Apple Confirms iPadOS Will Get Same EU App Changes as iOS This Fall

[vipergts2207]

It doesn’t even increase competition because, by my count, there are the same number of mobileOS vendors prior to DMA as there is after. And, there’s nothing in the DMA that makes a new one likely… actually it will make new competition more UNlikely.

Increasing competition with more smartphone platforms was never the goal of the DMA. It was to ensure that the two that remained, iOS and Android, weren't able to use their duopoly position in the market in a manner unfair to other businesses and/or consumers. Sorry, if you missed the plot and thought that was the goal.

What if there were a sizable number of folks that didn’t like how locked down Apple was, but wasn’t quite happy with Android? Prior to recently, there was a wide open gap that, apparently, no one was servicing which could have meant that a properly funded competitor could have arisen in the EU that would have driven Google and Apple to change because there actually existed something better. Something with a feature set that the rest of the world might have preferred as well?

What does "properly funded" mean to you? Was RIM not "properly funded". Was Microsoft not "properly funded"? The reality that some folks either don't realize or simply choose not to acknowledge is that the market isn't going to bear half a dozen platforms all trying to do essentially the same thing. Other companies (app devs, smart home product vendors, automotive OEMs, etc.) only have so many resources. They're only going to spend money supporting the most relevant platforms. This leads to a viscous cycle where companies support only the most popular platforms, which then leads consumers to buy the devices on the platforms that works with their other things or has the apps they want, which in turn causes even more companies to support those few platforms that consumers are actually on. This is exactly what played out during the first 5 years of the mass adoption of smartphones. Palm died. Blackberry died. Windows Mobile died. Hell, MS even tried a second time with Windows Phone. That died too. The reality is that alternatives were properly funded. Even potential alternatives would be properly funded, but those companies (namely Amazon and Meta) aren't stupid enough to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a project that's essentially destined to fail. If companies couldn't take a bite out of Apple and Google in the early days, they certainly aren't going to fare any better now with those companies' entrenched market positions. The only hope other companies have is with a paradigm shift to a new product category. Meta is clearly betting on AR/VR, but I think the AVP is showing that this product category is not exactly ripe for mass adoption yet. It seems that smartphones will remain the most important type of platform for at least the rest of this decade.

It’s popular to laugh at Humane and Rabbit right now, but at least they’re trying to do something different rather than piggyback on someone else’s vision of what mobile tech should be. Even if both end up as abject failures, they’ll have done more for advancing tech (instead of doubling down on the status quo) than the EU’s apparently capable of.

The second Apple/Google/MS/Amazon/Meta view those products as a truly useful and viable thing for the masses, they'll either buy those companies or Sherlock them out of existence with their own products.

No, that’ll prove that those developer’s implementation isn’t the best. I mean, they’re free to create their own hardware platform and OS and show Apple “how it’s done”, but there’s apparently not a developer/publisher complaining about the Apple’s system that has the ability to even remotely approach Apple’s implementation.

Umm, yeah. Kind of a 'duh' on that one. That's exactly what others have said before and what I've reiterated above. There's a snowball's chance in hell anyone has a chance of knocking Apple and/or Google off the smartphone OS throne. It's a mature market and few companies have the resources needed to even attempt it. The ones that do are smart enough not to waste the money and have found ways to operate in the existing duopoly paradigm that they don't actually control. Are you also expecting some company to come along any day now and knock Apple or MS off the desktop/laptop OS throne? If so, you'll be waiting a while on that one too.

 

[AppliedMicro]

if by that you mean you can compile and sign yourself and then have to do load it up again every 7 days then sure, but it's a massive PITA

No.

I meant it as in: Go to a website that someone sent you a link to. Download an app that has been developed, prepared and signed by someone (and has never been reviewed by Apple), trust its developer certificate in the Settings app. And voilà, you've installed it and can use it.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/118254

• no need for tethering to your Mac
• no need for self-signing
• no need for a developer account of your own
• no need for developer tools to install on your machine

It's almost magical, if you've never done it yourself and weren't aware of it.

