Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules

[BuffaloTF]

Right now, those platforms (android and iOS) offers and are supported pretty much by the same services.

"Higher risk appetite" is just an excuse to try to keep the closed garden only to increase profits, not security.

Yeah… no.

Different corporate entities have different risk appetites. Risk tolerances. Whatever you want to call it. What one does freely, does not apply to another regardless of outcome.

Perhaps on how tightly controlled the accessory space is might be your walled garden. But the App Store controls absolutely have merit. And including porn on it, your chosen example, is most certainly a reputational risk appetite control.

 

[wbeasley]

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?

well where is the "burden of proof" for your claim?

a quick search reveals:
The EU Commission's Decision:
The Commission's decision is not a declaration of Facebook being essential but rather an assessment that Meta's subscription model may not comply with the DMA's requirements for gatekeepers.

so basically your claim doesn't stack up ...

 

[Kal Madda]

What we're asking for is parity between two of Apple's product lines: the iPhone and the Mac. All Apple has to do is change their EULA to absolve them of liability if a user infects their phone with malware, bury the permission to allow side loading behind a timed warning switch that only unlocks after an hour (thereby preventing bad actors from instantly granting access) and they're golden.

The iPhone should be opened up because it's a computing platform now, not an accessory. Originally the iPhone was a satellite to the Mac like an iPod but those days are long gone. The iPhone has its own satellite products!

I've theoretically paid thousands of dollars for a phone. It's mine and I should be able to do with it as I please. Id quite like Apple to remove the training wheels from the OS and treat us like adults/Mac users.

And you bought an iPhone, not a Mac. An iPhone isn’t a Mac, and a Mac isn’t an iPhone…

They have different needs for one, and second, I think Apple should actually move more towards tightening up macOS and making it more secure like iOS. And luckily, it seems they are doing so. Sadly, in some ways they’re shackled with macOS to security standards people thought were safe in the 70’s or 80’s, but maybe they could at least make it more difficult to sideload. I think inherently though, macOS serves as a good example of why the “you can just keep on using only App Store apps” argument doesn’t hold water. Because if critical apps decided to require sideloading of their app, and no longer provided an App Store offering like is too often the case on macOS, then users would likely be forced to sideload such apps.

 

[Ctrlos]

I would never say the walled garden is ever a prison, but there is an increasing feeling that it is starting to feel more like a walled kindergarten because "Nanny Apple knows best".

There is some really cool **** you can do on Android with side loading. Google have a brilliant app on GitHub called Edge Gallery that lets you install and run a distilled version of Gemini LLM entirely on your phone. It's intended for developer testing but it's fun to play with.

You can run Blokada which stops adverts at a system level. This prevents games showing them amongst other apps which you typically cannot get around.

Installing region locked apps is really easy, allowing for games that aren't our over here yet. I remember playing Pokémon Go months before it's UK release.

 

[Ctrlos]

Read the article, not one “run antivirus in your phone” recommendation. Lots of “don’t use third party stores or sideload apps” recommendations though. But sure, Apple and all of us are spreading FUD and/or lying when we cite security issues.

Ah, I see your point. Lots of 'continue to rely on the Nanny' rather than learning to look after yourself.

 

[wbeasley]

I would never say the walled garden is ever a prison, but there is an increasing feeling that it is starting to feel more like a walled kindergarten because "Nanny Apple knows best".

There is some really cool **** you can do on Android with side loading. Google have a brilliant app on GitHub called Edge Gallery that lets you install and run a distilled version of Gemini LLM entirely on your phone. It's intended for developer testing but it's fun to play with.

You can run Blokada which stops adverts at a system level. This prevents games showing them amongst other apps which you typically cannot get around.

Installing region locked apps is really easy, allowing for games that aren't our over here yet. I remember playing Pokémon Go months before it's UK release.

so blocking ads and installing games not available... neither sound like paying or supporting game dev with, you know, cash

a dev tool for AI stuff? hardly something many tech people want let alone average users...

so please name a legal paid app that is essential for opening up Apple devices.

