4 ms·
The UK's competition/antitrust regulator (CMA) is investigating online platforms just now, and is specifically looking at whether the switching cost is a factor
by g_p 5y ago
The UK's competition/antitrust regulator (CMA) is investigating online platforms just now, and is specifically looking at whether the switching cost is a factor that furthers the case to argue for a monopoly and anti-competitive situation requiring remedies.
Similarly for a lack of interoperability of services (like facetime) - I guess they're trying to pre-empt Apple's common argument that "smartphones" should be the defined market, and side-step that by demonstrating Apple has created structural barriers to switching that discourage it or make it expensive, or leverage network effects to frustrate users who switch.
What you describe as the future is certainly what I could envisage a CMA action resulting in - they've already stated their view that Facebook may need to unwind their acquisition of Giphy. It seems likely they could decide to push for forced competition in app stores and payment processing, which should effectively decouple OS vendor from store ecosystem and achieve the end goal.
Under a competitive ecosystem, Apple would have to lower payment fees and compete on price, as well as developer experience. Otherwise they'd haemorrhage developers and lose all their revenue from the store, and someone more innovative would be able to take that up. If it swings too far to a free-for-all, someone will build a store with more consumer protections, and compete back... It strikes me Apple and Google could offer competitive stores (without the suspiciously identical platform fees and mandatory use of their payment processing) that use user safety and convenience as a competitive differentiator, coupled with an amazing experience and set of tools for developers. They'd have to start improving soon on their tools and experience though!
- azinman2 5y agoIf this was a thing, then any software you buy on windows should work on Mac and Linux, and any titles for PlayStation should work on Xbox etc. I don’t know that I’m opposed per se, but it also seems like a system one could game. It’s also never been the case in software.
- withinboredom 5y agoWhen I bought Minecraft at $11 almost 10(?) years ago, I got a Java version that worked pretty much everywhere. When I buy a game on Steam, it works on Mac/Linux/Windows or some combination at virtually no extra cost. When I buy tools online, usually it allows me to download a version that works with whichever OS. My Visual Studio license works on Mac and Windows, as does my IntelliJ license. I don’t know what argument you are making here. Sure, there are products that only work on one OS, but that’s usually a point that competition uses against the product, not the expected default unless it’s a product specifically for that OS. Edit: clarity.
- f6v 5y agoMost games require you purchasing separate versions for PC, Xbox, and PS. Then there’re also exclusives, e.g. PS-only games.
- withinboredom 5y agoThat’s only because Xbox and PS don’t allow the Steam store on there.
- bostik 5y agoThere's a pretty big gulf between software / OS interoperability and data / protocol interoperability. Think about cars. You can take a vehicle manufactured for US market and take it to, say, Japan, but it won't be a smooth experience. Being in an environment so different requires you to (for want of a better word) "emulate" your way to adaptability. Cars in US have the wheel on left-hand side. Cars in Japan have the wheel on the right-hand side. But modulo emission limits[ß], their engines and transmission systems are mostly interchangeable. The final product, the car, is analogue for software. The inner plumbing, the components that make the product actually offer its functionality, is analogue for data and protocols. ß: Yes, I know. There are a whole lot of other requirements and regional regulations to consider too.