Apple Files Legal Challenge Against EU Law as Sideloading Requirement Looms

[canadianreader]

Assuming Apple has pure motives, I understand the substance of their argument. A hacked iPhone that goes everywhere with you is different than a hacked desktop or laptop which isn’t inherently on your person the majority of the day. Entire lives are stored on these devices which act as a diary, communication device, photo album, finance manager… the list goes on. If you could silently monitor and control a device, could you manipulate that person? Could you become that person?

As a tinkerer, I welcome side-loading with full knowledge of the risks. I also anticipate many users getting tricked into installing malicious software.

I don't think this is a valid argument. I mean yes you take the iPhone with you so are the softwares that are installed on it in another way you take facebook, instagram, tiktok, uber etc with you and they follow you wherever you go and they have access to photo albums, browsing history etc..

 

[VulchR]

...
I'm on EU side here. Doesn't mean I will use apps outside Appstore myself but I feel this will give people options. Those that want to tinker will be able to and those that want to feel the 'blanket of security' Apple provides will be also happy. Win win

Assuming of course that various apps that you want, or are required to have for work, are still available in the App Store. That's quite an assumption. I suspect many apps will not. This might, in fact, reduce consumer choice.

A far better compromise would be to make sure that Apple undertakes proper quality control and security checks of apps in its app store, effectively giving consumers a guarantee on the apps in exchange for the fees Apple charges. In addition it would have been possible to pass a law making the fee structure consistent within bands of developer sizes so that no favouritism disadvantaging consumers would be allowed and specifying that simply banning an app from the Apple's app store because it competes with Apple products would be considered a monopolistic practice. Instead, the EU chose this. If I were Apple, and forced to comply with this ridiculous law, I would inactivate all side-loaded apps the instant a user leaves EU territory and only re-activate them when the user returns to the EU.

 

[jakey rolling]

The most predictable early result is that the most major apps - the true behemoths, which pull users - will all move to their own stores, to avoid dealing with Apple (not just Apple's 15-30%, but all the other rules they'd like to avoid). Facebook/Messenger, Microsoft, Epic, X (for now), Google... the list is pretty long. Smaller (though still major) apps won't be able to pull out of the app store, at least at first, for fear of losing downloads/sales - but Facebook can be quite confident that if you use Messenger, you'll go get if from Facebook's app store if you have to. You won't just stop using it.

So predictable that this literally hasn't happened in the decade+ that side-loading existed on Android.

 

[farmboy]

Conversely; Governments should run their markets however they want. The whole thing is stupid
Honestly, where does this kind of rubbish come from?

Companies can do what they want IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION, and even then limits are placed upon them, (or should be), to protect the consumer.

"Protect the consumer"? How is this protecting the consumer, which implies that the consumer is being harmed? It's not like sideloading is some divine consumer right. Just choose a different phone. One can buy Aldi brand corn flakes, or Kellogg corn flakes from a different store at a different price; but should Aldi have to allow Kellogg's? Is the consumer really being harmed?

You have to be honest with yourself here: the goal of the EU is to make all phones appliances that all run a generic OS and all have the same apps. There is nothing "competitive" involved, there is no consumer harm, and there is no tidal wave of EU tech companies just waiting for a so-called monopoly to be curbed so they can "compete".

 

[TheToolGuide]

It makes no sense to force this on iOS. Apple has been successful in the population that wants privacy and security. People who feel the can managed this for themselves can use Android or jailbreak. Apple wants to protect this brand image and yes it is profitable. Now if they are stifling innovation take them to court but as long as it keeps privacy and security for those who don’t have the technical skills to manage it.

I enjoy Apple’s walled garden keeping companies out of my personal data and i like it that other people who have iOS and my personal info on their iPhones is also not sharing my info to the world. It’s not perfect but it’s better than taking the walls down.

Having more entrances to a garden will only allow more opportunities for weeds to get in even with apple using certificate.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Companies want to gain access to their own customers and not have to utilize Apple's platform at all.

Then why don't they make their own phone? If you are using another companies' platform to put your apps on, you should expect to owe that company money. Same thing on the Xbox and Playstation.

 

[canadianreader]

These are things that don't matter. There are no fake bank apps where you can lose all your savings. You don't know this problem, so don't comment.
In many countries, there is a huge problem of people being cheated by fake bank employees who encourage people to install applications from outside the official Google store. Android makes this possible. This will be the case with iOS soon.

On Android you cannot install third party apps without manually allowing installation from unknown sources. Once you activate it there's a warning message you need to approve or cancel the whole thing.

 

[wilhoitm]

Sloganeering is always a sign of a weak (or poorly exercised) mind.

In America, we in fact live in a socialist country. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, and zillions of smaller programs, are all socialist by definition. We just have a lot of people who are too uneducated - or to indoctrinated - to understand that. And of course we have a (relatively few) truly libertarian types who would prefer to burn it all down - a real minority, fortunately.

Whether you like the EU's decision or not (and I don't, for reasons I just stated above), it has nothing to do with Socialism (or Communism, lol). And why would anyone in the EU give a damn about what we like over here anyway?

We are not complete Socialists or Communists like some countries! There is this thing called "Freedom" and we love it here in America. If you want to be controled and told what to do like in the Matrix that is up to you but that will not fly here in America! You remind me of Cypher, "Igonrance is Bliss!".

 

[jakey rolling]

Assuming of course that various apps that you want, or are required to have for work, are still available in the App Store. That's quite an assumption. I suspect many apps will not. This might, in fact, reduce consumer choice.

Android has had side-loading for over a decade. Every major piece of software is still available in the Google play store (and many are also available in other alternative stores). It's not like there isn't already a real-world example of what will actually likely happen when side-loading becomes available in iOS.

A far better compromise would be to make sure that Apple undertakes proper quality control and security checks of apps in its app store, effectively giving consumers a guarantee on the apps in exchange for the fees Apple charges. In addition it would have been possible to pass a law making the fee structure consistent within bands of developer sizes so that no favouritism disadvantaging consumers would be allowed and specifying that simply banning an app from the Apple's app store because it competes with Apple products would be considered a monopolistic practice that would result in prosecution and fines.

Not sure that regulating every aspect of how the app store works would be a "compromise" over simply allowing customers to obtain software from alternative sources. Side-loading only creates a market in which Apple has to offer superior services in order to compete. What you are proposing is far more heavy-handed.

Instead, the EU chose this. If I were Apple, and forced to comply with this ridiculous law, I would inactivate all side-loaded apps the instant a user leaves EU territory and only re-activate them when the user returns to the EU.

All that would accomplish is making Apple's customers incredibly frustrated with Apple, and would give the EU ammunition to impose even heavier restrictions on Apple's business practices.

 

[boss.king]

Assuming of course that various apps that you want, or are required to have for work, are still available in the App Store. That's quite an assumption. I suspect many apps will not. This might, in fact, reduce consumer choice.

Except that we have the Play Store as a concrete example of this not being the case.

A far better compromise would be to make sure that Apple undertakes proper quality control and security checks of apps in its app store, effectively giving consumers a guarantee on the apps in exchange for the fees Apple charges. In addition it would have been possible to pass a law making the fee structure consistent within bands of developer sizes so that no favouritism disadvantaging consumers would be allowed and specifying that simply banning an app from the Apple's app store because it competes with Apple products would be considered a monopolistic practice that would result in prosecution and fines. Instead, the EU chose this.

This still leaves users with access to only what Apple deems to be acceptable apps. It's not just about the fees Apple charges and the things they do or don't do to vet apps that they list on the App Store, it's about opening platform up to apps that Apple chooses not to allow for arbitrary reasons.

If I were Apple, and forced to comply with this ridiculous law, I would inactivate all side-loaded apps the instant a user leaves EU territory and only re-activate them when the user returns to the EU.

If you were in charge of Apple and that was your course of action, I suspect you would very quickly not be in charge of Apple anymore.

 

[Analog Kid]

This is straight up fiction. You can look at the Play Store right now and see that most "true behemoth" apps are still listed there even though they could easily pull their apps and force sideloading. We even have an example of an app that tried to do that and had to reverse course — Epic pulled Fortnite from the Play Store, saw downloads drop off significantly, and subsequently had to bring Fortnite back to the Play Store.

I think there's a difference though when iOS changes. At the moment Meta would have to say "go to the AppStore on iOS and go to Meta.com rather than the PlayStore for Android". What will happen in the future is "Go to Meta.com for iOS and Android clients".

The messaging is cleaner, they can control their presentation, and they can circumvent whatever policies they don't like.

