Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[surferfb]

Apple Pay was basically the only way a user had to take advantage of the hardware he bought man. Not even Tile was able to use it until Apple came with their own copy of that product. The hardware was locked down by Apple. Users that bought for instance Tile had to use Bluetooth instead of the more effective NFC on their iPhones man for the purpose. So yes, user has to pay Apple more to take advantage of the hardware they bought, even if indirectly.

The user bought an iPhone. Not a NFC sensor, reader or a development kit. They bought an iPhone that uses NFC for specific, system-level features. The NFC chip was not advertised as doing anything more. Apple has legitimate reasons for locking it down, even if you disagree with them (security, reliability, a single UX). That’s product design. Apple sells an integrated product and software experience. If you don’t like that experience, buy something else.

My car has a camera, radar sensors and a CAN bus, but I’m not entitled to install random software to drive the braking system. Do you think your car manufacturer should be forced to open up its software because you can’t use the rear view camera to take a selfie? I mean “the hardware is there.” They’re making you buy another device to take pictures!

Should the EU or US be able to force BMW to accept Car Play Ultra? Some consumers want CarPlay Ultra on their BMWs. BMW accepts regular CarPlay. So let’s force it onto BMWs, even though BMW has concerns about CarPlay Ultra’s impact on their customers’ user experience and safety.

How dare Apple lock down the TouchID and FaceID sensors? I want to access my raw fingerprint data, and shouldn’t have to pay for a separate fingerprint sensor. And also, third parties should be able to replace the system lock/unlock stack! Apple’s being anticompetitive by keeping that to themselves!

The fact of the matter is the presence of hardware doesn’t grant end users or third parties unrestricted access or control especially for safety/security/privacy-critical functions.

It’s well documented in history.

That as changed in the EU. You know what, for payments, here there are better digital services. Unfortunately iPhone user had to make a choice between having the very best camera phone and what could be best contactless payment system in their area. That is what ties do to the market and consumers.it conflates issues pressing the user to make exclusive choices over otherwise disparate things for the only benefit of the OEM.

You’re conflating “I prefer a different product design” with “consumers were harmed.”

Phones are bundles of trade-offs. Some vendors ship a tightly integrated wallet/NFC stack because it delivers a consistent UX, a single liability model, and a smaller attack surface; others expose NFC more openly and accept the poor user experience, fragmentation and support costs that come with it. Both approaches are valid, although I’d argue one is clearly preferable than the other. What you shouldn’t get is a right to force every OEM to ship your preferred architecture.

The wallet and the secure NFC path are part of the platform design like how cameras, biometrics, and sandboxing are integrated choices. That design didn’t “only benefit the OEM.” It also benefits users (predictable tap-to-pay that works the same everywhere), banks (one secure integration and clearer fraud/liability rules), and merchants (fewer weird edge cases at the terminal).

If you value “open above all,” there are phones built for that. If you value other attributes (camera, SoC performance, longevity, privacy posture), you might pick a different bundle. There are almost always trade-offs. That’s competition working. Regulators picking one architecture for everyone reduces product diversity and forces other users to absorb the security/UX costs of a design they didn’t choose and don’t want.

Why are you doing this? Why so much deflection?

PS: You can still get porn through Safari man. Yes Steve Jobs thought that Web technology was good enough and would evolve to become the facto app standard backed by HTML5 and above.

I’m not deflecting. My point was Steve Jobs absolutely wanted the iPhone locked down. He originally didn’t want third party apps at all, and once convinced otherwise, he wanted strict control over what apps were offered, and he actively banned competing technology (flash) because he thought it was worse for users. If that happened today you would be complaining about “Tim Cook’s Apple” restraining competition. But the fact of the matter is banning flash was massively better for almost every user.

I strongly believe locking down NFC was as beneficial to users as banning flash apps. If Apple had “opened NFC” from day one, mobile payments likely would’ve been slower to take off or maybe would never have reached mainstream adoption at all:

• Banks would have shipped a patchwork of their own wallets (or declined to invest until the platform matured), each with different provisioning, risk rules, and UX.
• Developers would have had to support multiple wallets and failure modes (“which app is paying?”), raising cost and adding checkout friction that users blame on the app.
• Merchants would see higher breakage at terminals and more chargebacks while everyone argued about whose app or tokenization scheme failed.
• Customer support would fragment (“It’s not working, do I call my bank or Apple”), making fraud response and lost-device recovery inconsistent.
• Carriers and OEMs would have pushed their own solutions (as we saw on Android’s early years), further splitting the market.
• Customers would have lost the system-level benefits that make the experience feel trustworthy because no single party could guarantee them across every bank app.

By centralizing the tap-to-pay flow in Wallet, Apple gave issuers one integration path, gave developers one predictable payment surface, gave merchants a consistent card-present experience, and gave users a single gesture that “just works.” That leverage is what pulled hundreds of banks onto the platform quickly and made tapping with an iPhone/Watch feel safe, fast, and boring in the best way.

And we have direct experience with the other method! Android had a years-long head start with multiple wallets competing at the NFC layer, and what did we get? A fragmented mess that was only used by nerds, didn’t accelerate adoption and didn’t go mainstream until Apple showed Google the right way to do it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Judge Yvonne was clearly out to get Apple, and while she may have been annoyed at Apple dragging its feet over steering rules, it doesn’t give her the right to impose a decision that was disproportionate to the issue at hand.

She was never "out to get them" - otherwise she would have made a first judgement more favourable to EPIC (rather than ruling against them on... how many? Nine out of ten counts or so?). And Apple's commission setting afterwards was no "dragging its feet" - it was an open defiance of her first decision.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The user bought an iPhone. Not a NFC sensor, reader or a development kit. They bought an iPhone that uses NFC for specific, system-level features. The NFC chip was not advertised as doing anything more. Apple has legitimate reasons for locking it down, even if you disagree with them (security, reliability, a single UX). That’s product design. Apple sells an integrated product and software experience. If you don’t like that experience, buy something else.

My car has a camera, radar sensors and a CAN bus, but I’m not entitled to install random software to drive the braking system. Do you think your car manufacturer should be forced to open up its software because you can’t use the rear view camera to take a selfie? I mean “the hardware is there.” They’re making you buy another device to take pictures!

Should the EU or US be able to force BMW to accept Car Play Ultra? Some consumers want CarPlay Ultra on their BMWs. BMW accepts regular CarPlay. So let’s force it onto BMWs, even though BMW has concerns about CarPlay Ultra’s impact on their customers’ user experience and safety.

How dare Apple lock down the TouchID and FaceID sensors? I want to access my raw fingerprint data, and shouldn’t have to pay for a separate fingerprint sensor. And also, third parties should be able to replace the system lock/unlock stack! Apple’s being anticompetitive by keeping that to themselves!

The fact of the matter is the presence of hardware doesn’t grant end users or third parties unrestricted access or control especially for safety/security/privacy-critical functions.


You’re conflating “I prefer a different product design” with “consumers were harmed.”

Phones are bundles of trade-offs. Some vendors ship a tightly integrated wallet/NFC stack because it delivers a consistent UX, a single liability model, and a smaller attack surface; others expose NFC more openly and accept the poor user experience, fragmentation and support costs that come with it. Both approaches are valid, although I’d argue one is clearly preferable than the other. What you shouldn’t get is a right to force every OEM to ship your preferred architecture.

The wallet and the secure NFC path are part of the platform design like how cameras, biometrics, and sandboxing are integrated choices. That design didn’t “only benefit the OEM.” It also benefits users (predictable tap-to-pay that works the same everywhere), banks (one secure integration and clearer fraud/liability rules), and merchants (fewer weird edge cases at the terminal).

