#mobile app duopolies

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Enter American culture-war nonsense.

In Texas, they want to ban websites that explain how to get an abortion, as well as sites that ship the pills for a medication abortion. In Florida, they want to force bloggers who write about the state government to pay a fee and register with the state, prohibiting anonymous commentary about the state legislature and its actions. Florida has also required that online providers cease permitting their users to display pronouns other than the ones they were assigned at birth. Of course, online services have no way to know what pronouns any of their users were assigned at birth, so sites like Github are complying with Florida law by simply not displaying pronouns to Floridian users.

The biggest barrier to enforcing these laws is the US Constitution, which these laws assuredly violate. It’s entirely possible that a lower court will uphold these laws. It’s conceivable that an appeals court will do so as well. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the current Supreme Court — illegitimately stacked with far-right partisan hacks lacking any shred of principle — will follow suit.

But it’s far from a sure thing. It’s not even clear whether the legislatures that passed these laws and the governors who signed them want them to be enforced. After all, if these policies do come into force, large numbers of corporations are likely to shutter their offices and move out of state (especially in Florida, an increasingly economic irrelevance for any business not engaged in selling soon-to-be-drowned condos and/or shitcoins).

For these cynical political operators, having their laws overturned by “activist judges” lets them eat their cake and have it too — they don’t have to alienate the business lobby, and they get a steady supply of red meat for their cruel base, driving voter turnout and donations from frightened bigots.

-They’re still trying to ban cryptography 

[gizopedia]

Introduction: A Battle for the Mobile Ecosystem Have you ever wondered why Apple and Google dominate almost every aspect of your mobile experience? From the apps you download to the browsers you use, their influence seems nearly inescapable. That’s why the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has stepped in, casting a critical eye on their operations. Their findings? A duopoly that might be stifling competition and innovation in the mobile sector. Let’s unpack what the CMA discovered, how it impacts you, and what it could mean for the future of mobile technology. What Did the CMA Find? The CMA’s investigation into Apple and Google’s dominance of the mobile ecosystem sheds light on practices that could hinder competition and innovation. Here are the key findings: 1. A Stranglehold on App Stores Apple’s App Store and Google Play Store together account for the lion’s share of app downloads globally. Their dominance raises concerns about the fees they charge: High Commission Rates: Both platforms take up to 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions, potentially inflating prices for you as a consumer. Barriers for Developers: Small and independent developers face difficulty competing on these platforms due to high fees and strict policies. 2. Browser Control The CMA highlighted how both companies dominate mobile browsing: Apple’s Safari is the only browser engine allowed on iOS, meaning all other browsers on Apple devices (like Chrome or Firefox) are essentially re-skinned versions of Safari. Google Chrome leads on Android, bolstered by its integration into Google services and search dominance. This tight control limits innovation in browser development and creates fewer choices for you. 3. Search Engine Dominance Google pays Apple billions annually to remain the default search engine on Safari. This exclusive arrangement marginalizes smaller competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing, keeping you locked into Google’s ecosystem. 4. Stifled Innovation The CMA found that Apple and Google’s rules often delay or restrict new technologies: App Review Bottlenecks: Apple’s lengthy app approval process can slow innovation. Data Restrictions: Google’s policies on data sharing can make it harder for smaller developers to build competitive apps. How Does This Impact You? The CMA’s findings go beyond corporate strategies—they reveal how Apple and Google’s practices directly affect your mobile experience. 1. Higher Costs Ever wondered why apps and subscriptions feel pricey? Developers often pass on the high fees imposed by Apple and Google to consumers. Whether it’s a monthly streaming service or an in-app purchase, you’re likely paying a premium due to this duopoly. 2. Limited Options When companies dominate markets, innovation often takes a backseat. For instance: You might want a faster browser, but Apple’s Safari restrictions limit what developers can offer. Alternatives to Google’s search engine might interest you, but they don’t stand a chance against Google’s default status on iPhones. 3. Slower Technological Progress With fewer competitors able to enter the market, advancements in apps, browsers, and even mobile operating systems are delayed. The result? You miss out on cutting-edge features and technologies. The CMA’s Recommendations The CMA didn’t just identify issues; they proposed actionable solutions to promote competition and innovation. 1. Lowering App Store Fees The CMA suggests reducing the commission rates Apple and Google charge developers. This move could lead to cheaper apps and services for you. 2. Enabling Browser Competition Allowing third-party browser engines on iOS could open the door for faster, more secure, and feature-rich alternatives to Safari. 3. Breaking Search Engine Deals By preventing exclusive agreements like Google’s payment to Apple, the CMA aims to give you more options for search engines tailored to your needs.

4. Alternative App Distribution The CMA recommends allowing developers to distribute apps outside the App Store and Google Play, bypassing the high fees and restrictions entirely. Apple and Google’s Defense Unsurprisingly, both companies have defended their practices. Let’s look at their arguments: Apple’s Argument Security First: Apple claims its strict App Store policies protect users from malware and scams. Performance Optimization: Apple insists its browser restrictions ensure better performance and security on iOS devices. Google’s Perspective Open Source Defense: Google highlights Android’s openness, which allows alternative app stores and sideloading. Security Investments: The company points to its efforts in improving app security and providing developers with advanced tools. While these arguments hold some merit, critics argue that they often serve as excuses to maintain their dominance. What Does This Mean for Mobile Innovation? If the CMA’s recommendations are implemented, the mobile landscape could shift dramatically. Here’s how: 1. Leveling the Playing Field Smaller developers and startups could have the chance to thrive without being bogged down by high fees and restrictive policies. This could lead to a surge in niche apps and services designed to cater to specific needs. 2. Lower Costs for Consumers As competition increases, developers may pass on savings to you, leading to cheaper apps, subscriptions, and even devices. 3. Faster Tech Advancements Freed from the constraints of Apple and Google’s rules, developers might deliver groundbreaking features and innovations faster than ever before. Challenges to Implementation While the CMA’s recommendations sound promising, they come with challenges: 1. Global Enforcement Tech giants operate globally, and enforcing UK-specific regulations might require broader international cooperation. 2. Increased Costs for Compliance Implementing these changes might lead to higher operational costs for Apple and Google, which could ultimately be passed down to consumers. 3. Balancing Security and Openness Opening up ecosystems could lead to security risks, including an increase in malicious apps or data breaches. The Road Ahead The CMA’s findings mark a significant turning point in the mobile industry. However, achieving meaningful change will require sustained effort and cooperation between regulators, tech companies, and developers. For you, this could mean more freedom to choose apps, browsers, and search engines without restrictions. It could also lower prices and bring cutting-edge innovations to your fingertips faster. But it also raises important questions: Can regulators enforce fair competition without compromising security? And how will Big Tech adapt to these changes? Final Thoughts: The Future of Mobile Innovation The CMA’s report isn’t just a critique of Apple and Google—it’s a wake-up call for the tech industry. As these companies continue to shape your digital world, the push for fairness, competition, and innovation has never been more critical. What’s your take? Should Apple and Google loosen their grip on the mobile ecosystem, or do you trust their control to keep your experience seamless and secure? Stay informed about the latest in tech and innovation! Subscribe to Gizopedia for in-depth analyses, updates, and expert insights on the trends shaping your digital life.