I also don't expect that the AppStore and PlayStore on the home screen by default will be allowed to stand much longer either. So the confusion of having to find where your apps are is going to just be baked in, so it's not adding any chaos to direct people to your local store.

The jeopardy to devs grows when there will be an uncontrolled number of stores users can choose from and no default-- will Meta or Microsoft or Adobe risk having users install an app store that they haven't submitted to? How many will they justify maintaining? It'll just be easier to take matters into their own hands.

 

[jakey rolling]

One can buy Aldi brand corn flakes, or Kellogg corn flakes from a different store at a different price; but should Aldi have to allow Kellogg's? Is the consumer really being harmed?

This isn't about forcing Aldi to carry Kellogg's Corn Flakes. It is about Aldi preventing their customers from going to Freshco to buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In the case of game consoles, that fact is very much relevant. It has probably been brought to the EU's attention that if they did ever bring about a similar type of regulation to the game console market, such a regulation would have the potential of making game consoles uncompetitive for their manufacturers. The result would either be that they become far more expensive than they are now, or some of those manufacturers would go out of business (or, most likely, both). Neither of those things would be good for consumers, and so such a regulation would be self-defeating.

No it isn’t because the DMA doesn’t discriminate on that basis. There’s no need to bring another regulation when the DMA already covers them?

And one simple fact will prevent any changes in their obligations is the fact they can’t prevent effective competition and they are heavily influenced by relevant market conditions, so this makes them unable to abuse their position

dominant position is ‘a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Sloganeering is always a sign of a weak (or poorly exercised) mind.

In America, we in fact live in a socialist country. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, and zillions of smaller programs, are all socialist by definition. We just have a lot of people who are too uneducated - or to indoctrinated - to understand that. And of course we have a (relatively few) truly libertarian types who would prefer to burn it all down - a real minority, fortunately.

Whether you like the EU's decision or not (and I don't, for reasons I just stated above), it has nothing to do with Socialism (or Communism, lol). And why would anyone in the EU give a damn about what we like over here anyway?

I disagree, a welfare state is not the same as socialism. (Even though I hate it just as much)

 

[Gudi]

They are arguing against the making the iPhone and software a public utility instead of letting the market decide.

A public what? Maybe you don’t know, but private property is actually protected in Europe. We are not America, where the police can stop your car and keep it under false accusations of drug trafficking. Nobody in the EU can make iOS a public good. Even a legal dispossession would inevitably lead to multi-billion dollars of compensatory damages to Apple in every case. That’s why nobody even talks about it as a vague possibility. 💸🍏🤑

 

[Gloor]

Wow, you want Apple to be a little dictator. Interesting.

Sure, you leave EU, you lose the app - wow, what a solution

Assuming of course that various apps that you want, or are required to have for work, are still available in the App Store. That's quite an assumption. I suspect many apps will not. This might, in fact, reduce consumer choice.

A far better compromise would be to make sure that Apple undertakes proper quality control and security checks of apps in its app store, effectively giving consumers a guarantee on the apps in exchange for the fees Apple charges. In addition it would have been possible to pass a law making the fee structure consistent within bands of developer sizes so that no favouritism disadvantaging consumers would be allowed and specifying that simply banning an app from the Apple's app store because it competes with Apple products would be considered a monopolistic practice. Instead, the EU chose this. If I were Apple, and forced to comply with this ridiculous law, I would inactivate all side-loaded apps the instant a user leaves EU territory and only re-activate them when the user returns to the EU.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

A public what? Maybe you don’t know, but private property is actually protected in Europe. We are not America, where the police can stop your car and keep it under false accusations of drug trafficking. Nobody in the EU can make iOS a public good. Even a legal dispossession would inevitably lead to multi-billion dollars of compensatory damages to Apple in every case. That’s why nobody even talks about it as a vague possibility. 💸🍏🤑

They are still regulating something that should not be. If you want a more open phone, buy an Android. If you want a more secure phone, get an iPhone. That's how the free market works. Needless intervention stops that from happening.

 

[jakey rolling]

Then why don't they make their own phone? If you are using another companies' platform to put your apps on, you should expect to owe that company money.

Then charge for the .SDK. At this point, the only "platform" that those third parties are using is the operating system. Developers that want to market outside the App store are not using Apple's servers or any of the other services offered by the App store. They are only using Apple's .SDK and the iOS operating system. If those other services are as valuable as Apple claims they are, then those developers will continue to utilize them (just as Android developers continue to utilize the services offered by the Google Play store).