And there's no new security hole poked into iOS itself.
Sideloading or alternative App Stores can use the tools that have existed all along.
It's just that Apple now has to allow others to use it for distribution to end users.
And that they've added a couple of colourful warning messages around it.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

No grandpa is forced to use an iPhone or iPad - problem solved.
Also, no grandpa is forced to install apps from alternative app stores.

The curious grandpas will...

 

[Analog Kid]

Yes, making sure companies can't harm their market through anti-competitive actions is definitely malicious. 😂

Which these regulations do nothing to achieve.

Undermining the core business model of a minor player in the local market in a misguided attempt to scapegoat a foreign business at the expense of their customers is very malicious.

 

[vipergts2207]

Which these regulations do nothing to achieve.

Undermining the core business model of a minor player in the local market in a misguided attempt to scapegoat a foreign business at the expense of their customers is very malicious.

The spin you choose to view this with is one reason why you do not and will probably never understand the reason for the DMA. Apple is one of only two players in the relevant global market and control a third of the market in the EU specifically. If you want to describe that as a "a minor player in the local market" go ahead, but viewing it in such a disingenuous way will not lead you to develop a better understanding and you'll simply remain frustrated and continue to tilt at windmills.

 

[Analog Kid]

It’s popular to laugh at Humane and Rabbit right now, but at least they’re trying to do something different rather than piggyback on someone else’s vision of what mobile tech should be. Even if both end up as abject failures, they’ll have done more for advancing tech (instead of doubling down on the status quo) than the EU’s apparently capable of.

Good point, and one that aligns well with what we learned from the Microsoft case in the 90's. All that government scrutiny changed nothing at Microsoft in the end. MS wasn't broken up, they didn't have to unbundle IE, they weren't prevented from bundling in the future.

But by the time the dust settled, none of that mattered because technology had moved on and all those concerns were resolved by the market itself. What people forget is that technology changes much more rapidly than bureaucracy.

 

[Analog Kid]

The spin you choose to view this with is one reason why you do not and will probably never understand the reason for the DMA. Apple is one of only two players in the relevant global market and control a third of the market in the EU specifically. If you want to describe that as a "a minor player in the local market" go ahead, but viewing it in such a disingenuous way will not lead you to develop a better understanding and you'll simply remain frustrated and continue to tilt at windmills.

They are the smaller entity. They are less than half the market. They're less than half the size of the major player.

In what way is saying "minor" disingenuous?

I do understand the reason for the DMA, but I bet you and I think the reason is different.

 

[vipergts2207]

They are the smaller entity. They are less than half the market. They're less than half the size of the major player.

In what way is saying "minor" disingenuous?

Unless the only two competitors split the market exactly 50/50, one will always be "minor" and have "less than half the market". That does not preclude the entity with less than 50% market share from negatively impacting the market or acting anti-competitvely. Many monopoly effects exist in a duopoly market as well and those effects aren't only created by the larger of the two players.

I do understand the reason for the DMA, but I bet you and I think the reason is different.

The spin you've chosen to view the situation with has led you to think you understand the reason for the DMA. Until you can admit the bolded statement above, your grasp of the issue will remain tenuous at best.

 

[Analog Kid]

Unless the only two competitors split the market exactly 50/50, one will always be "minor" and have "less than half the market".

Yes, there will be a minor competitor. How is it disingenuous to say that?

That does not preclude the entity with less than 50% market share from negatively impacting the market or acting anti-competitvely. Many monopoly effects exist in a duopoly market as well and those effects aren't only created by the larger of the two players.

The spin you've chosen to view the situation with has led you to think you understand the reason for the DMA. Until you can admit the bolded statement above, your grasp of the issue will remain tenuous at best.

Calling the much smaller entity minor and the one twice its size major isn't spin, I suspect it just makes you uncomfortable to have that pointed out as it runs counter to the narrative you want this wrapped in.

The DMA has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly power. Until you understand that, your grasp of the issue will remain tenuous at best.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes, there will be a minor competitor. How is it disingenuous to say that?

