Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On

[Wildkraut]

Saying the world will implode is hyperbole. The one thing cigarettes and sideloading have is that both ultimately are terrible choices for very different reasons. What they have in common is that second hand smoke has bad side-effects, while side-loading can have a bad side-effect on the ecosystem.

Cigarettes, alcohol, crosswalks, cars, cows also have bad side effects, even on a “real” ecosystem, smoke, fire, deaths, pollution, etc…

As you see we can play this game everywhere, it’s just about on which side you stand. In case of Apple it’s primary about securing their profits, nothing else. All the arguments against sideloading are pure exaggeration. Of course there will be a few collateral damages here and there, but forbidding all users to do what they want with their devices is the wrong approach. Just like forbidding crosswalks and cars because a few ones got hit by a car.

 

[I7guy]

Cigarettes, alcohol, crosswalks, cars, cows also have bad side effects, even on a “real” ecosystem, smoke, fire, deaths, pollution, etc…

As you see we can play this game everywhere, it’s just about on which side you stand. In case of Apple it’s primary about securing their profits, nothing else. All the arguments against sideloading are pure exaggeration. Of course there will be a few collateral damages here and there, but forbidding all users to do what they want with their devices is the wrong approach. Just like forbidding crosswalks and cars because a few ones got hit by a car.

Sure the game to be played, is beat the dead horse. Nobody will ever change another’s mind. The game is to discredit a post the best one can.

Where you see greed, I see security.

Limitations on mass produced consumer products aren’t new and this is just one example in a sea of limitations. Whether it comes to pass or not is above my pay grade. But it ain’t over until the phat lady sings.

 

[Wildkraut]

Sure the game to be played, is beat the dead horse. Nobody will ever change another’s mind. The game is to discredit a post the best one can.

Where you see greed, I see security.

Limitations on mass produced consumer products aren’t new and this is just one example in a sea of limitations. Whether it comes to pass or not is above my pay grade. But it ain’t over until the phat lady sings.

Did you just call Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers a phat lady? ?

 

[maxoakland]

I’d trust Apple on this more if they weren’t constantly trying nickel and dime techniques to squeeze more money out of the App Store

Their intentions aren’t pure here at all. Very self serving

 

[AppliedMicro]

You mean like Cuba, Russia, China, and Venezuela? Maybe you should live in one of those countries? But I commend you for having so much faith in gov’t officials who have shown throughout history that what they care about most is power, and holding onto it

The irony in this is:
Apple with its platform and App Store behaves very much like an authoritarian, totalitarian government itself.

What they care most about is their money, their power and holding onto it. The want to be the sole entity that gets to decide what developers may sell and what consumers may install on their devices. And it's all, supposedly, for the security of its users.

Apple's App Store are the equivalent of the law.
Their App Review is the equivalent of government censorship.
Their App Store commissions the equivalent of taxes.
Apple's users (iPhone owners) are the equivalent of its citizens.
And "if you don't like it, buy Android" is the equivalent of "you can move to Canada or Mexico, can't you?".

And they have their own army of keyboard warriors that are not only defending but applauding that totalitarian system.

and the App Store is open to any developer who wishes to have their app hosted

It's not. It's only open and free once I can get emulators, games with confederate flags and porn.

Windows has shown us how an open system works and it isn't pretty.

It's not without its drawbacks - but overall Windows has driven the personal computing revolution and internet as we know it today.

The one thing cigarettes and sideloading have is that both ultimately are terrible choices for very different reasons. What they have in common is that second hand smoke has bad side-effects, while side-loading can have a bad side-effect on the ecosystem.

Yet smoking is legal and allowed - though nobody is forced to smoke.

 

[I7guy]

[…]
Yet smoking is legal and allowed - though nobody is forced to smoke.

And apples App Store is allowed. Nobody is forced to develop for it or use an iPhone.

 

[Karma*Police]

The irony in this is:
Apple with its platform and App Store behaves very much like an authoritarian, totalitarian government itself.

