Apple Files Legal Challenge Against EU Law as Sideloading Requirement Looms

[I7guy]

That doesn't explain your backwards thinking point at all. I get that you're somewhat of a libertarian, but I was hoping your points would at least have some sort of logic behind them.

As an iPhone is a consumer oriented lifestyle product made by a for profit company…yes I am a vote with your $$$ kind of person. Not legislation internal requirement which government has no business in puttting its hands into. That’s actually not a libertarian point of view.

 

[hans1972]

The mass effect with Apple lock-in does, it’s like a blackhole once the critical mass is reached it keeps sucking more and more people into the system, and if you don’t take part of it, you die. That’s why regulation exists and must be extended over and over again to cover new markets and situations.

There isn't a problem not using Apple products in the EU.

Most people in the EU use Android and Windows.

 

[I7guy]

And limiting the user’s choice to install apps is harming both the consumer and the app market as a whole. That’s why Apple must be forced to allow side-loading independent from Apple’s AppStore rules. I’m glad we agree!

Then don’t buy that particular lifestyle product if you’re being harmed.

 

[hans1972]

EU would be forcing Apple to allow iPhone customers to do side-loading on their phones (and by "their" I mean consumers, not Apple. It is not Apple's phone). It is not forcing Apple themselves to do side-loading, and it is certainly not forcing Apple to sell any apps within their store that they don't wish to sell.

The EU is forcing Apple to change their product and their software.

EU is like the Christian god. He tried to create humans in his own image and did a lousy job. Instead he should have left it up to evolution.

It's the same here, EU should try to regulate things to their own likings.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Wow. only 11 out of 45 posts dare to support Apple here. (at the time I counted).

Look, the "Apple is the devil" crowd has taken over Macrumors, pretty much made it unbearable in the News section.

The choices the EU are making are not objectively best choices. These are subjectively created legal maneuvers.

I hope Apple (and the other companies) choose to leave the EU. You want "competition?" Create a viable tech sector in your respective countries that can actually compete in the global marketplace. But legislating your way to "competition" when you can't do it in reality is a poor substitute.

The EU, most likely due to overly restrictive legislation and bureaucracy, has fallen way behind in the digital marketplace. The EU finds itself in the modern digital era without any significant players in the upper echelon of digital computing. That must be terrifying to the EU. I get it. It has zero tools excepting legislation to try to influence the marketplace, It can't do so with straight up competition, because the EU has shown that it can't compete in these arenas.

The game is afoot. My money is on the real innovation.

Well we aren’t, we have a very large digital sector with quite large numbers of companies. Eu is just more “allergic” toward market centralization and rather have interoperability of multiple services than a few that dominates. different strokes for different folks.

Tou might think of big business such as Apple that I would call are just consumer electronics. But EU have more firms of technological innovation and importance such ASML HoldingASML is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of chip-making equipment. It designs and manufactures lithography machines-- an essential component in manufacturing microchips which go into smartphones, data centres, personal computers, laptops, cars and much more. That Global foundries, Intel , Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Apple and TSMC depend upon to manufacture the latest processors.

Or SAP with 77% of the world’s transaction revenue touches. They are world-leading producer of software for the management of business processes. Its solutions facilitate effective data processing and information flow across an entire organisation.
And Apple ,Google , Amazon and Microsoft use it as their ERP.

Something without them American companies wouldn’t exist without. And we must remember that innovation in technology isn’t driven by the big 5 companies but rather by the hundreds of smaller companies that sometimes just tends to be bought up, and thus preventing them from growing larger.

 

[hans1972]

Nonsense, they have allowed Android to get the reputation of being more free and open, less restrictive than the iPhone. Billions of dollars were lost to the competition as a result.

Apple taking 15-30% of gaming and subscriptions in the last few years has probably earned Apple more money than a few technical people choosing Android. People who care about side loading is also often frugal with their money. Those are not the customers Apple is looking for.

So, do you think Apple will make more money from consumers, developers and others with all the new EU regulations?

 

[hans1972]

Mmhh, no horrible things to scream about after more than 10 years of sideloading on Apple Macs …

The way software installation and updates works on the iPhone is much better than on the Mac.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Nope...

