Apple Announces Ability to Download iPhone Apps From Websites in EU

[sracer]

I just want my CarPlay screen to have video apps And emulators.

I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I seriously want CarPlay to be able to do that.

The greatest reason given for NOT including those features is that the driver would be distracted. Apparently having all of the vehicle's interior functions operable by a touchscreen is NOT distracting to the driver.

 

[vipergts2207]

Nope, wrong. You misunderstood.
The context is that you should have bought an Android instead of having rules changed. Rules changed after Apple implemented the initial App Store rules legally and therefore violate laws. I'm discussing what should have happened before the rules changed.

Here's the thing, representative government isn't beholden to your own personal beliefs. You may think the EU shouldn't have enacted the DMA because it's changing the rules. Ok cool, doesn't matter. Almost any time a law is passed, it changes the status quo. That's really the purpose of changing laws in the first place, to change the status quo. You may not like it, but sorry that's the reality.

It’s exactly vote with your $$$.

Nothing precludes folks from doing both...

 

[truthsteve]

You are now saying that you are "discussing what should have happened before the rules changed."

wrong.

"they" is apple. you replied to "Sideloading/alt app stores is breaking down the walled garden." which means I'm discussing under the pretense that Apple didn't allow side loading which would be before the rules changed. I'm not *NOW* saying, it's what I've *BEEN* saying.

if "they" is Apple, what are you suggesting they should have done?

I'm not suggesting Apple should be doing anything different. Apple should be allowed to do what they've had since 2008.

It's the authorities who should approve what Apple is doing because Apple is doing what is best for the customers who enjoy the walled garden.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

wrong.

"they" is apple. you replied to "Sideloading/alt app stores is breaking down the walled garden." which means I'm discussing under the pretense that Apple didn't allow side loading which would be before the rules changed. I'm not *NOW* saying, it's what I've *BEEN* saying.



I'm not suggesting Apple should be doing anything different. Apple should be allowed to do what they've had since 2008.

It's the authorities who should approve what Apple is doing because Apple is doing what is best for the customers who enjoy the walled garden.

But why should the authorities only care if it’s good for the customers what Apple does? What if it’s bad for the market? Competitive nature?
What’s good for the customer in the short term can be very harmful for them in the long term.

Should Microsoft be allowed to do what they have done since the 80s?
If a company was operating a factory when child labor was legal, should they be. Allowed to continue to do that today because the customer enjoys a cheaper product that way?

Yes really.
Same steps on the galaxy fold judging by the YouTube vids. Being "locked" doesn't matter.

So you should buy an Android if you wanted to sideload.

You understand Fortnite is an approved game? Try and install games and software not approved without a signature.

If you agree with every single gov law, then obviously that's where we will disagree with the matter.

You don’t need to agree with every law. But you can’t pick and choose which ones to follow because it’s an inconveniences.

There nothing unfair about introducing new legislation from the executive branch. All laws follows the constitution of EU.

And the DMA is a law created to enforce the primary laws of the founding treaties of EU.

 

[truthsteve]

But why should the authorities only care if it’s good for the customers what Apple does? What if it’s bad for the market?

It's good for the customer and for the market to have the choice of an ultimate walled garden vs ultimate open mobile platform.

Competitive nature?

An open platform vs closed platform is competitive by nature. If anything, we need more competitors in the closed platform space.

Shutting down the closed platform space and simply adding another open platform competitor is the opposite of what we should be doing.

Clearly millions prefer a closed platform.

What’s good for the customer in the short term can be very harmful for them in the long term.

It's been 16 years. Clearly plenty of customers continue to vote for a closed platform long term.

Should Microsoft be allowed to do what they have done since the 80s?

Irrelevant considering there weren't valid alternatives. Android is a valid alternative, and is dominating iOS by marketshare worldwide. Windows had, what? 90% of the marketshare worldwide? and had no real competitors. iOS is none of that.

If a company was operating a factory when child labor was legal, should they be. Allowed to continue to do that today because the customer enjoys a cheaper product that way?

offtopic, irrelevant analogy.

You understand Fortnite is an approved game? Try and install games and software not approved without a signature.