 

[I7guy]

This is objectively incorrect.

It's like saying a computer is a form factor.

That’s an objectively true statement. Difference between a smartphone and cellular iPad in capabilities? A computer is a vernacular that can range from a compact windows laptop or Mac and scale up with typically a form factor for large and fast input and output.

 

[surferfb]

Ah, I see your point. Lots of 'continue to rely on the Nanny' rather than learning to look after yourself.

Not everyone is a technically proficient technology enthusiast posting in Mac Rumors like you and I are. My 80 year old Mother in Law and my young kid deserve to have access to a safe and secure closed ecosystem where they don’t have to think about it and know Apple has their back.

It’s not like you or the EU is going to pick up the pieces and fix their devices. That’ll fall to me.

 

[wbeasley]

I love how we have the silent lurkers... always clicking dislike or laughing and never a comment on what is being discussed

it's a forum for discussion... just saying.

and still not a single reply on what is so essential that needs an open iOS to install legit software for missing functionality that only Android can give them. And therein lies the answer. like every single purchase you make: if something doesnt do all that you need, you buy something that suits you better.

compromise is a part of everything.

are there things i would like iOS did differently? yes.
does it do most things i need extremely well and safely? also yes.

computers are for tinkering and doing whatever you want (within the broader set of options the OS allows).
phones and tablets are safer computer lite options that mean less hassles for the majority. they just work.

i'm beginning to think some people want to break the iOS model because it would make it easier to hack.
large user base who trust the device. do their banking. store their photos. log health data. all extremely attractive to those with nefarious intent...

 

[wbeasley]

i would take iOS locked down complaints much more seriously if someone, anyone, would just say

"I bought this fantastic app on Android and i cant get the same functions on iPhone"

then we could judge how useful it would be, to how many people.

currently is seems pirating software or doing something extremely niche are the only hinted at missing apps.

since Apple relented and allowed games emulators, the one big thing many people wanted but doesnt result in money changing hands mostly, there are few complaints with defined issues.

porn/dating apps maybe i would guess is the other unspoken item
use Safari, surely. hahaha.

 

[djphat2000]

...except: Apple has had a choice to comply with the law.

If the law made any real sense I would agree with you and more than likely so would Apple. But this punishes success which is why Apple isn't trying to hear it. It just weakens Apple. And there by the products and services they can sell within the EU will be lessened for it

And it would have been really easy, with regards to the App Store.
They chose not to - and they chose poorly.

"Obi-Wan" from a certain point of view. The choice was made to comply with it. Then the EU said "not good enough".

Because such big companies are quite adept at shifting business, money, revenue and profit internationally.
Just as Apple about their tax structures in Ireland.

Still has nothing to do with what they make globally. They could have said 30% fine on all profits within the EU. But, they raised the bar to profits globally. THAT tells you all you need to know of the motivations of the EU. Ireland would gladly have Apple's business and gladly accepted the taxes Apple paid within it. The EU said no, that's not fair to the other countries. But, that also takes away from that countries right to tax how it sees fit. Which is my gripe with the EU. In the US, States tax however they see fit. So long as they pay up to the FED whatever they owe. How one country generates income is none of the other countries concern. But ya'll agreed to that so there you have it.

The United States of America (Washington) and - by extension - its citizens and companies should be the very last to complain - or demand this principle be upheld.

Most American's would complain if there was only 1 source of anything. But the real complaint would be due to increase costs of that one thing. Which has not been the case for the AppStore. Outside of inflation, prices have remained pretty darn low for a LONG time. Most people don't care, so long as the price is reasonable and they can get it quickly. What good is an extra 30% more VBUCKS when they just up the VBUCKS price for things within the game anyway? 3500 VBUCKS for some outfit and skins. OH LOOK ITS MARKED DOWN to 2800 VBUCKS!!! MUST BY!

They're probably the worst offenders in overextending jurisdiction interfering in other countries' affairs - and believing their laws (should or do) apply everywhere.