[havnblog]

Alternatives to Forcing Apple to Provide Solutions to Their Competitors

On Anti-Trust, APIs, and Market Participation

This week’s episode of the Upgrade podcast, was a good one as usual. I especially liked the discussions surrounding a potential pair of Apple smart glasses, and the way this connects to the regulatory scrutiny Apple is under currently.

Jason refers to the fact that Federico Viticci loves the Meta Ray Bans, but still really wants Apple to create a pair. And he then asked what I deem to be a crucial question:1

Do we want smart glasses from Apple because of what they do better than the competition, or because of what they are allowed to do, but that they bar their competitors from doing?

Let me use earbuds as an example, as they are more common. I’m delighted with my AirPods Pro – and they’re a better fit for me, and my Apple hardware, than a pair of Sony buds (for example). But when looking at the reasons why I pick one over the other, here’s something I think it’s crucial to distinguish between: Which of them are due to things Apple does better, in fair competition (maybe I prefer the sound, or noice cancelling), and which of them are due to things Apple blocks Sony from doing (like pairing fairy dust)?

A side point: Why I think Apple's main markets require more regulatory scrutiny than something like the gaming market:

Their main markets, especially the smart phone one, is extremely large in absolute terms.

As opposed to things like the gaming market, it's one everyone* has to participate in.

Many people game on a PS5, but also on PC and mobile, etc. Very few daily more than one phone OS.

A complete monopoly isn't the only way to have anti-trust issues. For instance, a duopoly doesn't necessarily mean healthy competition.

This brings me to a clip I wanted to share from the podcast, where I agree with a lot, but wanted to add something:

More solutions

What I wanted to add, was that there are more solutions than Apple being forced to make stuff for its competitors. And I think the European Commission holds this opinion as well.

Solution 1: Don’t blockmore

Because, I don’t think Apple would’ve been forced to share their work with Meta, if Meta was allowed to do it themselves.2

Solution 2: Don’t participate in every market

I know this is a crazy question, but: What if being a super-profitable trillion-dollar company was enough? What if we didn’t require growth at all cost, and these behemoths didn’t feel the need to be everything to everyone?

Let’s say Apple mostly focused on their main hardware, like the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Maybe it would have been healthier if they competed against their competitors in these markets on playing nice with peripherals (in a privacy-minded way), instead of creating their own?

I’ve written about the need for un-bundling and smaller markets before (and also the beauty of third-party services)!

Solution 3: What Jason said

Now, if Apple insists on participating in every market, and on maintaining total control, I do think they need to be forced to create open APIs. And honestly, this might be the best solution for consumers! AirPods are great, Apple doesn’t need to “cheat” – and it would be a shame to lose them. And I don’t think they should be forced to sell the H2 to someone like Jabra. The problem is that competitors literally can’t make something that works as well with my phone. (And the “Jabra should just create their own trillion-dollar phone ecosystem” argument is so bad, that I don’t even want to address it.)

I don’t think my preference for phone should dictate (or at least influence) as many things as it does today. Things like choice of earbuds, smartwatch, cloud storage, note-taking app, etc.

I’m paying every month for an iCloud storage plan (200 GB), as I need it to back up my devices and Photos library. But why can’t I instead use some of the 2 TB of Dropbox storage I already pay for?

An argument for using Apple Notes, I hear from time to time, is the reliability of the sync on iOS. But the main reason for this, is that it’s allowed to sync in the background, while something like NotePlan has to be brought to the forefront to sync. I get that every app on my phone can’t get background privilege – but why can’t I swap Notes.app for NotePlan?

Regulation is suboptimal.

It’s ofter better if things shakes out without politicians meddling. However, sometimes, it doesn’t. And I’d say we’re currently at a place where it’s almost impossible for new players to thrive in, and define, emerging technology markets. For instance, I think the Humane AI pin can both serve as a lesson on hubris, and one on how some ideas have* to come from a company that’s already dominating. And that’s a big problem.

Perhaps a better example (even though I have several issues with the state of AI) is OpenAI. Will they manage to become an important, and independent,3 player, or, when all is said and done, will things concentrate around Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Google?

Paraphrased by me. I don’t want to put words into Jason’s mouth – but I still wanted to give him credit for the point! ↩︎

But it’s a good thing if Apple provides guard rails when it comes to things like privacy! ↩︎

Or are they already “Microsoft”, for all intents and purposes? ↩︎

[saurabhbagchi]

The Gift that Keeps on Giving to Apple and Google

That gift is the mobile app stores, respectively, the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store [I will use the lower case letters “app stores” to refer to the generic portals, while capital case refers to the specific one from Apple.]. They generate revenue for the duopoly of Google and Apple through the fee assessed from all app developers for all in-app purchases, subscriptions, or paid…

[lukajagor]

Microsoft debuts new Copilot+ PCs using OpenAI's GPT-4o while taking shots at Apple

"have a natural conversation with the app"

MS is making big steps, hopefully it's gonna get back into the smartphone business. Duopoly must end. 

[thomas]

Browsers are the most likely disruptor of the mobile duopoly

[vcdoctor]

Top 10 Best Telemedicine App Development Companies In The USA

Digitization is gaining ground in every industry and is even affecting the healthcare sector. The digital revolution in the healthcare industry has driven the growth of healthcare IT companies. Let’s know the Top 10 Best Telemedicine App Development Companies in the USA.