You're talking about Android sideloading Fortnite? Literally wrong. Epic did not have to go through a formal approval process from Google to distribute Fortnite binary from their website.

Did Epic use Google's Play App signing so that Google can verify secure the APK for future updates? I don't know for sure, but even if they did, it's optional and they do not have to follow Google's guidelines to get it play app signed.

You don’t need to agree with every law. But you can’t pick and choose which ones to follow because it’s an inconveniences.

You're the one literally saying it's inconvenient to sideload. Not me. No idea what you're accusing me of doing here.

 

[Muzzakus]

I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I seriously want CarPlay to be able to do that.

The greatest reason given for NOT including those features is that the driver would be distracted. Apparently having all of the vehicle's interior functions operable by a touchscreen is NOT distracting to the driver.

Totally serious. We spend a lot of time sitting around in cars waiting for kids pickup, charge stations, etc. Let us be entertained. Right now I use the phone when I could be much more comfortable having it on the car display. I’ve had cars with live tv from factory even, now we’re backwards.

 

[webkit]

"they" is apple. you replied to "Sideloading/alt app stores is breaking down the walled garden." which means I'm discussing under the pretense that Apple didn't allow side loading which would be before the rules changed. I'm not *NOW* saying, it's what I've *BEEN* saying.

I'm not suggesting Apple should be doing anything different. Apple should be allowed to do what they've had since 2008.

It's the authorities who should approve what Apple is doing because Apple is doing what is best for the customers who enjoy the walled garden.

Still wrong. It doesn’t matter if a law had long existed but wasn’t enforced, only recently started to apply to particular companies, or is a brand new law (unless there is a grandfather clause). The fact remains that a company doing what they think (or claim) is right for their customers does NOT give them the right to violate laws.

If a company has been paying its employees $5/hour because they think it's best for their customers as it would allow the company to charge a lower price, it doesn't mean they can continue to do so when the minimum wage is increased to $10/hour.

If a company has been open on Sundays because they think it's best for their customers as it gives them greater shopping convenience (another day to shop). it doesn't mean they can continue to do so when an applicable new blue law is passed in their state or country.

Bottom line is that a company can’t do "what they think is best for the customers" if doing so violates a law. Period. Just because a company thinks (or claims) what they've been doing is "best for their customers" doesn't make it so nor does it mean it's best for the market overall which is what governments/lawmakers are focused on.

 

[Samplasion]

It's good for the customer and for the market to have the choice of an ultimate walled garden vs ultimate open mobile platform.

The "open vs closed platform" counterposition is such a false dichotomy it's not even funny. On Android you can install apps from anywhere if you so choose, but you can also setup your phone to only allow app installations from the preinstalled store (which is the default).
iOS is stubbornly a closed-only platform and that's what's wrong.

Clearly millions prefer a closed platform.

Have you personally contacted every single iPhone user in the world? Because I reckon that outside of forums like this most people won't even know what's going on.

 

[truthsteve]

Still wrong. It doesn’t matter if a law had long existed but wasn’t enforced,

What? Nope. Never said law long existed before and wasn't enforced

Had the law existed before, Apple would have built a billion dollar business around that law. And even though I'd disagree with that law, I'd be fine with it since Apple wouldn't have poured billions into setting up the foundation for the App Store in the way they have today.

You don't just wait until a company builds a multi billion dollar business and then force them to change the underlying architecture. It's like telling Tesla, "Hey you know those tens of thousands of superchargers you deployed around the country? yeah we're going to make you change the port on those to be more like the rest of the world". That's stupid.

The fact remains that a company doing what they think (or claim) is right for their customers does NOT give them the right to violate laws.

We're discussing in the context before the rules changed. Fact is, they were not violating the laws.

You're constantly jumping around timelines and/or putting words in my mouth. I can't really keep repeating myself here so I'm moving on.

 

[webkit]

What? Nope. Never said law long existed before and wasn't enforced

Had the law existed before, Apple would have built a billion dollar business around that law. And even though I'd disagree with that law, I'd be fine with it since Apple wouldn't have poured billions into setting up the foundation for the App Store in the way they have today.

