Apple Confirms iOS 17.4 Disables Home Screen Web Apps in the European Union

[j26]

...Not asking for special treatment. Just asking they leave them alone...

But that is special treatment - why should everyone else be subject to laws, but Apple should be "left alone".

The DMA is the new "Rules of the Game" in the EU market. If Apple wants to participate, then it has to play by the rules, like everyone else.

You may not like the rules, but that's the way it is - Apple IS just another company.

 

[MilaM]

And thankfully Apple figured out a good way to protect the end user, stay in business, and follow the law.

In the short term, yes. Showing the EU commission the middle-finger is one way to do it. If it's a good strategy, will be seen. It could get very costly for them though.

 

[j26]

And thankfully Apple figured out a good way to protect the end user, stay in business, and follow the law.

That remains to be seen. Meta and Microsoft are already lobbying the EU to reject Apples plan. They seem to think Apple is not within the new legal framework.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple had to have a hit every single time as it didn't have room for much of any failure. Each hit was met with criticism. Still is.

Apple had many failed products like any other company. They had the same pressure has any other great company.

What? Do we really need a side by side comparison of what Apple has done since the early 2000's to what Microsoft has done in the same time that has changed the world?

Again being cold hearted.

Microsoft has managed to put computers on everyone's table, from homes to businesses while Apple and its closed model was going bankrupt. This alone is huge. Meanwhile they redefined productivity software and enterprise computer management making it accessible to the very large and the very small businesses. Then there is the rise of PC gaming ... later becoming relevant in Console Gaming along with Sony and Nintendo. Do you know that Windows XP extended support only ended in 2014? Granted, their OS GUIs were not has good as Apple's and they should have backed their post MS-DOS OS on Unix rather than VAX/VMS.

Look Apple did amazing things too. My first computer after an Atari 800XL was an Apple 2. I love Apple achievements and in many occasions with superior technical and design acumen.

My point was that in the end of the day if the software of either company was eventually shutdown overnight by some weird phenomena, if it was Microsoft, we would be absolute chaos, stock markets down, hospital down, call centers, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Apple ... I feel it would be a bit like Nokia disappearance ... fancy device owners would feel the pain to change to another ecosystem, but that wast just it.Everything else would keep on rolling. Microsoft is a bit like discrete person at the back of the queue that eats one lunch if needed, you the ones that when they try to look cool it just looks awkward if not clumsy ... but look at their come back (if they ever left) with the Cloud and now AI.

Which is it? They are important or are they not? They seem to be to you. And arguably hundreds of millions of people at the least.

Yes, Apple is important to me that is why I am critical to their approach to the digital market place.

And to remove choice from consumers.

I think its is evidential macOS user regardless of they are devs or end users have more choice then iOS users.

What is unhealthy is the EU forcing Apple to be like any other company.

Yes, like any other company Apple needs to follow today's and future regulations.

I understand that in this forum I may come out has an enemy of Apple products. But the truth is far from that. I'm not part of a particular group of thinkers on these matters.

Some guys here are saying "The EU should just specifically state the changes they want, very very specific". But here is the thing, it would not be good for Apple if they did that. Instead the rules are stated so that Gatekeeper can come with creative solutions that fully comply with the DMA objectives.

Why woudn't be good. Well, I remember AT hearings in the US, I remember the EU requiring Microsoft to fully decouple the Web Browser, Music Player and some other things from Windows. I remember Bill Gates being dragged to this dispute ... to the point that it became a distraction to the company and lost some of their focus. Back than the talk was about splitting the company between Office Software and Windows .... Microsoft kind of entered a downhill technology spiral after that ... became an even more boring company ...

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1651&context=njilb

As a customer I don't want this situation for Apple. I don't want the EU one day, say, look this open ended regulation approach is not working. "Gatekeeping platform businesses are now required to decouple and unbundle their Digital Retail services, including the so called App Stores, from some their smartphone OSs". The truth is, that Apple already bundles their services in MacOS yet it's not restrictive so even if it was as popular as iOS would not face these challenges ever. For me the kind of bundling Apple does with macOS, because as a user of all Apple services and than some, works quite well.

Now, you may argue that this would be unfair because from the origin, the iPhone was setup with the App Store, give or take one or two very initial versions that it was not. So all its historic rise was with it. Yes, but the world is quite different now from what it was. Smarphones became as important if not more than Personal Computers for every human activity. As you know, most often it does not matter how a story starts, but how it evolves, and people almost always remember how it ends rather than how it starts.

Apple and some user around here seam to be taking this issue as existential. I don't believe it is as it was not for Microsoft back than and it is not to any company in the Gatekeepers group. Apple is a great company.

 

[MilaM]

Do you know that Windows XP extended support only ended in 2014?

This is just a minor point in long thoughtful post. But as someone who has an iMac from 2017 that did not get the latest Sonoma update and is now on borrowed time, it resonated with me

 

[tobybrut]

Actually, there is a client side component. If you put your phone on airplane mode, for example, you still have access to songs you have downloaded. The app continues to track play, pause, fast forward, rewind, skip, etc. actions and then dutifully reports back on your listening activities when you go online again. In fact, if you have downloaded the songs, the primary mode of tracking your listening activity is client side. After all, it will save Apple bandwidth costs if they don't have to actually stream it every play, and instead only upload the playback activity.

I did actually mention this that the host app does this and that it gets vetted, e.g. Netflix app. The movies don’t do anything but stream, but the host app pushes commands and such. It controls the stream. Remember I said in earlier posts that vetting ensures the host app doesn’t do anything more than send play, pause… and so on back to the server?

With a game streaming service, the game sends back a ton of information completely untied to its host app. That is the portion that people were advocating should not be vetted.

You really know how to get someone interested...

I think they don't go far enough in some cases, particularly on the Mac. (I'd love to have an option to force an app from outside the App Store to use the sandbox, for example. There's plenty of apps that don't want to pay the Apple tax, but the developers also don't care to enable the sandbox if Apple isn't forcing their hand.)
That said, App Store review is rather toothless except for good faith apps, and those are subject to fickle rejections. Bad faith apps can trivially bypass review. Which goes back to the "one app submission per game" thing. Apple should have told Microsoft they need to make the apps' privacy disclosure and age rating be the maximum of all games they stream—done. Besides, each App Store reviewer spends what, 5 minutes on an app? Game Pass has under 500 games per month, and it's not like those are completely changing every month. Compare that to the millions of apps in the App Store and how little time the employees have to review apps. In this specific case, I'd trust Microsoft's vetting more than Apple's vetting. (And it really pains me to say that with how horrid Microsoft is.)

