Very interesting to see that this concerns app stores as well as web browsers. Web browsers had not been mentioned in most declarations regarding anti-competitive investigations about Apple so far.
This is very important because Apple is preventing competition in web browsers engines, forcing competitor browsers (like Chrome and Firefox) to use the engine under Safari (WebKit), which they fully control. By doing so they deprive other browsers of most of their value, and prevent the development of web applications capable of competing with native applications, because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification.
While I agree with almost all of your comment--particularly strongly with regards to the way Apple has hobbled the web as a competitor to their App Store platforms, but notably also with respect to Firefox being locked out here--given your first phrase, it is worth at least considering the argument that the only reason why there is currently any "competition in web browsers" at all is Apple being a stubborn asshole about the whole thing, as otherwise it feels highly likely that everyone, everywhere, on every single platform, would be using Chrome...
It might seem stupid and petty, but this was my single biggest gripe with the year I spent on an iPhone which led to my going back to Android after that phone (like all the others in my life) expired.
The web browser is my single-most used piece of software, and I'd really like to choose which one I use, thanks (Firefox, in case you're wondering).
That and not simply being able to drag and drop mp3s to listen to.
I "use" Chrome on my iOS/iPadOS devices periodically. I use it for the integration with Google services, the shared state with Chrome on my other devices -- bookmarks, currently open pages, passwords, etc. I jump between devices and this integration is critical. This is mostly between my iOS and my Windows existence.
I use Safari in a similar way, albeit mostly between my iOS and macOS existence.
The number of times I've missed a Chrome engine feature is somewhere approximating zero.
So saying "most of their value" seems pretty specious. If Chrome were faster, used less power, or had some value proposition rather than integration, sure, but it isn't. Here's a fun hottake - Chrome forced to use webkit on iOS is almost certainly better than Chrome would be if it used Google's own engine.
"because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification"
There is always something that becomes the critical missing ingredient. Yet uptake of web apps on Android and the desktop is somewhere in the proximity of non-existent (but always explained away by shaking one's fist at Apple). The suite of features in web apps has grown spectacularly, and now encompasses high performance graphics, a massive VM, game controllers, gyroscopes and cameras and microphones, but there is always just one more thing that Apple is always to blame for.
This is another futile thread that is going to be brigaded by the anti-Apple crew, so please enjoy downvoting to try to assuage whatever hangups you have.
I've always wondered that in a theoretical pure market economy where success ultimately leads to domination of one or more competitors, and failure for everyone else, will always result in a more restrictive market economy afterwards.
Apple succeeded (and almost died first, I know, I was there at the time) in integrating hardware and software and Google succeeded in building a better search engine and dominating ads, plus buying Android, yet today there are basically no alternatives to iPhones and Android phones, and search is still majorally dominated by Google. Economically speaking, the market economy allowed them to become dominant in their categories. If you throttle competition to avoid mono/duopolies, do you throttle success for everyone? If you clamp down after successful domination, does that really increase competition? Is there a balance somewhere, or is this basically always going to happen?
High Barrier of Entry is always going to create monopoly. Who wants to invest tens of billions every year just to stay on top of leading edge Node and try to compete with TSMC? Even Global foundry being bankrolled by Saudi couldn't afford it.
>do you throttle success for everyone?
It isn't about market monopoly, it is about the abuse of its power once you reach that status. It has to be fair and just.
A more cynical version. This will go nowhere after the Conservative party in the UK receives a number of large political donations from business leaders who do not work for Apple and Google, but do play golf with them.
The UK wants to show it has teeth post Brexit, but will find out shortly it can't tackle FAANG without broad political support from other countries.
This is what they said about GDPR, and yet here we are. The UK may not have the heavyweight political importance that the EU has, but it's a key market; we can only hope things change because as they stand it's only going to get worse and worse.
[+] [-] agust|4 years ago|reply
This is very important because Apple is preventing competition in web browsers engines, forcing competitor browsers (like Chrome and Firefox) to use the engine under Safari (WebKit), which they fully control. By doing so they deprive other browsers of most of their value, and prevent the development of web applications capable of competing with native applications, because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification.
[+] [-] saurik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detritus|4 years ago|reply
The web browser is my single-most used piece of software, and I'd really like to choose which one I use, thanks (Firefox, in case you're wondering).
That and not simply being able to drag and drop mp3s to listen to.
[+] [-] defaultname|4 years ago|reply
I use Safari in a similar way, albeit mostly between my iOS and macOS existence.
The number of times I've missed a Chrome engine feature is somewhere approximating zero.
So saying "most of their value" seems pretty specious. If Chrome were faster, used less power, or had some value proposition rather than integration, sure, but it isn't. Here's a fun hottake - Chrome forced to use webkit on iOS is almost certainly better than Chrome would be if it used Google's own engine.
"because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification"
There is always something that becomes the critical missing ingredient. Yet uptake of web apps on Android and the desktop is somewhere in the proximity of non-existent (but always explained away by shaking one's fist at Apple). The suite of features in web apps has grown spectacularly, and now encompasses high performance graphics, a massive VM, game controllers, gyroscopes and cameras and microphones, but there is always just one more thing that Apple is always to blame for.
This is another futile thread that is going to be brigaded by the anti-Apple crew, so please enjoy downvoting to try to assuage whatever hangups you have.
[+] [-] coldcode|4 years ago|reply
Apple succeeded (and almost died first, I know, I was there at the time) in integrating hardware and software and Google succeeded in building a better search engine and dominating ads, plus buying Android, yet today there are basically no alternatives to iPhones and Android phones, and search is still majorally dominated by Google. Economically speaking, the market economy allowed them to become dominant in their categories. If you throttle competition to avoid mono/duopolies, do you throttle success for everyone? If you clamp down after successful domination, does that really increase competition? Is there a balance somewhere, or is this basically always going to happen?
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
High Barrier of Entry is always going to create monopoly. Who wants to invest tens of billions every year just to stay on top of leading edge Node and try to compete with TSMC? Even Global foundry being bankrolled by Saudi couldn't afford it.
>do you throttle success for everyone?
It isn't about market monopoly, it is about the abuse of its power once you reach that status. It has to be fair and just.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|4 years ago|reply
I do not see any other possible result in a market for products with near zero marginal costs and high barriers to entry.
[+] [-] comfyinnernet|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxfordmale|4 years ago|reply
The UK wants to show it has teeth post Brexit, but will find out shortly it can't tackle FAANG without broad political support from other countries.
[+] [-] ccity88|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imNotTheProb|4 years ago|reply