It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
We're closer than we have been in a long time to something like Google deciding to license Blink or Chromium. There are some good reasons that couldn't happen (yet), but what a world that would be.
I want to start reading "Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History", which covers the now failed anti-trust system in the United States, but I am worried for my blood pressure, as it covers many other ways in which our government almost exclusively works for its corporate owners. We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical, but it's only because we got so far away from the…
> We may think of how Europe deals with big business as extreme and radical
What has Europe done in the last decade in anti-trust? Vestager brought a series of suits that got overturned by the courts, or charged monopolists peanuts for brazenly violating the law.
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.
Where did you get the idea that Apple is selling iPhones at a loss?
I think the main thing which really needs to be done is allow a non-apple App Store which hosts the apps on non-apple servers. Only reason I can see Apple's 30% cut (15% would be better) justified is that they host the download files for apps and also review them. So I can see why they need a cut - 30% is too much imo.
Of course that comes with its on risks as Apple won't be able to control what apps get installed but if Google can do it, then so can Apple. This way Apple can keep their App Store guidelines consistent across all developers and developers who don't want to go through the sometimes tiresome review process plus give apple the 30% share, can use this alternate App Store.
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
Does Apple still sell phones at a loss? If so they are subsidizing eyeballs for app devs and need to somehow get paid back for this.
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
I mean, couldn't we just replace Microsoft->Sony and PC->Playstation and the argument falls apart a bit? > Imagine if Sony did this on Playstation. a) prohibiting the installation of non-PlayStation games and b) insisting that all purchases done via their store give them a 30% cut. Many platforms are like this -- and many also have the majority marketshare. Is this a call to redefine what platforms can and cannot con…
finger crossed. Fortnite is not really the hill I have seen this battle take place. For example Apple also rejected the satirical app of a Pulitzer winning journalist (it does not make their app good but suggests that the content was probably not just a fart joke). Still, people should be able to install whatever they want on their phones, without Apple playing walled garden. It is not good for devs getting squeezed…
Epic has the massive financial war chest to see this through, though. If anyone can afford to push this through the legal process, it's Epic.
This will cost Epic more money than it will Apple. Either company can end up dragging the legal battle on for years. In the meantime Epic's game won't be available on Apple platforms. By the time that battle is over, the game is probably not popular anymore.
I don't think this should be regulated at all. Apple should be able to impose their rules in their systems. Let's be clear about this, if people are choosing to buy these black-box closed handheld computing devices, there are consequences that come with that choice.
Regulation often does more harm than good, and I'd agree with you if intellectual property didn't exist. Apple's entire business model rests on copyright and patents which make it impossible for competition to challenge their position. (Think about the products which would emerge if people were free to reverse engineer, modify, and redistribute Apple's technology.) This artificial advantage comes with a price, and that price happens to manifest as regulation by the same entity which enforces its ability to make its insane profits. If the government thinks they've taken their artificial advantage too far, they're ethically free, or even obligated, to artificially limit that advantage.