Calling the much smaller entity minor and the one twice its size major isn't spin, I suspect it just makes you uncomfortable to have that pointed out as it runs counter to the narrative you want this wrapped in.

It's not about the literal word, it's about the connotation. Objectively it's true that Apple is the minor competitor in the EU relative to Google. They verifiably have less market share than Google. However, your use of the word "minor" is intended to portray Apple as insignificant, harmless, and without the ability to use their position to act anti-competitively or impact markets in a negative way. Meanwhile in reality, the minor player versus Google or not, Apple's important and powerful position in the market makes it still very capable of both of those things.

The DMA has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly power. Until you understand that, your grasp of the issue will remain tenuous at best.

Like I said, keep tilting at those windmills, I don't care lol. Maybe eventually they'll run away.

 

[icymountain]

How is this going to work when someone travels into/out of the EU ?
I am a EU citizen, but often go out; if I install an App from another store while in the EU and fly to the US or to Asia, will I not be able to run it until I return ? or does it only mean I can install it while at home ?
Now, how about using a VPN while outside of the EU ? Will it "do the trick" ?

 

[Abazigal]

The spin you choose to view this with is one reason why you do not and will probably never understand the reason for the DMA. Apple is one of only two players in the relevant global market and control a third of the market in the EU specifically. If you want to describe that as a "a minor player in the local market" go ahead, but viewing it in such a disingenuous way will not lead you to develop a better understanding and you'll simply remain frustrated and continue to tilt at windmills.

Isn't that the whole problem?

Apple has like 20% market share worldwide (as the haters so liked to gleefully point out not so long ago), but because the smartphone market seems to more or less have been surrendered to Google and Apple, Apple is automatically part of a duopoly regardless of its market share.

You are all basically saying - the world is not big enough to accommodate a company with minority market share doing its own stuff and offering an integrated experience that's sufficiently differentiated from Android. Everything Android has done is (in my opinion) demonstrably worse than iOS (from the state of the google play store to the state of android tablet market) and yet the solution that the EU has to "protect" consumers is to pass legislation mandating that iOS become more like Android!

Apple is both at risk of being crowded out by Android because it has such a small market share, and yet at the same time, it apparently wields outsized influence over the market despite its smaller market share, to the point where even Spotify is blaming Apple for all its financial woes despite having the lion's share of the music streaming market, and despite not paying Apple or Google a cent (because it has moved its subscriptions online, and from special deals made with Google).

I just wish the criticism surrounding Apple could have some better internal consistency. At this point, it really just feels like the critics are flitting from one attacking point to another like a butterfly with ADHD, but then you look at them in totality and it just feels like a mash-mash of contradicting talking points. For example, Apple is both one flop away from irrelevancy, and yet we need the government to tear down the walled garden because Apple is too powerful evidently. Apple was lambasted for "burning" 10 billion on an EV project, and yet people here advocate Apple continuing to throw more cash into ventures which may nor may not be viable. Apple is promoted forced obsolescence by including only 8gb ram in their Macs, and yet people are also not upgrading quickly enough because Macs are "good enough" for the majority of users.

How small does Apple need to be here?

 

[SactoGuy18]

Nah, I still think they’ll geofence it. If they do it at all it’ll be iOS/iPadOS 19.x next year.

I disagree. It will likely be shown as part of iOS/iPadOS 18 because Apple had a heads up knowledge of the EU Digital Markets Act for maybe close to a year.

 

[aidler]

For a psychological/sociological case study, this topic is gold. 😁

 

[vipergts2207]

Isn't that the whole problem?

Apple has like 20% market share worldwide (as the haters so liked to gleefully point out not so long ago), but because the smartphone market seems to more or less have been surrendered to Google and Apple, Apple is automatically part of a duopoly regardless of its market share.

You are all basically saying - the world is not big enough to accommodate a company with minority market share doing its own stuff and offering an integrated experience that's sufficiently differentiated from Android. Everything Android has done is (in my opinion) demonstrably worse than iOS (from the state of the google play store to the state of android tablet market) and yet the solution that the EU has to "protect" consumers is to pass legislation mandating that iOS become more like Android!

