Yeah I agree. They literally have nothing better to do with their free time.
I'm not knocking it. I wish I had that kind of free time. To worry about ports on phones.
You can pay me in euros to do it too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Legal Challenge Against EU Law as Sideloading Requirement Looms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not knocking it. I wish I had that kind of free time. To worry about ports on phones.
You can pay me in euros to do it too.
Taking out the competition with a better product is always welcome. Apple can sherlock the ideas of third-party developers, if they feel their app should be a core OS feature. Basically applying the (rather unsuccessful) Microsoft strategy on how to deal with upcoming competition. But the AppStore mandate prevents many possibilities to even be explored. Just think about how much of all internet traffic is porn and Apple doesn't allow any boobies in their store. The iPhone is basically PG-13. And it's fine that Apple wants its own AppStore to be a safe zone for kids. But they can't demand all of Europe to play with sexless Ken and Barbie.
I don't know why you even mention Android, it's like bringing up Ford on a Benz forum. Android did absolutely nothing for the invention and development of the smartphone. Just like Henry Ford didn't invent the car. The existence of Android proves or disproves nothing. It's just a mediocre copy of iOS, not an alternative to iOS. And even if it was, a duopoly also deserves to be well-regulated.
What do you mean “again”? Besides, if Android side is ok, why iOS side is guaranteed to fail? Fear-mongering? Propaganda?
Maybe or maybe it’s not really an issue. ad antitrust rulings and laws are just as bad as letting legitimate ones sneak by. I got the EU forces popular lifestyle companies to open their innards. The EU would anti-trust on toasters if they could.
No it’s not.
Last edited:
If a toaster company had a dominant position in their market and was engaging in anticompetitive behavior perhaps.
Yes, it is.
We agree that free markets spur innovation, so let it. Apple having control over their own platform they created is not a monopoly. A monopoly would be Apple controlling the entire cell phone market. If people don't like what Apple is doing, they'll make their voice heard. People can vote with their wallet. Also, requiring things like USB-C does not spur innovation, it does the opposite. It hinders the ability to invent a new standard to replace it. To let the market spur innovation, you must let it evolve.
Also, companies like Epic Games are a major driving force behind this movement. They just want this so that they can make more money for themselves instead of giving Apple a cut of their profits.
That's only true in an idealistic free market, which somewhat matches a real-world free market only in some situations. Unregulated free markets tend to steer away from the conditions of an ideal free market pretty quickly, thus the need for regulation to keep them working properly.
There are countless examples of this effect and various reasons for it, but it's a fact that all and every real world free market has regulation in place to address that.
An interesting article about the topic can be read here, giving some examples of failures both of regulation and deregulation attempts:
Slave holders created their own slave market themselves too. A free market is one where the slave is free to choose what to do with his manpower. He is informed about the benefits and detriments of all employment options and even has the opportunity to start his own business and work for himself. As the result of such freedoms the working conditions and payments quickly and drastically improve.
Or the entire app market on iOS. Or the NFC chip within the iPhone making alternative contactless payment options impossible. Nobody even cares, if there is a monopoly or duopoly, or if this monopoly was abused and if this abuse caused harm to anybody. This is not a criminal case against Apple! This is simply a market regulation to increase the common good created by the market. We only talk about "gatekeepers" because these rules are not meant to over-regulate every tiny little website selling home-made marmalade. That's why Apple's lawyers tried to argue, that there are actually three AppStores not one and each of them individually is really unimportant and unworthy to be regulated. Tiny little pet projects with no implication on the wider digital economy.
They are already listening. We've been heard believe me. 😁
Reducing waste and increasing reusability are also vital goals of the EU. Everything that furthers the common good can be supported by regulation.
That's what Apple tried to argue rather unsuccessfully. Isn't it curious that Apple switched to USB-C charging globally and not just within the EU? Shouldn't they out-innovate Europe by making US iPhones much better! Different versions of the iPhone for different markets already exist, because of different telecom regulations and wideband standards.
No, they are not. It's European integration which requires a common regulated market, if we don't want an unregulated market or fall back into national market with conflicting regulations. No US company has any influence on the EU. The mere existence of much bigger national markets like the US, China and India is driving smaller European nations to unite their markets to stay relevant.
Wasn't it their game and they can do with it what they want? You can vote with your waller and buy another first-person shooter, if you don't like what Epic Games is doing. And you don't just have two options. Epic is not the gatekeeper to all of mobile gaming. Forcing them to give a cut of their revenue to Apple doesn't help the common good.
You are missing the point. The point isn’t that Apple should’ve kept Lightning. The point is that because of this law it’s going to make it very hard for the industry to move on to a new port. That’s what happens when you have overregulation.
Last edited:
That’s like saying that a store owner has a monopoly on what can be sold in their store. It is their device that they created. They are well within their right to design their product the way they want to. If consumers don’t like it, they don’t have to buy it.
The point is, Epic Games doesn’t care about “the common good”. They care about their profits as much as Apple cares about their profits. And they refused to pay Apple, even though they were making money because they were using Apple’s platform.
I didn’t ask for no regulation whatsoever, I was just pointing out the over-regulation that is happening. I think that limited regulation is required in order to ensure that the non-aggression principle is not violated. That includes some environmental protection.
Last edited:
The regulation became necessary because the free market did not deliver a standard charging port on its own. The EU explicitly waited and observed the market before acknowledged that it failed to converge to an interoperable standard and only then intervened.
The EU is also currently taking a "wait and see" approach for wireless charging: they recognize the technology is evolving and they are currently satisfied with interoperability, but they explicitly stated they can and will regulate wireless charging if interoperability becomes unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, this regulation can actually foster innovation: if one or more players want a different port they need to deliver a very compelling reason for that which means driving research and technology even further. If a player doesn't like the port, they can invest in better, more advanced wireless technologies.
You don't know whether it's over-regulation until you can analyze the results.
And why should they? There isn't anything better than the USB-C plug out there. The iPhone 15 is still on USB 2.0 and hasn't yet adopted 3.0 3.1 3.2 and 4. Can't innovate my ass!
No, simply no. They're within their right to produce an EU-conform product and put a CE sign on it and then sell it within the EU.
I'm also on the EU side - and I'd like them to be forced to open up access to 3rd party GPUs in the recent Macs that can support them like the Mac Pro 7,1. None of this deliberate closed door behaviour.
I'd be happy to use a Radeon PRO W7900 - it is short enough to fit as well. Obviously many of you here won't care or even support this because you are all probably on Apple Silicon machines designed to be tossed out every few years and replaced by whatever the mothership dishes out and says is good for everyone.
And nobody cares. That's not a regulation issue. If Epic violated a treaty they signed with Apple, they need to be sued.
When it is poorly made, non-future proof regulation, like requiring USB-C, it is over-regulation.
This issue is too unimportant to waste the EU's precious time. Apple is certainly not a gatekeeper to the market of boxy desktop PCs. There's a lot of competition which could fit a Radeon card.
The regulation has specific provisions to support innovation. Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that the regulation is immutable and that it will mandate USB-C for all eternity, which is not the case.
The USB-C consortium has never had a problem with introducing new plugs for faster speeds. It's that Apple (and earlier Sony) always wants to have their own proprietary ports, which work as a customer lock-in to the brand.
Why don't you proof it is over-regulation, by innovating further outside of the EU. I hear OxyContin is a brand-new drug that elevates all pain and isn't addictive at all. Also Vaping is this brand-new healthy way to suck Nicotine into your lungs and totally doesn't destroy them. What else can we de-regulate? Maybe the banking system! 🤭