Agreed. I’d prefer a version of macOS that acted more like iPadOS in forcing sandboxing, indirect inter-application communication, and other security measures impossible to do on macOS. macOS is over 20 years old and has fundamental issues that prevent that. It was designed like most OS’es were long before it became macOS seeing as Apple bought NeXT to get Steve Jobs back and their OS. If Apple tried to make macOS more like iPadOS, there would be two problems. It would break almost every app out there and there would be a revolution by members of MacRumors, who seem to despise iPads because of their security model and the implications of what that does (E.g. restricted Files app, no terminal, etc).

As for the review process, it’s not a perfect one. I have no idea what it entails since I’ve never worked for them (I did work for 17 years for one of their competitors - not Google). Having an imperfect review process is better than no process.

 

[tobybrut]

Obviously you are not listening.

Not listening to whom? That’s the problem. Would make sense if it were making any cogent arguments. Your multi-legged analogy makes no sense. After reading it multiple times, I still have no idea what you’re saying. You throw away Schiller’s argument despite Apple winning that court case against Epic Games’s lame argument that streamed games are no more dangerous than a movie stream. I proved Epic’s claim to be completely false, yet you still believe there is no more danger of a game than a movie. If there is data going back to the server that cannot be observed by any outside source, that is fundamentally a security risk. There’s not a reasonable person who could disagree with that statement, so your argument about 2 or no legged people makes no sense. Movies do not send any data back at all and therefore need no vetting. The shell application does, so it gets vetted, e.g. Netflix, Disney+, Max, etc, but it would be worthless to individually review all the movies and TV shows since those send back nothing. I have a feeling there’s no argument in the world that would convince you of the difference between games and movies, despite your admission that games are interactive. It is that very interactivity difference that makes them potential security holes if not vetted.

Apple can easily vet any shell application like the one Microsoft had proposed to make, but any games running inside of it cannot be vetted, especially games added AFTER the Microsoft app had been approved. What happens when Microsoft adds a few hundred games after approval? You’d have a few hundred new potential security holes because they send back data to the game company’s servers completely independent of Microsoft’s app. Ever think of that issue as to why Apple wanted each game to be broken out individually?

Following Phil reasoning your entire argument is that game streams are inherently unsafer to play than video or music streams because one is technically more interactive than the other. This is akin to saying that a person with two legs is inherently unsafer to interact with than a person with no legs. You know, one has more interaction points than the other. I find this line of reasoning about security absolutely ridiculous.

Have you ever watched a magic show? A magician‘s main trick is deception and misdirection. One hand is doing something that they’ll attract you to while the other hand is busy doing something else that you’re not meant to see. That second hand is what Apple worries about. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where the term, underhanded, came from. Microsoft’s main app is the hand the magician wants to you watch. Apple would screen that for underhandedness. The games that are busy sucking up all your data (some of which you enter yourself voluntarily when you create your game accounts, one for each game) are the hand that you don’t see. You want Apple to remain blinded to the other hand doing the actual trick.

In that respect I also find macOS approach totally reasonable because it allows precisely the second, unlike the world Apple wants to create with iOS. It allowed at such a scale, many other will follow if the law is to remain consistent.

I’d rather macOS work more like iPadOS because macOS is inherently less secure, written in an earlier age of computing back when Steve Jobs owned NeXT back in the 1990’s. Nobody had any concept of iOS back then. You prefer openness. That ends up being chaotic and more dangerous. That is your prerogative if that’s what you like. You want to force that on everyone. Choice is king. With the EU, choices all look alike while the EU forces iOS to be more like Android. The EU is actually taking that choice away from people without expanding anything since the company with nearly triple the market share already has all the features the EU wanted, yet they want to make the one with a third of the market share more like the dominant one. How does that make any sense?

Why do I consider macOS to be less secure? I got mine hacked, despite it being at home behind a firewall. I had my crypto wallet raided and all my crypto stolen. That wouldn’t have happened with iOS or iPadOS. I lost a lot of money that day since there’s no way to get back what I lost. I erased that Mac completely and started from scratch, not trusting any backups. Viruses and phishing attempts are far more easy to pull off on macOS.

Is Apple now running China? I thought that it was running the App Store and the service in question is available there, both in the US and EU. Don't know about the App Store in China.

You don’t get the joke, I guess, but if this is a counter joke, it doesn’t translate to text well.

Rolex make the best watches in the world and do not innovate much. I have a couple and like them.

And yet, Apple outsells every watch in the world, including mechanical watches. Guess they’re not the best. Most expensive, yes. Best, that’s debatable.

Don't see any data backing this with clarity. Even if there was lack of APIs to make PWA abilities universally available to browser developers why remove the specific feature? There are plenty of iOS features that only Apple software has access to.

One of the DMA rulings was directly on browsers, so Apple is forced to comply. If you don’t like them removing PWA’s take it up with the dumb EU regulators who probably don’t even know what that feature is.

Look I fully understand Apple position. In Phill shoes I would be saying exactly the same thing and see if it catches. But I am not, I am here acting as an individual with a vision of a free and prosper world. A world were people move from digital to physical totally free, more, were both ar intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable, yet we are free and safe as we were in our best years. This can only be assured by the platforms used by the society (technological or not). I find Apples approach and political stance on App Store policies and its vertical integration with the OSs at scale to be in the wrong side of the equation.

Purely opinion. I see them being the victim of an overzealous regulator who doesn’t know jack about technology, as they proved with the USB-C ruling.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I still have no idea what you’re saying. You throw away Schiller’s argument despite Apple winning that court case against Epic Games’s lame argument that streamed games are no more dangerous than a movie stream. I proved Epic’s claim to be completely false, yet you still believe there is no more danger of a game than a movie.

Its indeed hard to have rational discussion when you make up fake facts for yourself.

Epic vs Apple case had nothing to do whether game streams are more secure than video streams or not. Epic took Apple to court because for banning Epics Fortnite from the App Store. An App that was nowhere near a game stream.

The argument that the Court ruled game streams less secure than video streams is ludicrous at many levels.