What they care most about is their money, their power and holding onto it. The want to be the sole entity that gets to decide what developers may sell and what consumers may install on their devices. And it's all, supposedly, for the security of its users.

Apple's App Store are the equivalent of the law.
Their App Review is the equivalent of government censorship.
Their App Store commissions the equivalent of taxes.
Apple's users (iPhone owners) are the equivalent of its citizens.
And "if you don't like it, buy Android" is the equivalent of "you can move to Canada or Mexico, can't you?".

And they have their own army of keyboard warriors that are not only defending but applauding that totalitarian system.

It's not. It's only open and free once I can get emulators, games with confederate flags and porn.

It's not without its drawbacks - but overall Windows has driven the personal computing revolution and internet as we know it today.

Yet smoking is legal and allowed - though nobody is forced to smoke.

You can’t be serious comparing a business whose sole reason for being is to maximize profits to a government that’s supposed to work for the people, with its main purpose being to protect its citizens? And comparing switching smartphones to moving from one country to another??? Sorry, you completely lost me with that not-so-well thought out analogy.

 

[Aydo2000]

Your comments are pretty much equivalent to malware. It’s designed to be frivolous and malicious and they are totally unwelcomed. It’s mainly targeted towards legitimate users who are here to contribute. And despite the rules and guidelines (set by Mac Rumors) they will forge with their purpose so they can annoy as many people as possible.

It’s all the reason why Apple does things certain ways the way they do.

It's not. It's only open and free once I can get emulators, games with confederate flags and porn.

 

[Beautyspin]

We are clearly on the opposite side of the fence here. But that is what makes the world go around. Sure you could also opt not to buy Apple products, which sends an even bigger message. Such a simple action. Don't buy products where you believe the company is abusing customers....an innovative thought there.

edit: Fining Apple till it bleeds will just push it out of specific locations. The citizens of those locations will be the losers. Eu will be left with the most modern computing device being an abacus.

Not if there are no locations for Apple to do business in if all the locations fine Apple for abusing its monopoly position. If you are following MacRumors, you should know by now that it is not just the EU that is coming up with these antitrust laws. Apple is running out of time and places to hide.

 

[Beautyspin]

OK, so my point is if they are violating existing laws, bring charges and adjudicate it. If the operating model violates anti-trust laws (there are plenty), they should make the case (and they are doing that in your references). This OP is about a new/revised bill that forces Apple to change a fundamental operating model. Legislating to protect consumers when consumers have very viable alternatives is overreach in my opinion.

The major shift with the DMA in the EU is that it entails a shift from ex-post anti-trust intervention to ex-ante regulation, and would enshrine within EU law a set of ex-ante rules that would radically change how large digital platforms are allowed to operate in the EU. The rationale for the ex-ante regulation and why it is specific to some companies is all explained in the following document (page 8 to page 14). I have just given a small excerpt. A lot of thinking has gone into it. Also, it looks like Big Tech shot themselves in the foot by dragging the EU to courts over previous fines and using the court cases as a delaying tactic rather than focusing on compliance.

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2021)15/en/pdf

"There is a general dissatisfaction with the effectiveness and speed of competition law enforcement to tackle the platform specific anti-competitive behavior, coupled with concern about the consequences of the structural market features, underpin the rationale for moving
towards a regime of ex ante regulation. The risk that ex-post remedies may be ineffective and not timely, can favor ex ante regulation to protect market openness and competition. Regulation should prevent the dominant firms from exercising their market power in a harmful
way. This is particularly the case when there is significant learning from past enforcement and when private litigation would be unlikely. While the case law on digital platforms is not yet vast, it has undoubtedly informed many of the clauses found in the regulations, including on self-preferencing and on access to data. Moreover, so far, there seems to be very little scope for our interest
in private litigation."
.

