Apple Inc. is considering giving rival apps more prominence on iPhones and iPads and opening its HomePod speaker to third-party music services after criticism the company provides an unfair advantage to its in-house products.
The technology giant is discussing whether to let users choose third-party web browser and mail applications as their default options on Apple’s mobile devices, replacing the company’s Safari browser and Mail app, according to people familiar with the matter. Since launching the App Store in 2008, Apple hasn’t allowed users to replace pre-installed apps such as these with third-party services. That has made it difficult for some developers to compete, and has raised concerns from lawmakers probing potential antitrust violations in the technology industry.
Just the mere possibility of antitrust action is making Apple considering changes to improve competition – the strength of legal action. Of course, these concessions are way too little, and especially the EU will want more than just competing Safari skins – that’s all third-party iOS browsers really are – and mail clients.
It amazes me Apple doesn’t allow it’s users to change it’s default apps but it’s Google that is getting sued. I could never use a device with that kind of lock down. It was like only two years ago one could change the damn keyboard on an iPhone. WTF?
Saying that… Allow users to change the default apps and put out an iPhone with a full display and USB-C I would consider switching off of Android. I do like Apple’s software support and better all round privacy record. iMessage would be really nice but no real Firefox may be a no go.
MJ,
Yeah apple deserves to be sued for anticompetitive practices, they clearly built more restrictions into IOS with the intention of blocking free market competitors more than google has with android. Although this isn’t to put google in the clear either. It just sucks that the regulators tasked with protecting consumer interests aren’t doing their jobs. It always seems that the more powerful these corporations become, the more they are able to corrupt washington regulators to get even more advantages. Neither the legislative nor executive branches are interested in tacking the corporate takeover of the country. Trump is a particularly nasty bread of authoritarian who will do anything to empower himself at the expense of the country, he’s willing to have the executive branch look the other way for personal favors. The problem for voters is that neither party ever does much of anything to deroot corporate corruption. Obama didn’t stop it, Bush didn’t stop it, Clinton didn’t stop it, etc. Both parties are in lockstep with corporate interests. Independents like Sanders have the best track record in voting against corporate abuses, but independents struggle to actually win seats & votes against the democratic and republican majorities. It’s hard to be optimistic under the circumstances.
It makes literally no sense for Apple not to allow the web browser or email client to be changed. I don’t care what Apple thinks, this bone headed decision has been harmful to Apple more than anyone else.
Regarding their bank account, no so much.
It does seem the next logical step to me. After all, after nearly a decade, we finally got USB storage. There was no excuse for something so simple to take so long, and like the decision to disallow users to change their defaults, it hurt Apple more than it actually hurt anyone else.
I don’t think it’s the threat of regulation, or at least that’s far from all of it. Apple, after all, aren’t really a monopoly in any of their products, quite the opposite in fact as they often have a much smaller share than their competitors. However, They’ve been pushing this narrative of the iPad as the post-PC device (whatever that means) for years, gradually expanding its functionality to be more like that of a PC while still keeping the iOS user interface paradigm. Allowing default apps to be changed is a logical step in that process and one that should have been done a long time ago. The real question is, of course, will they actually allow this as they should?
darknexus,
Well, it’s an anonymous leaker who says apple is only considering changes internally. We shouldn’t take it too seriously until apple actually changes it’s policies for products that are actually shipping.
They had an early monopoly but historically apple focuses on strategies that emphasize profits rather than marketshare. Apple prices themselves too high for large swaths of the market. Their products provide less value for price sensitive shoppers and some argue that apple is not interested in selling commodity products anyways. Of course their balance sheets show this strategy may well be justified, however the risk is that they may loose relevancy without a growth strategy.
https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os
You may be right that it’s not just about regulation, however it’s not unusual for corporations to self-regulate in an attempt preempt lawsuits either. They want to avoid the fines and corporate handcuffs that can burden them for years.
I agree that apple’s ultimate goal seems to be replacing macos with ios.
I’m sure this won’t end well, I’m betting on a big I told you so from the Apple Eco system, followed by some end user / developer blaming and shaming before a round of to and fro with the EU!
I don’t think Apple’s heart is in it!
How generous of Apple to consider letting people configure the phones they’ve bought & own in a way that suits them. Where do I put their cookie?
Apple have never ever been secretive about its ruling their own ecosystem. People followed because it was “simpler”, or “more secure”, or “more integrated”, or “whatever reason that suit your taste”. Nobody never ever forced people to buy Apple’s products. There is many alternatives, and was even more alternatives before (Windows Phone, Blackberry, WebOs, SailfishOS, FirefoxOS, …). What, I hear people complaining about the apps ? Do people forget it’s a fucking phone in the first place ? I’m not an Apple fanboy at all, I’m more an Android guy, but I don’t care about Apple’s ecosystem, I always found it too much restrictive and expensive. But that’s my personal taste and anybody can switch. Anybody.
Kochise,
I could nitpick some things in there, but more importantly I think the problem isn’t that there’s no competition, but that there is so little competition. Vendor locking is a problem and we need to recognize that duopoly markets are extremely unhealthy for innovation and competition. I hate having to choose between android and IOS, and yet I really am *forced* (using your word without any exaggeration whatseover) to do so in order to do echecking with my bank for example. The fact is nearly all developers go where the users are (ios and android) and nearly all users go where the developers are (ios and android). It sucks, but you’ve got virtually no support for a third platform. Sure, choosing between two is *a* choice, but we should never pretend it’s as good as having lots of choice because it isn’t.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s easy to say there is or was lots of alternatives and then rattle off a list of everything you can think of but that’s not a list based on practicality. We realistically live in an IOS or Android world. There may technically be alternatives but if they’re not suitable alternatives, what are they really? Not worth mentioning imo. What could be a drop-in replacement for IOS or Android and be a true `daily driver`?
It really is a pity that it has come down to just these two choices. Both Jolla and Microsoft had nice alternatives that could’ve gained traction easily enough. It’s too bad, though somewhat ironic, that both companies screwed themselves by screwing someone else: Windows Phone developers in Microsoft’s case, and customers in Jolla’s.
Are you sure you replied to the right post? It’s an odd response to what I said.