Hey, no doubt you have courage coming up with this kind of nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

In the end Epic lost most of its claims. Yet Apple was guilty of steering practices and was instructed to drop policies that blocked devs abilities to provide in app links to alternate payment systems.

Have you ever watched a magic show? A magician‘s main trick is deception and misdirection. One hand is doing something that they’ll attract you to while the other hand is busy doing something else that you’re not meant to see. That second hand is what Apple worries about. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where the term, underhanded, came from. Microsoft’s main app is the hand the magician wants to you watch.

You seam to have watched that show quite often. So Apple wants to protect the world against the likes of Epic, Microsoft, Sony, .... you name it, in sum anyone else but Apple. I would say that in this context the iPhone and its fantastic new camera is what Apple wants you to watch ... the other hand is the App Store and its ability to indirectly further charge the user for its use for whatever they see fit and how they see fit.

From a business perspective, I am convinced that the App Store was specifically created for Apple to be able to charge a commission over any sale for to through an App installed on users devices. Case in case back than, the commission was around 30% for any kind of digital asset sold by the business through their App. As Tim Cook put once, the acceptance of the App Store business model is nothing less than Miracle ... a magician's Miracle.

But there is more ... back in 2020 or so, I went to my Mac. I noticed that opening any app, from the App Store or not would take tenths of seconds if it opened at all. I thought ... "damn I got a virus". That would be the first to me on a Mac, even in Windows only had one in 2005 or so. I am careful. The phenomena happened only when connected to the Internet. Started teaching the Internet ... this is what I found out ...

Mac Apps Not Opening or Slow Due to Apple Server Issues: How to Fix For Now

If you are seeing long delays in launching apps or being unable to open Mac Apps at all, this may be due to Apple having significant problems right now with their services. Apple has noted on their status site that "Users may be experience issues with the service." We've seen reports that...

forums.macrumors.com

Apple was probing every single app start on my Mac. Something I did not knew about. So of course I did not specifically authorized this practice over my properties.

Anyway, the reason for this, was of course ... security. It was for my own benefit after all said Apple. But I thought ... geez if this was with Windows and Microsoft what would the likes of tobybrut say considering that even the ones that are in such a group would probably roar in the Windows forums about the Big Brother Microsoft.

I’d rather macOS work more like iPadOS because macOS is inherently less secure

Technically the App Store business practices are not needed for an OS to be able to enforce strict Sandboxing over any and all Apps. In other words, this coupling between technology and business is there for the App Store business to leverage over device sales, to charge device users further over the use of the device. Either in MacOS, iOS or iPad OS. As per dominance in the market potentially even steer it. Don't know much about the law in US, but in the EU there is the concept of a market monopoly and the concept of dominant player. A market can have more than one dominant player. Regulation over business behavior can made for either classes of players.

Now my opinion over iPad OS in general.

I had every High-End iPad version until the iPad Pro M1 was launched. I stopped buying them for myself, wife and kids just in the previous version. It's a technology that shown promise make PCs even better. But having tried several years to replace my MacBook ... having watched some YouTube players torturing themselves for months using nothing else than the device to be productive ... I can tell you that it Sucks. It sucks hard at many levels apart from a bunch of use cases ... mostly digital consumption. For the rest, at most is a MacOS accessory.

So having MacOS working like iPad OS? Oh dear. Even my 13 year old kid mostly just watch videos and play Roblox there ... the rest its the iMac at home. My 16 old same thing, but also uses the iPad for drawing as he wants to be an illustrator .. for the rest ... his MacBook Air. My wife a teacher used often to scribble remote math lessons during the pandemic along with her MacBook. After the pandemic, seldomly.

So again, fundamentally an accessory that is becoming less cost effective as the years pass.

I have never said this. As iPad OS UI evolves in an Apple attempt to make it more useful while around the App Store with idiosyncratic UI behaviors bring an ever more frustrating complexity. I wonder if a MacOS tablet is not such a bad idea after all.

And yet, Apple outsells every watch in the world, including mechanical watches. Guess they’re not the best.

My argument was in the context of me saying that at one hand I considered Apple devices to be one the best in the world if not the best ... yet feeling not innovating that much. And your argument was that I was not being coherent because for you one cannot go without the other.

Against this counter argument I gave an example of Rolex. A company that produces one of the best watches in the world yet do not innovate that much. So indeed I was not e being necessarily incoherent.

Rolex does not produce smart watches so it’s not in the same category as the Apple Watch.

Now Im not going on a debate over if the most popular product means that it's the best. Apple had a lot experience building great products, better than the competition, yet also going almost bankrupt due to diminishing sales.

Now we can agree the products with leading sales are indeed the most popular. But it’s not even tangent to my point.

Would make sense if it were making any cogent arguments

Concluding, the benefits of centralization of digital commerce around App Stores can clearly be seen if one cares to careful analyze the evolution of the cost of digital goods in these realms to the end user. It rose more than a 1000% in the last 5 years and free apps are capitalizing on mass surveillance. Furthermore, in theory centralization would be good as the benefit of scale could reduce cost for its users, either if they are end-users or developers ... but indeed it is quite the contrary as the dependency is fortified costs rise.

Whether Im being cogent or not ... will see how things evolve with regulators.

I also think people that know jack about business or regulatory matters should abstain from commenting them and talk about technology instead. There is little technology on the matter being discussed … the theme is fundamentally about business policy. Yet here we are discussing whether videos streams are more secure then game streams, sandboxing or no sandboxing all things tangent to the matter, magic hands… a total farce.

Have fun.

PS: Personally I would not pay an estimated cost between 300k to 600k to a retail service to simply distribute my app and process payments if done solely through App Stores. I choose to pay a tenth of that and use the rest to improve the digital service, including the App. Competition is fierce and my customers don’t have money to be siphoned when one can get it done effectively and way cheaper elsewhere. Yet that is unfortunate for my customers since they would for sure benefit from the snappiness of native app ... you know we don't do mass surveillance to make it available for free or are in the business of getting people addicted to their own shadow. But hey, to each their own decisions. I think time is on my side on this one.

 

[tobybrut]

Its indeed hard to have rational discussion when you make up fake facts for yourself.

Epic vs Apple case had nothing to do whether game streams are more secure than video streams or not. Epic took Apple to court because for banning Epics Fortnite from the App Store. An App that was nowhere near a game stream. The argument that the Court ruled game streams less secure than video streams is ludicrous at many levels.

