I'm pretty sure that a smartphone is a necessity for modern society, friend.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m pretty sure it’s not a necessity but a convenience. Cellular service is the necessity, because without it one couldn’t use a smartphone. A smartphone is a form factor.
Well I’ve got another 4 iPhones in the family one of which is for someone who is partially sighted so no this really is a big issue. A very big one.
The EU has declared Facebook is “integral” to the lives of EU citizens. (Which is absolutely ridiculous, to be clear). If Facebook is integral, smart phones are definitely going to be.
And that isn’t a “duopoly” either. There are more options out there. Again, just because two of a variety of options are the most popular doesn’t make it a “duopoly”. The “duopoly” argument just doesn’t hold any weight…The duopoly here is the Apple App Store vs. the Google Play Store. That's where you'll find the apps you need to access banking, authentication, the major online services etc. A smartphone is as much use as a chocolate teapot without one or the other. Increasingly, the browser-based versions of those services, where available, are losing functionality (e.g. my online web banking asks me to use my mobile app to verify things - there are alternatives, but they're a major hassle in comparison). Likewise, for developers, if your app isn't in one or both of those stores, it probably isn't going anywhere. Yes, you can sideload in most Android implementations but you usually have to jump through a bunch of user-unfriendly hoops to get there so it's not going to be viable for the majority of users.
Apple has, pre-EU-intervention, made the App Store the only way of installing Apps on the iPhone. Google, pre-EU intervention, only allowed third-party Android systems to include the Play Store if they also promoted the rest of Google's (data slurping) application suite (effectively turning everything into a "Google experiece" phone). While that stands, there's almost zero chance of a competing App store getting any traction.
Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Once you get to the position where there are only two of three "most popular" players owned by large corporations then without regulation those players will engage in anti-competitive practices to protect their popularity.
...and thereby effectively created the smartphone app market, fundamentally changing the IT landscape. When the App Store started you didn't need a smartphone app as the lowest-friction way to access your bank account or pay for parking. It's a case of "with great power comes great responsibility" and without regulation large corporations have no other incentive to take any of that responsibility if it would detract from their main legal duty of increasing shareholder value.
Whups... I'll just leave this here:
We don't know what Apple's current deal with Spotify is or if they're still paying 30%.
As is their prerogative, it’s their platform… They could decide that only their own apps could be installed on it if they wanted… It is their platform… They can do as they choose with their property and platform. Spotify can decide who they allow to publish music or podcasts on their platform. See how that works?
Adding additional regulatory burden and red tape does not ever fix anything. All this excess government regulation does is make it harder for newcomers to come into the market. If governments truly cared about making this easier, they would remove excessive regulation and red tape, making it easier for newcomers to compete, rather than adding to the excessive burden of red tape and regulation. Let the free market decide rather than trying to pick winners and losers via regulation and red tape. More government regulation = harder for newcomers to compete. Period.
Nope, not true. More government regulation pretty much never improves competition. It basically always has the exact opposite effect. And this kind of regulation is well outside of the proper scope of government authority in the first place. Government intervention isn’t required, in fact, government intervention will only make it more difficult for newcomers to enter the market and ensure compliance with an increasing and excessive burden of red tape and regulation. Again, the free market should decide, removing more red tape and excessive regulation would be the best solution to reduce the burden of entry for newcomers… And competition is a motive. Google has made Android a more “open system” to compete with Apple’s “closed system”. And as a result, thanks to competition, users have choices. And there are many other choices beyond Apple and Google, pretending they’re the only ones in the market doesn’t make it so. In reality, consumers have many options available to them, and can make their own choices about what they value in a product and what they don’t, they don’t need government to do that for them…
And that isn’t the same as what I’m talking about. If Spotify were really committed, and thought Apple’s terms were so unfair, then they could always withdraw from Apple’s platform. They could even create their own platform if they wanted to, they’re certainly not poor. They don’t need to leech off of Apple’s system while meanwhile trying to find ways to “legally” violate the terms of their agreement… They should rely on their own resources if they aren’t happy with the terms, or think they’re unfair, not try to reap the benefits of Apple’s services while also trying to cheat Apple out of the commissions they agreed to pay by contract…
You can keep repeating that again and again and you still won't be able to install the app for your local car park from the Cyanogen store. The mobile App market is dominated by two huge players. One is blocking any alternative from being used on their expensive hardware. The other has been using access to their their store to protect their near-monopoly on advertising/search via their (data slurping) app suite.
so where has the demand for change come from for 15 years?
working how it does hasnt hurt phone sales nor app sales...
what do you need to load that you cant already?
That’s not how law is supposed to work. When the government body in charge of enforcing the edicts say that they “can’t promise” your proposed changes will comply with said edicts, there’s a major problem. That’s just deciding on a whim how they wish to apply this edict. And that is not law, it’s petty rule at a whim…
If they actually wanted businesses to even be able to comply with these edicts, they would have made these edicts far clearer defined, actually deliver consistent, non-contradictory feedback on proposed changes, timely feedback so companies can actually make these changes before deadlines. As it is, they’ve made this incredibly vague, and seem to be trying to make it as difficult to comply as possible… And it’s very targeted against US companies, notice that none of these arbitrary edicts effect EU companies. Also notice, the EU doesn’t really have a single successful tech company, I wonder why…?