Mobile healthcare or healthcare applications are fast becoming the preferred way for healthcare providers and insurers to increase patient satisfaction and improve health outcomes. Today, telemedicine refers to the provision of real-time clinical services via two-way communication. It works between the patient and the healthcare provider.

The growth of telemedicine will help patients receive healthcare services on their phones, including virtual doctor visits via video chat, prescription management, and health reports. The healthcare industry will also benefit from convergence with wearable technologies, which will provide 24* health checks, clinical trials, and access to emergency healthcare.

For companies looking to build mobile applications to take advantage of this growing opportunity, it is vital to find development partners with the experience and know-how to create successful applications in this highly regulated field.

What are the best mobile app development companies on the market that I should contact? For this question, you must have an answer about the platform on which you want the mobile app, and for this, you must consider various things. You must have an idea about the requirements of your app, budget, etc. As just a result, we’ve established this weblog to help you.

Here are the top ten companies in the US for mobile application development.

App Development Platforms

Years of fierce competition led to a duopoly of the mobile operating system. There are currently two major established platforms — iOS and Android OS. There is also Windows 10 Mobile, although its market share in the US is less than 1% and in all other markets less than 10%.

So, the major platforms people look for app development are iOS and Android. They prefer iOS or Android development, and if they want an application on both platforms, they prefer cross-platform app development.

Top Telemedicine App Development Companies

1. VCDoctor

2. Interexy

3. Table XI

4. Y Media Labs

5. Impekable

6. ScienceSoft

7. Intersog

8. Boston Technology Corporation

9. UpTop

10. Appstem

How to Choose the Best Telemedicine App Development Company?

Now that we have listed the top 10 telemedicine app development companies, the following questions might arise how to choose the best among the best?

A few things to consider while choosing the best telemedicine App Development company are:

Previous work or business sector experience

Reviews and recommendations

Market value

Challenges tackled and resolved

Other than these, you will have to discuss with the company about your requirements and find the complete quote.

Conclusion

The application development sector is maturing as several large international agencies have emerged. As healthcare needs grow worldwide, they regularly face the challenge of providing innovative approaches to meet these demands. Medical software companies provide solutions within a medical space by building and delivering products, services, and systems.

Original Blog source: https://www.vcdoctor.com/blog/best-telemedicine-app-development-companies

[jsbmarket]

Microsoft's Mobile Games Store: The Future of Mobile Gaming!

Microsoft has plans to develop mobile games store for Android smartphones and iPhones as early as next year. Its regulatory approval is pending for $75 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Phil Spencer, the gaming chief of Microsoft said that the goal of the firm is to offer content from third-party partners and Xbox on any screen that people want to access. Phil Spencer also said that the DMA (Digital Market Act) of the EU will come into effect in March 2024.

And this will assist the firm to achieve the goals for the mobile app store. With the DMA in effect, it will allow businesses to put their app stores on Android phones and iPhones by asking Google and Apple to open their systems. Even if currently, it is not possible to do so on mobile devices, they want to move towards a world and build the technology they think will ensue as the devices open up.

The impact on competition is a concern and the regulators from Europe, the UK, and the US also spoke on this in regards to Microsoft, the Xbox console’s owner acquiring one of the popular game franchises, the developer of Call of Duty. Because of this, the regulators and Microsoft both are in a battle already.

The tech giant has received an antitrust warning from the European Union about the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The EU officials in their report also detailed the potential threat and concerns to fair competition in the market for video games and the reasons for the deal’s objections. The FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) also filed a lawsuit about the acquisition of the video game developer Activision Blizzard, by Microsoft.

Phil Spencer said that the acquisition will enhance the competition, especially on the dominant platform for gaming, such as smartphones. Most people use Google and Apple are used for the distribution of apps and games. And this concern about duopoly was also expressed by the antitrust authorities.

Visit: - https://jsbmarketresearch.com/news/microsoft-to-develop-mobile-gaming-app-store-for-smartphones

Follow our social handles:-

Instagram:- https://www.instagram.com/reel/CqC4lF0o8TX/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/reel/1667405907051548

Twitter:- https://twitter.com/JSBMarket/status/1638103610398773249

YouTube:-  https://youtube.com/shorts/rfdsGpiJlqQ?feature=share

LinkedIn:- https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jsbmarketresearch_microsoft-mobilegames-appstore-activity-7043869436197412864-c4ny?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop Pinterest: —  https://pin.it/5DViRGr

[mostlysignssomeportents]

National firewalls are everywhere today. Sometimes, they’re sold as turnkey solutions — by both Chinese and western firms — to poor countries with very little technical capacity of their own. Spy agencies from large, powerful countries love it when poor countries install foreign-made national firewalls, as these are key to “third-party collection” (when a spy agency taps into another spy agency’s files) and “fourth-party collection” (when a spy agency taps into another spy agency that has tapped into another spy-agency’s files).

As national firewalls proliferate, so too do enforcement nexuses. After Edward Snowden revealed that US tech giants were allowing US spy agencies to plunder their user data, the EU imposed a (perfectly reasonable) data localization regulation that required US tech companies to keep Europeans’ data on servers within the EU (this regulation remains contentious and fragile).

The EU doesn’t have a regional or national firewall, so tech giants who don’t want to comply with the regulation could simply withdraw their sales offices and engineering departments and lobbyists from the EU and ignore the rule — at least to the extent that they could convince US courts not to enforce EU judgments against them.

But the EU has other enforcement nexuses it could rely upon. It could order European banks and payment processors to block payments to tech firms that ignore the localization rule. Payment processing remains a highly regulated, concentrated industry, and even if, say, Facebook was willing to give up on 520,000,000 European consumers by retreating to the USA, it’s unlikely that Visa and Mastercard would follow suit.