Hey, no doubt you have courage coming up with this kind of nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

Wikipedia? Uh huh. Bastion of truth. Anyway, it was the judge who asked about why Epic shouldn’t be treated like Netflix. Apple answered and the judge agreed with them. There were many other issues, the major one being that Epic wanted to freeload by having their own store without paying a dime to Apple, but they lost. The major reason for bringing up the Epic case was to show the importance Apple places on how streamed games can be dangerous by showing you Phil Schiller’s responses to the judge’s question.

You seam to have watched that show quite often. So Apple wants to protect the world against the likes of Epic, Microsoft, Sony, .... you name it, in sum anyone else but Apple. I would say that in this context the iPhone and fear-mongering rhetoric around security is what Apple wants you to watch ... the other hand is the App Store.

No company is trustworthy, not even Apple. However it is their garden that we choose to play in, and therefore they have the right to protect it the way they want to. Our choice is to not play in their garden if we don’t like their rules. Would you trust Meta or Google to not steal all your data? Or any other company? Apple prides itself on not stealing anyone’s data and they look to their App Store policies to stop people like Mark Zuckerberg from stealing all your data. Live by those rules or get kicked from the garden. Guess what? Facebook is still there because they begrudgingly abided by the rules to not take your data unless you give permission. You seem to put an awful lot of trust in all these companies to not do bad things… except Apple, for which you have zero trust that they even care about security. Every time you say, “security,” I can envision you rolling your eyes. Google with 72% market share? No problem. Apple with 28% market share? Nah, bust them for anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. I don’t trust anyone, but until someone can prove Apple steals data, they’re the best deal for privacy and security. If someone proves they are stealing data, then it’s time to re-evaluate and perhaps go elsewhere.

From a business perspective, the App Store was specifically created for Apple to be able to charge a commission over any sale for to through an App installed on users devices. Case in case back than, the commission was around 30% for any kind of digital asset sold by the business through their App. As Tim Cook put once, the acceptance of the App Store business model is nothing less than Miracle ... a magician's Miracle.

The App Store was created because users demanded it. Remember the original iPhone had no App Store and asked everyone to run things via Safari. That was also the origin of PWA’s, the actual subject of this news story. People found web apps to be sorely lacking which then forced Apple’s hand. They never intended to have a store. Steve Jobs didn’t want one at all, but bowed to public pressure after one year of the iPhone’s existence. But since they had to make one, they had to make money from it, especially with no guarantee of the iPhone’s long-term success. On top of that, running a store is very expensive, from maintaining storage for millions of apps to hiring the team to vet and curate apps to the millions spent on making and updating Final Cut Pro and all the tools that go with it like Motion or Compressor. Apple also said that free apps didn’t have to pay a cent. Most of the apps on the store are free or have in-app purchases that are optional. That 30% not only pays for maintaining the App Store and developer network but also subsidizes the millions of apps that Apple hosts and advertises for. In-app purchases had to also be charged the 30% or else there would be no paid apps and every app would freeload. THIS is what Epic wanted to do. They wanted to be a free app, have their own store and skip paying Apple a penny and still reap billions in sales. Epic wanted to be treated just like Netflix and not have to pay. The judge said no.

Every other App Store at the time of the App Store creation was charging 70%, give or take, some news stories putting the lowest fees at 50% with most charging 70%. When Apple introduced theirs at 30%, every news organization was amazed at the low fee Apple was charging. To compete with Apple, every other App Store had to drop their fees to match Apple’s 30%. It was 2008 and people have forgotten all of this, but I didn’t because I lived it. Fast forward to 2020 and suddenly that low, low price of 30% became outrageous though nothing had changed. Today, every App Store still charges 30%, and that includes PlayStation and Xbox along with Windows, Google, and Samsung stores. Yet Apple, the pioneer for the 30% price, is taking all the heat for having 30%. How people‘s memories fade and people don’t remember how things used to be when companies like Microsoft were complaining they couldn’t do with less than 70%.

But there is more ... back in 2020 or so, I went to my Mac. I noticed that opening any app, from the App Store or not would take tenths of seconds if it opened at all. I thought ... "damn I got a virus". That would be the first to me on a Mac, even in Windows only had one in 2005 or so. I am careful. The phenomena happened only when connected to the Internet. Started teaching the Internet ... this is what I found out ...

Mac Apps Not Opening or Slow Due to Apple Server Issues: How to Fix For Now

If you are seeing long delays in launching apps or being unable to open Mac Apps at all, this may be due to Apple having significant problems right now with their services. Apple has noted on their status site that "Users may be experience issues with the service." We've seen reports that...

forums.macrumors.com

Apple was probing every single app launched on my Mac. Something I did not knew about. So of course I did not specifically authorized this practice over my properties.

Anyway, the reason for this, was of course ... security. It was for my own benefit after all said Apple. But I thought ... geez if this was with Windows and Microsoft what would the likes of tobybrut say considering that even the ones that are in such a group would probably roar in the Windows forums about the Big Brother Microsoft.

I actually like Windows as a desktop OS (though I think it sucks as a tablet OS, which is why I hate my Surface Pro), even running Parallels with Windows on my Macs. What’s your point? I spent most of my lifetime using Windows and Apples. I’ve built over a 100 Windows PC’s, taught my kids how to build them, and got my first Apple with my Apple IIe and have owned dozens of Macs and other Apple devices. I actually like both companies and will say when they’re wrong and will defend them when they’re right. I think Microsoft is wrong on the issue of XCloud gaming, despite my owning an Xbox Series X. You still assume I’m some Apple sheep and can’t ever criticize them. I just opposed them in another story here on MacRumors where I said they were wrong with recategoriing Insight Timer’s tips as in-app purchases. Believe it or not, I also like Android, having two personal phones: an iPhone and a Samsung ZFold 4, along with Samsung watches, earbuds, and multiple Galaxy tablets. You may think I’m an Apple exclusive, but I’m nowhere near being one. I criticize Google for stealing our data and do what I can to minimize that (I don’t use many Google services including location and voice assistant to avoid giving them as much as possible), but I still use their devices because I love tech of all kinds. Since I’m retired, all of them are personal devices and not company provided.

You know nothing about me, except what I provided here, so don’t assume how I might react.