It's actually closer to 30% worldwide, which is still an important part of the market, especially when there is only one other player. The way some of you guys talk would make it sound as if Apple has single digit market share. This also ignores that an entity like the EU will be concerned with what's going on in their jurisdiction. The fact that Apple only has 4% market share in India means nothing to the EU. What is relevant to the EU is that Apple controls about a third of their market.

Apple is both at risk of being crowded out by Android because it has such a small market share, and yet at the same time, it apparently wields outsized influence over the market despite its smaller market share, to the point where even Spotify is blaming Apple for all its financial woes despite having the lion's share of the music streaming market, and despite not paying Apple or Google a cent (because it has moved its subscriptions online, and from special deals made with Google).

I just wish the criticism surrounding Apple could have some better internal consistency. At this point, it really just feels like the critics are flitting from one attacking point to another like a butterfly with ADHD, but then you look at them in totality and it just feels like a mash-mash of contradicting talking points. For example, Apple is both one flop away from irrelevancy, and yet we need the government to tear down the walled garden because Apple is too powerful evidently.

Who says this? Certainly nobody that should be taken seriously, that's for sure.

Apple was lambasted for "burning" 10 billion on an EV project,

This always seemed like a silly step for Apple to take to me. Tesla's recent woes are more evidence of that.

and yet people here advocate Apple continuing to throw more cash into ventures which may nor may not be viable.

They should certainly use some of their cash hoard to develop new products. Make them realistic though. A $3500 headset with limited use cases ain't it.

Apple is promoted forced obsolescence by including only 8gb ram in their Macs,

That's really quite sad, actually. Namely because the cost to them of going to 16 GB is probably negligible, but they'll happily force people who realize they need 16 GB to pay them extra to get what the device should have come with in the first place. $200 for 8 GB more memory. Seriously?

and yet people are also not upgrading quickly enough because Macs are "good enough" for the majority of users.

Q2 Mac sales show that it's been pretty steady for years now, so users seem to be upgrading at about the same pace they have for a while now.

 

[seek3r]

No.

I meant it as in: Go to a website that someone sent you a link to. Download an app that has been developed, prepared and signed by someone (and has never been reviewed by Apple), trust its developer certificate in the Settings app. And voilà, you've installed it and can use it.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/118254

• no need for tethering to your Mac
• no need for self-signing
• no need for a developer account of your own
• no need for developer tools to install on your machine

It's almost magical, if you've never done it yourself and weren't aware of it.

And there's no new security hole poked into iOS itself.
Sideloading or alternative App Stores can use the tools that have existed all along.
It's just that Apple now has to allow others to use it for distribution to end users.
And that they've added a couple of colourful warning messages around it.

I'm not sure I consider the enterprise distribution channel sideloading, it has to be created through the enterprise channel and has some pretty important restrictions attached - also just because that work isnt on the user side doesnt mean someone didnt need to do it. Also using it like that violates Apple's policies, and risks them just pulling the signing cert at any time.

 

[Jamie0003]

I wonder if there’s any chance TVos is next. I would love to get a YouTube ad blocker on there

 

[Jamie0003]

So far the only ones benefitting from all this EU stuff is everyone outside the EU

How so? Have devs started pulling apps from the normal AppStore to go elsewhere?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm not sure I consider the enterprise distribution channel sideloading, it has to be created through the enterprise channel and has some pretty important restrictions attached - also just because that work isnt on the user side doesnt mean someone didnt need to do it. Also using it like that violates Apple's policies, and risks them just pulling the signing cert at any time.

For context, let's get back to what I was originally replying to:
The question about the security aspect of it (the security impact of "circumvention of their app store").

In that regard, Apple's "policies" are basically irrelevant. Especially considering previous instances of how enterprise certificates have been abused and Apple's policies been violated.

"Circumventing" the App Store for software installation does or requires nothing that wasn't possible before - and at its core, it doesn't do anything new. Also, Apple will still continue to review and notarise apps - even though they still allow installation of unreviewed apps (and could do so for alternative application stores, i.e. allow them to install unreviewed apps - but have chosen not to).

