It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose.
The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it.
For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?
This is like saying a state-mandated ISP/Gas company wouldn't be a monopoly since you can just move to another country.
You might wanna push the argument that nobody is forcing you to use iOS, but I think the problem runs deeper. In many fields and even just everyday life, you are now required to run a modern phone OS (eg. the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass) and we're barely lucky that Google is playing by laxer rules than Apple is. If not punishing existing bad actors, these rules are a nice framework to prevent them for taking over in the future.
Apple's pseudomonopoly does not strike me as the root cause issue here, developing processes and using tech to solve a people problem does.
Also, it's the country's duty to protect citizens from themselves using laws and regulations. For an example of what kind of "far west" digital tech is living right now, I point you back to before TV was regulated as heavily as today, where companies used cartoons to advertise smoking cigarettes to children (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c).
No, they can't do whatever they want with it. Consumer protection laws are an obvious example for how corporate interests can be limited.
> because it's far from a monopoly since there are alternatives.
It's a duopoly. iOS and Android together represent about 98% of mobile devices.
That is not true. there are many things corporations cannot do even if they want to. There's lots of different regulations that impose restrictions and obligations on companies against "what they want".
So now it's just defining where that line is, which is what law-making is.
A moral question would be "how much should governments control voluntary interactions between customers, platforms and products?" The immoral answer might well be "As much as it will help them gain short-term votes", not the moral one.
Especially when you make it all but impossible for third parties to operate outside of that walled garden.
I don’t think third parties really add value either. It’s just going to result in a bunch of spam and scams, with us losing out on privacy features and convenience.
Equally, when someone is considering buying a phone, they are unlikely to compare the lists of apps available for each platform when making their decision, just as car buyers don't look at the levels of tailpipe emissions when comparing possible cars. In such situations we accept that the government can intervene to prevent socially negative outcomes, even if it means increasing the costs (or decreasing the profit margins) for companies.
In any case, the problem isn't just the switching costs for users who discover their platform is limiting their app choices (or increasing their app charges), it's that companies trying to sell apps to users can't choose to simply "Don't use an iPhone", as Apple is preventing commerce between iPhone users and those companies, which is again not socially beneficial.
- You can download Facebook and WhatsApp from the Meta Store
- You can get Google software from the Google Store, except Gmail and Maps which are available in the Apple App Store too, but YouTube is a Google Store exclusive. Or and Authenticator is only available on the Google App Store with a valid company login. So you'll have to switch accounts depending on if you are logging in as a user for yourself or your company.
- You can get Netflix from the App Store, Google Store, or Facebook store but each requires that you log in to the respective store with an account before logging in to your Netflix account and the pricing is different depending on the cut each of the stores takes. Google is interested in finding what Netflix shows you are watching so they can adjust your YouTube algorithms.
- You can download Twitter from the Apple App Store and Google, but not Facebook.
And you can download the MLB App if you have a Prime subscription because of a new partnership, but only if you have the Amazon Prime App.
Can't wait!
-edit-
As a general shareholder I care. But in that area I think Apple will figure out a solution that keeps the status quo. They're #1 for a reason.
You're right that there are other bills in the pipeline. I think the user experience will be worse off because of them and we'll lose lots of ground on privacy and convenience, but it's inevitable because small, vocal minorities usually win even when they make everything worse for everyone else.
It'll be interesting to see the fallout though. It won't take long for others to connect the dots and start filing lawsuits for any store or platform with any sort of standards. Obvious first targets are companies like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft for consoles. But other non-obvious targets will start being platforms. Take Chrome - why can I only use (and maybe I can't and I don't know) Google's Chrome Store to install third-party software? Or rather, why can't I install another "App Store" on Chrome and replace Google's? Maybe you can (and I'd argue it has to be identical in terms of convenience and ease of use to qualify) but there will definitely be other, similar targets for lawsuits.
Two points
1. User experience is already bed. No access to game streaming services and many valid open source apps not available on iOS
2. User experience is not be the only matrix that matters. What about poor indie developer whose app is banned due to opaque App store rules. What about having control over device you bought with your own money
> What about poor indie developer whose app is banned due to opaque App store rules
They'll just have the opportunity to get banned from more than one store I guess. Then once this indie developer decides its profitable to scam their customers they'll create their own app store and just install their software that way, bypassing any legitimate bans too.
1. More app store will compete with each other to provide better app delivery service to developers.
2. Host the app on a website and install it from there. No need for app stores. There I solved it for you
I'm not going to reply to you anymore as your arguments lack depth and seriousness
The real reason they do this is they perceive it as a free source of income, which they can then use to buy off states to keep them in the EU itself. Note how the rules only apply to really big companies (i.e. US companies), and the fines are really big, and the rules are vague. It'll be a cash cow that avoids upsetting any local interests, the fact they can drape it in pro-consumer clothes is just a bonus from their perspective.
Free market isn't really free if you have no competition due to network effects and lock-in.
I do. Apple repeatedly discriminates against sexual minorities in the App Store, and it's appropriate for a government to step in and stop that.
- the sector
- who has nothing to lose
- and what could be lost
I think I understand who/what you imply but I don't want to misunderstand you.
* The EU
* Tech sector
>Included in the rules' scope will be platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion
So the rules are meant to target only the TOP part of the Tech Sector. Not the Whole Tech Sector. There could be backfires on everyone though.
I do feel though that the Apple/Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Amazon are innovating less and less and are going into cash squeeze mode. There has been a lot of talk on Hacker News on how Google search quality is decreasing.
All the privacy laws containing Facebook push them to bet on something new Meta/Oculus. So I think here the effort is to allow smaller tech to thrive and grow.
I have a lot more faith in a viable competitor coming out of California than I do in EU regulations improving search results.