Technically the App Store business practices are not needed for an OS to be able to enforce strict Sandboxing over any and all Apps. In other words, this coupling between technology and business is there for the App Store business to leverage over device sales, to charge device users further over the use of the device. Either in MacOS, iOS or iPad OS. As per dominance in the market potentially even steer it. Don't know much about the law in US, but in the EU there is the concept of a market monopoly and the concept of dominant player. A market can have more than one dominant player. Regulation over business behavior can made for either classes of players.

The App Store exists because users demanded it back in 2007, and Apple complied in 2008. They created one for the Mac, but cannot enforce sandboxing rules without breaking millions of existing apps. That ship has long sailed and is why they don’t even try. But as I said, if they had to do it all over again from scratch, they would have made macOS more like iPadOS.

In the US, there are also a lot of laws on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviors, and they are constantly enforced. But in this country, we value innovation and not stifling companies for no good reason. A company may see scrutiny if they try to buy up another large company, but there’s little interference in how a company operates, relatively speaking. The most famous breakup of a monopoly in US history is AT&T back in the 1980’s. Microsoft was only allowed to purchase Activision/Blizzard by giving numerous concessions. Never did anyone in the US think to force Microsoft to not install Internet Explorer all those years ago. In the EU, they don’t value freedom nearly as much as we do and don’t seem to care no European companies seem to innovate at all anymore. Their stifling rules kill companies and prevent them from taking risks, which is why no tech innovation (or much of anything at all), comes out of EU countries.

Now my option over iPad OS in general.

I had every High-End iPad version until the iPad Pro M1 was launched. I stopped buying them for myself, wife and kids just in the previous version. It's a technology that shown promise make PCs even better. But having tried several years to replace my MacBook ... having watched some YouTube players torturing themselves for months using nothing else than the device to be productive ... I can tell you that it Sucks. It sucks hard at many levels apart from a bunch of use cases ... mostly digital consumption. For the rest, at most is a MacOS accessory.

So having MacOS working like iPad OS? Oh dear. Even my 13 year old kid mostly just watch videos and play Roblox there ... the rest its the iMac at home. My 16 old same thing, but also uses the iPad for drawing as he wants to be an illustrator .. for the rest ... his MacBook Air. My wife a teacher used often to scribble remote math lessons during the pandemic along with her MacBook. After the pandemic, seldomly.

So again, fundamentally an accessory that is becoming less cost effective as the years pass.

I have never said this. As iPad OS UI evolves in an Apple attempt to make it more useful while around the App Store with idiosyncratic UI behaviors bring an ever more frustrating complexity. I wonder if a MacOS tablet is not such a bad idea after all.

That’s your mistake. Apple never promised the iPad would be a Mac replacement. They’ve not tried to make it one, which is why all those people who tried failed. The iPad is its own computer. Remember, Apple’s advertising was “What is a computer?” They didn’t say, “What is a laptop? or “What is a Mac?” The iPad is a computer, but it’s not a Mac and was never intended to be one with its touch-first interface and simplicity. That’s why it’s the best-selling tablet in the world. Most people like it that way. Making it just like a Mac would kill the iPad since that erases anything that makes it different. This is coming from someone who owns one iPad and two Galaxy tablets. The iPad is far superior while the Galaxy Tab S tablets aren’t much use beyond watching YouTube since they sorely lack any apps, and Samsung tablets try really hard to be a laptop.

The problem people have with iPads isn’t really iPadOS. It’s that the apps they have gotten used to on a Mac aren’t all on the iPad and don’t necessarily work the same way or have the same features. It has very little to do with the OS for most people. The main complaints I hear are that “my app isn’t there so iPadOS sucks” or ”I can’t use terminal” or some esoteric thing that nobody outside tech nerd-dom cares about. I’ll bet 99% have never even opened a Terminal window because why would you want to? They’ll use the Finder, but in iPadOS, there isn’t a need for a Finder because each app is sandboxed into its own little space with no particular reason to see outside of it. Those are the key differences in OS, but the main reason people have trouble with it being a laptop isn’t the OS. It’s a lack of apps. While iPad still has the most apps of any tablet, it’s still far younger than Macs with people only taking it seriously within the last 10 years or so. That’s not a lot of time to develop apps, especially major one where companies still aren’t used to coding for touch, which is why major features are still absent in apps like Photoshop. What will it look like in another ten years?

Neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything. You acknowledge the difference between movies and streamed games, but don’t care if they’re security risks. It wouldn’t matter if I posted a bunch of different ways I could steal data using a game’s interactivity. You still wouldn’t care. You have the European mindset. I don’t. In America we wouldn’t think of doing anything of the sort that Europe does to companies because we value the freedom to innovate without the constant threat of being crushed. Do something really bad, sure, like Volkswagon falsifying emissions data. But do something that reasonable people can differ on, no. That is injustice.

Thank you for the polite conversations, but I suspect we’ve exhausted our readers and the editors, too. Have a good day.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple answered and the judge agreed with them

The Judge is there to judge the case based on the current law not to make new laws or regulations. That is the job of governamental regulators.

Now the panel of Judges also agreed that App Store leveraged on the iPhone were anti-competitive, yet still not violating any current laws … except for a couple of policies.

I think I already said that Apple on this matter was not found to violate anti-trust laws or any other laws on that matter apart from one.

Now from this to conclude as you do that the Judge agreed with Phill justification over why game streams should be each distributed in their own App, or even that game streams are less secure than video streams is your own doing. Plausibility is not necessarily the truth Such requirement was simply found not to violate any law.

Again is up to legislators and regulators to design laws, not Judges. At least in Europe.

The rest of you writing is a romance of distortion. Poor Apple, they were pressured by the public to create a Store to make money that did not want to. Without wanting they even invented PWA (which they did not). And just by accident have found this amazing instrument of total security , a simple Store, imagine the oldest business in the world is the best instrument of security. What an amazing Hollywood movie.

I think every major corp is at it when it comes to take money from people. There is no white knight if not competition.

Look, obviously we have different perspectives and understanding even on simple matters such as this.

There is no point in proceeding. We have both explained our POV ad-náusea.

EDIT: Did an edit as now I had the time to read the entire thing.

 

[djphat2000]

That remains to be seen. Meta and Microsoft are already lobbying the EU to reject Apples plan. They seem to think Apple is not within the new legal framework.

Pot calling Kettle.