Same thing on the Xbox and Playstation.

As has already been discussed here, gaming consoles are a completely different market and are not analogous to the smartphone market. At this point, you are hurting your argument by bringing up such examples.

 

[Gudi]

Look, if Apple, as you say, is a dishonest corporation running roughshod over EU rules, then you should outright ban them. Why would you even want a business like that in your marketplace?...and why would you even have any interest in their products in your personal life?

Most US businesses are used to exploit their American customers in every which way without much government intervention. Their biggest risk is a class action lawsuit, which is something entirely different than government regulations to avoid damages in the first place. It’s a learning experience for both sides with a good outlook for a fruitful longterm relationship. Apple will allow side loading within the EU, if they can’t avoid it. EU citizens will be happy and Apple will make billions and even pay taxes. It’s a win-win situation.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

And one could make the argument that these are supposed to be general purpose computers, as opposed to game consoles which everyone can agree is a locked down device for a specific purpose.

It's very important that we not conflate the two. I don't want to lose general purpose computers and only be issued locked down toys which can only perform approved actions. Which is dangerously close to where we are headed. Not just with Apple but also the industry in general.

And this is why I recommend everyone learn Linux as a just in case scenario. They can't lock down Linux.

 

[Gudi]

They are still regulating something that should not be. If you want a more open phone, buy an Android. If you want a more secure phone, get an iPhone. That's how the free market works. Needless intervention stops that from happening.

That’s the free market without rules. Let Perdue Pharma sell opioids, the free market will take care of it! Not in Europe, sorry.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Most US businesses are used to exploit their American customers in every which way without much government intervention. Their biggest risk is a class action lawsuit, which is something entirely different than government regulations to avoid damages in the first place. It’s a learning experience for both sides with a good outlook for a fruitful longterm relationship. Apple will allow side loading within the EU, if they can’t avoid it. EU citizens will be happy and Apple will make billions and even pay taxes. It’s a win-win situation.

What do you mean by "exploit"?

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

That’s the free market without rules. Let Perdue Pharma sell opioids, the free market will take care of it! Not in Europe, sorry.

Are you comparing drugs to regulating apps? Also didn't you just complaing about the drug busting that the US does? You are contadicting yourself.

 

[boss.king]

I think there's a difference though when iOS changes. At the moment Meta would have to say "go to the AppStore on iOS and go to Meta.com rather than the PlayStore for Android". What will happen in the future is "Go to Meta.com for iOS and Android clients".

The messaging is cleaner, they can control their presentation, and they can circumvent whatever policies they don't like.

That's really not an issue. They can already detect what device you're on and serve you up a platform-specific CTA to get their apps. Also, if it were so beneficial to circumvent the Play Store and force sideloading, they could find a way to make that messaging work. The simple fact is that it's not, and so they don't.

I also don't expect that the AppStore and PlayStore on the home screen by default will be allowed to stand much longer either. So the confusion of having to find where your apps are is going to just be baked in, so it's not adding any chaos to direct people to your local store.

I don't think people are just going to forget where they've been getting apps for the last 15 years. I also suspect Apple will make you jump through a bunch of hoops to even enable sideloading in the first place, just like they do on MacOS and Google does on Android. The App Store and Play Store will still be the easiest ways for developers to distribute apps and for users to download them.

The jeopardy to devs grows when there will be an uncontrolled number of stores users can choose from and no default-- will Meta or Microsoft or Adobe risk having users install an app store that they haven't submitted to? How many will they justify maintaining? It'll just be easier to take matters into their own hands.

I don't think competition is so weak that devs can afford to make their apps hard to get. I suspect there will be one, maybe two, alternative app stores that really take hold, and then a bunch of indie devs who will sell their software from their own infrastructure (much like how many apps for the Mac are sold).

The idea that every company is going to be running their own app store seems like a no-brainer way for them to start shedding users.

 

[Gudi]

What do you mean by "exploit"?

Any business strategy to increase the profits of a company against the best interests of consumers, workers or the environment. Planned obsolescence comes to mind, but also addictive foods, cigarettes or video games. The exploitation of Amazon workers, who don’t even have the right to go to the toilet. You’ll come up with thousands of examples yourself when you think about it.