👉 The security model of allowing only signed apps notably remains unchanged with alternative application stores.

In the end, how safe and secure your apps are comes do comes down to the apps and developers you trust. And overall platform security to how secure the operating system is otherwise - that is, how exploitable it is by malicious apps or web/message content.

 

[Analog Kid]

It's not about the literal word, it's about the connotation.

And what connotation is that? The only connotation is that they're a smaller player than the significantly more dominant Google in Europe.

Objectively it's true that Apple is the minor competitor in the EU relative to Google.

Ok, so we agree on that.

They verifiably have less market share than Google.

And that.

However, your use of the word "minor" is intended to portray Apple as insignificant, harmless

Where do you get that from? You completely manufactured my intentions out of your own fears...

your use of the word "minor" is intended to portray Apple as insignificant, harmless, and without the ability to use their position to act anti-competitively or impact markets in a negative way. Meanwhile in reality, the minor player versus Google or not, Apple's important and powerful position in the market makes it still very capable of both of those things.

Sure, they can affect markets and they also act as the only viable counterbalance to Google at the moment. The existence of a viable minor competitor acts as a check on the major competitor.

By forcing Apple to adopt Google's business model, it weakens Apple's position to the benefit of others.

There is only one other.

Like I said, keep tilting at those windmills, I don't care lol. Maybe eventually they'll run away.

You can be as dismissive as you want and hide your lack of actual knowledge behind ridicule and Cervantian references, but this is how I know you don't understand the DMA. Search the legislation text for the word "monopoly", tell me how many results you get.

 

[Muzzakus]

Just give me emus on iPad, the whole slate

And CarPlay apps to entertain me while parked

 

[vipergts2207]

And what connotation is that? The only connotation is that they're a smaller player than the significantly more dominant Google in Europe.

I literally explained the connotation. Go back and reread it if you need to.

Ok, so we agree on that.

And that.

Where do you get that from? You completely manufactured my intentions out of your own fears...

Sure, they can affect markets

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not just quickly gloss over this incredibly crucial part. It's not just about "affecting markets". It's specifically about how their position gives them the ability to act anti-competitively and negatively impact markets. Do you agree with this specific point or not?

and they also act as the only viable counterbalance to Google at the moment. The existence of a viable minor competitor acts as a check on the major competitor.

Sure, that's one function of their position. That doesn't mean they're somehow unable to do what's in bold above though. Being a counterbalance to Google and acting anti-competitively with other companies are not mutually exclusive.

By forcing Apple to adopt Google's business model, it weakens Apple's position to the benefit of others.

There is only one other.

I think you're missing what Google's actual business model is. And Apple's for that matter. Google's business model is advertising. Lots of advertising.

How We Handle Ads, Funding, and Data Security - Google

Explore how Google works by using ads to help fund products, but still prioritizing data security when it comes to personal information.

about.google

Apple's business model is selling pricey, but quality and valuable hardware. The EU is not forcing Apple to stop making money hand over fist on their hardware, nor are they forcing Apple to become an advertising giant.

Apple Reports 2Q 2024 Results: $23.6B Profit on $90.8B Revenue

Apple today announced financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2024, which corresponds to the first calendar quarter of the year. For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of $90.8 billion and net quarterly profit of $23.6 billion, or $1.53 per diluted share, compared to revenue of...

forums.macrumors.com

Of course they both have myriad revenue streams, but if you want to get to the meat and potatoes, for Google it's ads and for Apple it's hardware.

Reducing Apple and Google's business models to how apps are distributed on their devices is not only an incredibly myopic view, but it's also simply wrong.

You can be as dismissive as you want and hide your lack of actual knowledge behind Cervatian references, but this is how I know you don't understand the DMA. Search the legislation text for the word "monopoly", tell me how many results you get.

You're not getting it. You don't have to be a monopoly for the DMA to apply to you.

