So the gullible don’t deserve a system that is safer for them? Because they’re not good with technology they can just suffer.
That perjury was wrong and needs to be dealt with.
I don’t have the time to find the details, but the law requires the CEO to maximise shareholder value.
It’s a trade-off between free markets/competition (for digital content/software) and security.
“talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. (…)
Wouldn’t work because the EU is ideologically opposed to closed ecosystems. They’d still make Apple open up.
I guess I just lean more towards security in this trade-off
I’ll concede this point. I’m not American, and my info must have been old or inaccurate.
The free market has an open option as much as you want to pretend it doesn’t exist and hand wave it away. Again you are cheering taking away privacy and security because you think your preferences should outweigh what’s best less sophisticated users (and the platform owner’s preferences).
Apple is not preventing you from jailbreaking your device and doing whatever you want with it. They shouldn’t be obligated to make it easy for you though.
Keep digging yourself out of that hole!
daringfireball.net
And so the race to see how little Apple can give up while still technically adhering to the demands of the DMA continues.
That’s not a basis for regulation, given how Google could change that any point. Apple - a de facto duopolist together with Google - should be treated no differently than the other duopoly market participant. Fair competition should exist between Google and Apple too.
Quite the contrary. I acknowledge it may be a trade-off - but I contend it’s just mostly FUD (with regards to software installation).
But the existence of fair markets and competition is important enough to require minor concessions from Apple (as the DMA does).
I guarantee you, these rules will yet again not be found compliant by the EU.
I’m sorry but EU do protect private property and respect the notion of selling that property as well as the notion of proper contract agreements… and the moment the iphone is sold it’s no longer apples. And that includes the software. Their rights have been exhausted. and failed to provide the necessary documentation before they concluded it.
If Google changes that, THEN look into regulation. Believe it or not, I’d support them doing so then too.
Thank you for at least admitting there is a security issue with forcing Apple open, even if you think it is worth the trade off.
Until the EU decides that’s not allowed anymore. Or someone sneaks something through and because it’s not from the App Store, Apple can’t catch it quickly, or because all these changes forced upon Apple by the EU lead to a vulnerability that wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. I know you somehow argue the EU had nothing to do with Crowdstrike at all, but the fact of the matter is that wouldn’t have happened had Microsoft not been forced to do the EU’s bidding. Who knows what hole is being introduced because the EU thinks it knows better.
You’re still taking away the choice from everyone because you can’t be bothered to use Android.
There’s always going to be someone paying for exclusivity or hosting a questionable app on some third party store.
The free market and competition already existed. Just because you declare “I only shop at Aldi” doesn’t mean other grocery stores don’t exist. Apple’s market share is less than Samsung’s in the EU. The DMA doesn’t apply to Samsung. Apple’s market share is half of Spotify’s market share in music streaming. The EU explicitly wrote the DMA to ensure Spotify wasn’t hit.
Let’s stick to facts:
You don’t depend on it and can use something else.
It obviously didn’t, given how, for example, Spotify and Netflix were restricted in communicating with their users - unless they paid 15-30% commission to one of their biggest direct competitors.
If ALDI had a local monopoly where you live and the government made rules that enabled other supermarkets to enter that market, that does not mean that your “closed” ALDI experience is taken away.
Perhaps. We know what you feel Apple ought to do (basically emulate the PC model where anyone can download any app they want, using whichever payment method they prefer, without needing to pay Apple a single cent). I do agree with John Gruber's sentiment that this is obviously not in Apple's vested interests, and it may not even be in the interests of Apple customers either (piracy is rife on Windows for a reason, though I understand some might see that as a plus).
Well from the OJEU case published
| (24) |
|
Well how do you think this complies with he above? 😂Lol.
Apple Announces Sweeping but Complicated Policy Changes for Apps in the EU, Attempting to Comply With the Latest Dictums Regarding the DMA
It’s a natural consequence that an overly complicated law (the DMA) has resulted in an ever-more-complicated set of guidelines and policies (from Apple). It’s all downright byzantine.
And so the race to see how little Apple can give up while still technically adhering to the demands of the DMA continues.
Thanks for providing the link/full decision.
You suggested the DMA needs to exist because Google “could” decide to become a closed ecosystem. The EU has already been shown to be acting in bad faith when it comes to Apple. I don’t trust a thing they say when it comes to this. And even if the current EU totally means it, all it takes is one future commissioner to decide otherwise.
You don’t know that. And again, this is a solution in search of a problem. 72% of the market was already open. Making that 100% does nothing other than remove choice from consumers.
Then pass a law that says “Apple can’t prevent Spotify and Netflix communicating about lower prices inside of their apps.” I’d wholeheartedly support that law! Don’t pass this monstrosity dictating which APIs Apple is required to offer, taking away choice from consumers, and damaging the privacy and security of the majority of Apple’s users.
No.
Allegedly - but unproven, and contrary to Apple’s own statements that claimed they were in constructive communication with the EU.
It wasn’t. Only shortly before the DMA came into force did they change that - for Spotify.
“The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
Good question considering it’s the exact same issue as before but repackaged. Apple don’t have infinite strikes before the fines rack up either 🤷♂️
Thers zero evidence the EU have acted in bad faith. The documents are available for you to read. And it seems very clear Apple is acting in bad faith. Especially with the new rules going hilariously against the literal finding EU told them…
There existed such a law already.
72% is already open. There is room for a closed option. Or should all of the penalties put in place against Microsoft in the 1990s also have applied to Apple because they were a “duopolist” in the desktop PC market?
The EU didn’t deny it, and were quoted, on the record, saying “just because they proposed something doesn’t mean annything unless they implemented it.” Which is a pretty weird response to “did you tell Apple not to implement something and then fine them for not implementing it?” if you’re not guilty as charged. I’d personally go with “No, that’s ridiculous. The EC doesn’t operate like that” but maybe something got lost in translation.
And if that’s all the law said, I’d support it. I truly would But it says a lot, lot more than that.
Well, there’s the Politico article quoted as evidence by @surferfb that was also rehashed by some other publications.
I don't think it matters, for the simple reason that I am not the government organisation tasked with reviewing and approving the proposal put forth by Apple. My stance is, and always has been, that the DMA is simply not good legislation, and so in this regard, I welcome the push from Apple, in the search for true clarity on what is being asked here.
I thought Apple was supposed to listen to what the EU told them. The EU (reportedly) told them, directly, to hold off on implementing the change, and still, to this day, has not told them to implement the change, even after fining them for not doing so.
No. They are lawfully limiting them.
And Apple forgets that 2025 isn’t 2007 anymore.
One thing I am certain of: it will take more months, if not years - and more billions in fines to subdue them into compliance.
