[thedevil]

I doubt it. You and I are both going to get heavily downvoted for this by the devout Apple fanatics, but it's unreasonable that Google is held to a much higher standard than Apple.

Google gives away the OS for free (speech and beer), allows competition on the devices, but requires bundling of its app with its store (which has competitors).

Apple not only bundles the apps, it explicitly locks out competitors with code, forbids competitors in their agreements with customers and developers, and IIRC forbids developers who write for its platform to also put the same app on any competing app store (which again are forbidden by contract and locked out with code).

[Yetanfou]

It goes further than this. Android, being free software, can be used without any Google-proprietary code by anyone who so wishes. Running a 'Google-free' phone is not only possible, but practiced by many - without any repercussions from Google as the code is, after all, free. If the user so requires, Google-proprietary apps can be installed on demand, removed on demand, replaced or updated or whatever - under control of the user.

In jail terms, Google puts its users in a light security facility, Apple users are locked up on Alcatraz.

As to why the EU plans this action on Google (first) is a good question. It is clear that the wheels of justice are seldom round, and greased in strange ways...

[mcintyre1994]

I won't downvote you and I agree that Android is way more open, but I understand antitrust to be about monopolies. I don't think Apple is anywhere close to a monopoly position with iOS in any market, and I'd be surprised if they're above 50% in any European market.

[Yetanfou]

Apple has a 'local monopoly' in that it is the only choice for those who have bought into the iOS (and, to a lesser extent, OSX) family. Combine this with the fact that many schools use iPads and the situation soon becomes clear: in some segments Apple has a remarkably high presence.

Now you can say 'but anyone who buys Apple devices does so with the knowledge that these restrictions apply', and that is certainly true. The same can however be said for anyone who buys an Android device, with the added factor of being able to select alternatives for those Google apps and services.

In other words, if the EU thinks Google should be prosecuted, then so should Apple, for all the same reasons - only more so.

[mcintyre1994]

Can you define a market that Apple has a monopoly in that a regulator should investigate? You've identified current iOS users, but surely that's circular? I don't doubt that iOS market share is super high in some segments, but do any of them constitute a regulated market?

In education the last I heard was Chromebooks are at over 50% of devices in US schools, and that's against Windows and iOS. I'm sceptical Apple have a monopoly in education except "tablets in schools" which again doesn't seem like a whole market.

[Yetanfou]

Identifying iOS users as a target for Apple's monopoly is no more circular than identifying Google-branded (ie. Nexus et al) Android users as a target for a Google monopoly. Non-Google branded Android can, and often does use non-Google apps and stores so that segment can not be considered to be monopolised by Google. In practice the same is true for Google-branded Android devices as it is possible - and not all that hard - to swap Google apps for others.

As to whether I think anyone should investigate Apple and Google I'd say 'no', but that is not what this is about. I don't think Google should be investigated for the stated reasons, but if the EU insists on investigating something I claim there is at least as much ground to investigate Apple as there is to do so to Google.

Where I live - Sweden - Apple does have a large presence in schools. The situation with regard to IT in Swedish schools seems to be that there is money, but no plan. This makes it possible for 'driven' people to steer their local community in the direction they deem to be the preferable. Many of these 'driven' people have a marked preference for Apple products.

[mcintyre1994]

I'm not so sure that Google actually does have the same circular monopoly power as Apple, because really it's just about lock-in and - from experience - moving from Android to iOS is really easy. You don't lose any data and everything is cross platform by default. Going the other way by contrast, you'd have to deliberately move things into third party cross platform apps.

I'm also not sure whether that would count as a monopoly if they did have sufficient lock-in, given their vast market share - as a hypothetical. I guess probably yes.

I'd agree that neither should be investigated, but I do disagree that Apple have as much grounds to be - they just don't have the market share.

I was probably too simplistic on education, it's a difficult issue for sure. My ICT teacher in school used to have a pretty big budget and spend it on toys because he got Windows hardware/software so ridiculously cheap. Microsoft had made the ICT curriculum in the UK entirely based on learning how to use their software and apps. All their stuff can be obtained between free and really cheap for students from school to university, and it's pretty much always the standard expectation to use it. And then you have iPads and Chromebooks taking over, probably not running Microsoft apps and probably like you said with no real plan. It's interesting and probably broken, but there's probably no monopolistic player there.