are using WKWebView engine > all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. That's what he's saying. You can't implement your own JIT on iOS. Even if you have a better idea/algorithm than Nitro JS, you're limited to how fast safari is.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  To me "restricting performance" reads to mean they are slower than Safari, which is not true (though it had been during the initial Nitro rollout, which only Safari had access to). At this point, core engine speed isn't what is distinguishing browsers, they are all fast.

globetrotter33m 8y ago

>> so all the other browsers became reskins of Safari. really? didn't know that. and I've been using Chrome thinking it's better than Safari. Little did I know...

simonh 8y ago

>But doesn't this end up sending the message that you shouldn't share your OS and software with other companies? Keep everything proprietary like Apple and make your own phones. Sharing Android with other manufacturers is absolutely ok, that's not what the EU fined them for. It was the anti-competitive contractual clauses they used to strong-arm licensees on order to get preferential treatment in other ways that were deemed illegal. Apple isn't using it's market position to coerce anybody though. There's no law telling Apple that they have to provide an App Store at all. The equivalent case would be if Apple were to make approving a company's App on the App Store conditional on the company agreeing to some other contractual conditions preferential to Apple, using app store approval to hold companies ransom. That sort of extortion would clearly be an abuse. For example Apple only approving App Store apps showing ads if they used Apple's own ad network might be a step too far. In the case of browsers, Apple isn't using approval of other browsers on the App Store as leverage to extort anything out of anyone. They are simply selling a product that has this feature (a browser) and not this other feature (the ability to install browsers based on a different rendering engine). It's the extortion that's the problem.