 

[djphat2000]

Wikipedia? Uh huh. Bastion of truth. Anyway, it was the judge who asked about why Epic shouldn’t be treated like Netflix. Apple answered and the judge agreed with them. There were many other issues, the major one being that Epic wanted to freeload by having their own store without paying a dime to Apple, but they lost. The major reason for bringing up the Epic case was to show the importance Apple places on how streamed games can be dangerous by showing you Phil Schiller’s responses to the judge’s question.


No company is trustworthy, not even Apple. However it is their garden that we choose to play in, and therefore they have the right to protect it the way they want to. Our choice is to not play in their garden if we don’t like their rules. Would you trust Meta or Google to not steal all your data? Or any other company? Apple prides itself on not stealing anyone’s data and they look to their App Store policies to stop people like Mark Zuckerberg from stealing all your data. Live by those rules or get kicked from the garden. Guess what? Facebook is still there because they begrudgingly abided by the rules to not take your data unless you give permission. You seem to put an awful lot of trust in all these companies to not do bad things… except Apple, for which you have zero trust that they even care about security. Every time you say, “security,” I can envision you rolling your eyes. Google with 72% market share? No problem. Apple with 28% market share? Nah, bust them for anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. I don’t trust anyone, but until someone can prove Apple steals data, they’re the best deal for privacy and security. If someone proves they are stealing data, then it’s time to re-evaluate and perhaps go elsewhere.


The App Store was created because users demanded it. Remember the original iPhone had no App Store and asked everyone to run things via Safari. That was also the origin of PWA’s, the actual subject of this news story. People found web apps to be sorely lacking which then forced Apple’s hand. They never intended to have a store. Steve Jobs didn’t want one at all, but bowed to public pressure after one year of the iPhone’s existence. But since they had to make one, they had to make money from it, especially with no guarantee of the iPhone’s long-term success. On top of that, running a store is very expensive, from maintaining storage for millions of apps to hiring the team to vet and curate apps to the millions spent on making and updating Final Cut Pro and all the tools that go with it like Motion or Compressor. Apple also said that free apps didn’t have to pay a cent. Most of the apps on the store are free or have in-app purchases that are optional. That 30% not only pays for maintaining the App Store and developer network but also subsidizes the millions of apps that Apple hosts and advertises for. In-app purchases had to also be charged the 30% or else there would be no paid apps and every app would freeload. THIS is what Epic wanted to do. They wanted to be a free app, have their own store and skip paying Apple a penny and still reap billions in sales. Epic wanted to be treated just like Netflix and not have to pay. The judge said no.

Every other App Store at the time of the App Store creation was charging 70%, give or take, some news stories putting the lowest fees at 50% with most charging 70%. When Apple introduced theirs at 30%, every news organization was amazed at the low fee Apple was charging. To compete with Apple, every other App Store had to drop their fees to match Apple’s 30%. It was 2008 and people have forgotten all of this, but I didn’t because I lived it. Fast forward to 2020 and suddenly that low, low price of 30% became outrageous though nothing had changed. Today, every App Store still charges 30%, and that includes PlayStation and Xbox along with Windows, Google, and Samsung stores. Yet Apple, the pioneer for the 30% price, is taking all the heat for having 30%. How people‘s memories fade and people don’t remember how things used to be when companies like Microsoft were complaining they couldn’t do with less than 70%.


I actually like Windows as a desktop OS (though I think it sucks as a tablet OS, which is why I hate my Surface Pro), even running Parallels with Windows on my Macs. What’s your point? I spent most of my lifetime using Windows and Apples. I’ve built over a 100 Windows PC’s, taught my kids how to build them, and got my first Apple with my Apple IIe and have owned dozens of Macs and other Apple devices. I actually like both companies and will say when they’re wrong and will defend them when they’re right. I think Microsoft is wrong on the issue of XCloud gaming, despite my owning an Xbox Series X. You still assume I’m some Apple sheep and can’t ever criticize them. I just opposed them in another story here on MacRumors where I said they were wrong with recategoriing Insight Timer’s tips as in-app purchases. Believe it or not, I also like Android, having two personal phones: an iPhone and a Samsung ZFold 4, along with Samsung watches, earbuds, and multiple Galaxy tablets. You may think I’m an Apple exclusive, but I’m nowhere near being one. I criticize Google for stealing our data and do what I can to minimize that (I don’t use many Google services including location and voice assistant to avoid giving them as much as possible), but I still use their devices because I love tech of all kinds. Since I’m retired, all of them are personal devices and not company provided.

You know nothing about me, except what I provided here, so don’t assume how I might react.


The App Store exists because users demanded it back in 2007, and Apple complied in 2008. They created one for the Mac, but cannot enforce sandboxing rules without breaking millions of existing apps. That ship has long sailed and is why they don’t even try. But as I said, if they had to do it all over again from scratch, they would have made macOS more like iPadOS.

In the US, there are also a lot of laws on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviors, and they are constantly enforced. But in this country, we value innovation and not stifling companies for no good reason. A company may see scrutiny if they try to buy up another large company, but there’s little interference in how a company operates, relatively speaking. The most famous breakup of a monopoly in US history is AT&T back in the 1980’s. Microsoft was only allowed to purchase Activision/Blizzard by giving numerous concessions. Never did anyone in the US think to force Microsoft to not install Internet Explorer all those years ago. In the EU, they don’t value freedom nearly as much as we do and don’t seem to care no European companies seem to innovate at all anymore. Their stifling rules kill companies and prevent them from taking risks, which is why no tech innovation (or much of anything at all), comes out of EU countries.


That’s your mistake. Apple never promised the iPad would be a Mac replacement. They’ve not tried to make it one, which is why all those people who tried failed. The iPad is its own computer. Remember, Apple’s advertising was “What is a computer?” They didn’t say, “What is a laptop? or “What is a Mac?” The iPad is a computer, but it’s not a Mac and was never intended to be one with its touch-first interface and simplicity. That’s why it’s the best-selling tablet in the world. Most people like it that way. Making it just like a Mac would kill the iPad since that erases anything that makes it different. This is coming from someone who owns one iPad and two Galaxy tablets. The iPad is far superior while the Galaxy Tab S tablets aren’t much use beyond watching YouTube since they sorely lack any apps, and Samsung tablets try really hard to be a laptop.

The problem people have with iPads isn’t really iPadOS. It’s that the apps they have gotten used to on a Mac aren’t all on the iPad and don’t necessarily work the same way or have the same features. It has very little to do with the OS for most people. The main complaints I hear are that “my app isn’t there so iPadOS sucks” or ”I can’t use terminal” or some esoteric thing that nobody outside tech nerd-dom cares about. I’ll bet 99% have never even opened a Terminal window because why would you want to? They’ll use the Finder, but in iPadOS, there isn’t a need for a Finder because each app is sandboxed into its own little space with no particular reason to see outside of it. Those are the key differences in OS, but the main reason people have trouble with it being a laptop isn’t the OS. It’s a lack of apps. While iPad still has the most apps of any tablet, it’s still far younger than Macs with people only taking it seriously within the last 10 years or so. That’s not a lot of time to develop apps, especially major one where companies still aren’t used to coding for touch, which is why major features are still absent in apps like Photoshop. What will it look like in another ten years?

Neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything. You acknowledge the difference between movies and streamed games, but don’t care if they’re security risks. It wouldn’t matter if I posted a bunch of different ways I could steal data using a game’s interactivity. You still wouldn’t care. You have the European mindset. I don’t. In America we wouldn’t think of doing anything of the sort that Europe does to companies because we value the freedom to innovate without the constant threat of being crushed. Do something really bad, sure, like Volkswagon falsifying emissions data. But do something that reasonable people can differ on, no. That is injustice.

Thank you for the polite conversations, but I suspect we’ve exhausted our readers and the editors, too. Have a good day.

Love everything you said. Except about Windows. It's trash, trash OS! 🤣

 

[j26]

Pot calling Kettle.

Given that I'm not hearing anything about "malicious compliance" or bad faith about Microsoft, I'm going to assume that they're either compliant, or will be by the deadline.

Apple, on the other hand, could be digging it's own grave...

 

[mrBeach]

Given that I'm not hearing anything about "malicious compliance" or bad faith about Microsoft, I'm going to assume that they're either compliant, or will be by the deadline.

Apple, on the other hand, could be digging it's own grave...

Given that I’m not hearing about malicious compliance or bad faith about Apple from EU DMA regulators, just going to assume they’re compliant or will be by deadline.

 

[Und Eser]

Wikipedia? Uh huh. Bastion of truth. Anyway, it was the judge who asked about why Epic shouldn’t be treated like Netflix. Apple answered and the judge agreed with them. There were many other issues, the major one being that Epic wanted to freeload by having their own store without paying a dime to Apple, but they lost. The major reason for bringing up the Epic case was to show the importance Apple places on how streamed games can be dangerous by showing you Phil Schiller’s responses to the judge’s question.


No company is trustworthy, not even Apple. However it is their garden that we choose to play in, and therefore they have the right to protect it the way they want to. Our choice is to not play in their garden if we don’t like their rules. Would you trust Meta or Google to not steal all your data? Or any other company? Apple prides itself on not stealing anyone’s data and they look to their App Store policies to stop people like Mark Zuckerberg from stealing all your data. Live by those rules or get kicked from the garden. Guess what? Facebook is still there because they begrudgingly abided by the rules to not take your data unless you give permission. You seem to put an awful lot of trust in all these companies to not do bad things… except Apple, for which you have zero trust that they even care about security. Every time you say, “security,” I can envision you rolling your eyes. Google with 72% market share? No problem. Apple with 28% market share? Nah, bust them for anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. I don’t trust anyone, but until someone can prove Apple steals data, they’re the best deal for privacy and security. If someone proves they are stealing data, then it’s time to re-evaluate and perhaps go elsewhere.


The App Store was created because users demanded it. Remember the original iPhone had no App Store and asked everyone to run things via Safari. That was also the origin of PWA’s, the actual subject of this news story. People found web apps to be sorely lacking which then forced Apple’s hand. They never intended to have a store. Steve Jobs didn’t want one at all, but bowed to public pressure after one year of the iPhone’s existence. But since they had to make one, they had to make money from it, especially with no guarantee of the iPhone’s long-term success. On top of that, running a store is very expensive, from maintaining storage for millions of apps to hiring the team to vet and curate apps to the millions spent on making and updating Final Cut Pro and all the tools that go with it like Motion or Compressor. Apple also said that free apps didn’t have to pay a cent. Most of the apps on the store are free or have in-app purchases that are optional. That 30% not only pays for maintaining the App Store and developer network but also subsidizes the millions of apps that Apple hosts and advertises for. In-app purchases had to also be charged the 30% or else there would be no paid apps and every app would freeload. THIS is what Epic wanted to do. They wanted to be a free app, have their own store and skip paying Apple a penny and still reap billions in sales. Epic wanted to be treated just like Netflix and not have to pay. The judge said no.

Every other App Store at the time of the App Store creation was charging 70%, give or take, some news stories putting the lowest fees at 50% with most charging 70%. When Apple introduced theirs at 30%, every news organization was amazed at the low fee Apple was charging. To compete with Apple, every other App Store had to drop their fees to match Apple’s 30%. It was 2008 and people have forgotten all of this, but I didn’t because I lived it. Fast forward to 2020 and suddenly that low, low price of 30% became outrageous though nothing had changed. Today, every App Store still charges 30%, and that includes PlayStation and Xbox along with Windows, Google, and Samsung stores. Yet Apple, the pioneer for the 30% price, is taking all the heat for having 30%. How people‘s memories fade and people don’t remember how things used to be when companies like Microsoft were complaining they couldn’t do with less than 70%.


I actually like Windows as a desktop OS (though I think it sucks as a tablet OS, which is why I hate my Surface Pro), even running Parallels with Windows on my Macs. What’s your point? I spent most of my lifetime using Windows and Apples. I’ve built over a 100 Windows PC’s, taught my kids how to build them, and got my first Apple with my Apple IIe and have owned dozens of Macs and other Apple devices. I actually like both companies and will say when they’re wrong and will defend them when they’re right. I think Microsoft is wrong on the issue of XCloud gaming, despite my owning an Xbox Series X. You still assume I’m some Apple sheep and can’t ever criticize them. I just opposed them in another story here on MacRumors where I said they were wrong with recategoriing Insight Timer’s tips as in-app purchases. Believe it or not, I also like Android, having two personal phones: an iPhone and a Samsung ZFold 4, along with Samsung watches, earbuds, and multiple Galaxy tablets. You may think I’m an Apple exclusive, but I’m nowhere near being one. I criticize Google for stealing our data and do what I can to minimize that (I don’t use many Google services including location and voice assistant to avoid giving them as much as possible), but I still use their devices because I love tech of all kinds. Since I’m retired, all of them are personal devices and not company provided.

