I agree if I was posing out or in. However to just change at the moment. That is the potential impact I gave.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree if I was posing out or in. However to just change at the moment. That is the potential impact I gave.
While I agree, for a Government to enact or change, “proof” is not required. Perception is enough.
But it’s not the same thing. Enacting a law a being proven guilty are two different things.
Right. I’m pointing out there shouldn’t be expectations of recovery of sunk costs.
That is why the EU is bringing in the DMA which is ex-ante regulation. It means that the burden of proof that they are following the regulations is on Apple (or whichever company is designated as the gatekeeper). That is why this law is so important.
The Digital Markets Act: European Precautionary Antitrust
The European Commission has set out to ensure digital markets are “fair and contestable.” But in a paradigm shift for antitrust enforcement, its proposal would impose special regulations on a narrowly defined set of “gatekeepers.” Contrary to its intent, this will deter innovation—and hold back...
itif.org
Given that he has been unwilling/unable to provide evidence (despite stating it can "easily" be found online) and what I have been able to find has put the typical retailer "take" at a fair amount less than 70%, I have to assume his figure is incorrect but have never said with certainty that it is incorrect. My original comment on this was that it seemed high and I have been more than open to proof of the percentage from him or anyone else.
When a government can’t prove illegal behavior they legislate legal behavior.That is why the EU is bringing in the DMA which is ex-ante regulation. It means that the burden of proof that they are following the regulations is on Apple (or whichever company is designated as the gatekeeper). That is why this law is so important.
The Digital Markets Act: European Precautionary Antitrust
The European Commission has set out to ensure digital markets are “fair and contestable.” But in a paradigm shift for antitrust enforcement, its proposal would impose special regulations on a narrowly defined set of “gatekeepers.” Contrary to its intent, this will deter innovation—and hold back...itif.org
View attachment 2010844
Well, in that case, every mobile network is already breached via Windows PCs with built in cell modems.
And, well, signing code just means that it's signed and the developer who wrote the app is actually the developer who wrote the app, and not someone impersonating them. It doesn't mean that the app isn't doing anything nefarious though.
In spite of so many investigations, fines, and settlements that Apple made, if you still think they are behaving legally, I guess murder is also legal if Apple does it in your opinion?
Nice directional change.
Most laws are enacted to address a perceived issue.
Conviction is proven guilt in violation of that law.
That is why the EU is bringing in the DMA which is ex-ante regulation. It means that the burden of proof that they are following the regulations is on Apple (or whichever company is designated as the gatekeeper). That is why this law is so important.
The Digital Markets Act: European Precautionary Antitrust
The European Commission has set out to ensure digital markets are “fair and contestable.” But in a paradigm shift for antitrust enforcement, its proposal would impose special regulations on a narrowly defined set of “gatekeepers.” Contrary to its intent, this will deter innovation—and hold back...itif.org
View attachment 2010844
Remember for many here, their perception is based on another countries law. US, EU, Aus and others can vary by a lot. That includes burden of proof and perception of innocent until ….
Do you understand the difference between criminal law and civil regulation?
I will have to say that this thread with a great cup of coffee is a better read than the LA Times edition today.
Not at the same level of course(that wasn't his point anyway). He just made a logical parallel between those two things and he explained very well why.Sure, if you honestly believe switching from iPhone to Android is equivalent to moving to another country.
Last edited:
Great internet hyperbole. Point proved. /sIn spite of so many investigations, fines, and settlements that Apple made, if you still think they are behaving legally, I guess murder is also legal if Apple does it in your opinion?
Well, I’d argue that’s the point. It doesn’t make sense precisely because it’s nowhere near the same level. Otherwise you can draw analogies of all extremes to make a case.
I am fine using all apps on MacOS and Linux with out Apple guarding the gate. People who choose the peace of mind of using the Apple app store can continue to do so and people who choose other wise can choose to do with their device whatever they want.