If you value “open above all,” there are phones built for that. If you value other attributes (camera, SoC performance, longevity, privacy posture), you might pick a different bundle. There are almost always trade-offs. That’s competition working. Regulators picking one architecture for everyone reduces product diversity and forces other users to absorb the security/UX costs of a design they didn’t choose and don’t want.


I’m not deflecting. My point was Steve Jobs absolutely wanted the iPhone locked down. He originally didn’t want third party apps at all, and once convinced otherwise, he wanted strict control over what apps were offered, and he actively banned competing technology (flash) because he thought it was worse for users. If that happened today you would be complaining about “Tim Cook’s Apple” restraining competition. But the fact of the matter is banning flash was massively better for almost every user.

I strongly believe locking down NFC was as beneficial to users as banning flash apps. If Apple had “opened NFC” from day one, mobile payments likely would’ve been slower to take off or maybe would never have reached mainstream adoption at all:

• Banks would have shipped a patchwork of their own wallets (or declined to invest until the platform matured), each with different provisioning, risk rules, and UX.
• Developers would have had to support multiple wallets and failure modes (“which app is paying?”), raising cost and adding checkout friction that users blame on the app.
• Merchants would see higher breakage at terminals and more chargebacks while everyone argued about whose app or tokenization scheme failed.
• Customer support would fragment (“It’s not working, do I call my bank or Apple”), making fraud response and lost-device recovery inconsistent.
• Carriers and OEMs would have pushed their own solutions (as we saw on Android’s early years), further splitting the market.
• Customers would have lost the system-level benefits that make the experience feel trustworthy because no single party could guarantee them across every bank app.

By centralizing the tap-to-pay flow in Wallet, Apple gave issuers one integration path, gave developers one predictable payment surface, gave merchants a consistent card-present experience, and gave users a single gesture that “just works.” That leverage is what pulled hundreds of banks onto the platform quickly and made tapping with an iPhone/Watch feel safe, fast, and boring in the best way.

And we have direct experience with the other method! Android had a years-long head start with multiple wallets competing at the NFC layer, and what did we get? A fragmented mess that was only used by nerds, didn’t accelerate adoption and didn’t go mainstream until Apple showed Google the right way to do it.

Are you saying when you buy a House you you may not be buying access to doors, rooms … unless agreeing to go through another pay wall? Interesting future offered by Apple and other technology companies.

And then you guys get surprise of the push back by governments and regulators … freedom blablabla. Property and value transfer with half truths … that is not gonna happen.

Again, deflection.

Cheers.

PS: My point was not about what Steve Jobs wanted for the future of Apple, but what he said to the market word by word about the App Store for years, what Apple said. If what he wanted is not inline with what he said, then he was lying to the market. We all know what happened after he left … look at the table I shared. That is why I say you are deflecting with such a counter argument, because my point was very clear. Heck you even decided to change what SJ said verbatin to better fit the deflection.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Freedom cuts both ways. You want the freedom to install anything; Apple wants the freedom to set terms for software using its IP that is distributed inside its OS. Preferring a curated platform isn’t “Orwellian” it’s a product choice. If you want alternate app stores and sideloading, Android exists

Except that Google is right now in the process of restricting sideloading, so it won't be less and less of an alternative choice.

That’s freedom in a market.

It's not really free, and there's no really "free" choice for consumers, because there is just one relevant alternative platform. Which isn't moving only moving to Apple's business model - but also because (as you say) smartphones are bundled products. There are other good reasons not to choose Android and prefer iOS - and those users deserve a right to install applications as well. Having two big brothers instead of only one doesn't make it less Orwellian. And it's only a matter of time before authoritarian regimes will use it to crack down on political dissent (and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes the U.S. of A. during our lifetimes).

Also, calling the iPhone a “general-purpose computer” is creating a distinction when none exists. For example, my PS5 runs Netflix and Spotify and still gates distribution.