"An entrenched and durable position in its operations or the foreseeability of enjoying such a position in the future occurs notably where the contestability of the position of the undertaking providing the core platform service is limited."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925

A monopoly would be the extreme version of that, but clearly the EU has rightfully decided that a company doesn't have to control 100% of a market before they should be hit with additional regulations on how they can operate.

 

[beautyहमempty]

Once again, congratulations EU friends on soon getting to do with your iPads what you've already been able to do on your iPhones for nearly 2 months now... and what the rest of us have been able to do with our Macs for decades. It's so nice to get to do what you want with tech you OWN (after all, it's NOT borrowed tech).

While I live in the "land of the free," I envy your added freedoms when it comes to shopping around for best app pricing, best in-app payment options and sourcing apps from alt stores or direct from the developers who made the app... just like the rest of us can do with our Macs. The virtually-no-consequences of that exact same bundle of consumer freedoms have not destroyed all of us Mac owners. I expect the experience to be just about exactly the same with both your iPhones and soon your iPads too.

This thread should fill with rants & raving about how terrible this is, how EU people are doomed to viruses, trojans, plague, locusts, frogs, etc... but I would guess that almost all of the people who are griping about EU laws do NOT live within the EU and thus are completely unaffected by what other people's laws do or do not do for those other people.

I would also be quick to place a pretty sizable bet that if we could take a peek at the apps installed on many the fault-finders Macs, we'd find AT LEAST ONE- IF NOT MANY- that did NOT come from the Apple Mac App Store.

Nevertheless EU Apple friends, enjoy apps the rest of us can't even consider on the very same devices we also "own" because the almighty "Father" forbids it. Enjoy knowing that towards 100% of the purchase price is rewarding the developer of the app instead of another entity taking the first 15-30% right off the top. Etc. With Almighty Father the richest company in the world on any given day, they don't actually have to have a big bite of every single app transaction to survive. But I bet the developer who actually made the app you're buying will appreciate getting to make a bit more than before on the app THEY created... even if they sell it to you for less because they don't have to cover the steep, "first bite" overhead.

Thank you for this sane comment.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm going to skip past all the "you said 'minor' which is correct but you said it too nicely" and DMA doesn't mention monopolies but is about monopolies but you don't have to be a monopoly nonsense and cut to this:

I think you're missing what Google's actual business model is. And Apple's for that matter. Google's business model is advertising. Lots of advertising.

How We Handle Ads, Funding, and Data Security - Google

Explore how Google works by using ads to help fund products, but still prioritizing data security when it comes to personal information.

about.google

Apple's business model is selling pricey, but quality and valuable hardware. The EU is not forcing Apple to stop making money hand over fist on their hardware, nor are they forcing Apple to become an advertising giant.

Apple Reports 2Q 2024 Results: $23.6B Profit on $90.8B Revenue

Apple today announced financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2024, which corresponds to the first calendar quarter of the year. For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of $90.8 billion and net quarterly profit of $23.6 billion, or $1.53 per diluted share, compared to revenue of...

forums.macrumors.com

Of course they both have myriad revenue streams, but if you want to get to the meat and potatoes, for Google it's ads and for Apple it's hardware.

Reducing Apple and Google's business models to how apps are distributed on their devices is not only an incredibly myopic view, but it's also simply wrong.

You state the obvious like others haven't noticed, but are you thinking through what the impact of change to this market will be? Your tone is derisive enough that I'd be shocked if you bother to read what I write next and let it challenge your view, but maybe someone will.


An Apple phone and a Samsung phone cost about the same. Given that the hardware for the two makers is comparable, it's a reasonable assumption that the hardware cost is essentially the same.

But a phone isn't just hardware. There's a lot of software to be developed. Apple develops iOS and all the services it provides. Samsung develops, well, very little. They get Android essentially for free from Google. So Google is subsidizing Samsung sales and they're far more profitable than Samsung is.

So Apple is paying for software development for iPhone and Google is paying for software development for the Android world. How are the companies being paid for this work?