 

[Aydo2000]

Not if there are no locations for Apple to do business in if all the locations fine Apple for abusing its monopoly position. If you are following MacRumors, you should know by now that it is not just the EU that is coming up with these antitrust laws. Apple is running out of time and places to hide.

You guys really ought to learn what monopoly is. In your logic, most companies would be monopoly if it was what you think it was. Is Mercedes a monopoly for not selling BMWs in their dealers?

What EU is doing has less to do with Apple’s practices and more to do with favoring their own startups and companies based in the region. You guys have very narrow perspective how any of this works. Are you aware EU is simultaneously pumping money and funding all these startups while trying to cripple the foreign heavy hitters? Of course you don’t know any of that. Why would you when it’s so much more convenient to just point fingers at Apple.

 

[dk001]

You live in an ecosystem.

Just because you don't own a gun doesn't mean you can't be affected by others who loves guns.

Now that’s a nonsensical comment. Kind of like saying “I don’t own sandals but I’m affected by people who do.”
and rain is wet unless it’s frozen. ?❄️?

 

[Beautyspin]

Funny how Apple choosing how they want to license their software is "abuse". I would love to see Apple ditch the EU, but sadly Tim Cook is all about money, so at some point Apple will cave and we'll end up having to run antivirus apps on iOS to deal with morons who side load apps and unwittingly text contacts malware.

I am pretty sure the EU has listed the reasons why it thinks Apple has abused its market dominance. I am inclined to believe them because several countries in the world have come to the same conclusion independently.

 

[Beautyspin]

You guys really ought to learn what monopoly is. In your logic, most companies would be monopoly if it was what you think it was. Is Mercedes a monopoly for not selling BMWs in their dealers?

What EU is doing has less to do with Apple’s practices and more to do with favoring their own startups and companies based in the region. You guys have very narrow perspective how any of this works. Are you aware EU is simultaneously pumping money and funding all these startups while trying to cripple the foreign heavy hitters? Of course you don’t know any of that. Why would you when it’s so much more convenient to just point fingers at Apple.

Monopoly is not the problem. Abusing the monopoly power is the problem. Apple has been found abusing its monopoly power by various governments across the world independently. It is not just one country that has come up with these charges. Unless it is one company against the world conspiracy, I cannot believe Apple is in the right. Also, it is not just Apple that was found abusing its monopoly position. It is the entire Big Tech and all of them are finding themselves trying to fend off these charges.

 

[Beautyspin]

You mean like Cuba, Russia, China, and Venezuela? Maybe you should live in one of those countries? But I commend you for having so much faith in gov’t officials who have shown throughout history that what they care about most is power, and holding onto it. Even if that means killing millions of its own people.

Apple? As big as they are, if sideloading is such a big issue, consumers can literally put them out of business.

My response was to the suggestion that Governments should let Apple run its business. I said Apple should let governments run its business too, which is making laws. What is sauce for goose must be sauce for the gander too.
I could also say that I commend you for having so much faith in a company whose primary goal is making money and has no concern for the welfare of its consumers. There are various acts by Apple that verify this. They are well documented.
There may be bigger things than sideloading that is on the minds of consumers when purchasing an Apple device. That does not mean sideloading is not an issue. Now the governments have made it an issue big enough for Apple to address it or it will be put out of business quickly. Apple's fault really.

 

[Aydo2000]

The major shift with the DMA in the EU is that it entails a shift from ex-post anti-trust intervention to ex-ante regulation, and would enshrine within EU law a set of ex-ante rules that would radically change how large digital platforms are allowed to operate in the EU. The rationale for the ex-ante regulation and why it is specific to some companies is all explained in the following document (page 8 to page 14). I have just given a small excerpt. A lot of thinking has gone into it. Also, it looks like Big Tech shot themselves in the foot by dragging the EU to courts over previous fines and using the court cases as a delaying tactic rather than focusing on compliance.

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2021)15/en/pdf

"There is a general dissatisfaction with the effectiveness and speed of competition law enforcement to tackle the platform specific anti-competitive behavior, coupled with concern about the consequences of the structural market features, underpin the rationale for moving
towards a regime of ex ante regulation. The risk that ex-post remedies may be ineffective and not timely, can favor ex ante regulation to protect market openness and competition. Regulation should prevent the dominant firms from exercising their market power in a harmful
way. This is particularly the case when there is significant learning from past enforcement and when private litigation would be unlikely. While the case law on digital platforms is not yet vast, it has undoubtedly informed many of the clauses found in the regulations, including on self-preferencing and on access to data. Moreover, so far, there seems to be very little scope for our interest
in private litigation."
.

What’s funny is that you won’t often see any of this enforced to any entities based in any of the EU members. This is especially true in companies who are in the renewable energy industry as EU has huge push into solar technology. Some of the practices these companies have do get a pass under EU’s own regulations.

Have you not noticed EU is laser focused on US entities that operate in in EU? Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon and even McDonalds at some point was the target. This is a common trait of what we know as protectionism. India has the same lame excuses as EU because they too favor their own players.

 

[Aydo2000]

Monopoly is not the problem. Abusing the monopoly power is the problem. Apple has been found abusing its monopoly power by various governments across the world independently. It is not just one country that has come up with these charges. Unless it is one company against the world conspiracy, I cannot believe Apple is in the right. Also, it is not just Apple that was found abusing its monopoly position. It is the entire Big Tech and all of them are finding themselves trying to fend off these charges.

Monopoly power is not a legal term and even here in the US the courts repeatedly rejected the claim Apple has any monopoly whatsoever. Being successful is neither a crime nor illegal.

So only American entities are guilty of this? Name a single EU based company that gets the same harsh treatment. Go ahead. I will wait.

 

[dk001]

and in similar news …

Apple can't dodge rival app store Cydia's antitrust lawsuit

Apple Inc on Thursday lost a bid to dismiss a lawsuit in California federal court from competing app store Cydia, which accused the iPhone maker of maintaining an unlawful monopoly over software distribution on its operating system.

www.reuters.com

 

[Beautyspin]

What’s funny is that you won’t often see any of this enforced to any entities based in any of the EU members. This is especially true in companies who are in the renewable energy industry as EU has huge push into solar technology. Some of the practices these companies have do get a pass under EU’s own regulations.

Have you not noticed EU is laser focused on US entities that operate in in EU? Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon and even McDonalds at some point was the target. This is a common trait of what we know as protectionism. India has the same lame excuses as EU because they too favor their own players.

1. According to the DMA, the current definition of gatekeeper or companies providing core platform services (CPS) is not final. They might bring other companies under this definition if required by changing the criteria at a later date.
2. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that these criteria will capture not only (obviously) the core businesses of the largest players (GAFAM), but perhaps also a few others. Oracle and SAP, for instance, would appear to meet the thresholds, as would AWS and Microsoft Azure. Conversely Twitter, AirBnB, Bing, Linkedin, Xbox Netflix, Zoom and Expedia do not appear to meet the thresholds at present, and Booking.com, Spotify, Uber, Bytedance/TikTok, Salesforce, Google Cloud and IBM Cloud appear to meet some but not others at this point. As you can see, SAP, Booking.com and others are European companies. The EU-based companies are heavily regulated already. It is the US-based companies that are not regulated and hence they have grown too big for their good and have to be controlled - at least that is the rationale.

 

[Aydo2000]

1. According to the DMA, the current definition of gatekeeper or companies providing core platform services (CPS) is not final. They might bring other companies under this definition if required by changing the criteria at a later date.
2. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that these criteria will capture not only (obviously) the core businesses of the largest players (GAFAM), but perhaps also a few others. Oracle and SAP, for instance, would appear to meet the thresholds, as would AWS and Microsoft Azure. Conversely Twitter, AirBnB, Bing, Linkedin, Xbox Netflix, Zoom and Expedia do not appear to meet the thresholds at present, and Booking.com, Spotify, Uber, Bytedance/TikTok, Salesforce, Google Cloud and IBM Cloud appear to meet some but not others at this point. As you can see, SAP, Booking.com and others are European companies. The EU-based companies are heavily regulated already. It is the US-based companies that are not regulated and hence they have grown too big for their good and have to be controlled - at least that is the rationale.