I mean a separate T&C iPhone page that specifically deals with and has language with respect to sideloading, where a user must agree to accept all responsibility for any adverse consequences to both the user and iPhone, holding Apple harmless, should an app that a user sideloaded cause harm to the user and iPhone.

Such a page and agreement requiring a user acknowledgement would come up every time a user decides to sideload an app.

Well why? The legal requirement already say they need to provide clear precise ToS and not in legalese. The law already abolishes apples legal responsibility AND Apple already have it as a clear term.

What would be the purpose for agreeing to the exact same terms repeatedly? Sounds as pointless as showing the ToS every time you open the phone or download an app from the AppStore

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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?

Not that easy to ban something, large fines and arrest warrants for the leadership would be firsthand before a ban would be implemented

 

[acctman]

just a reminder to everyone here, the Mac, which I assume many of us love, allows for Apps to be downloaded from the App Store, or from online with verification for security, but we are able to disable the verification. I feel very safe using my Mac. iPhone has to open up. I assume it will be similar to the Mac and hopefully everything will be OK or even better

Your phone has more personal data on it than the average computer does.

 

[boss.king]

As an iPhone is a consumer oriented lifestyle product made by a for profit company…yes I am a vote with your $$$ kind of person. Not legislation internal requirement which government has no business in puttting its hands into. That’s actually not a libertarian point of view.

What makes businesses so special that they shouldn’t be beholden to the laws of the region they operate in? Yeah, an iPhone is a consumer product, that doesn’t mean Apple gets operate with immunity from regulation.

I vote with my wallet to say if I like a particular product, I vote with my vote to say how I want my society to function, and that includes the businesses operating within that society.

 

[boss.king]

The way software installation and updates works on the iPhone is much better than on the Mac.

But the actual software on Macs is better, often because it can do things that would never get through app review.

There are tradeoffs on both sides, but I’d prefer to make my own choice in how I can use my own device.

 

[reklex]

bring up sideloading.

paying $99 a year just to upload apps to the App Store is shocking.

 

[CarAnalogy]

You get no brownie points for filing a document early. It doesn't matter.

No but I’m thinking that they can’t start working on a response to the appeal until it’s officially filed. This is probably a standard delaying tactic. But if anything it shows they aren’t in a hurry to get this resolved. I don’t know if everyone always waits until the last hour of the last day to actually file, you know it’s not like they were still working on it this morning.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You're right. The EU can define "monopoly" however they like. But, in this case the EU isn't alleging that Apple is a monopoly; Apple only has 30% market share in the EU. Rather, the EU invented a new term, "Gatekeeper" and subjectively defined who does and does not fit that category.

Perfectly understandable for the EU to practice protectionist practices over a market they have failed to compete in.
I can imagine the EU passing further impositions on "Gatekeepers" that make them liable for all sorts of things. When imagination is the only backstop, who knows what the EU will and won't do?

Eu don’t have a definition of a monopoly, gatekeeper is jus Ex-anti legislation that means dominant market position, its just following existing laws from 20 years ago in regards to what constitutes ex-post abuse of market position in regard to obligation they have.

And EU is ruled by laws, they can’t invent new liabilities that doesn’t have support of existing laws, or amendments of existing laws. Exactly like the US

I agree with you. I wish Apple hadn't challenged this law, which will be heard in a kangaroo court. The outcome is pre-determined. The law has been set.

Apple should just leave.
You comment doesn’t make any sense. How does this relate to having or not having choice and choosing a platform that allows you to install apps of your choosing. If you wan’t to install apps outside of the manufactures App Store choose Android if you want more security and privacy choose an iPhone. Side loading cannot give you both.

Ther exist android phones with more security than iOS AppStore. It’s more about “refusals to deal, margin squeeze, Resale price maintenance (RPM)” is anticompetitive and considers abuses as defy. And even with economic efficiency that may lead to consumer welfare gains, EU largely discounts it because it perceives “consumer choice” is more valuable and important.

and about protecting companies from damages that stifle their ability to compete.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.
The competition is Android.