Last edited:
You may not like it, and yes I absolutely can and will keep repeating it, because it is true. There are plenty of options available, it doesn’t count as a “duopoly”, that’s a crap argument that doesn’t hold up. And more government red tape/regulation = harder for newcomers and free market deciding things… Very simple…
so do what you mostly want on a Mac deskto/laptop.
there is no need to do anything you want on a phone.
the two are completely different use cases. small touch screens vs mouse first interface and high res large screens.
i'm certainly not wanting to do the same tasks on both devices.
what do you want to run on a phone that you can on a laptop?
nah. what's essential about it?
it's not food, air, water, housing.
and for the things a phone does, it does perfectly well at. as is...
adding friend is passive aggressive
i suppose Skype was integral too ... until is ceased to exist
Facebook will one day be supplanted by some other app.
"pretty sure" isnt much of a legal argument is it?
"your Honour, we are pretty sure the accused did the murder" isnt going to see anyone serving time.
If they don't like it, they can just leave.
Good luck getting new chips without ASML around.
So, remind me of how Android got absolutely wrecked by this freedom.
Because, at least to me, it looks like that's not a real problem.
You know that you could still be able to manage and restrict devices? Is not like a phone will start downloading and executing every code on the web with no supervision.
Apple is >50% in certain demographics, do not play dumb.
About your grandmother, what's more common: phishing attempt by ads or link, scam calls, rogue sms vs someone that somehow teach her how to install an app, overcome multiple warnings and then insert the data?
You preach about security, but I do not see all that "scammed" people on android; maybe because there are much better ways.
Apple has 28% market share in the EU. That's a fact cited by the EU itself.
I see no need to add yet another attack vector I need to worry about. The market leader is open, there's room for a closed alternative.
People get scammed on Android all the time. Android is responsible for somewhere between 95-98% of all mobile malware. Kapersky reported 12.2 million attacks on Android devices in Q1 of this year alone. You're 50x more likely to be infected on Android than iOS (that's a 5000% increase).
It kinda is.
Government bodies write laws and regulations. They're interpreted by formal hearings by courts/committees/tribunals/boards (as appropriate).
Of course they "can't promise". The firm decisions are made at a trial/hearing/whatever. Any lawyer will advise you on whether your proposed actions will comply with the law but good luck getting them to promise they will stand up in a courtroom - unless it's something titally clear cut, which it won't be if you're deliberately trying to sail as close to the wind as you can get away with.
I was responding to your own claim that the Mac and PC aren't "open markets" for software.
You mean until Microsoft (a prominent member on the EU's naughty list) bought it out and eventually ran it down (at least for commercial/corporate use) in favour of its own Teams?
Only if regulation prevents Google, Meta, Microsoft et. al. either driving out or taking over any upcoming competitor - see Instagram (bought by Facebook in 2012), WhatsApp (bought by Facebook in 2014) or YouTube (bought up by Google). Yes, there are alternative, independent social media/messaging platforms out there - but good luck making it big against Facebook... and don't pretend there's free choice for consumer: no good moving to Signal/Telegram/Discord of your network of friends is still on Facebook/Google messenger/whatever.
You do understand the difference in "burden of proof" between civil and criminal offences, right?
It is most certainly not. An amorphous “law” (aka silly edict) that can be interpreted at a whim is practically impossible to comply with. Real law is not supposed to be so incredibly vague. And it’s also not supposed to be contradictory.
In order to try to comply with these edicts, companies have tried to work with the commission and propose changes to determine whether or not these changes would satisfy the requirements of the edicts. But the very people who created and are applying the edicts are both contradicting themselves, and claiming that even they (the ones who literally created the edicts and are enforcing them) supposedly can’t know whether or not proposed changes would be in compliance, because they could essentially change their mind later on… Again, this is not true law, this is petty rule at a whim… Whatever they say they feel may comply with these edicts one day, they can decide they feel like it doesn’t comply another. Which is essentially impossible to comply with, and entirely unreasonable, because it’s based on arbitrary whims rather than clearly defined and stated rules or terms…
Apparently that’s optional in the EU. That’s why these legislators are making such ridiculous slop, lack of oxygen to the brain… 😉👍🏻
Apple will not leave but will most likely pass the fines onto EU customers through higher prices.
The version of EU MacOS will most likely be a smaller subset of MacOS (i.e. many new MacOS features will never be available in the EU).
Sounds like they should get an Android if they care about the same issues as much as you 👍
Higher prices and slower update rollouts are not a way to beat the competition. Because nobody in Europe really uses iMessage, a lot of people are fairly blasé about which phone they use. I know loads of people who hop between iOS and Android all the time. There is a real nice mix of devices on the street.
My point is that there is a lot less consumer loyalty to Apple over here than in the states, especially when we get loads of really innovative devices from China that never see the light of day in the USA. If you want a high-end foldable in the UK there are quite a few devices to choose from, for example.
We are on a tech forum where virtually everybody here has at least one computer if not multiple plus iPads and whatnot. Not everybody has even one computer. Nowadays people do job interviews on zoom, some places you can't park without an app anymore or you get a discount if you do it online. You might pay lower prices in a grocery store through their rewards program which of course might nowadays require an app.
For people who can't afford to pay extra and especially people who need to apply to jobs, it's all online these days. If you don't have a smartphone how are you going to find a job, pay rent, more and more places make it difficult to pay rent if you refuse to do it online.
(They might be forced to accept a check but then you have to argue with them about a late fee because they didn't check their PO box and didn't expect anyone not to use their online portal so you had to go to their office and spend an hour of your day you don't have to explain the law and that they need to have someone check the PO box and clear the late fees. Ask me how I know this...)
No. A foldable phone is a form factor, a flip phone is another. A flip phone isn't necessarily a smartphone but it can be. Whether it's a smartphone or not is determined by functionality. It's not even determined by the OS. There are Android phones that are minimalistic on purpose so that you don't get distracted by social media apps or any others. So not all Android phones are smartphones but most are, and every iPhone is of course a smartphone.