Hacker News Reader

Comment by beardyw | Hacker News Reader

I am struggling to get my arms round this

I mean, it's not actually about the browser, but let's ignore that.

Companies that sell phones choose to install a particular OS. Apple's choice is obvious, for others (99.9%) it's a version of Android. The vast majority of those choose to use Google's ecosystem with its Playstore.

Much as I can understand the sentiment, I can't see how it equates to a stranglehold. If others want to create a new OS and get manufacturers to install it they can.

Whether the UK has any clout compared to the EU is a different question.

View on HN

On iOS, it is about the browser, as Apple is acting anti-competitive by not allowing any other browser engines but their own. Browser makers can't compete with Safari by making a faster browser for example, because they won't be able to deploy it on iOS device. All applications go through the App Store, and the App Store forbids any browser engines not made by Apple.

Regarding the app stores, it seems like lawmakers are catching up with the idea of "If I buy it, I should be able to own it and make my own decisions", which includes being able to install applications from 3rd party developers. It seems like a fine idea that Apple has a default application index where you can install applications from, but what is not fine is Apple deciding which application indexes should be allowed to exists in the first place.

Kind of like how lawmakers wouldn't look the other way if suddenly all macOS computers only allowed installation of software from the App Store. Purchasing a device shouldn't mean "The company decides what I'm allowed to install on this thing".

There is one key requirement of a mobile phone that doesn’t apply to a desktop scenario: the device MUST adhere to carrier-specific requirements, some of which may block access to telephony-associated hardware, or require that a manufacturer be able to provide a minimum standard of performance. Do you see AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or other carriers complaining about having only one browser engine per device?

Do you see them requiring only one browser engine on all of the Android devices they sell? No.

The requirements of carriers are orthogonal to browser choice post-sale.

Does that include consoles and smart TVs?

If definitely should in my opinion, though legislation seems to fall behind there because the tight grip on hardware has been there for decades now.

Although, I don't see any technical reason why Google wouldn't be able to put Chrome on Xbox and PlayStation. Nintendo is very browser averse (probably because every time they stick a browser in something it's full of holes and leads to jailbreaks).

Hopefully, the Steam Deck will open people's eyes at what could be. So far its sales don't seem to be dropping off.

If they get to the point of hurting competition, why not?

Hurting competition? Console manufacturers have had stricter requirements and more onerous developer restrictions than any mobile platform since the 80s.

That's not the same as hurting competition though. Are there games that consumers are playing on mobile platforms that aren't allowed on consoles?

The approval process and the dev kit requirements for console games have always been a nightmare for third party game studios compared to just buying a $599 Mac Mini and $99/year to get into the developer program.

Sounds like they’re overdue for oversight, then.

Competition authorities now look at situations that end up uncompetitive, so in this case there is (perhaps implicit, or they are looking for) evidence that its not easy to launch a new phone platform and OS because of the behaviour of the existing platforms. I think the question they need to answer is whether its due to the behaviour of the uncumbents, or that the cost of making a competitive OS (with maps etc) is very high. You could also argue that Android is "price dumping" as it is cross subsidised via the ad business (as is iOS too as Google pays billions) which makes it more complex from the competition point of view.

At this point, the EU regulatory bodies are probably inclined to agree with their former brethren. There seem to be very few national or supranational governments left that are going to bat for these companies.

> If others want to create a new OS and get manufacturers to install it they can.

That is always true for any monopoly. Any company could create their own phone system and compete with AT&T. That was never in doubt. The problem is that it is not happening, there is no competition, and when there is, some FAANG buys it.

Capitalism does not work without competition. Economies of scale and the network effect makes it really difficult to compete. Or governments do something, or stagnation and centralised control take over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com