It isn’t, there multiple platforms using android that are many times more secure than iOS and harder to side load.

It’s more about “refusals to deal, margin squeeze, Resale price maintenance (RPM)” is anticompetitive and considers abuses as defy. And even with economic efficiency that may lead to consumer welfare gains, EU largely discounts it because it perceives “consumer choice” is more valuable and important

and about protecting companies from damages that stifle their ability to compete.

Regulation is required to avoid harm to consumers, the environment, animals etc and that’s where it should end.

And that includes harm to companies as well.

A majority of the important applications for the Mac is not on the Mac App Store.

I don't care about competition or the needs of developers. I only care about me. For me it's most convenient to get all software from one source.
Stop think about other people than yourself. Be more self-centred!

I have been able to get all the apps I need with the current model. I conciser developers to be evil until proven otherwise. The developers who are most against Apple's strict control are the ones I don't mind if they died.

The apps I care about will be created because iPhone customers are so important to the developers, so they'll put up with almost anything. Most of them have no principles, fortunately. 15 years of history tells me that I don't need developers to get more power to get the apps I need.
It's harming me, because it allows software to exist outside the App Store.

I want all software to exist in the App Store or not at all.

We’ll majority of apps aren’t on the Macappstore because they can’t exist on it and provide the same functionality, and therefore chose Steam.

Just how software developers choose to host it themselves because they can’t publish it on the store without sacrificing functionality.

And you understand there’s are millions of apps that can’t exist inside the AppStore because of arbitrary constraints and limitations? And will never be available unless side loading is possible.

 

[CarAnalogy]

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

One would think. And then I started reading about the history of systemd. Linux still has a shockingly high number of potential single points of failure / potential choke points.

I agree though, it’s as close as we can get. Richard Stallman was trying to go all the way but you basically have to be Richard Stallman to make that work.

 

[Analog Kid]

Context is key. I mean not much will change in terms of what's available in the App Store. There will obviously be whole app categories that were previously not possibe on iOS that will be available outside of the store, but those who don't want to leave the official App Store can simply ignore them.

What this will do is provide an avenue for apps that Apple deems unfit for the App Store, whether that's because they don't like the content or subject matter (think adult content) or they don't want to deal with legal ramifications (emulators, for example, can open them up to a litigation minefield), or things they simply don't want users to be able to do (compiling code, etc).

Do you think the EU is doing this just to provide another conduit to market for fapware and emulators? That seems unlikely...

Otherwise if the only reason to do something is to hope nothing changes because of it, it seems like a waste of effort. I don't see a way to say the grass will be greener on both sides of the fence-- if you think the law is worthwhile, you have to also think it will make a significant change in the market landscape.

You're coming at this from the perspective that everything will have to be distributed through another app store model. What's wrong with traditional app distribution?

What's wrong indeed? And yet here we are... I'm coming from that perspective because it's the only one that aligns with the actions being taken. If the goal wasn't to change how it's done, then this is an incredible waste of time, money, resources and user experience.

Also, discoverability is already a nightmare in Apple's App Store, so I don't see how adding other avenues to discovery is a drawback.

It's not great, but it's the difference between looking for a needle in a haystack and looking for a needle in a haystack knowing at least that it's in that haystack.

Not at all. Improved competition doesn't mean anything and everything has to succeed. An app that can't find an audience inside or outside of the App Store seems like a prime example of something that the world doesn't need.

Agreed, but it shouldn't mean that it's now more difficult for new ideas to penetrate into the market. If an app that could have found success in the AppStore now needs to find success across many AppStores, that's a significant additional burden. Perhaps not for a dev with 1000 employees, but definitely for a dev with one.

But, to go back once again to the earlier point, you'll likely still have access to all the same apps from the App Store and can ignore alternative distribution models if you so choose. Just because you have options doesn't mean you have to use all of them.

I do if the apps I use leave the existing AppStore. There is no provision to ensure that doesn't happen, and all the reason to believe the whole point of the regulation is to enable it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Do you think the EU is doing this just to provide another conduit to market for fapware and emulators? That seems unlikely...
Otherwise if the only reason to do something is to hope nothing changes because of it, it seems like a waste of effort. I don't see a way to say the grass will be greener on both sides of the fence-- if you think the law is worthwhile, you have to also think it will make a significant change in the market landscape.