There are two business models right now:

• The user is a customer
• The user is a product

Google mostly pursues the second. The whole reason Android was started is because Google was on the Apple board during the development of iOS and realized that their hegemony in search could be threatened if powerful mobile devices supplanted desktop computing and Google didn't have a foothold there. Google doesn't sell their software for money, they sell it for data and then sell the data for money.

Apple mostly pursues the first. They sell their software to users and developers for money and let the users and developers keep their data. They also try to interdict developers from taking users data without the user knowing. Apple has been pretty plain spoken about this: they don't need your data because you gave them your money. How does Apple sell their software to developers? Through AppStore fees.

By undermining the AppStore, how is the cost of Apple's software covered? Google couldn't care less how their software gets distributed as long as it does-- more distribution means more data that they can convert to money.

So by going after the AppStore model, the EU is disproportionately impacting Apple's business model. Do they raise hardware prices to cover the short fall? That would make them even less competitive against Samsung and it impacts customers who use few apps equally to those who use many. Do they quietly suffer the loss of profits? That would make them less competitive against Google and make the dominant market player even stronger and less constrained in their behavior. Do they back away from their privacy oriented stance to make up the shortfall? I think that would be bad for consumers, but the lack of distinction relative to Google also gives Google a stronger position in the market because Google has far better developed machinery for converting data to money.

Further to that, these alternate AppStores won't be motivated to protect user privacy in the same way Apple's is, and gives yet another vector for data driven companies, Google first and foremost, to thrive. Google has chafed at Apple's AppStore restrictions all along, to the point of illegally circumventing them on occasion. The Apple AppStore will shrink in size, not because Apple isn't providing a better product but because the Apple AppStore needs to recover the cost of iOS in addition to the cost of operating the store and the competitors do not so the Apple fees will need to be higher to break even. "User is a product" thrives in a world of many AppStores and free or low cost products, "user is a customer" does not.

This is what I mean when I say the DMA is removing competition in the market by undermining one of two business models and preferentially treating the dominant player.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm going to skip past all the "you said 'minor' which is correct but you said it too nicely" and DMA doesn't mention monopolies but is about monopolies but you don't have to be a monopoly nonsense and cut to this:

Cool, noted that you have no rebuttal then to the fact that Apple being the smaller player to Google in the EU doesn't mean that Apple can't still act anti-competitively or negatively impact the EU market.

You state the obvious like others haven't noticed, but are you thinking through what the impact of change to this market will be? Your tone is derisive enough that I'd be shocked if you bother to read what I write next and let it challenge your view, but maybe someone will.

Quite the hypocritical statement to make considering you blatantly ignored the crux of my last post. 🙄

An Apple phone and a Samsung phone cost about the same. Given that the hardware for the two makers is comparable, it's a reasonable assumption that the hardware cost is essentially the same.

But a phone isn't just hardware. There's a lot of software to be developed. Apple develops iOS and all the services it provides. Samsung develops, well, very little. They get Android essentially for free from Google. So Google is subsidizing Samsung sales and they're far more profitable than Samsung is.

Another instance where your assumptions couldn’t be further off-base.

“Samsung's Average Selling Price (ASP) is $295 compared to Apple's $988.”

https://www.phonearena.com/news/samsung-2024-goal-sell-more-high-end-phones_id152284#:~:text=Over%2075%25%20of%20the%20phones,%24295%20compared%20to%20Apple's%20%24988.

As I said before, Apple’s business model is selling pricey hardware. That fact is reflected everywhere, from the ASP above to the Q2 revenue numbers from yesterday.

So Apple is paying for software development for iPhone and Google is paying for software development for the Android world. How are the companies being paid for this work?

There are two business models right now:

• The user is a customer
• The user is a product

Google mostly pursues the second. The whole reason Android was started is because Google was on the Apple board during the development of iOS and realized that their hegemony in search could be threatened if powerful mobile devices supplanted desktop computing and Google didn't have a foothold there. Google doesn't sell their software for money, they sell it for data and then sell the data for money.

Apple mostly pursues the first. They sell their software to users and developers for money and let the users and developers keep their data. They also try to interdict developers from taking users data without the user knowing. Apple has been pretty plain spoken about this: they don't need your data because you gave them your money. How does Apple sell their software to developers? Through AppStore fees.