You know nothing about me, except what I provided here, so don’t assume how I might react.


The App Store exists because users demanded it back in 2007, and Apple complied in 2008. They created one for the Mac, but cannot enforce sandboxing rules without breaking millions of existing apps. That ship has long sailed and is why they don’t even try. But as I said, if they had to do it all over again from scratch, they would have made macOS more like iPadOS.

In the US, there are also a lot of laws on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviors, and they are constantly enforced. But in this country, we value innovation and not stifling companies for no good reason. A company may see scrutiny if they try to buy up another large company, but there’s little interference in how a company operates, relatively speaking. The most famous breakup of a monopoly in US history is AT&T back in the 1980’s. Microsoft was only allowed to purchase Activision/Blizzard by giving numerous concessions. Never did anyone in the US think to force Microsoft to not install Internet Explorer all those years ago. In the EU, they don’t value freedom nearly as much as we do and don’t seem to care no European companies seem to innovate at all anymore. Their stifling rules kill companies and prevent them from taking risks, which is why no tech innovation (or much of anything at all), comes out of EU countries.


That’s your mistake. Apple never promised the iPad would be a Mac replacement. They’ve not tried to make it one, which is why all those people who tried failed. The iPad is its own computer. Remember, Apple’s advertising was “What is a computer?” They didn’t say, “What is a laptop? or “What is a Mac?” The iPad is a computer, but it’s not a Mac and was never intended to be one with its touch-first interface and simplicity. That’s why it’s the best-selling tablet in the world. Most people like it that way. Making it just like a Mac would kill the iPad since that erases anything that makes it different. This is coming from someone who owns one iPad and two Galaxy tablets. The iPad is far superior while the Galaxy Tab S tablets aren’t much use beyond watching YouTube since they sorely lack any apps, and Samsung tablets try really hard to be a laptop.

The problem people have with iPads isn’t really iPadOS. It’s that the apps they have gotten used to on a Mac aren’t all on the iPad and don’t necessarily work the same way or have the same features. It has very little to do with the OS for most people. The main complaints I hear are that “my app isn’t there so iPadOS sucks” or ”I can’t use terminal” or some esoteric thing that nobody outside tech nerd-dom cares about. I’ll bet 99% have never even opened a Terminal window because why would you want to? They’ll use the Finder, but in iPadOS, there isn’t a need for a Finder because each app is sandboxed into its own little space with no particular reason to see outside of it. Those are the key differences in OS, but the main reason people have trouble with it being a laptop isn’t the OS. It’s a lack of apps. While iPad still has the most apps of any tablet, it’s still far younger than Macs with people only taking it seriously within the last 10 years or so. That’s not a lot of time to develop apps, especially major one where companies still aren’t used to coding for touch, which is why major features are still absent in apps like Photoshop. What will it look like in another ten years?

Neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything. You acknowledge the difference between movies and streamed games, but don’t care if they’re security risks. It wouldn’t matter if I posted a bunch of different ways I could steal data using a game’s interactivity. You still wouldn’t care. You have the European mindset. I don’t. In America we wouldn’t think of doing anything of the sort that Europe does to companies because we value the freedom to innovate without the constant threat of being crushed. Do something really bad, sure, like Volkswagon falsifying emissions data. But do something that reasonable people can differ on, no. That is injustice.

Thank you for the polite conversations, but I suspect we’ve exhausted our readers and the editors, too. Have a good day.

I'd just like to say thank you for going to such great length to engage... and I hope only one of two things:

1. That you're being sufficiently remunerated for your contributions.

2. That your contributions aren't in any way detracting from that for which you may otherwise be being remunerated.

 

[j26]

Given that I’m not hearing about malicious compliance or bad faith about Apple from EU DMA regulators, just going to assume they’re compliant or will be by deadline.

By all means, do - it'll all come out in the wash soon enough.

I'm using the fact that there is considerable discussion surrounding Apple, and public complaints by interested parties to come to the view that Apples compliance may be in doubt.
But I await hearing from the actual decision makers in this situation - the EU.

 

[Abazigal]

Given that I'm not hearing anything about "malicious compliance" or bad faith about Microsoft, I'm going to assume that they're either compliant, or will be by the deadline.

Apple, on the other hand, could be digging it's own grave...

Apple isn't perfect, but they are not run by idiots either. I don't think Tim Cook would approve a proposal for the DMA that cost the company god knows much much time and money in lawyer and engineering fees if he thought it would be tossed out by the EU commission at the first opportunity.

 

[j26]

Apple isn't perfect, but they are not run by idiots either. I don't think Tim Cook would approve a proposal for the DMA that cost the company god knows much much time and money in lawyer and engineering fees if he thought it would be tossed out by the EU commission at the first opportunity.

You may be right. Time will tell.

 

[djphat2000]

Given that I'm not hearing anything about "malicious compliance" or bad faith about Microsoft, I'm going to assume that they're either compliant, or will be by the deadline.

Apple, on the other hand, could be digging it's own grave...

They don't have a phone to be non-compliant about. If we wanted to add their Xbox platform under these new rules. They very well would be. As would Sony and Nintendo. But, because gaming isn't such a big deal under EU law (until it is!). No one cares.

I would not call it malicious compliance. They are allowed to collect fees for their IP. People just expected it to be free.

 

[amartinez1660]

BuffyzDead
38m ago

I just hope that the EU DMA act, inflicts so much pain, to users in the EU, that the users demand the EU. Change the laws OR the users are forced to abandon Apple, and “choose” Android. … it will prove what is Factual. That users Always had a choice, and no one is forcing them to use an iPhone. Apple will survive, no worries there

Bad idea to “wish them pain”, I think it’s better to let people get what they wish and voted for, amplified by a 100x if possible.
Besides, it’s ok to experiment, good things could have come out of it.

As it’s stands, the thresholds and rules are carefully set that by “coincidence” most of “magnificent 7” stocks fall under DMA fining rules… understandable, as these 7 tech stocks have more market cap than each of any full country market cap ever, including China.
There’s a lot of money to be made by putting political tax and fines hands in there.

 

[1284814]

Back pedaled because apple can’t block progress becuase of profits, loving it