It probably doesn't help in making travel plans, online shopping, managing your finances and completing your uni thesis. It most certainly doesn't for the large majority of customers.

Epic famously is losing money on their store. 12% isn't profitable.

There losing money due to promotions they're conducting. Taking up-front losses to popularise the platform. Not much different than Apple TV, I suppose.

Those who don’t like Apple’s rules have other options.

Not on the same type of devices (handheld computers).

Again, it’s already a competitive environment

No one competes with the Apple App Store for distribution of apps to consumers that own an iPhone. Or in-app transactions in such apps. Except, of course, where the law provides for such competition.

This is not just another random example of a company having a monopoly for its own products and accessories (like McDonald's for certain burgers) - because Apple and Google have a de facto duopoly.

For proof, look at the PC market. There is no significant third alternative to Mac and Windows (and I say this as someone who actually uses Linux). Can’t blame the App Store for that.

But both OS developers compete with third-party stores.

Irrelevant. Market concentration doesn’t erase property rights

They don't erase them.
But monopolies or oligopolies are routinely regulated by governments.

After you buy a phone, you still have channel competition (web vs in-app)

Web apps aren't a viable alternative for many apps (particularly not the ones that allow for digital purchases).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Are you saying when you buy a House you you may not be buying access to doors, rooms … unless agreeing to go through another pay wall? Interesting future offered by Apple and other technology companies.

Well... he isn't too far off, is he?

Rather than access to certain rooms, it's features that are getting paywalled. Take heated car seats, performance boosts in cars, for instance. Louis Rossmann ikeeps covering such instances by the week.

The irony of course is that people are defending these losses (if not impending abolishment) of ownership rights through... well, ownership rights.

"But, but... look how [insert multi-billion dollar company]'s intellectual property would be infringed!"


(Notice how it's never about consumers' ownership rights of the devices they purchase?)

 

[AppliedMicro]

My point was Steve Jobs absolutely wanted the iPhone locked down. He originally didn’t want third party apps at all, and once convinced otherwise, he wanted strict control over what apps were offered

That point went out of the windows when they offered enterprise developer program. Which circumvents those safeguards and allows for installation of apps that haven't been vetted by Apple.

But the fact of the matter is banning flash was massively better for almost every user.

Whereas his (Steve Jobs') insistence on web apps as the only way to "do" third-party apps wasn't. The benefits of native apps on iPhones are not only undeniable - Apple wouldn't have an iPhone business today if they kept insisting on that.

 

[surferfb]

Except that Google is right now in the process of restricting sideloading, so it won't be less and less of an alternative choice.

Only on certain devices, and because turns out that getting devices infected with malware leads consumers to switch to the brand where that’s not possible. But have no fear - regulators and their defenders want to solve that problem and bring the malware to iOS! Sorry users, Epic deserves free access to Apple’s IP more than you deserve safe computing.

It's not really free, and there's no really "free" choice for consumers, because there is just one relevant alternative platform. Which isn't moving only moving to Apple's business model - but also because (as you say) smartphones are bundled products. There are other good reasons not to choose Android and prefer iOS - and those users deserve a right to install applications as well.

Preferences aren’t rights. If you prefer iOS for its camera, battery, or ecosystem, that doesn’t create a right to change how Apple’s OS is governed. Freedom here cuts both ways: users who want a curated, locked-down platform deserve that model to stay intact, just as users who want sideloading already have Android (and web apps) today.

Sideloading and third party stores aren’t no-cost add-ons; at iOS scale it erodes the very reasons many iOS buyers chose iOS. You can argue for compelled access, but call it what it is. It’s not about “user freedom”; it’s about forcing a private company to abandon the product differentiation millions bought it for when an open alternative already exists.

Having two big brothers instead of only one doesn't make it less Orwellian. And it's only a matter of time before authoritarian regimes will use it to crack down on political dissent (and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes the U.S. of A. during our lifetimes).