-They’re still trying to ban cryptography

[gizopedia]

Introduction: A Battle for the Mobile Ecosystem Have you ever wondered why Apple and Google dominate almost every aspect of your mobile experience? From the apps you download to the browsers you use, their influence seems nearly inescapable. That’s why the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has stepped in, casting a critical eye on their operations. Their findings? A duopoly that might be stifling competition and innovation in the mobile sector. Let’s unpack what the CMA discovered, how it impacts you, and what it could mean for the future of mobile technology. What Did the CMA Find? The CMA’s investigation into Apple and Google’s dominance of the mobile ecosystem sheds light on practices that could hinder competition and innovation. Here are the key findings: 1. A Stranglehold on App Stores Apple’s App Store and Google Play Store together account for the lion’s share of app downloads globally. Their dominance raises concerns about the fees they charge: High Commission Rates: Both platforms take up to 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions, potentially inflating prices for you as a consumer. Barriers for Developers: Small and independent developers face difficulty competing on these platforms due to high fees and strict policies. 2. Browser Control The CMA highlighted how both companies dominate mobile browsing: Apple’s Safari is the only browser engine allowed on iOS, meaning all other browsers on Apple devices (like Chrome or Firefox) are essentially re-skinned versions of Safari. Google Chrome leads on Android, bolstered by its integration into Google services and search dominance. This tight control limits innovation in browser development and creates fewer choices for you. 3. Search Engine Dominance Google pays Apple billions annually to remain the default search engine on Safari. This exclusive arrangement marginalizes smaller competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing, keeping you locked into Google’s ecosystem. 4. Stifled Innovation The CMA found that Apple and Google’s rules often delay or restrict new technologies: App Review Bottlenecks: Apple’s lengthy app approval process can slow innovation. Data Restrictions: Google’s policies on data sharing can make it harder for smaller developers to build competitive apps. How Does This Impact You? The CMA’s findings go beyond corporate strategies—they reveal how Apple and Google’s practices directly affect your mobile experience. 1. Higher Costs Ever wondered why apps and subscriptions feel pricey? Developers often pass on the high fees imposed by Apple and Google to consumers. Whether it’s a monthly streaming service or an in-app purchase, you’re likely paying a premium due to this duopoly. 2. Limited Options When companies dominate markets, innovation often takes a backseat. For instance: You might want a faster browser, but Apple’s Safari restrictions limit what developers can offer. Alternatives to Google’s search engine might interest you, but they don’t stand a chance against Google’s default status on iPhones. 3. Slower Technological Progress With fewer competitors able to enter the market, advancements in apps, browsers, and even mobile operating systems are delayed. The result? You miss out on cutting-edge features and technologies. The CMA’s Recommendations The CMA didn’t just identify issues; they proposed actionable solutions to promote competition and innovation. 1. Lowering App Store Fees The CMA suggests reducing the commission rates Apple and Google charge developers. This move could lead to cheaper apps and services for you. 2. Enabling Browser Competition Allowing third-party browser engines on iOS could open the door for faster, more secure, and feature-rich alternatives to Safari. 3. Breaking Search Engine Deals By preventing exclusive agreements like Google’s payment to Apple, the CMA aims to give you more options for search engines tailored to your needs.

4. Alternative App Distribution The CMA recommends allowing developers to distribute apps outside the App Store and Google Play, bypassing the high fees and restrictions entirely. Apple and Google’s Defense Unsurprisingly, both companies have defended their practices. Let’s look at their arguments: Apple’s Argument Security First: Apple claims its strict App Store policies protect users from malware and scams. Performance Optimization: Apple insists its browser restrictions ensure better performance and security on iOS devices. Google’s Perspective Open Source Defense: Google highlights Android’s openness, which allows alternative app stores and sideloading. Security Investments: The company points to its efforts in improving app security and providing developers with advanced tools. While these arguments hold some merit, critics argue that they often serve as excuses to maintain their dominance. What Does This Mean for Mobile Innovation? If the CMA’s recommendations are implemented, the mobile landscape could shift dramatically. Here’s how: 1. Leveling the Playing Field Smaller developers and startups could have the chance to thrive without being bogged down by high fees and restrictive policies. This could lead to a surge in niche apps and services designed to cater to specific needs. 2. Lower Costs for Consumers As competition increases, developers may pass on savings to you, leading to cheaper apps, subscriptions, and even devices. 3. Faster Tech Advancements Freed from the constraints of Apple and Google’s rules, developers might deliver groundbreaking features and innovations faster than ever before. Challenges to Implementation While the CMA’s recommendations sound promising, they come with challenges: 1. Global Enforcement Tech giants operate globally, and enforcing UK-specific regulations might require broader international cooperation. 2. Increased Costs for Compliance Implementing these changes might lead to higher operational costs for Apple and Google, which could ultimately be passed down to consumers. 3. Balancing Security and Openness Opening up ecosystems could lead to security risks, including an increase in malicious apps or data breaches. The Road Ahead The CMA’s findings mark a significant turning point in the mobile industry. However, achieving meaningful change will require sustained effort and cooperation between regulators, tech companies, and developers. For you, this could mean more freedom to choose apps, browsers, and search engines without restrictions. It could also lower prices and bring cutting-edge innovations to your fingertips faster. But it also raises important questions: Can regulators enforce fair competition without compromising security? And how will Big Tech adapt to these changes? Final Thoughts: The Future of Mobile Innovation The CMA’s report isn’t just a critique of Apple and Google—it’s a wake-up call for the tech industry. As these companies continue to shape your digital world, the push for fairness, competition, and innovation has never been more critical. What’s your take? Should Apple and Google loosen their grip on the mobile ecosystem, or do you trust their control to keep your experience seamless and secure? Stay informed about the latest in tech and innovation! Subscribe to Gizopedia for in-depth analyses, updates, and expert insights on the trends shaping your digital life.

[argumate]

but really porn is just the canary in the coal mine that our supposed general purpose computing devices are tightly controlled by a duopoly that makes Microsoft in the ‘90s look relaxed and open minded: Apple doesn’t want porn apps on its phones, so there are no porn apps on its phones; other apps can stay if they tithe 30%, but they’re on thin fucking ice.

you can leave Tumblr and go to another social network, but if that gets sufficiently popular it will face the same threat, there is no escape.

the last bastion of freedom is the open web, and I anticipate the day when mobile Safari blocks access to sites that aren’t signed by Apple, for security reasons.

the right to install whatever software you want on your own computer is a vital one, and we should be fighting for it.

[justforbooks]

When Covid-19 has done with us, what will be the new normal?

By John Naughton

From online GPs and home working to smartphone tracking, the speed at which we are embracing technology is unprecedented – but can we trust it?

Pandemics – as the historian Yuval Noah Harari has observed – press the fast-forward button on history. Suddenly, changes that would in pre-corona times have generated years of debate, dissent, hesitation, opposition and delay turn out to be possible overnight.

Exhibit A in this context is the way in which hundreds of thousands of white-collar workers are suddenly able – indeed, required – to work from home.

Exhibit B – more worrying – is the way governments are either already deploying, or actively considering, surveillance technology of such intrusiveness that it would have caused outrage and furious protests even a month ago.

Exhibit C is the decision of the two huge tech companies that control mobile phone technology – Apple with its iOS operating system and Google with Android – to create application programming interfaces (APIs) that will enable governments to build and deploy proximity-tracking apps on every smartphone in the world. This is remarkable in two ways. One, it involves cooperation between the two members of a global duopoly that would normally trigger antitrust suits – yet there hasn’t been even a whimper from competition authorities. And two, the companies insist that if governments do not comply with the conditions that they – Apple and Google – are laying down, then they will withdraw the APIs. The specific condition is that apps using the APIs are not mandatory for citizens. They have to be opt-in. So here we have two powerful global corporations laying down the law to territorial sovereigns. Unthinkable a month ago. But now…

Signs of dramatic changes are everywhere – even in GP surgeries. The New York Times published an interesting report on how the work of GPs in London is being transformed by the virus. “We’re basically witnessing 10 years of change in one week,” one GP told the paper. “It used to be that 95% of patient contact was face-to-face: you go to see your doctor, as it has been for decades, centuries. But that has changed completely.” Before the virus, video appointments made up only 1% of annual appointments with British GPs and other practice staff. But the NHS has urged thousands of clinics across the country to start switching to remote consultations and has fast-tracked approval of digital providers to ramp up their offerings.

One of these providers is accuRx, which was already being used by many GPs as a trusted tool for sending text messages to patients. As the crisis deepened, accuRx built a video-calling system over a weekend after the virus arrived in the UK and has – according to the NYT report – quickly become “the go-to provider for online appointments, offering a stripped-down interface and the comfort of having long been in primary care clinics”. Having watched one of their instructional videos, I can see why it’s taken off. Zoom could learn a few tricks from them.

While the pandemic continues to turn the world upside down, new realisations are beginning to dawn on us. As the tech analyst Ben Evans puts it: “We’re all online now, and, just as importantly, we’re all willing to use this for any part of our lives, if you can work out the right experience and business model. Today, anyone will do anything online.”

Well, up to a point. While it’s true that not being online suddenly puts one at a real disadvantage, community volunteers up and down the country are realising that there is still a serious digital divide: and on the wrong side of it are many elderly people – who are the most at risk from the virus.

The most important implication of the breakneck changes currently under way, though, is that there’s no going back to normality. That train has left the station. The coronavirus isn’t going away. And even when there is a vaccine, the risk will endure, because climate change and the erosion of wildlife habitats will ensure a ready supply of zoonotic viruses. Companies will have learned to build supply chains with resilience built in. White collar workers will have discovered that they don’t have do as much commuting as before. Air travel will go back to being a luxury. And so on.

A useful metaphor for the new normal will be what happens when driving a car on black ice. The worst thing to do is to slam on the brakes, because then you completely lose control. Instead you pump them – brake a little, then back off and repeat the process until back on gritty tarmac. Our immediate futures will be like that: a combination of what some people are beginning to call “the hammer and the dance” – the hammer of successive lockdowns followed by digital dances in which we use surveillance and testing to find and control outbreaks. We are heading into a cautious, rather than a brave, new world – with Orwellian overtones. I wonder what Aldous Huxley would have made of that.

* John Naughton is professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University. He is the author of From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: What You Really Need to Know About the Internet

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at http://justforbooks.tumblr.com

[flurrymobile]

iPhone XR outselling iPhone 11 Ahead of Christmas

By Peter Farago, Flurry GM

With its stronghold in the United States, Apple iPhone sales during Christmas are nothing short of critical for the company’s continued success. In this report, Flurry evaluates the iPhone 11 launch, from September up through the first week of December.

Flurry additionally reviewed device activations of the iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max, comparing those to activation trends of earlier models such as the iPhone 7, 8 and X series. Flurry Analytics, part of Verizon Media, is used by over 1 million mobile apps, providing aggregated insights across more than 2 billion active mobile devices per month. Let’s dive in, starting with some important context.

The Release Machine

Each Fall, starting in 2007, Apple has released a new set of iPhones. Some pushed the boundaries of innovation while others delivered more incremental improvements. Up through the release of the iPhone 7, introduced during September 2016, unit growth was exceptional. However, with the launch of the iPhone 8, Apple began facing a combination of market saturation, increased competition and slowing device replacement cycles. In many ways, newer iPhones competed against the quality of Apples’ own older iPhones, as customers held onto their devices past the typical two year period. As the category matured, Apple unit growth slowed. Apple was entering a ‘post-iPhone era.’

Let’s Talk Revenue

In November 2018, Apple announced that it would no longer report unit sales, and instead report revenue. Leveraging its massive iPhone install base, the company began extending revenue through wearables (e.g., Apple Watch, Beats, AirPods) as well as services (e.g., AppleCare, App Store, Apple Pay, Apple Music and the latest Apple Card credit card). While the company continues to set record revenues  -- its market cap surpassed $1 trillion in October as it toppled Microsoft to become the world’s most valuable company -- much of its continued success relies on a healthy iPhone install base onto which services and wearables revenue is stacked. 

A Perfect X?

While this year’s iPhone 11 release (2019) is viewed as more incremental, last year’s XS, XS Max and XR (2018) offered a bigger jump in technology, extending strongly on the previous year’s initial release of the iPhone X (2017) which was co-released with the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus. In particular, the iPhone XS devices pushed the boundary of price points with the fully loaded, high-end XS Max topping out at around $1450. As unit sales slowed, Apple sought to push price points up.

Most importantly, the success of the iPhone XS, XS Max and XR have helped stabilize the company’s dominant, but declining market share in its most valuable market, the United States. Let’s take a look at the multi-year market share trend.

