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
What do you mean not ok? Most devs in Android world still prefer Google play store over sideloading.
Apple really should build a mode in iOS that’s called curated mode. You can only use the device in prescribed ways and cannot do anything else.
So if I say that I want sideloading do I become, individually, a major force?
Them agreeing with the regulation doesn't mean they lobbied the government like you seem to imply.
It seems for most of the at this point it’s not. ThebEU has to thread the needle to have some (terrible) legislation to ensnare apple with sideloading and alternative app stores.
Apple is an influential although minority player in the smartphone market. But let’s face it, nothing seems to be unimportant for the EU to regulate (and said to say it’s not really localized to the EU)
That remains to be seen, and, if developers abandon the Apple app store, the damage will be permanent. Moreover, it only takes one corrupt source to infect a system with a computer virus. Finally, as many of you have pointed out, consumers already have a choice: they can choose Android and side-load to their heart's content. I don't understand why the EU got a burr in its saddle about Apple given that the EU mobile phone market is dominated by Android (see https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe/).
The governments of 27 countries or the people of 27 countries? There is a difference. I see political petitions all the time, but none have been about Apple's app store. I was in the EU for two decades but then the UK voted to leave (not something I supported and I wish Scotland would rejoin even if it means splitting from the UK). Still, what the EU does affects everybody on the planet, unless you are willing to allow Apple to disable side-loaded apps when consumers are outside the EU.
Petitions and demonstrations usually only come from people unfortunate enough to represent a minority position in society. The majority is represented by the elected government. At least that's the case when you have real elections and the composition of parliament is actually representative of how people voted.
Yes, let's make it so that judges are able to decide if an innocent person is worthy of living. Let's regulate speech on what is supposed to be the open internet. Let's mock the US for their health problems while ignoring the teen binge drinking issue in Europe. Again, I am not calling for no regulation, if a company fails to list side effects of their products, they should be dealt with.
How much of a topic was this until Epic Games brought it up? At least, I don't remember people talking about it much.
I agree, let's ignore these completely made up none issues! Here's what I found googling for the "problem" with alcohol.
Regular alcohol consumption among young people has fallen to its lowest level since records began. According to a study by the Federal Center for Health Education (BZgA), 8.7 percent of 12 to 17-year-olds said they drank alcohol at least once a week last year. In 2011 it was around 14 percent and in the first survey in 1979 it was a quarter of those surveyed, as the BZgA announced. Tagesschau
The judges had to decide because the patient was a minor and unable to decide for herself and the parents were too emotionally involved to make a rational decision. The duty of the judge in that case was to make a decision which is in the best interest of the minor, even if that goes against the wishes of the parents. The decision was made after consulting medical experts.
This concept is not even exclusive to European countries and exists in the US too. Some examples from the link:
Furthermore... the main topic is a regulation in the EU and the case above happened in the UK, which as we all know is not in the EU anymore...
The regulation requires platforms to remove illegal content, prohibits targeted ads based on specific private information, limits ads targeting children and requires big platforms to offer the option to opt-out of profiling. Those are pretty reasonable grounds to regulate speech.
No right is absolute, not even free speech and not even in the USA where there is quite a debate around what moderation and which liabilities should a platform be allowed to have.
That's not really a problem in the mind of most Europeans. Teens in Europe drink more than in the US because they are allowed to do so, but that has been the case for a long while and it's considered "normal" that a teen experiences alcohol consumption.
Also note that the data varies drastically from European country to European country, with some European countries having less binge drinking among teens than the US although they have a lower legal drinking age.
In my opinion, a platform can moderate however they want. It is their own platform to manage.
As far as how far free speech can go, I think people should be allowed to be awful people. (Doesn’t mean they should be) As long as someone doesn’t make death threats against people or commits libel, someone can say whatever. Even if it is offensive to me.
You really aren't listening to your own words. Why are we doing this? 5% of Android users side-load. 5%. Why are we going through this ordeal for 5% of the Android using population? So you can tinker and play with your phones?
Still, they have legal obligations and restrictions. They wouldn't be able to impose rules that directly contradict relevant laws.
I like how the goalpost has moved from the presumed impending security catastrophe to the a priori declaration of sideloading as useless and irrelevant.
It seems by actual numbers to be very useless and irrelevant.
But, besides that. It is a security issue. That goal post isn't going away.
Hopefully there will be a huge sticky if the global gov gets Apple to allow side loading, so us who value security can avoid updates after that date
It is only a security issue if the user wants it to be. The EU is not mandating iPhone users to sideload, it's mandating Apple to allow the users the choice.
I fundamentally agree with that, but you also seem to agree that some form of speech does cross the line. There is illegal content that needs to be addressed.
Note that the US also has section 230 which grants immunity to platforms for content they host but is created by users, but said immunity is not absolute and the platform is required to remove content which is illegal under federal law.
In recent times there is a lot of debate of section 230 being in need of a reform: the issues the EU has addressed are also being recognized in the US.
I don’t want to get rid of the dollar, I would like to see a return to the gold standard though.
I am listening to my own words loud And clear. Most people in Android world don’t care about sideloading. Thus it is a disproportional response to unilaterally hate iOS sideloading. The current divide in opinion can only be attributed to propaganda from Apple and Apple fanboys.
As I always say to other people: there are always more that meets the eye.
You demonstrates this exceptionally well in this post.
I just hate people nitpicking a single facet of the issue and present it as if it Is the whole story, regardless of the purpose.
This bar is way too low, and many will refuse for it to work That way. Examples of allowing awful People would be things like the wider spread of anti-Semitism Or islamophobia. Regulation exists for maintaining a bar of standard that majority of people are comfortable with and minimise the impact of extremism. Had platform can moderate however they want in a true sense, internet in US at least would be such a chaotic place, it’s negative impact will seep through irl. More race-based mass shooting? Promoting racism And cleanse of people from certain ethnic groups?
The internet is already a horrible place as-is. Near-absolute free speech would just quickly eliminate the humanity.
Platforms can choose to moderate whatever content they wish. I’ve never said the Internet was civil place. I know firsthand that it’s not a civil place. I’ve gotten plenty of messages that could be considered as hate speech simply because of interests I have. I specifically said that death threats should not be tolerated. And if necessary, the certain person or people that their threat was made against should be protected by the police for their safety, and the person who sent the threat should be held accountable. The problem is that you cannot trust the state when it comes to regulating speech. The state has been used numerous times to suppress the speech of the political opposition. That’s what happened under the red scare. Now do I agree with communism? No. Do I believe that communists have a right to speak their opinion? Yes.
Nor do I trust community self-police to maintain a good online order, even if such self-police is confined within their own circle. You need everyone to be well-educated and well-informed for the kind of free speech you are looking for to happen without causing too much trouble, and even that could be a stretch. State regulating speech at least have police and military to ensure enforcement. That cannot really happen in community self-police short of expelling offenders from the community.
Let me give you a recent example. About two weeks ago Australian High Court ruled out indefinite immigration detention for non-citizens with significant criminal records without real prospect of being deported in the near future. Australian government did as fast as they could to introduce the new legislation to severely limit what they could do while in Australia, but that still leaves people debating if that's enough. This is talking about limiting physical activities. Good luck for internet platforms to self-regulate however they want.