I am not sure what privacy and protection you are talking about on iOS App Store. Take a look for yourself of Google Maps:
That being said, I still believe in the motto "my product my rules" . If you do not like iOS go to Android or build your own OS. Its not a monopoly and a very fair argument.
Because governments of the world don't seem to be doing much right these days. Let's add this to the list of them.
If we are singling out only the AppStore as being the next product. Than sure, for the most part the AppStore hasn't changed much. I mean it has only gotten cheaper for developers over time. And more apps are available for it since inception.
However, Apple has been making the next product for sometime now. From iPod, to iPhone, to iPad, to iWatch, AirPods. Switching to intel then switching to their own designed processor (M1). New versions iOS, macOS, and iPadOS, WatchOS. I personally think they did a lot with he money they make.
And if they don't want some content or apps on the store they made, they should have the right to allow or deny it. You have the right to not like their decisions too. While also having the right to want something else, you can either seek it out or make an alternative.
It is, they don't license it out to 3rd parties. They don't sell it separately. They don't allow cloning of the (i) devices they make. They don't offer it as open source. It's theirs. The can do with it as they wish. They make a product and offer it for sale. People don't have to buy it. Many in fact don't. It's your devices to do with as you wish after making a purchase of it. You want to hack it to your liking, no one is stopping you. You can bash it up or figure out how to improve upon it. Have at it.
You don't get to force Apple to make changes that you want to it. They don't have to, they can choose to do so or not. You can certainly ask them or suggest things you would like to see added or removed from it. And if enough people ask for the same thing. They very well may do it. This isn't like asking for seat belts be installed on every car for safety. People are not dying because iOS is a closed walled garden. Or because it's charging developers 15-30% commission for apps/IAP's via the AppStore.
Not a good enough reason. We are acting like minority report here (movie for those that don't know it). Predicting that the too large and powerful will wield that and smash or hurt/block competition. When Apple is literally the second largest in market share for the mobile platform. Behind the largest in the mobile space, which Google is already OPEN.
They don't do anything they haven't pretty much always done. They are a proprietary company. They have been a walled garden for a LONG time. They didn't trap anyone inside the garden. There was no bait and switch. No promises of any kind made to be more open. They built an ecosystem designed around "their" products and services. Sometimes they offered pieces of it for sale or for free on other competitors platforms. One period in the past they offered to license Mac OS. The clones. That didn't help them as much as it hurt the Mac they wanted to sell. They didn't become Microsoft by offering it to these 3rd parties. They stayed small. So, SJ took that away, and they went back to being "walled". And offered up products others didn't make as well as they did or offer at all. Some how they nailed it with the iPod and later the iPhone.
Comprehension isn't the issue. Its the idea of a fairly well running company having to be force to do something very different than what they planned for their products to operate as/like/work/function/designed. When there was apparently nothing wrong with any of it only a few years ago. If anything its' gotten better for all.
It's not a matter of if they are too powerful or not. What matters is if they are abusing such power. Something we can put to the test with facts.
They can very well disagree. (US) Dems and Repub.'s disagree on how to fill a pot hole. I don't expect them to agree on how to regulate an AppStore. Or know how any technology works for that matter.
As for the rest of the worlds governments. I'm sure they are a touch better at fixing pot holes than we are here.
But, they seem to be picking a fight their people are not really even aware of. Or think is much of a problem. I don't see people picketing in front of Apple stores asking for more openness in the AppStore or more options on the platform to purchase from. They are picketing for things like Climate Change, Healthcare, Guns, Abortion, Taxes, GAS PRICES, and or for or against their own governments.
This all seems to be driven by governments. Governments that people elected for sure. But lets face it. In many cases, the people running for government are not putting out platforms that state we will take down big tech. Amy Klobuchar, who is pushing for such changes here, and ran on this idea. Didn't exactly win the presidential nomination. A guy from Delaware did. Which is a pro business state. Pre Biden, we had Trump. Another pro-business president. Republicans are pro-business in the US. And most of our democrats would be considered center RIGHT in Europe. Very few like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren are Left of center (true left). Something most likely will pass in more socialist countries (Not saying that's a bad or a good thing. It has both pro's and con's). But in the US it's going to be a harder hill to clime. Not to mention. These are US based companies. I"m not so sure Japan would want to clamp down on SONY if they were as big as Apple is. Or if South Korea would clamp down on Samsung. Or the EU if it was Nokia or Ericsson.