The chart above compares market share in the United States between Apple, Samsung and Other device manufacturers. We selected the full month of September across each year for consistency, and because that’s when Apple typically releases its new devices. Sales of new Apple devices tend to accelerate across October, November and December on their way to Christmas Day, when the largest surge of devices enters the market. From 2017 to 2018, Apple’s share of active devices dropped by nearly 3 percentage points, whereas it stemmed its decline in market share between 2018 and 2019 to just under one percentage point, strongly stabilizing its market share position. From 2017 to 2018, Samsung gained around 1.5 percentage points in market share, but saw slower growth of 1 percentage point between 2018 and 2019. Combined, the Apple and Samsung duopoly managed to reverse market share erosion caused by the rest of the pack. Notable players in ‘Other’ category include LG and Motorola which held 8% and 4% of the US market, respectively, as of September 2019.

Based on prior Flurry analysis, we know that the 2017 iPhone 8 launches were relatively weak compared to the 2018 launches of the premium XS and XS Max models, which extended on the new X platform released by Apple at the end of 2017. In 2018, Apple also changed tack by releasing a high-value yet lower-priced iPhone XR, about a month after releasing the more premium XS devices. The XR not only performed exceptionally well last Christmas, but also continued to drive significant adoption throughout 2019. In short, we believe that the XR has been the primary ballast for Apple’s market share during 2019. And it looks as though the trend is continuing, even after the iPhone 11 launch. 

The iPhone XR Juggernaut

Below is a percent breakdown of the top iPhone models activated in the market during the first week of December 2019. We color-coded the iPhone X series devices orange, the iPhone 11 series blue, and all other devices grey. Inspecting the chart, you’ll notice that the top device is the iPhone XR, which captured 14% of total device activations, followed by the iPhone 11 and then the iPhone 7. As a total series, the X phones captured 29% and the 11 phones captured 26%. The rest, 45%, were spread across older devices.

So why is the XR doing so well? Our hypothesis is that Apple offered a tremendous value with the lowest storage version priced last year at $749. While the XS and XS Max offered a crisper OLED screen, the XR LCD screen was the same that shipped with the 8 and before. Quality differences are hard to discern unless holding the two devices next to each other. The XR also came with the same front camera as the XS, and much of the same rear camera functionality despite having just one camera lens. The XR screen was larger than the XS (but smaller than the most expensive XS Max). The last main difference was storage. Unless you wanted 512GB, you could get the XR with 256GB for $250 less than the equivalent XS and $350 less than the equivalent XS Max.

Now with the 11 series shipping, the XR’s lowest price version has dropped to $599. With incremental changes to the 11 series, mainly around camera and battery life, more value-oriented shoppers continue to reach for the XR. For equivalent-storage devices, iPhone 11 costs $699, iPhone 11 Pro $999 and iPhone 11 Pro Max $1099. This means the XR ranges from $100 to $500 less than the newly available iPhone 11 devices.

The Samsung Flanker 

Strategically, we believe Apple sent its solid-quality XR down-market with a much lower price point to disrupt the market share progress of the Samsung Galaxy line. Over the years, Apple has taken the premium segment of the market while Samsung has grabbed more of the middle of the market. As Apple is hitting the upper limit for price points, reaching market saturation, and facing a smaller quality-gap between both Samsung and its own legacy devices, it chose an effective flanking strategy, turning the XR into a fighting brand. This protects its total device base, upon which it is building a healthy services business, compels more price-sensitive iPhone consumers to upgrade from older devices, and holds the line for the higher-end 11 line to continue to own the premium end of the market.

Can Apple’s Christmas go to 11?

Apple is strongly positioned for this holiday season with a one-two punch offered by the XR and the iPhone 11 product line. We speculate that we’ll see a surge in the 11 series on Christmas Day, with the iPhone 11 finally surpassing the XR as the preferred gift to give. Any devices purchased, but intended as gifts, will go live in the market then. However we expect the XR will remain at least the second most activated device for Apple this Christmas, given its unprecedented value. Look for our Christmas Day report during the last week of December to review the final results with us. Until then, happy holidays from Flurry!

[megpie71]

1) At least part of the problem we're looking at here is the fact mobile apps are effectively controlled by a duopoly - you can be Apple or Android, and that's world-wide (as far as I'm aware - if someone wants to point out any other similarly well-established and well-supported operating system for mobile service, please do).  Which means the controllers of that duopoly (Apple and Google) hold disproportionate power over what we are allowed to see online.  This is not good for online freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

2) The tendency toward "everything has its own app" is worrying as well.  I mean, do you actually NEED an app to access Tumblr on mobile?  No, you can just access the browser version.  But we're pushed into thinking if we can't see an app for it, then it doesn't exist - even if all the app does is replicate website content in a narrow-screen format.

3) Just switching from iPhone to Android doesn't solve the overall problem.  Because the overall problem is that we're effectively putting half our eggs in one of two corporate baskets - and corporations are not immortal.

alright let's talk about Apple and Tumblr's current predicament. If you don't know already, I used to work at Tumblr as an iOS engineer. Though I keep in touch with current staff at Tumblr (what little that are left that I know) I do not have picture of what's going on internally. The banned word list is absolutely perplexing and I can only theorize why tags like 'long post' are banned from appearing on iOS. What I can do is give you a peek into how the Apple App Store review process works, so you have an idea of the hell that Tumblr staff is dealing with right now.

Let me be clear about this from the get-go: I think Apple's censorship policies are wrong and they have no grounds to be policing adult content within apps on the app store. Apple's power to set content policy over apps is absolutely fueled first and foremost by internal policy that goes back to Steve Jobs. After that, they're beholden to payment processors wanting to distance themselves from porn. Finally, there's lawmakers and policy that influence them as well. I think these are the 3 things that shape their policy decisions, in order.

What happens when you submit an App to the App Store?

You compile an app and submit it to the app store, and it proceeds through an automated and manual process to review your app to ensure it meets Apple's standards. Apple's standards are 1) non-malicious, functioning programs, and 2) programs that adhere to the App Store's review guidelines that cannot be asserted in the same way a program can. These guidelines are judged by a human being assigned to your app during the review process. The review process used to be long, sometimes it would take weeks, but in recent years they've got it down to about 24 hours.

Now, there's a laundry list of things in those guidelines, but we're going to focus on adult content because that's the most relevant. If a reviewer runs your app and finds porn, your app is rejected and you're told to correct the problem.

What's Tumblr dealing with now?

In the case of Tumblr, this would be a reviewer going to search, typing in something like 'tits' and finding porn. Sometimes they would search something more innocuous like 'socks' (yeah, i know) and find porn. Sometimes they would search something completely innocent and find porn anyways. Tumblr would get rejected.

This happened regularly. I'd say once every 5 updates (every time Tumblr updates the iOS app, they have to re-submit the app for review). A reviewer would find porn, and respond by sending us the steps they followed to find it and a screenshot of the content. Tumblr staff would remove the porn, resubmit, the reviewer would find nothing, then approve the app. Once in a while Tumblr would get a really persistent reviewer. It would take a handful of porn scrubs and re-submissions before they'd finally green-light an update.

Sometimes, however, Tumblr would get a reviewer who flags tumblr for porn, and when Tumblr opened the rejection notice, the screenshot would be something completely not porn. I'm talking stuff like a woman in a bikini. Not even posing in a porny way. Something you'd see in like, a laser hair removal ad. In these cases, Tumblr would appeal the rejection, saying the content doesn't violate our policies (and to the best of our knowledge, Apple's) so we won't remove it.

In this case, the appeal gets bumped up to a developer support contact that would manage the appeal. Usually when it got there, the contact would look at the report and say "oh, yeah, that's not porn" and tell us to re-submit the app again. It then would usually be approved.

This process, I believe, is where the problem lies. Of course, the bigger picture is Apple's adult content policies, but the relationship between reviewer, developer support, and policymakers is completely fucking discordant. Since the review process is human, some reviewers interpret the guidelines more strict that others. Since the review process chooses a random reviewer, the review experience is random every time.

The developer support contact is not in direct contact with the reviewer and does not communicate with them in any way, other than the report they receive from the review (that Tumblr has too). The dev support contact also cannot tell Tumblr whether they'll pass review if they were to propose hypothetical changes to Tumblr.

Here's the kicker: your developer support contact will also, like the reviewer, not be consistent from case to case. They stick with you until your appeal is complete, but when you have to open a new case for a subsequent rejection, it's someone new. And every one of them had different answers to the same questions about policies regarding adult content.

I really don't think the people enforcing Apple's app store guidelines have a clear answer on what's porn and what's not, and they're left to decide on a case-by case basis. Apple is fucking massive, and it's a waterfall organization where orders come from the top down. If Tumblr gets rejected because a reviewer decided a woman in a bikini is pornographic, no one in Apple gives a shit. I bet no more than a handful of people in Apple right now are even aware of the situation with Tumblr, and just one person (the dev support contact) is deciding what Tumblr must do to resolve it and stay on the App store.

The 2018 porn ban

I was present for the 2018 app store fiasco and boy, it was mind boggling. The removal was legit since Apple had received a user-submitted report of CSAM, and by policy they immediately yank an app that contains such content. That was 100% understandable, and if I were in Apple's shoes, I too would remove an app that has CSAM in it. But what followed was a gauntlet of rigorous reviews over adult content in general. The app was rejected repeatedly until the infamous adult content ban was fully enacted.

While Tumblr was actively working on the ban, they were asking Apple for any sort of guidance on what would meet approval, because as you know it's impossible to scrub a UGC site of adult content. The answers we got were either vague or unhelpful. Tumblr had to just keep re-submitting over and over with a half-baked porn finding algorithm until it finally looked clean enough for Apple.

During this time, we'd be searching Twitter, Instagram, etc, for the same search terms that we were being rejected for, and finding lots and lots of porn. When the rep was asked if other apps went through the same rigamarole that Tumblr was going through, and why they had porn on their apps, the answers we got were "we can't discuss other apps" (of course) and "that shouldn't happen".

Now, I do not want to get conspiratorial about this because I genuinely don't think Apple has it out for Tumblr. What I do think is it's a combination of the discordant enforcement of policy, caused by the complete separation of policymaker, support, and reviewer. It's also less of a problem for other apps like Twitter, Instagram, etc because they have many, many more staff to deal with the problem. They have more staff to build and maintain porn-removing algorithms, and more staff to put out fires caused by App Store rejections.

A little part of me also wants to be cynical and say that since Instagram and Twitter are so big, they can get away with more than Tumblr can. Combine that with Tumblr's history of blatantly allowing porn up until the end of 2018. I can't prove it, of course, but if Tumblr has a reputation at Apple, it can't be a good one.

Apple's reputation amongst developers

As I mentioned I'm an iOS engineer. I talk to other iOS engineers all the time, not only at my current job but also in other places like Slack instances for iOS development. The iOS engineers at Tumblr did not like Apple's bullshit one bit, which is unsurprising. However, my experience thus far is the vast, vast majority of iOS engineers at other places feel the same way. Apple's review process is seen as an asinine hurdle you must clear. Their policies are not viewed in good light amongst iOS devs, though you'll have a mixed bag of sympathy over being rejected for some of them like the adult content one. It really depends if you've worked on any UGC apps on the app store. If you have, you get it.

Outside of adult content, though, the two other big ones that rub iOS devs the wrong way are the 30% cut Apple gets when devs get paid, and the completely arbitrary policy that Apps submitted to the app store must have a "clear purpose". I haven't talked to a single iOS dev who's been on the side of Apple in the Epic v Apple case over the 30% cut, and most of them are hoping for Apple to loosen up their control over the App Store (either voluntarily or by court order). The "clear purpose" policy means that reviewers can reject the app if they think it's useless, which is incredibly discouraging for new developers who are just trying to get out there with something simple. It also squelches creativity and reduces the field for more single-purpose apps.

Aside from App Store review guidelines, iOS developers also have to deal with ever-shifting technical guidelines that can be unclear, with deadlines that change or are vague as well. A good example of this was a recent change that required all Apps that were available on iPad to support split-screen multitasking. Not only did I get conflicting answers on what that means from Apple themselves and devs who were in contact with other Apple reps. No one knew if their iPad app would be yanked from the store, or if there was a way to opt out. This requirement forced many companies to scramble to update their iPad experience to meet this deadline, only for the requirement to be relaxed, and the deadline to be pushed back. Fun times, great use of dev hours.

The Apple fanboy you can picture when I say "Apple fanboy" is very unlikely to be an iOS developer. They probably just love Apple products and think that the company can do no wrong. The more Apple does to piss off their developers, the worse it's going to get for anyone who just wants to use an iPhone.