As we've seen, apparently Apple does plenty of the second. "Oh you want access to iPhone users? You'll have to give us a commission on your sales." Apple absolutely makes iPhone users the product, so let's not sit here and pretend like they don't.

By undermining the AppStore, how is the cost of Apple's software covered? Google couldn't care less how their software gets distributed as long as it does-- more distribution means more data that they can convert to money.

So by going after the AppStore model, the EU is disproportionately impacting Apple's business model. Do they raise hardware prices to cover the short fall? That would make them even less competitive against Samsung and it impacts customers who use few apps equally to those who use many. Do they quietly suffer the loss of profits?

Apple can cover the cost of the software however they like, as long as it follows the law. As seen above with their ASP, Apple pays for the software development by selling phones averaging almost $1k a piece, a figure more than triple what Samsung gets on average. Also, Apple implemented the CTF, so seems to be another avenue they intend to take to pad their bottom line.

Where Apple does have a monopoly (or did rather, in the EU) is over iOS App distribution and the EU decided it was untenable for Apple to have complete control over app distribution for a third of the EU. How does Apple cover macOS development? Covering the cost of Apple's software development is not the responsibility of developers any more than the cost of building of wireless towers or high-speed internet lines is Apple's responsibility. Apple derives tangible benefit from their own development of iOS. How many iPhones would Apple sell if the hardware was great, but the OS was hot garbage? If Apple's business model (in your apparent view anyway) is monopoly distribution over iOS apps, then that business model is rightfully destined for the dustbin of history in the EU.

What’s truly eye roll inducing about the “oh no, how will Apple possibly pay for software development” argument is that not only is Apple the second most valuable company in the world, but they’re worth more than both Google and Samsung combined. It’s even more notable because Samsung does a lot more than just make and sell phones too, yet Apple is still bigger than both combined. Your view of Apple’s “business model” would seem to indicate that an unfair monopoly position on iOS app distribution put them there. Though Apple’s own numbers show that to not be the case.

Lil’ ol’ Apple, only the second largest company on the planet. Why does everyone have to pick on them? 🙄

That would make them less competitive against Google and make the dominant market player even stronger and less constrained in their behavior.

Actually, it wouldn't. The DMA constrains Google as well. Of course, you may have forgotten that since some would have everyone believe that the DMA was passed just to pick on Apple, even though it covers several other companies including Google.

Do they back away from their privacy oriented stance to make up the shortfall? I think that would be bad for consumers, but the lack of distinction relative to Google also gives Google a stronger position in the market because Google has far better developed machinery for converting data to money.

Further to that, these alternate AppStores won't be motivated to protect user privacy in the same way Apple's is, and gives yet another vector for data driven companies, Google first and foremost, to thrive. Google has chafed at Apple's AppStore restrictions all along, to the point of illegally circumventing them on occasion. The Apple AppStore will shrink in size, not because Apple isn't providing a better product

Who decides what's a better product? For many folks, an app store that doesn't tell them what they are and are not allowed to install on the their device is the better product. To go back and again answer one of your earlier questions, if Apple maintains a truly superior App Store then developers and customers will choose to continue using their App Store and continue paying Apple the commission they're asking for, which they can then use to offset the cost of their software development as well, instead of relying largely on a mountain of cash from hardware sales.

but because the Apple AppStore needs to recover the cost of iOS in addition to the cost of operating the store and the competitors do not so the Apple fees will need to be higher to break even. "User is a product" thrives in a world of many AppStores and free or low cost products, "user is a customer" does not.

It certainly seems to have worked for Apple.

This is what I mean when I say the DMA is removing competition in the market by undermining one of two business models and preferentially treating the dominant player.

The fragment of Apple's business that you choose to call their "business model" requires being a monopoly. While Apple as a whole isn't a monopoly, the part you lament going the way of the dodo absolutely is. Sorry that you wish that particular monopolism would continue to fly in the EU, but it won't. Apple does not have a right to that monopoly, as the EU has made clear.