What's wrong indeed? And yet here we are... I'm coming from that perspective because it's the only one that aligns with the actions being taken. If the goal wasn't to change how it's done, then this is an incredible waste of time, money, resources and user experience.
It's not great, but it's the difference between looking for a needle in a haystack and looking for a needle in a haystack knowing at least that it's in that haystack.


Agreed, but it shouldn't mean that it's now more difficult for new ideas to penetrate into the market. If an app that could have found success in the AppStore now needs to find success across many AppStores, that's a significant additional burden. Perhaps not for a dev with 1000 employees, but definitely for a dev with one.
I do if the apps I use leave the existing AppStore. There is no provision to ensure that doesn't happen, and all the reason to believe the whole point of the regulation is to enable it.

Yes because the lack of the choice is the problems for the iOS market… and well that Seouls be up to the market if it’s greener or not.

EU just facilitated the right and opportunity exist,, but that’s for the market through competition and consumer demand to decide how to approach the new possibilities, and nolonger only company policy deciding that

why wouldn’t they enable it? It’s the market that should then decide if this is the best way or something else is better.

Instead of being forced to chose iOS or android to signal disapproval of the AppStore policy, you can now more directly address if you like iOS, the AppStore, safari and what iPhone model independently through market mechanisms.

 

[boss.king]

Do you think the EU is doing this just to provide another conduit to market for fapware and emulators? That seems unlikely...

Those are examples off the top of my head, not the broadest extent of what this could be used for.

Otherwise if the only reason to do something is to hope nothing changes because of it, it seems like a waste of effort. I don't see a way to say the grass will be greener on both sides of the fence-- if you think the law is worthwhile, you have to also think it will make a significant change in the market landscape.

I disagree. It can add an entirely new way of distributing apps while not harming the existing model, leaving the grass plenty green on both sides. The iOS community is huge, there’s room for more than one model of app distribution to succeed.

What's wrong indeed? And yet here we are... I'm coming from that perspective because it's the only one that aligns with the actions being taken. If the goal wasn't to change how it's done, then this is an incredible waste of time, money, resources and user experience.

I guess I just don’t see this as a winner-takes-all scenario.

It's not great, but it's the difference between looking for a needle in a haystack and looking for a needle in a haystack knowing at least that it's in that haystack.

The open web is just a different haystack. I don’t get why googling for an app and being sent to a web page is so much worse than being sent to an App Store page.

Agreed, but it shouldn't mean that it's now more difficult for new ideas to penetrate into the market. If an app that could have found success in the AppStore now needs to find success across many AppStores, that's a significant additional burden. Perhaps not for a dev with 1000 employees, but definitely for a dev with one.

How is it more difficult? The App Store isn’t going away, they could still list their app in the regular old App Store and face the exact same burdens as they face now if that’s what they choose. But if they can do it themselves and lower their costs, that’s now an option too. More options doesn’t make this worse, it makes it better.

I do if the apps I use leave the existing AppStore. There is no provision to ensure that doesn't happen, and all the reason to believe the whole point of the regulation is to enable it.

And I point again to the Play Store, where we see this not happening. I get that we’re both just speculating but at least I can point to fairly similar scenario where these concerns aren’t playing out and when they did happen they were quickly undone.

EDIT: the other part of this that we haven’t really discussed is what Apple could have done and can do. They could have opened up the App Store to more types of apps — game streaming, adult content, emulation, etc, and circumvented some of these complaints. And if this comes to pass, they can also use some of their considerable cash reserves to sweeten the App Store deal for developers. We’re acting like they’re a helpless startup but they’re an obscenely rich company that has rested on its laurels with the App Store for years. They could always innovate to make the store a better experience for devs and users, making sideloading less of an appealing prospect. They’re very smart people with plenty of resources, I’m sure they can figure something out if they put their heads together.