Believing it and the US actually fining say Samsung is a very different thing. Trump (not that I am a fan), wants Samsung and even Sony to build things in the US. He wants the business. It's ridiculous of course, as we don't want to manufacture shiite here. Its hard... And doesn't pay well. Plus the robots are coming so let them do it. But the EU wants to just come up with BS rules and expects everyone to bend the knee. As John Snow said "I'm not here for that".
The EU should want the business too. They could just tax Apple more and companies like Apple. In turn create a fund that would support local EU efforts in creating something NEW. A new Nokia, Ericsson, etc. Take another Linux OS and create a new platform. With local talent, it could work. If you had a genuine 3rd option that was government funded. There would be no need for this BS.

 

[Kal Madda]

If the law made any real sense I would agree with you and more than likely so would Apple. But this punishes success which is why Apple isn't trying to hear it. It just weakens Apple. And there by the products and services they can sell within the EU will be lessened for it

"Obi-Wan" from a certain point of view. The choice was made to comply with it. Then the EU said "not good enough".

Still has nothing to do with what they make globally. They could have said 30% fine on all profits within the EU. But, they raised the bar to profits globally. THAT tells you all you need to know of the motivations of the EU. Ireland would gladly have Apple's business and gladly accepted the taxes Apple paid within it. The EU said no, that's not fair to the other countries. But, that also takes away from that countries right to tax how it sees fit. Which is my gripe with the EU. In the US, States tax however they see fit. So long as they pay up to the FED whatever they owe. How one country generates income is none of the other countries concern. But ya'll agreed to that so there you have it.

Most American's would complain if there was only 1 source of anything. But the real complaint would be due to increase costs of that one thing. Which has not been the case for the AppStore. Outside of inflation, prices have remained pretty darn low for a LONG time. Most people don't care, so long as the price is reasonable and they can get it quickly. What good is an extra 30% more VBUCKS when they just up the VBUCKS price for things within the game anyway? 3500 VBUCKS for some outfit and skins. OH LOOK ITS MARKED DOWN to 2800 VBUCKS!!! MUST BY!

Believing it and the US actually fining say Samsung is a very different thing. Trump (not that I am a fan), wants Samsung and even Sony to build things in the US. He wants the business. It's ridiculous of course, as we don't want to manufacture shiite here. Its hard... And doesn't pay well. Plus the robots are coming so let them do it. But the EU wants to just come up with BS rules and expects everyone to bend the knee. As John Snow said "I'm not here for that".
The EU should want the business too. They could just tax Apple more and companies like Apple. In turn create a fund that would support local EU efforts in creating something NEW. A new Nokia, Ericsson, etc. Take another Linux OS and create a new platform. With local talent, it could work. If you had a genuine 3rd option that was government funded. There would be no need for this BS.

Yeah, as things are, not only does the “law” not make sense, but it also seems practically impossible to comply with, because even the ones enforcing it can’t make up their minds as to whether proposed changes comply or not. It’s like the EU is intentionally trying to penalize US tech companies, and make it virtually impossible for said companies to actually be able to comply, even though said companies have spent the time and resources to even try directly working with the EU commission to make the changes in a way that complies… Law is defined. These arbitrary edicts are not, they are incredibly vague and amorphous, and seemingly change at a whim… That isn’t proper law, it’s petty rule at a whim…

Exactly, companies have tried to comply (with changes they’ve tried to get EU commission input on), and then when they do, the commission retroactively decides it “isn’t enough”…

Yeah, trying to collect a percentage of worldwide profit is ridiculous. For profit generated within the EU? Perhaps. But worldwide? That’s whackadoodle…

Yeah, and besides, Apple isn’t the “only source” of apps by a long shot. There are A. Alternative platforms users could choose, and B. Web apps, which can function essentially like a native app for many different kinds of things. Files can even be stored locally for PWAs.

I basically agree with everything you said there. Great points. 👍🏻

 

[CarlJ]

I think you mean people who buy an EV would demand to be able to charge them at any charging station, on any network. That's at least a closer and more accurate comparison (still not great).

Are you having fun manufacturing windmills to tilt at? "I think you mean"? No, I meant exactly what I said. The remaining steps of your argument are entirely irrelevant.