The authoritarian regime point is by far you strongest argument and the only one that has made me really reconsider my position. But I ultimately came down to the fact that if that becomes a thing, governments will just ban platforms from being able to offer sideloading.

It probably doesn't help in making travel plans, online shopping, managing your finances and completing your uni thesis. It most certainly doesn't for the large majority of customers.

There is no reason it can’t. Consoles are just PCs - hell you could install Linux on a PS2. By your logic, why should I have to buy a PC if I already have a console? And consoles could absolutely play PC games. So why not force Epic and Steam onto the consoles? Why is it only a problem when Apple does it?

There losing money due to promotions they're conducting. Taking up-front losses to popularise the platform. Not much different than Apple TV, I suppose.

Promotions like “Use our massively successful product to lower the store commission to an unsustainable level so we can use it as a talking point in our attempt to freeload off of Apple.” The fact of the matter is Apple charges the industry standard. And if that weren’t the case, open Android would have had PlayStore commissions lowered by competitors forcing the price lower. But we haven’t. Completely refuting your argument Apple is artificially keeping prices high.

Not on the same type of devices (handheld computers).

Yes, on the same types of devices. Android exists.

No one competes with the Apple App Store for distribution of apps to consumers that own an iPhone. Or in-app transactions in such apps. Except, of course, where the law provides for such competition.

This is not just another random example of a company having a monopoly for its own products and accessories (like McDonald's for certain burgers) - because Apple and Google have a de facto duopoly.

We can probably continue to have this argument every day for the next three years, but to repeat it for the 7,328th time, it is literally just another random example of a company having a monopoly on its own products and accessories.

You’re arguing because Steam can’t open an App Store on the PS5 that there is no competition in the video game market or because Burger King can’t sell Whoppers in McDonalds that McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers. It’s absurd. Just because you scream “duopoly” doesn’t change the fact that it’s absurd.

But both OS developers compete with third-party stores.

Your point was Apple’s locked down nature prevented a third competitor from emerging. You just need to look at the PC market, where both major platforms are “open” to see that’s patently false.

They don't erase them.
But monopolies or oligopolies are routinely regulated by governments.

I agree. But in this case it’s not proper regulation, it’s interfering in a very competitive market because the regulator has an ideological opposition to closed ecosystems and doesn’t think consumers should have access to one. The market disagrees with them so they are unjustly removing that option from those who want it, and lowering their security, privacy, and safety to boot!

And when it comes back to bite Apple’s users, the EU will point the finger at Apple and say their regulations had nothing to do with it and Apple should have implemented their ridiculous rules differently, just like the EU does with the cookie popups they imposed on everyone and the Crowdstrike crash they gave us. My four year old never thinks he makes a mistake or he’s at fault either, but he’s four. What’s the EU’s excuse?

Web apps aren't a viable alternative for many apps (particularly not the ones that allow for digital purchases).

Then they can run a free app and handle subscriptions/purchases on the web. Or eschew Apple entirely. But they shouldn’t be entitled to Apple’s property just because they think they deserve it.

 

[surferfb]

Are you saying when you buy a House you you may not be buying access to doors, rooms … unless agreeing to go through another pay wall? Interesting future offered by Apple and other technology companies.

The analogy isn’t a house, it’s a condo. You fully own the unit you live in, but the building keeps control of the structure, elevator, fire alarms, and electrical risers, etc.

A condo owner controls their unit (paint, furniture, even some renovations) but they don’t get to cut a new window into the building’s exterior, run third-party code on the elevator or tap into the fire panel. Those common, safety-critical systems stay under building/HOA control for reliability, liability, and insurance. And because if we let anyone do what they want it would be worse and unsafe for everyone who lived on the building, even the ones who just wanted to follow the HOA’s rules and bought into the unit because they liked the rules.

Likewise, you own your iPhone and can install apps, change settings, and use NFC tag reading but card-emulation for tap-to-pay, biometrics, and the secure element are “common systems” the OS controls so the payment flow is safe, consistent, and accountable.