 

[citysnaps]

Well why? The legal requirement already say they need to provide clear precise ToS and not in legalese. The law already abolishes apples legal responsibility AND Apple already have it as a clear term.

What would be the purpose for agreeing to the exact same terms repeatedly? Sounds as pointless as showing the ToS every time you open the phone or download an app from the AppStore

If reflexively clicking an "I agree" button (agreeing to the Sideload Terms) every time you want to sideload a non app-store app causes you major distress (similar to the "Are you Sure" prompt when deleting the Trash in MacOS, and other similar Apple warnings/acknowledgments you're required to respond to every time) then perhaps an Android phone would be a better choice.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Time to put a stop to this tyranny and exit the EU market! They won't have an app store to sell apps in if these bureaucrats get their way!

 

[Analog Kid]

Those are examples off the top of my head, not the broadest extent of what this could be used for.


I disagree. It can add an entirely new way of distributing apps while not harming the existing model, leaving the grass plenty green on both sides. The iOS community is huge, there’s room for more than one model of app distribution to succeed.


I guess I just don’t see this as a winner-takes-all scenario.


The open web is just a different haystack. I don’t get why googling for an app and being sent to a web page is so much worse than being sent to an App Store page.


How is it more difficult? The App Store isn’t going away, they could still list their app in the regular old App Store and face the exact same burdens as they face now if that’s what they choose. But if they can do it themselves and lower their costs, that’s now an option too. More options doesn’t make this worse, it makes it better.


And I point again to the Play Store, where we see this not happening. I get that we’re both just speculating but at least I can point to fairly similar scenario where these concerns aren’t playing out and when they did happen they were quickly undone.

So you're staying in the camp of "It's a great law, it changes virtually nothing"? Oh well, I tried...

Here's the thing, I wish this regulation didn't exist but if they're going to enact it then I really hope it changes something more than people's access to porn otherwise it's an incredible waste.

EDIT: the other part of this that we haven’t really discussed is what Apple could have done and can do. They could have opened up the App Store to more types of apps — game streaming, adult content, emulation, etc, and circumvented some of these complaints. And if this comes to pass, they can also use some of their considerable cash reserves to sweeten the App Store deal for developers. We’re acting like they’re a helpless startup but they’re an obscenely rich company that has rested on its laurels with the App Store for years. They could always innovate to make the store a better experience for devs and users, making sideloading less of an appealing prospect. They’re very smart people with plenty of resources, I’m sure they can figure something out if they put their heads together.

That is not why they're being regulated. They could have opened it up to everything, they'd still be seen as a gatekeeper. This isn't a penalty for denying emulators, it's a threshold test on dollars and users.

 

[boss.king]

So you're staying in the camp of "It's a great law, it changes virtually nothing"? Oh well, I tried...

Sure, if you want to misrepresent everything I said then that's the camp I'm in 👍

Here's the thing, I wish this regulation didn't exist but if they're going to enact it then I really hope it changes something more than people's access to porn otherwise it's an incredible waste.

I think you're in luck then, because that's not all it'll do, nor is that all that I've suggest it will do. If all you're going to do is twist my words then I don't really get the point in discussing this.

That is not why they're being regulated. They could have opened it up to everything, they'd still be seen as a gatekeeper. This isn't a penalty for denying emulators, it's a threshold test on dollars and users.

That's certainly your opinion. One could argue that there'd be no need for this regulation against gatekeepers if they hadn't been acting like gatekeepers for so long, but we're both just guessing what alternate timelines would bring at this point. Anyway, you're clearly not interested in having a good faith discussion so I'm tagging out.
✌️

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If reflexively clicking an "I agree" button (agreeing to the Sideload Terms) every time you want to sideload a non app-store app causes you major distress (similar to the "Are you Sure" prompt when deleting the Trash in MacOS, and other similar Apple warnings/acknowledgments you're required to respond to every time) then perhaps an Android phone would be a better choice.

Distress? I care more of the purpose of it.
Don’t see any real reason to go beyond: do you want to install this unverified app? Yes/no.
Questioning more the purpose of a ToS as you described it or if the intention is to dissuade people from using installing third party software.

Because trying to scare them will not fly legally.