Bookings.com is a subsidiary for a parent company called Bookings Holdings. And guess what? It’s an American travel company based in Connecticut.

SAP has acquired so many high profile US entities (Ariba, etc.) that it practically contributes to US economy more than EU economy.

Try again. Pick a company that isn’t a subsidiary of a US corporation or does not own large US entities. You will have much harder time finding that.

Edit: None of the companies you listed are part of EU and even the ones you said they were (2 companies) are either not based in EU or they are more American than they are EU. There are no “others”. At least none that you listed.

 

[Beautyspin]

Monopoly power is not a legal term and even here in the US the courts repeatedly rejected the claim Apple has any monopoly whatsoever. Being successful is neither a crime nor illegal.

So only American entities are guilty of this? Name a single EU based company that gets the same harsh treatment. Go ahead. I will wait.

StepAhead: Antitrust & Competition Insights

We are excited to announce that we are now providing content through our weekly newsletter, StepAhead: Antitrust and Competition Insights , featuring in-depth analyses and commentary of current anti...

www.steptoeantitrustblog.com

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/AR(2021)27/en/pdf - Please pay attention to page 5 (section 2.1) - There are similar documents for each of the countries in the EU.

Dominance and Monopolies: European Union

Dominance and Monopolies: European Union

thelawreviews.co.uk

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/kd0216250enn.pdf - several examples in the document.

 

[Aydo2000]

.

 

[Aydo2000]

Please pay attention to page 5 (section 2.1) - There are similar documents for each of the countries in the EU.

OMG, man. Do you even know what you are posting? Ay ay ay…

 

[AppliedMicro]

You can’t be serious comparing a business whose sole reason for being is to maximize profits to a government that’s supposed to work for the people, with its main purpose being to protect its citizens?

I'm absolutely serious with that comparison.

Because that is the main argument against sideloading in these discussions here:
That it is Apples purpose and duty to protect its users.

And that Apple's capability to do that will be limited with sideloading, so...

that enabling sideloading would result in a flood of new attacks on iPhone users from bad actors eager to access the sensitive data stored on consumer devices. Predators and scammers would be able to "side-step Apple's privacy and security protections completely," with the bill allowing "malware, scams, and data-exploitation to proliferate."

It's a dangerous world out there and there is and should be one big entity to protect its citizens.

And comparing switching smartphones to moving from one country to another??? Sorry, you completely lost me with that not-so-well thought out analogy.

Well, not everyone will get the analogy, but I'm happy to spell it out:
There's a limited number of countries people can move to - just as there's a limited number of mobile operating systems to choose from.
But moving to another country isn't so easy when you have family ties and familiarity with one country - or you're invested in it.

If people cared that much about sideloading, they can get an Android.

The equivalent of "If you don't care about our politics (or economics), you can move elsewhere."

Well, there are people who believe that things can be fixed where they are - by politics, government, law and regulation, if necessary.

 

[Wildkraut]

I’d trust Apple on this more if they weren’t constantly trying nickel and dime techniques to squeeze more money out of the App Store

Their intentions aren’t pure here at all. Very self serving

Yep they have proven this many times. They gate-keep primarily to kick out the competition. A good example I remember was that Keyboard App for the AppleWatch that had been approved multiple times. Recently they started to moob the Dev and reject newer submissions for nothing, and suddenly the AppleWatch got the same type of keyboard in the same year. They guy stopped developing the Keyboard App that was primarily for disabled people. There are many Apple dev mobbing cases that went public and I’m sure even more that don’t.