PS: My point was not about what Steve Jobs wanted for the future of Apple, but what he said to the market word by word about the App Store for years, what Apple said. If what he wanted is not inline with what he said, that he was lying to the market. We all know what happened after he left … look at the table I shared. That is why I say you are deflecting with such a counter argument, because my point was very clear. Heck you even decided to change what SJ said verbatin to better fit the deflection.

You can cherry pick quotes all you want and claim I’m “deflecting”, but the fact of the matter is those quotes don’t contradict each other and don’t imply what you say they imply. And I didn’t change what Steve said.

Apple has always wanted the App Store to be the only place to buy apps because it’s better for users and Apple sells an integrated product. And I suspect Steve would have told the EU “enjoy explaining to your constituents why they can’t buy iPhones anymore” had he been around when the DMA was proposed.

 

[surferfb]

That point went out of the windows when they offered enterprise developer program. Which circumvents those safeguards and allows for installation of apps that haven't been vetted by Apple.

The Enterprise Program didn’t refute the closed model. It’s a narrow, contract-bound channel for companies to deploy internal apps to their own employees, not a public distribution path. Those apps are still code-signed and sandboxed, and Apple can yank the certificate instantly, as it has done multiple times, including with Facebook and Google. I’d argue reinforces, not refutes, the locked-down model.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The analogy isn’t a house, it’s a condo. You fully own the unit you live in, but the building keeps control of the structure, elevator, fire alarms, and electrical risers, etc.

When you buy hardware, it should be yours to use. The operating system license exists to make that hardware functional, not to redefine what you actually own. For decades, ownership was straightforward: you bought a tool, you used it. Only in the last decade has clever marketing blurred the lines between ownership and OEM's intellectual property as if the two things were close, which they aren't as a matter of law.

Think about it this way: imagine your neighbor charging you to use your NFC chip, or a building manager deciding whether you can unlock the bathroom door or receive deliveries unless you pay extra. Absurd, right? Does that happen in a Condo? Of course not. In the real world, that’s not how ownership works. Whether it’s a house, a car, a hammer, a condo, a table, a screwdriver, or an office chair—it doesn’t matter if it costs ten dollars or a hundred thousand. Ownership has always meant full use of the things you bought. Conflating the things you bought with the things you share with others is mere deflection. And this isn’t about intellectual property. You’re not copying or reselling someone else’s work, you’re simply using what you bought.

The same logic applies to your phone components. You bought the hardware and a license for the OS. It’s yours. The operating system is licensed, to facilitate the use of the hardware, such is the nature of the beast, but that doesn’t give the manufacturer the right to block or cripple the device you already paid for unless you pay more. The OS is there to enable the hardware, not hold it hostage for additional payments. Otherwise, you don’t truly own it—you’re just renting functionality on something you supposedly purchased. Some argue, “Well, you can still sell it, so it must be yours.” But that’s nonsense. Ownership isn’t proven by your ability to resell, it’s proven by your freedom to use what you already paid for. Technically, ownership is proven by having both rights together, free use and disposal.

My phone and OS license are mine, just as yours are yours. There’s no shared “condo” here. If we were to compare it to a condo, it would be because each of us bought an apartment in the same building. In that case, the condo belongs to both of us, but each apartment is individually owned and used by its owner. And together, we take care of the shared structure. What the condo is not is property owned or controlled by some third party who tells us how we can use our own apartments. That’s why I chose a house as the analogy, because it avoids this kind of confusion. If you want, Apple could be seen as the city hall of your place. Imagine a world where the city hall charged you money just to receive deliveries through your front door, and then asked for a little more if the delivery had to come through a window. That’s how you turn a smartphone into a trillion-dollar business. A miracle, indeed.

Now, in the US this very same idea seam to slowly being transferred to cars ... In fact, every single thing that uses software is a potential target. Almost everything will get a Digital Touch. It's all about jurisprudence and deflection.

That’s not just opinion. Stop deflecting and get some common sense, in spite of the times.

Roger out. Cya in the next thread.

 

[surferfb]

When you buy hardware, it should be yours to use. The operating system license exists to make that hardware functional, not to redefine what you actually own. For decades, ownership was straightforward: you bought a tool, you used it. Only in the last decade has clever marketing blurred the lines between ownership and OEM's intellectual property as if the two things were close, which they aren't as a matter of law.

Think about it this way: imagine your neighbor charging you to use your NFC chip, or a building manager deciding whether you can unlock the bathroom door or receive deliveries unless you pay extra. Absurd, right? Does that happen in a Condo? Of course not. In the real world, that’s not how ownership works. Whether it’s a house, a car, a hammer, a condo, a table, a screwdriver, or an office chair—it doesn’t matter if it costs ten dollars or a hundred thousand. Ownership has always meant full use of the things you bought. Conflating the things you bought with the things you share with others is mere deflection. And this isn’t about intellectual property. You’re not copying or reselling someone else’s work, you’re simply using what you bought.

The same logic applies to your phone components. You bought the hardware and a license for the OS. It’s yours. The operating system is licensed, to facilitate the use of the hardware, such is the nature of the beast, but that doesn’t give the manufacturer the right to block or cripple the device you already paid for unless you pay more. The OS is there to enable the hardware, not hold it hostage for additional payments. Otherwise, you don’t truly own it—you’re just renting functionality on something you supposedly purchased. Some argue, “Well, you can still sell it, so it must be yours.” But that’s nonsense. Ownership isn’t proven by your ability to resell, it’s proven by your freedom to use what you already paid for. Technically, ownership is proven by having both rights together, free use and disposal.

My phone and OS license are mine, just as yours are yours. There’s no shared “condo” here. If we were to compare it to a condo, it would be because each of us bought an apartment in the same building. In that case, the condo belongs to both of us, but each apartment is individually owned and used by its owner. And together, we take care of the shared structure. What the condo is not is property owned or controlled by some third party who tells us how we can use our own apartments. That’s why I chose a house as the analogy, because it avoids this kind of confusion. If you want, Apple could be seen as the city hall of your place. Imagine a world where the city hall charged you money just to receive deliveries through your front door, and then asked for a little more if the delivery had to come through a window. That’s how you turn a smartphone into a trillion-dollar business. A miracle, indeed.

Now, in the US this very same idea seam to slowly being transferred to cars ... In fact, every single thing that uses software is a potential target. Almost everything will get a Digital Touch. It's all about jurisprudence and deflection.

That’s not just opinion. Stop deflecting and get some common sense, in spite of the times.

Roger out. Cya in the next thread.

Replying not to further the back and forth but to note I think the difference in opinion really comes down to if you see house or condo as the best analogy. I agree with you that if you think iPhone is a house, then full access makes sense. I just think condo/HOA is far and away the better analogy. Like I really don’t understand how you could see the house as the right analogy, but it’s very clear you and many others do.

Which is why we’ll never agree on this 🙂. Cheers, and have a great week!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Replying not to further the back and forth but to note I think the difference in opinion really comes down to if you see house or condo as the best analogy. I agree with you that if you think iPhone is a house, then full access makes sense. I just think condo/HOA is far and away the better analogy. Like I really don’t understand how you could see the house as the right analogy, but it’s very clear you and many others do.

Which is why we’ll never agree on this 🙂. Cheers, and have a great week!

The reason why I don’t understand your analogy is because objectively my property does not share anything with yours. Which would happen if we shared a condo.

Now we may have the same suppliers. For instance Apple or say Amazon. But the difference between Apple and say Spotify is that one uses the hold it has over my properties to force my hand and the other does not. Now I understand that you see Apple has some kind of HOA because you may hold shares of such “association”. But that is not the case of most iPhone owners. They simply buy a tool.