People who buy an iPhone and then want it to work (or be forced to work) like an Android phone, are like people who would buy an EV and then demand that it be made to work like a non-EV car. Is that clear? That's what I said, and I'll thank you kindly to stop trying to put words in my mouth just to make your counter argument easier for you to compose.

 

[CarlJ]

What we're asking for is parity between two of Apple's product lines: ...

And you are totally free to ask Apple to do that. And Apple should be totally free to say no. But you're not really asking, are you? You want the government to make any behavior other than what you want, illegal. You want the government to punish Apple for not doing what you want.

The iPhone should be opened up because it's a computing platform now, not an accessory.

Again, this is an argument you can make to Apple - like schedule a meeting and bring a powerpoint presentation and everything. But if instead of urging them to do what you want, you start forcing them to do what you want (even if you think that your idea would be a very good thing for all involved), now the company is a puppet of the state - you've nationalized Apple, running it for the public good. How many trillions of dollars are you planning to pay to Apple in compensation for this government takeover? Because it's no longer a company that is allowed to decide how to run their own company, it's now being run on the whims of Ctrlos, who did nothing to make Apple what it is today (you, of course, are free to go start your own smartphone company, to compete with Apple - and saying "that's too hard" is a cop-out - Apple didn't start out as a phone manufacturer, they put in a lot of hard work and took a lot of big risks, and lots of people insisted they could never pull it off - now that they did, you want to take away their agency and make them do whatever you want, because you're too lazy to make you own competitor).

I've theoretically paid thousands of dollars for a phone. It's mine and I should be able to do with it as I please.

You paid thousands of dollars for a phone, that you were only allowed to purchase and activate after agreeing to a series of licenses (your alternative was to decline the licenses, put the phone back in the box and return it for a refund), the full details of which were all available before you purchased it. You can do anything you like with the physical object. Use it in the manner for which it was designed and programmed, put it in a drawer and ignore it, use it as a doorstop, drive over it with your car if you want. But if you agree to all the licensing involved in buying and activating it and then insist that the manufacturer must make changes to how it operates after the sale to operate in some manner that you desire that wasn't on the table when you signed the contract... then I got nothing for you. And neither does Apple.

We get it, it doesn't operate exactly the way you want. That was the deal when you bought it. Now you want to change the deal, after the fact. And since you're not powerful enough to do it yourself, you want to bring in your big brother the government to coerce Apple to make the changes you want (without compensating Apple for the company they'd be effectively taking over in the process).

You coulda just bought an Android phone instead, and saved everybody a whole lot of hassle. The Android phone already does what you want. Removing the walled garden and forcing iPhone to operate just like Android IS NOT ADDING CHOICE to the market - it is TAKING AWAY choice, from the users who had multiple options to choose from, and intentionally chose Apple's walled garden approach.

Again, it's a matter of buying an EV, knowing full well that EVs don't run on gasoline, and then demanding the manufacturer retrofit a gasoline engine so that you can make use of all those convenient gas stations (because that's a good idea, right?). The fault is yours, not Apple's or the EV manufacturer's.

 

[Kal Madda]

And you are totally free to ask Apple to do that. And Apple should be totally free to say no. But you're not really asking, are you? You want the government to make any behavior other than what you want, illegal. You want the government to punish Apple for not doing what you want.


Again, this is an argument you can make to Apple - like schedule a meeting and bring a powerpoint presentation and everything. But if instead of urging them to do what you want, you start forcing them to do what you want (even if you think that your idea would be a very good thing for all involved), now the company is a puppet of the state - you've nationalized Apple, running it for the public good. How many trillions of dollars are you planning to pay to Apple in compensation for this government takeover? Because it's no longer a company that can decide how to run their company, it's now being run on the whims of Ctrlos, who did nothing to make Apple what it is today.