Anywho, that's Apple for you. Why am I still an iOS developer? I dunno, I got bills to pay. I think I know what Tumblr is working on to appease them. Don't expect this banned word list to last too long. The timing is awful, of course, since everyone on Apple is on vacation, and Tumblr is too. Have fun with the chaos for now. As always, don't take it out on staff. They're doing what they can.

My asks are open if you have any questions. I'll try to answer them.

[johnmauldin]

Capitalism Isn’t Bad, It’s Just Broken

The Soviet Union’s collapse ended the socialism vs. capitalism argument.

Semi-free markets spread through Eastern Europe. Collectivist economies everywhere began turning free. Capitalism seemingly won.

Even communist China adopted a form of free market capitalism. Although, as they say, it has “Chinese characteristics.”

With all its faults and problems, capitalism generated the greatest accumulation of wealth in human history. It has freed millions of people from abject poverty.

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people stood below the poverty line. Today, the global poverty rate is at record-low 10%. And that number is shrinking every year.

Yet now, some on the left are again embracing socialist ideas and irrationally high taxes. What drives this thinking?

Broken Capitalism

In practice, “capitalism” does indeed have flaws that justify the criticism. It is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the worst of all systems, except for everything else.

One problem is that today’s capitalism has contracted to an extent that is hard to ignore. Competition is increasingly shrinking in key markets.

And that’s a big problem.

Competition incentivizes producers to get more efficient and reduce prices for consumers. Without competition, you end up with bloated monopolies. They may be highly profitable for the owners, but don’t serve the public.

My good friend Jonathan Tepper wrote an excellent new book on this: The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition. 

He and co-author Denise Hearn explain why this is a serious problem with world-shaking consequences.

I’ll use some excerpts from the book for this discussion.

Not Free to Choose

Like me, Jonathan respects capitalism and capitalists. He’s not a leftist shill. It’s because he respects capitalism that he wants to see the best version of it.

The book refers to Milton Friedman’s old TV series Free to Choose, then says this:

"Free to Choose" sounds great. Yet Americans are not free to choose.

In industry after industry, they can only purchase from local monopolies or oligopolies that can tacitly collude. The US now has many industries with only three or four competitors controlling entire markets. Since the early 1980s, market concentration has increased severely. We’ve already described the airline industry. Here are other examples:

Two corporations control 90 percent of the beer Americans drink. 

Five banks control about half of the nation’s banking assets. 

Many states have health insurance markets where the top two insurers have an 80 percent to 90 percent market share. For example, in Alabama one company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has an 84 percent market share and in Hawaii it has 65 percent market share. 

When it comes to high-speed internet access, almost all markets are local monopolies; over 75 percent of households have no choice with only one provider. 

Four players control the entire US beef market and have carved up the country. 

After two mergers this year, three companies will control 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the US corn-seed market.

The list of industries with dominant players is endless. It gets even worse when you look at the world of technology. Laws are outdated to deal with the extreme winner-takes-all dynamics online. Google completely dominates internet searches with an almost 90 percent market share. Facebook has an almost 80 percent share of social networks. Both have a duopoly in advertising with no credible competition or regulation.

Amazon is crushing retailers and faces conflicts of interest as both the dominant e-commerce seller and the leading online platform for third-party sellers. It can determine what products can and cannot sell on its platform, and it competes with any customer that encounters success.

Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android completely control the mobile app market in a duopoly, and they determine whether businesses can reach their customers and on what terms. Existing laws were not even written with digital platforms in mind.

So far, these platforms appear to be benign dictators, but they are dictators nonetheless.

 Small Drives Growth

Now, to be clear, some industries need such massive scale. Thus they can only support a small number of producers.

Passenger aircraft, for instance. You have Boeing, Airbus, and a handful of smaller players that make smaller airplanes.

Most industries aren’t like that.

Banking certainly isn’t. Lots of studies show a bank’s efficiency stops improving once it passes $50 billion or so in assets.

Yet the megabanks have grown larger without growing more efficient. They have done so by killing local banks that once financed local businesses on favorable terms.

That’s a problem because we need those small, local businesses. Here’s Jonathan again:

Ever since the time of Thomas Jefferson, Americans have idealized the yeoman farmer and the small business. While family neighborhood stores are a critical part of the economy, it is important to distinguish between small businesses and the high-growth startups that Haltiwanger describes.

Small businesses like restaurants and dry cleaners create most jobs, but they also destroy most jobs. They create most new businesses, but they have the highest rate of failures. They are important, but they don’t drive productivity.

It is the small companies that become big, like the next Costco, Southwest Airlines or Celgene. All of these started small.

Geoffrey West, in his masterful book “Scale,” showed that companies are like living organisms. Just like in the animal world, many startups die when they are very young, but those that survive and grow quickly tend to grow exponentially, which leads to higher profitability and productivity.

Note, this is not an argument against large companies. They have an important role. But the real innovation and growth starts much lower on the food chain.

So, it is a problem when small business loses the chance to thrive and prove itself.

I go fishing in Maine every summer with a group of economists. Maine has complex rules for its lakes, governing which fish you can keep or must release.

We rely on professional guides to know the differences, but the general idea is to give the younger fish from underpopulated species a chance to grow. This preserves the lakes as a resource for everyone.

We might look at small businesses the same way. Most won’t grow into big businesses, but it serves everyone to protect their opportunity.

As Jonathan points out, that isn’t happening. We’re already paying a price, and it is getting worse.

Join hundreds of thousands of other readers of Thoughts from the Frontline

Sharp macroeconomic analysis, big market calls, and shrewd predictions are all in a week’s work for visionary thinker and acclaimed financial expert John Mauldin. Since 2001, investors have turned to his Thoughts from the Frontline to be informed about what’s really going on in the economy. Join hundreds of thousands of readers, and get it free in your inbox every week.

[mondonews]

Apple, Google face UK probe over browser dominance

Apple, Google face UK probe over browser dominance

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said on Friday it was also taking enforcement action against Alphabet’s Google over its app store payment practices. It said the two tech giants had an “effective duopoly” on mobile ecosystems that gave them a stranglehold on operating systems, app stores and web browsers on mobile devices. “When it comes to how people use mobile…