You don't just wait until a company builds a multi billion dollar business and then force them to change the underlying architecture. It's like telling Tesla, "Hey you know those tens of thousands of superchargers you deployed around the country? yeah we're going to make you change the port on those to be more like the rest of the world". That's stupid.

Now you are just being ridiculous. I gave three scenarios and you only focused on the first one. Note that I also said "...only recently started to apply to particular companies, or is a brand new law."

We're discussing in the context before the rules changed. Fact is, they were not violating the laws.

Fact is, it doesn't matter. Companies have to follow applicable laws whether they long existed or are brand new, or else face consequences (fines, banning, etc.). Period.

 

[I7guy]

What? Nope. Never said law long existed before and wasn't enforced

Had the law existed before, Apple would have built a billion dollar business around that law. And even though I'd disagree with that law, I'd be fine with it since Apple wouldn't have poured billions into setting up the foundation for the App Store in the way they have today.

You don't just wait until a company builds a multi billion dollar business and then force them to change the underlying architecture. It's like telling Tesla, "Hey you know those tens of thousands of superchargers you deployed around the country? yeah we're going to make you change the port on those to be more like the rest of the world". That's stupid.



We're discussing in the context before the rules changed. Fact is, they were not violating the laws.

You're constantly jumping around timelines and/or putting words in my mouth. I can't really keep repeating myself here so I'm moving on.

Correct. The EU threaded the needle to capture Apple and other companies and designate them as gatekeepers. It's a specific piece of legislation somehow only ensnared American tech. And it's based on revenue? I agree with you if there were specific laws company's would have complied with the applicable laws.

 

[MacFan23]

Use Homebrew and keep a list of casks to install. Problem solved.

A solution to speed up installing apps, but not a solution for managing licenses and something I'd rather not have to do on my phone in future.

 

[MacFan23]

Yes, and all of them updating automatically, often introducing bugs in new versions. Even native Apple apps have those problems. You should talk to software developers and ask if anyone uses Xcode installed via App Store. It's unbelievable how many things Apple can break in their own software.

Hasn't this feature always been optional since its introduction?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Correct. The EU threaded the needle to capture Apple and other companies and designate them as gatekeepers. It's a specific piece of legislation somehow only ensnared American tech. And it's based on revenue? I agree with you if there were specific laws company's would have complied with the applicable laws.

Money= power= political influence.

And it’s very undesirable to have powerful companies with undue political influence over the political system instead of people.

 

[I7guy]

Money= power= political influence.

Are you saying the eu regulators were bought?

And it’s very undesirable to have powerful companies with undue political influence over the political system instead of people.

Imo it better to have apple with a lot of influence.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Are you saying the eu regulators were bought?

Nope, I’m saying EU and their governments don’t like large companies having disproportionate political influence on the market, and by proxy the political system.

Having companies dominating in the donating they do to political campaigns in the same level as the U.S. is nightmare fuel. Compared to EU with 90% of political campaigns etc is publicly funded

Imo it better to have apple with a lot of influence.

Why is that a good thing? We can’t pick and choose what companies have a lot of influence or not.

Money in politics is extremely corrosive.

Visualising European parties' donations and contributions

This report by European Democracy Consulting presents visualisations for European parties' donations and contributions between 2018 and 2020.

eudemocracy.eu

 

[NagasakiGG]

Here's the thing, representative government isn't beholden to your own personal beliefs. You may think the EU shouldn't have enacted the DMA because it's changing the rules. Ok cool, doesn't matter. Almost any time a law is passed, it changes the status quo. That's really the purpose of changing laws in the first place, to change the status quo. You may not like it, but sorry that's the reality.


Nothing precludes folks from doing both...

Forget it, you can’t argue with that guy. He’s like the stereotype “Idiocracy”-dude.

Nope, I’m saying EU and their governments don’t like large companies having disproportionate political influence on the market, and by proxy the political system.

Wait, what? Market watchers don’t want big companies to abuse their power in terms of monopolies? How barbaric. 🫠

 

[H2SO4]

We never had a billion+ Mac users.

Your answer I think completely dodges the spirit of the OPs statement.