You paid thousands of dollars for a phone, that you were only allowed to purchase after agreeing to a series of licenses, the full details of which were all available before you purchased it. You can do anything you like with the physical object. Use it in the manner for which it was designed and programmed, ignore it, use it as a doorstop, drive over it with your car if you want. But if you agree to all the licensing involved in buying and activating it and then insist that the manufacturer must make changes to how it operates after the sale to operate in some manner that you desire that wasn't on the table when you signed the contract, I got nothing for you. And neither does Apple.

We get it, it doesn't operate exactly the way you want. That was the deal when you bought it. Now you want to change the deal. And since you're not powerful enough to do it yourself, you want to bring in your big brother the government to coerce Apple to make the changes you want (without compensating Apple for the company they'd be effectively taking over in the process).

You coulda just bought an Android phone instead, and saved everybody a whole lot of hassle. It does what you want.

Again, it's a matter of buying an EV, knowing full well that EVs don't run on gasoline, and then demanding the manufacturer retrofit a gasoline engine so that you can make use of gas stations. The fault is yours, not Apple's or the EV manufacturer's.

Exactly, very well put! I couldn’t have really put it any better than that. Great points. 👍🏻

 

[CarlJ]

Exactly, very well put! I couldn’t have really put it any better than that. Great points. 👍🏻

Thanks! (I updated the original somewhat, BTW.)

 

[Ctrlos]

so blocking ads and installing games not available... neither sound like paying or supporting game dev with, you know, cash

a dev tool for AI stuff? hardly something many tech people want let alone average users...

so please name a legal paid app that is essential for opening up Apple devices.

Devs should charge up front for everything.

 

[cjsuk]

Sounds like they should get an Android if they care about the same issues as much as you 👍

I am literally evaluating that now.

I have a Pixel 7A and GrapheneOS test build here. Stock retail Android is too volatile for them (and me).

 

[Ctrlos]

And you are totally free to ask Apple to do that. And Apple should be totally free to say no. But you're not really asking, are you? You want the government to make any behavior other than what you want, illegal. You want the government to punish Apple for not doing what you want.


Again, this is an argument you can make to Apple - like schedule a meeting and bring a powerpoint presentation and everything. But if instead of urging them to do what you want, you start forcing them to do what you want (even if you think that your idea would be a very good thing for all involved), now the company is a puppet of the state - you've nationalized Apple, running it for the public good. How many trillions of dollars are you planning to pay to Apple in compensation for this government takeover? Because it's no longer a company that is allowed to decide how to run their own company, it's now being run on the whims of Ctrlos, who did nothing to make Apple what it is today (you, of course, are free to go start your own smartphone company, to compete with Apple - and saying "that's too hard" is a cop-out - Apple didn't start out as a phone manufacturer, they put in a lot of hard work and took a lot of big risks, and lots of people insisted they could never pull it off - now that they did, you want to take away their agency and make them do whatever you want, because you're too lazy to make you own competitor).


You paid thousands of dollars for a phone, that you were only allowed to purchase and activate after agreeing to a series of licenses (your alternative was to decline the licenses, put the phone back in the box and return it for a refund), the full details of which were all available before you purchased it. You can do anything you like with the physical object. Use it in the manner for which it was designed and programmed, put it in a drawer and ignore it, use it as a doorstop, drive over it with your car if you want. But if you agree to all the licensing involved in buying and activating it and then insist that the manufacturer must make changes to how it operates after the sale to operate in some manner that you desire that wasn't on the table when you signed the contract... then I got nothing for you. And neither does Apple.

We get it, it doesn't operate exactly the way you want. That was the deal when you bought it. Now you want to change the deal, after the fact. And since you're not powerful enough to do it yourself, you want to bring in your big brother the government to coerce Apple to make the changes you want (without compensating Apple for the company they'd be effectively taking over in the process).

You coulda just bought an Android phone instead, and saved everybody a whole lot of hassle. The Android phone already does what you want. Removing the walled garden and forcing iPhone to operate just like Android IS NOT ADDING CHOICE to the market - it is TAKING AWAY choice, from the users who had multiple options to choose from, and intentionally chose Apple's walled garden approach.

Again, it's a matter of buying an EV, knowing full well that EVs don't run on gasoline, and then demanding the manufacturer retrofit a gasoline engine so that you can make use of all those convenient gas stations (because that's a good idea, right?). The fault is yours, not Apple's or the EV manufacturer's.

But could the reverse not be said? It's not what I want but rather what makes Apple's litigators happy. Letting the iPbone grow up and bringing it into parity with the Mac, a product Apple sells and markets already to the same users (even if they don't buy it) would make all their problems vanish overnight. That was (I think?) the original article on this thread.

Apple keep adding layers of bureaucracy and flouting the letter of the law and then wondering why they keep getting fined. Although this thread is centred on EU law there was that judge in the USA who took them to town for not meeting the demands of the Epic case, purposefully and willfully adding regressive external payment warnings, sending an employee to commit perjury on their behalf and then asking for 3% less in commission on external payments.

Now you could say Apple was just protecting their users, but the corporate emails that came out showed that it was the bottom line (and shareholders) they were protecting. Mac parity here would have ended that problem too.

The Apple of old would have used this as an excuse to innovate somehow, improving the development experience to they never jump ship and other things I can't think of. Instead they choose to keep making their problems worse and then complaining about it in public.

To get things back on track it's not what anyone here wants but rather the most obvious solution to end the legal woes. Ignorance on Apple's part is making it worse. Bringing the iPhone up to Mac parity is but one solution but it's my best suggestion.

This last sentence comes across as sarcastic but I mean it with sincerity: I would genuinely love to hear what others have to say on how Apple can solve it's problems 🥰 The ball is for better or worse in their court.

 

[breenmask]

Let's say I don't want to buy an iPhone because I can't afford it but at the same time I don't want to be a product for Google.

What are my options?

That's like saying, I hate Nintendo's $80 price increase tactic, Sony's handling of Helldivers 2 PSN requirement, and Microsoft's layoff events recently, what are my console options?

Technically I can make the argument of lack of consumer choice in any industry if I nitpick on each available choice.

Anyways, any Chinese phone will be de-googled since google doesn't exist in China. Huge selection there.

 

[Ctrlos]

That's like saying, I hate Nintendo's $80 price increase tactic, Sony's handling of Helldivers 2 PSN requirement, and Microsoft's layoff events recently, what are my console options?

The Games Industry =/= The Mobile Industry

I could buy an emulator console. Or an actual retro console. Or a Playdate. Or play on my Phone. Or an Evercade. Or a mini retro console. Or build my own with a raspberry pi. Or play on a Mac. Or a PC. Or buy a Meta Quest. Or a handheld PC etc.

 

[theluggage]

Real law is not supposed to be so incredibly vague. And it’s also not supposed to be contradictory.

"supposed to be" is doing a helluva lot of work in that sentence.

Meanwhile, in the Land of the Free (where pretty much the same arguments are going on, but via private lawsuits rather than government bodies), Epic Games v. Apple (on a not unrelated topic) took 3 weeks of arguments at trial, an appeal to the ninth circuit, an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court and a subsequent legal dispute over Apple's compliance with the ruling.

Yup, commercial laws and regulations are all as clear as crystal. /s

 

[wbeasley]

Devs should charge up front for everything.

but is you steal an app binary, you can copy and share it and install...

how exactly are you proposing to ensure people pay for the apps they install?

and back to the other question, what apps cant you find or install on iOS devices that require dismantling the AppStore?

 

[wbeasley]

I am literally evaluating that now.

I have a Pixel 7A and GrapheneOS test build here. Stock retail Android is too volatile for them (and me).

well now you've solved your Android phone you wont need to continue the push for Apple to change... solved!

"stock Android is too volatile"??? turn off updates maybe?

 

[wbeasley]

The Games Industry =/= The Mobile Industry

I could buy an emulator console. Or an actual retro console. Or a Playdate. Or play on my Phone. Or an Evercade. Or a mini retro console. Or build my own with a raspberry pi. Or play on a Mac. Or a PC. Or buy a Meta Quest. Or a handheld PC etc.

you could build your own phone too... or write your own OS or modify Android...

no of which means Apple need to do anything.