When consumers fire up the latest iPhones for the first time in the coming weeks, they’ll find the device brimming with Apple Inc.’s home-grown apps, already installed and set as default programs. This prized status isn’t available to outside software, making it hard for some developers to compete, and that’s catching the eye of lawmakers probing potential antitrust violations in the technology industry.
Aside from possible antitrust issues, it’s just a user-hostile setup designed not to bring the best possible user experience to users, but merely to boost Apple’s own applications and services. Not being able to set your own default applications and link handlers in 2019 is entirely indefensible.
I’m against most forms of user customization, because most users are too stupid to be trusted with more than minimal control of anything, but this is one of those edge cases where I’m on the other side entirely. Setting default applications on a phone is pretty obvious, easily reverted, and can’t really fuck anything up too badly, so let the users do it.
Android phones are brimming with Google Apps too. Even Samsung is forced to put them in the home screen.
Google just couldn’t decide on a default chat app and as a result they let iMessage build a certain critical mass in the US (keep in mind that the value of a network is it’s members squared). We are in a state where you can guess the age of an Android phone by the Google chat app it comes pre-installed with.
Imagine if Google hadn’t decided on YouTube and had kept Google Video alive, and also had went ahead and make half a dozen more video hosting sites.
This is a article is not about included apps from the OS. How not being able to decide on a chat app is relevant is beyond me.. Google has never required a default chat app from them as far as I can remember. This is the key sentence from this artcile here –> “Not being able to set your own default applications and link handlers in 2019 is entirely indefensible.” Google does not block users from doing any of this.
There is a lot of valid criticism one can level towards Google but trying to compare iOS to Android on allowed customization is ridiculous. Hell, Google still doesn’t lock down the bootloader on their phones.
If you own the platform… you can load whatever you want.
Though antitrust concerns may be leveled upon them, this is an easily won case. The premise of the question/comment is flawed. It’s predicated on a “PC” mindset where each component of the computer (in this case phone) is comprised of different players with none of them having inherent control over the platform.
If by chance, in some clown world Apple were to lose such a case… OS NEWS will need to lawyer-up as the floodgates will be open for litigation for its anticompetitiveness tendencies by insisting that they be the exclusive supplier of OS News logos on their web site.
So too should every other company that exclusively owns, manages and provides all the components of their product/service.
haus,
Manufactures do preload what they want, but once a customer parts with their money to own a device, it doesn’t make sense for companies like apple to continue to hold coercive restrictions over owners after sale. Sure apple still holds a legal copyright, but copyright law has never granted apple a right to enforce walled gardens. This was obviously never intended by congress and if there was ever any doubt, federal regulators made that explicit.
https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
This is stretched so far I think you are very confused. You and I don’t own osnews.com, so as a non-owner why would you expect any rights over its contents? Seriously, go on and elaborate your logic here…I’ll go fetch me some popcorn, this ought to be interesting 🙂
>”Sure apple still holds a legal copyright, but copyright law has never granted apple a right to enforce walled gardens.”
It’s the EULA that the user agrees to that does.
>”This is stretched so far I think you are very confused.”
No need to condescend. I’ve thought this through.
>”You and I don’t own osnews.com, so as a non-owner why would you expect any rights over its contents?”
You’re making MY point.
Software developers who want to allow their apps to be default on Apple’s platform don’t own Apple’s platforms either.
In the same way we can’t lay claim to OS News’ logo implementation, others can’t dictate what apps Apple loads on its platforms or makes default. To clarify further, Apple’s “product” is the hardware with the os with the applications, with whatever tie-ins they deem important to their business.
I’m not “confused”. I’m using an absurd example here to show how absurd the ask is. Simply put,… to demand that Apple adopt a partitioned model akin to a PC is no different that me demanding that OS News use my implementation of a logo on the site in leu of theirs.
haus,
Can you quote specifically what you are referring to?
You know what, we’re both in full agreement that it’s an absurd example!
You say you’re not confused, yet your example is as confused as ever.
Not for nothing, but the law (at least in the US) does NOT give blanket rights to the licenser. consider that the DMCA itself explicitly grants users the right to reverse engineer software to achieve interoperability with other programs. This isn’t something we need permission for, this is something the law entitles us to. For all of it’s mistakes, it’s pretty damn clear that congress intended for us to have certain rights within reason that override the license-holder.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf