[theboat]

As much as I agree with your general sentiment, Apple Maps, like many of Apple's mobile apps, gets a boost from Apple's anti-competitive practices. It's utterly ridiculous that we can remove default apps from iOS, including Maps and Safari, but we can't set new default apps to replace them.

If we ever get serious about increasing competition in the tech sector, an easy place to start is letting users set default browsers, maps, and email clients on their devices.

[krrrh]

What's worse for consumers in the end though?

One profession missing in the parent comment are the researchers innovating on differential privacy. Apple has taken great pains to figure out ways to improve their maps without storing massive amounts of private user data, to the extent that they split routes in half, fuzz addresses, and analyze the start and end of trips independently.

There's an argument that Google had such a huge head start on maps, that without Apple having the capacity to set defaults (on a platform that is not even a plurality of users), Apple Maps wouldn't have gotten enough users to justify improvements to where it is now. Apple also didn't get serious about having its own maps until Google attempted to exercise their at-the-time near-monopoly power to jack up licensing costs. Now the mere existence of Apple maps puts pressure on Google to improve the privacy features of its own map products as we've seen recently.

Apple funds map development through device sales, and Google does it through targeted advertising, map services for third parties, and profiling users. Do we value competition only of mapping products, or should we also value a diversity of business models for mapping products? It's no small decision to bring in the Kommissar.

[theboat]

While I sympathize with your viewpoint, you're imposing your personal values on consumers who demonstrate their willingness to exchange personal data for free services every day. You and many HN users may balk at this, but most people are ok with trading privacy for real-time traffic predictions. Apple shouldn't receive an unfair market advantage because they embody the values you hold dear.

Sidenote: I disagree that Apple Maps' success puts pressure on Google to up their privacy game. On the contrary, Google Maps comparative advantage is their data trove, as there are many more users of Google Maps than Apple Maps, so they seem more likely to lean on that to succeed.

I wouldn't look to the market to improve privacy, since as I said above, the market clearly doesn't care about privacy much at all. Without a seismic shift in public attitudes towards privacy, it's up to the government or the companies themselves to adapt.

[ogre_codes]

> you're imposing your personal values on consumers who demonstrate their willingness to exchange personal data for free services every day.

Are they demonstrating their willingness, or do they simply not understand that there is a choice to be made? Considering the trivial difference in mapping performance in most places, I doubt most people would be willing to give up their privacy in exchange for saving a few seconds on their drive to the mall.

> Without a seismic shift in public attitudes towards privacy,

If people were truly aware of how much data is collected on them, how many people would opt in for the marginal benefits you get in return?

[theboat]

There have been so many opportunities for a grassroots pro-privacy movement to develop, and yet there isn't one. Devastating hacks (Target, Yahoo), election interference (CambridgeAnalytica), and yet nothing.

Acting as if people are unaware of data collection is disingenuous. If you told the average facebook user how much facebook and its third-party partners knew about them, I doubt many of them would stop using the platform.

[ogre_codes]

You seem pretty disconnected from what normal people see and experience. Ask some random/ non-tech people about those hacks, data-breaches, and what their privacy expectations are when doing basic things like web searches. I guarantee you most people don't know who Cambridge Analytica is and couldn't tell you which major banks/ retailers have been breached.

It's not just ignorance, but a sense of helplessness. People don't feel in control and don't have any clue how they might reduce what data leaks out in their daily lives. The thing is, they are absolutely right.

I know and understand a lot of this stuff and I don't feel like I'm in control of my data. Even if you take precautions, Google and Facebook track your progress across the web. If you don't use Google Maps, Google still tracks your location using your IP address for network calls (often when you aren't deliberately connecting to Google services) and both Google and Facebook have been slurping up people's purchase history through credit card companies.

How is someone who doesn't have a clue about this stuff supposed to exert any control or choice when the people attacking their privacy out-gun them so thoroughly?

[krrrh]

Press release from google, 2019-10-02:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.google/technology/safety-s...

* Added incognito mode to maps

* Expands auto deletion of old data to include locations, and location searches

Now... this might not be due solely to competitive pressures from Apple, but it was a topic of conversations I had with pro-privacy Android users I know who have been warming up to iOS. Feature introductions like this definitely take the edge off.

[the_reformation]

By this same logic, consumers are willing to exchange their inability to set a default Maps app in exchange for the iPhone bundle, at the price Apple provides (discounted because of the services revenue they can extract.)

[blkhp19]

> Apple shouldn't receive an unfair market advantage because they embody the values you hold dear.

Then buy Android if that's a tradeoff you're willing to make.

[celticmusic]

calling ignorance a willingness seems a bit much to me.

[wolco]

iPhones are not the market leader and do not have to follow molopoly based rules. They can allow apple maps only and all is legal.

[selectodude]

Google didn’t try and raise the price, they demanded user data in exchange for access.

[tinus_hn]

Anyway it was clear that Google got leverage out of the deal, for instance they wouldn’t allow navigation while it was available on Android, no vector maps while they were available on Android etc.

That was never going to work for Apple.

[krrrh]

Good correction! Though I recall that negotiations broke down across both factors.

[hesarenu]

Are you saying users should give up freedom privacy( even though apple is willing to give up in china ). User choice is still better then corporate handouts.

[skizm]

One specific thing that bothers me is that Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE with Windows, but apple doesn't get in trouble when they block all browser apps that don't use Safari under the hood. How is this different? I want Google and Mozilla (and anyone else) to be able to make iOS browser apps from scratch if they want. It wouldn't be an issue if you could sideload apps easily, but the app store is really the only legit way to get apps on your non-jailbroken iPhone.

[taywrobel]

Apple doesn’t have sufficient market share to be considered a monopoly. That’s generally how they’ve skirted around the issue, and by positioning themselves as a premium brand, they can raise prices on their hardware to the point that market share remains sufficiently small to not be subject to monopoly laws.

At the time of the MS/IE lawsuit (2001), Microsoft Windows had well over 95% of desktop operating system market share.

[skizm]

Fair point.

[krrrh]

Because the DOJ suit against MS was misguided and unnecessary. It had little effect on eroding Microsoft's supposed stranglehold on the browser market. When browser monoculture began to really hurt consumers and innovation the market found solutions through improved collaboration (W3C getting its act together, and developers embracing web standards), business model innovation (mozilla foundation embracing open source vs. Netscape charging $40 for a commercial license), and better technology and industry/community collaboration (khtml and webkit). Even some eventual deadends like Flash played a role at the time in routing around the untenable, but very temporary, situation of IE v.4-6 dominance.

Edit: I want to add that during the suit MS reps had a glib but prescient defense: "we think web browsers should be free". They meant as in beer, but they were right in the larger sense, and few would disagree with them today.

Netscape was arguing that their by-then totally crappy commercial browser deserved protection from the state, when their demise had a lot more to do with insane bloat and their embrace of groupware.

[jonfw]

The big differentiator here is that Microsoft had a dominant monopoly on PCs. Apple is a huge huge player in the smartphone space, but they're still in no danger of having a majority of the market.

[millstone]

Microsoft got in trouble for licensing deals: strong-arming OEMs to force them to bundle Windows. Apple doesn't license iOS.

[larrywright]

The issue with the browser (and sideloading) is security. Browsers by their nature are essentially apps that run arbitrary code from an unknown location. How do you ensure security of the devices if you don’t control the browser?

Safari is great on iOS. I’ve never felt the need to run something different. Same with sideloading apps. I’ve never seen the need for that. Maybe I’m an Apple fanboy but I think they’re doing the right thing in both cases.

[milesskorpen]

Apple doesn't have the market share MSFT did back then.

[wolco]

You can remove them? Android doesn't allow me to remove them wasting my space.

Not setting a default is bad too. Wish I could get there.

[tssva]

Apple won't even let you remove the Chess app from macOS without disabling system integrity protection.

[kylemh]

and then, even if we could set the default browser, having a webkit-Chrome is stupid also...

[t223]

and webkit firefox

[hyperbovine]

> letting users set default browsers, maps, and email clients on their devices.

This is so disingenuous. It's called Android. People hate it. Although the walled garden may offend you personally, the market at large has spoken.

[pgodzin]

Of all the options to hate Android, having the option to change default clients is probably pretty low...

It's probably enough to make anyone switch to Android, but it can still be a welcome addition to iOS

[BlewisJS]

Are you implying people hate Android and that iOS is way bigger in terms of market share?

[dkonofalski]

Isn't that kind of self-defeating, though? Like the ACA without the individual mandate? The only way this works is if people use the apps on the iPhone. There's nothing stopping you from using Google Maps on an iPhone but, in order for the tech to improve while remaining strong with privacy, is for Apple to utilize their existing technology. Also, I disagree that it's anti-competitive. Users are always allowed and able to switch to another device/ecosystem.

[judge2020]

It's extremely similar to the microsoft IE issue, users should be able to set a default web browser.

[criddell]

The difference is that Microsoft dominated the market. Apple has a relatively small slice of the smartphone pie.

If Google restricted the user in the same way, that would arguably be closer to the Microsoft situation because their marketshare is 2x Apple's.

[ASalazarMX]

How about we bake in competitive openness regadless of company size? Why is it right to build corrals as long as yours is not the biggest?

[robin_reala]

Because the user has an easy choice. Monopolies are not a problem in themselves, it’s when that monopoly is leveraged to crush competitors out of the overall market.

[riversflow]

I seriously don’t understand why this sentiment(not yours) is so prevalent on HN. If we want competition in the tech sector, it seems to me that government enforcement of modulization would only hinder such competition. Why should a large corp’s web dev team care about mobile safari if they can just write on their page, “it seems you are using safari on mobile, we recommend downloading mobile chrome(AppStore hyperlink) and setting it to default, as of $PREVIOUSYEAR we will no longer support it.”? To me as things currently stand(that is Apple is not a monopoly), Apple’s walled garden approach absolutely embodies the spirit of a free market. Consumers have the choice of products and the defaultness of iPhones is fairly widely understood at the market level, best I can tell. Anecdotally of course, but almost all the l people I’ve talked to who buy an iPhone state that they buy it because they “don’t want to think about their phone” that seems fair to me.

[zepto]

I think this is fine, but only if we also bake in all of the things that Apple has achieved using their dominance.

- Strong encryption - Privacy Protections - Not using user data

[airstrike]

I think that depends on how you define "market". Globally, sure, but in the US that's not the case

https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-...

[criddell]

The market is all the places the devices are sold. So global makes sense. If you define the market as San Francisco then Apple might have a monopoly. But that feels a little like market gerrymandering.

Even if you were going to restrict to just the US, Apple still sells fewer than 50% of the phones.

[airstrike]

Fewer than 50% is different from "Google sells twice as many"

> The market is all the places the devices are sold.

Certainly US regulators / courts don't purport to have jurisdiction over foreign markets, agreed? The aforementioned EU case against Microsoft was about the EU market alone.

[tssva]

"Users are always allowed and able to switch to another device/ecosystem."

Google would like you to have a discussion with the EU on their behalf.

[dkonofalski]

Google's market share globally dwarfs Apple's. That comparison isn't the same at all. If Google pushes their own products on consumers using the power it has established in that market, it's a monopoly and the EU is 100% in the right in enforcing restrictions to that. It's exactly the situation Microsoft found itself in during the 90s.