Cheers

 

[surferfb]

The reason why I don’t understand your analogy is because objectively my property does not share anything with yours. Which would happen if we shared a condo.

It’s not a perfect analogy, because no analogy is, but I see your device as your unit, and iOS as the common infrastructure.

In a condo:

• You own your unit (your iPhone)
• You can decorate, arrange furniture, choose what to put inside (install apps, customize settings)
• But you can’t modify the building’s electrical system, plumbing, or structural elements (the iOS system, NFC protocols, security frameworks)

The building’s infrastructure serves all units according to common standards and safety requirements. In other words, it’s not that your iPhone shares anything directly with my iPhone, but that both our iPhones rely on Apple’s controlled infrastructure (the iOS ecosystem, security protocols, NFC standards, etc.) just like condo units rely on shared building systems even if our units are on different floors and on opposite sides of the building.

To use a specific example, when I lived in a condo I wasn’t allowed to rewire the electrical panel to run on a different voltage system, even though it was “my” electricity - because it would potentially compromise the building’s electrical grid and safety systems that everyone in the building depended on. Apple argues (and I believe) that opening things up to third parties compromise the security and privacy of everyone.

My condo also didn’t allow pets. I thought it was a ridiculous prohibition, particularly as an animal lover, but since I didn’t have any pets I didn’t really care when buying the condo. I asked some neighbors about it, and turns out many of them bought in the building specifically because of the no-pets policy. I think it’d have been really selfish of me to buy into the building knowing the rules and then immediately start a campaign to get the city to pass a law saying pets can’t be banned from buildings; if it was that important to me I should have chosen a building that allowed them. If I got the city to ban “pet prohibitions” then people who didn’t want pets in their building, whether that’s because they’re allergic or because they just don’t like animals, won’t have anywhere else to go. Just because I think a rule is stupid or worse for owners doesn’t mean it is.

Just as my condo association prohibited pets in my privately-owned unit to maintain community standards, I believe Apple should be able to say, prohibit third party app stores or sideloaded apps on my privately-owned iPhone to maintain ecosystem standards and security.

In both cases, I owned the individual item (condo unit, iPhone) but I don’t own or control the broader community standards and shared infrastructure it operates within. When I bought my condo, I agreed to the association’s rules; when you bought your iPhone, you chose to join Apple’s ecosystem with its established constraints. Your ownership rights are real, but they exist within the framework of the larger system you chose to join. And I honestly think it’s a bit selfish to buy into that system knowing you don’t like it and then blow up the way it works when many people buy into iOS because of the restrictions, and if Apple is forced open then they don’t have anywhere else to go.

Now we may have the same suppliers. For instance Apple or say Amazon. But the difference between Apple and say Spotify is that one uses the hold it has over my properties to force my hand and the other does not. Now I understand that you see Apple has some kind of HOA because you may hold shares of such “association”. But that is not the case of most iPhone owners. They simply buy a tool.

I’m not sure I am correctly following your argument here, but for the record I own zero shares of Apple. I use my iPhone as a tool like everyone else, and I want my tool to “just work” reliably and securely.

The key difference I think you’re missing is that Spotify provides content services on top of your device’s platform, while Apple provides the foundational platform itself. It’s like comparing your cable TV provider (Spotify) with the company that built and maintains your building’s electrical and internet infrastructure (Apple). Of course the platform provider has more control - that’s literally what you’re buying into.

iPhones aren’t simple hammers - they’re computing platforms that require ongoing software, security updates, app ecosystems, and infrastructure. You can’t separate the tool from the platform it runs on. And importantly, you chose this particular tool knowing full well how it works. If you wanted an open platform where you controlled NFC access and could install any apps, Android exists and works great.

I honestly think Apple’s approach is better for the vast majority of users, who just want their phone to work securely without thinking about it. And I don’t want governments that, in my opinion, consistently mess up tech regulations to screw that up because they think they know better than Apple.