You said it.
Because governments suck (most of them) and they don't know what they are doing. They get it wrong more than they get it right. How they can all come up with ways to fix the AppStore but not climate change gives you all you need to know on this.
Definitely not. It's about money.
It's about money. Same reason they went after Apple's great tax rates in Ireland. It wasn't to protect the Irish from the greedy bastards (Apple and others). No, it was because they owed that money to the EU. Just like any other Tax havens. It's not about the country that doesn't charge taxes, its' about the money not coming back home or to the locations it was made in.
Taxes/Regulation are always about money. Where we can get more of it (if you're the government) and where you can shift the blame with the haves and have nots. "See, I'm going after the big corporations that have all the money, and taking it from them to provide services for the people!"
Call me when my apps are cheaper, my products are safer, and we end up with more options than we know what to do it because of these laws.
Again, in the US. I don't see this passing to the same degree it will in the EU or Asia. These are American based companies. It's not like we have much other industry here. I mean, Tesla is worth more than Toyota and sells like a fraction the amount of cars. They moved from a heavily democratic state of California to Texas cause they didn't like being so regulated. The US is not the EU. If Apple and or Google feel the laws are going to come down on them. They will leave the states they are located in and move to ones that are far less regulated. You think any California senator will pass a law that would stop or restrict how well these companies are doing in their state? Amy would not be singing the same tune she is if Apple or Google was based in her state. This is just like trying to get Joe Manchin to back the Build back better plan. It would take away from his fossil fuel industry money.
You win the internets today with this insightful comment.
It does prove there are alternatives to Apple's products if you want apps from multiple stores. Knock yourself out.
I do want apps vetted by Apple. However, if the government interferes with a successful business model and foists sideloading on Apple and its users, developers will abandon the Apple's app store, leaving the people who want vetted apps without a choice.
What right, exactly, are you referring to? To break the EULA you knowingly and willingly signed, but want to renege on?
It doesn't prove anything like that, it just shows that the sideloading restriction exists as a way for apple to exert control and allow them to chase a few more bucks(taking in consideration that you suggested developers shouldn't be allowed to do something like that).
Oh so you are advocating that developers should just remain trapped for ever under Apple's absolute control and they shouldn't get any options other than the ones provided by Apple?
A business model can be called successful only if it limits sideloading? So I guess all other OS's on the market are unsuccessful and iOS is the only successful OS in existence?
If this happens it just shows that these measures were absolutely necessary and Apple should improve their relations with developers.
Last edited:
@M3gatron @VulchR @I7guy @djphat2000
Just what is it, specifically that Apple vets on App Store apps?
We have scam apps, harvesting apps, knockoff apps, etc in the App Store.
Dev claims on what data the app utilizes but what does Apple do to verify that?
Is the fact it is part of the “Apple Experience” and people give little thought to it along with Apple‘s marketing that makes people feel it is safe?
Starting with the CSAM issue, I have taken a harder look at just what does Apple provide with its’ walled garden and it is far less “safe” than many are claiming and more Apple centered than I originally had thought.
Just what is it, specifically that Apple vets on App Store apps?
We have scam apps, harvesting apps, knockoff apps, etc in the App Store.
Dev claims on what data the app utilizes but what does Apple do to verify that?
Is the fact it is part of the “Apple Experience” and people give little thought to it along with Apple‘s marketing that makes people feel it is safe?
Starting with the CSAM issue, I have taken a harder look at just what does Apple provide with its’ walled garden and it is far less “safe” than many are claiming and more Apple centered than I originally had thought.
Last edited: