Apple to Let EU Users Set New Defaults for Multiple Apps, Delete App Store, Photos, Messages and More

[tmaciak]

So why does Apple so steadfastly refuse to comply in good faith?

Did I said anywhere that I don't like opening Apple? No, I just say that it will not change much in greater picture. And I have stated why, and that's because Android is open and it's not happening there, and considering, that Android is vastly dominant platform, why should I expect, that on minority platform will be any other?

Bah, I suspect, that there is high chance, that quite shortly (shortly like "corporate shortly") Apple can open the same everywhere, observing what will happen in EU, but so far, they need to keep face and pretend that are forced. They already announced, that will open NFC everywhere. Of course, I can be wrong, only time will tell.

What I disagree though, is that DMA was created by good EU politicians for the greater good of EU citizen. No, it was created to protect EU businesses, which, with some exceptions, are quite often not efficient enough to compete with US based companies. And best prove of that is that Spotify (one of mentioned exceptions) is not treated as gatekeeper, even if has vastly dominant position on its market, and EU commission quite openly makes everything they can to make Spotify as comfortable as they wish.

You can believe what you want, but you know, in my opinion believing that politicians act for any other interest than their own and their finance backers is quite bit on naive side.

 

[tmaciak]

The idea of downloading the Epic/Steam/Netflix store to install games could very well become completely accepted and normal in just a couple of years.

Another American big techs?

 

[MilaM]

What I disagree though, is that DMA was created by good EU politicians for the greater good of EU citizen. No, it was created to protect EU businesses, which, with some exceptions, are quite often not efficient enough to compete with US based companies. And best prove of that is that Spotify (one of mentioned exceptions) is not treated as gatekeeper, even if has vastly dominant position on its market, and EU commission quite openly makes everything they can to make Spotify as comfortable as they wish.

Why should Spotify be treated as a Gatekeeper though? They don't control access to consumers in the same way that Apple and Google do. Booking was designated as a gatekeeper even though it's a European company.

 

[tmaciak]

They are middle man between musicians and customers, the same way as Booking is middle man between hotels and travelers. Yes, Spotify doesn't fulfill current definition of gatekeeper, but you know, this definition was not brought on stone tablet from some high mountain, somebody has worked that out here.

But you know, I don't fully agree with your opinions, and you don't need to agree with my opinions, there is even saying in my country, that reason is like a$$, everybody have their own

 

[MilaM]

They are middle man between musicians and customers, the same way as Booking is middle man between hotels and travelers. Yes, Spotify doesn't fulfill current definition of gatekeeper, but you know, this definition was not brought on stone tablet from some high mountain, somebody has worked that out here.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking for your reasoning why you think Spotify should be regarded as a gatekeeper. It appears to me, that competition in the music streaming space is rather healthy and that labels and musicians have choices when it comes to the distribution of their product. But maybe I'm overlooking something?

 

[tmaciak]

But maybe I'm overlooking something?

Yes, you are overlooking fact, that situation in triangle between musicians, labels and streaming services is far from healthy, e.g. https://buildd.co/product/spotify-vs-artists

And labels and musicians can't ignore service, which has 56% market dominance in EU, if think about getting some profits. So, "having choices" is quite illusory here.

 

[MilaM]

Yes, you are overlooking fact, that situation in triangle between musicians, labels and streaming services is far from healthy, e.g. https://buildd.co/product/spotify-vs-artists

And labels and musicians can't ignore service, which has 56% market dominance in EU, if think about getting some profits. So, "having choices" is quite illusory here.

I'm aware, that many artists want better compensation from streaming services. On the other hand it seems to me, that it's the powerful music labels with their huge numbers of signed artists who have the best negotiating position in this triangle. I'm not sure regulating Spotify and other streaming services as a gatekeeper will help the artists.

 

[tmaciak]

Musician is actually small entrepreneur, so... isn't that law about more choice for customers? Fewer obstacles for smaller competitors? Level-playing field? Fairy tales and that's all...

 

[surferfb]

Why should Spotify be treated as a Gatekeeper though? They don't control access to consumers in the same way that Apple and Google do. Booking was designated as a gatekeeper even though it's a European company.

If video streaming is a category in the DMA (it is), music streaming absolutely should be too. The fact that it’s not, and the EU made up new antitrust targets (Monthly Active Users and Revenue) rather than the standard “40% of a market” dominance threshold tells you everything you need to know about the real point of the DMA. (Spotify has 56% of the EU streaming market).

 

[wbeasley]

The point is that I don't want to be dependent on one company. Is that so hard to understand? Why should it be up to Apple alone to decide what I can and can't install on my smartphone? Why should I be subject to Apple's whims if they decide to delay or reject an app (update), as they often do? What about apps that have limited functionality because Apple doesn't allow them? What if Apple bans your account for no reason? What about users who live in a country where an app is suddenly banned? There are so many examples of why sideloading is important.

The EU has already decided that Apple must open up its ecosystem. Unlike many other places, the EU is still capable of making decisions that genuinely benefit consumers. It's a shame that Apple always has to be forced by law to make consumer-friendly decisions - just like with USB-C and other browser engines on iOS. They don't do this on their own accord.

If you don't care about any of that, that's fine. But assuming that everyone else thinks the same way is pretty foolish. I really don’t understand why people like you get so upset about policies like the DMA. If you prefer to keep getting your apps from the App Store, go ahead! Nobody is forcing you to use alternative app stores. And if you don't even live in the EU, getting upset about this makes even less sense, since you won't be able to use apps from outside the app store anyway...

youre right. you shouldnt rely on one company.

and to support you with that right, there are so many many Android options out there with multiple stores.
perfect for you needs really.

you well know the reasons people are upset about the DMA forcing Apple to "open up" iOS.
the changed iOS code EVERYONE now gets has EU directive stuff just geolocked out.
what happens when a bad agent finds a way to install things because of these changes?
and we never got a say in it.

if Apple had forked the iOS code base at that point and enabled the EU DMA directive and never updated iOS for EU customers again, would you be happy?

you are already getting fewer new features or late releases.
you'll say Apple are being malicious. or perhaps they are just sick of the EU telling them how to implement things

 

[MilaM]

Musician is actually small entrepreneur, so... isn't that law about more choice for customers? Fewer obstacles for smaller competitors? Level-playing field? Fairy tales and that's all...

Ok, but how would that look like in practice in your opinion?

 

[MilaM]

If video streaming is a category in the DMA (it is), music streaming absolutely should be too. The fact that it’s not, and the EU made up new antitrust targets (Monthly Active Users and Revenue) rather than the standard “40% of a market” dominance threshold tells you everything you need to know about the real point of the DMA. (Spotify has 56% of the EU streaming market).

Why is 40% of a market a better threshold than active users and revenue in you opinion?

Also, if you think that the 40% threshold would somehow mean, that Apple would not be subject to antitrust scrutiny, I think you're mistaken. The argument has always been, that Apple is dominating 100% of the app distribution on iOS.

Here is an excerpt from the EU commission homepage:

Before assessing dominance, the Commission defines the product market and the geographic market.

• Product market: the relevant product market is made of all products/services which the consumer considers to be a substitute for each other due to their characteristics, their prices and their intended use.
• Geographic market: the relevant geographic market is an area in which the conditions of competition for a given product are homogenous.

Market shares are a useful first indication of the importance of each firm on the market in comparison to the others. The Commission's view is that the higher the market share, and the longer the period of time over which it is held, the more likely it is to be a preliminary indication of dominance. If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant.

When you own an Android phone, you can't shop in Apple's App Store to buy apps for you phone. You can't say therefore, that there is competition between an iPhone and a Pixel for app shopping.

 

[surferfb]

Ok, but how would that look like in practice in your opinion?

Maybe Spotify should be required to license its recommendation algorithm to competitors so they can build a competing product.

Or maybe they can be forced to license their exclusives to other platforms. I want to listen to Joe Rogan but I don’t want to lose access to Apple Music’s knowledge about my musical tastes. It’s anticompetitive! I should be able to listen to Spotify’s content on Apple Music!

Also, if you think that the 40% threshold would somehow mean, that Apple would not be subject to antitrust scrutiny, I think you're mistaken. The argument has always been, that Apple is dominating 100% of the app distribution on iOS.

Because (as you well know) I don’t think that’s the market that actually needs regulation. The market is mobile operating systems, which Apple has a <30% market share in. Developers and users who don’t like Apple’s terms and conditions are free to move to Android. If I don’t like that the fancy French restaurant down the street requires men to wear jackets, I just don’t go there - not get the city to force them to let me wear a t-shirt there because I “deserve” to eat there.

I’d also have a lot more respect for the EU position if they went after Apple using existing antitrust law. If the market IS actually iOS app distribution, then sue Apple and win that in court. The fact that they didn’t makes me think the EU knew they’d have trouble winning.

 

[wbeasley]

Why is 40% of a market a better threshold than active users and revenue in you opinion?

Also, if you think that the 40% threshold would somehow mean, that Apple would not be subject to antitrust scrutiny, I think you're mistaken. The argument has always been, that Apple is dominating 100% of the app distribution on iOS.

Here is an excerpt from the EU commission homepage:



When you own an Android phone, you can't shop in Apple's App Store to buy apps for you phone. You can't say therefore, that there is competition between an iPhone and a Pixel for app shopping.

So does the EU consider Tesla as dominating Tesla sales?
You can only order online, pickup at a showroom. Prices fixed. You cant buy a new one any other way...

Sure the console app stores dominate game sales too.
Yes you can buy apps at physical stores but they carry limited stock and open limited hours.
Online you can buy many many more titles at any time.
The console makers even sell diskless hardware now to further the buy online digital route.
And you can only buy games that run on their machines.
Are you going to argue that PS5 should be able to shop at Nintendo app store as well?

Apple don't dominate the app store.
They facilitate apps that go on iOS devices.
They make it easy to search and buy apps.
A million apps. And a few Apple ones.
So they are open about letting apps get into the store so long as you dont break some standard rules most of which are to protect user from legal action.

And it has been this way for longer than a decade.
And you know all this before you buy an iOS device.

It makes no sense to complain when the hardware is different and apps are compiled for a specific device.

For all the sooking over the need for an alt app store, I've only ever used PlayStore to buy a few cheap Android apps.
I know other stores exist. I've never bothered.
I've install one APK from a vendor email because they had a bug and were waiting for PlayStore to release the update and some customers needed it immediately.
For most people, doing it the recommended way meets their needs.

Noone is forcing you to buy an Apple device. It's your free choice.
And there are plenty of alternative smart phones.
In life, you should always buy what best suits your needs.
And if that's an Android device then go knock yourself out and buy the shiny new Android one.

 

[MilaM]

I’d also have a lot more respect for the EU position if they went after Apple using existing antitrust law. If the market IS actually iOS app distribution, then sue Apple and win that in court. The fact that they didn’t makes me think the EU knew they’d have trouble winning.

That can't happen, because that's not how antitrust works in Europe. The EU Commission first builds a case and initiates the procedure. Then the defendant can question that decision in court. It never goes the other way around. By the way, every member country also has its own antitrust authority. They can also start cases on their own.

 

[MilaM]

Or maybe they can be forced to license their exclusives to other platforms. I want to listen to Joe Rogan but I don’t want to lose access to Apple Music’s knowledge about my musical tastes. It’s anticompetitive! I should be able to listen to Spotify’s content on Apple Music!

This is also a misunderstanding I think. If an app developer voluntarily decides to make his app exclusive to one platform, that would largely be legal under the DMA. That would be the equivalent of a podcaster giving exclusive distribution rights to one platform.

Now if it could be proved, that Spotify is systematically and actively hindering artists to sign up for other streaming services for distribution, that would indeed be reason to go after them.

In the case of Joe Rogan, I think it is no different from for example a football league selling rights to their games exclusively to one media conglomerate.

 

[I7guy]

when someone says they need an app ONLY on iPhone and it isnt true... geez.

sorry but time wasters for everyone being genuine on this forum.

credibility blown. they are just here to argue...
i hope the mods see it for what it is. and take action.

So this is the logic. I need an app. My life depends on an app. So if your phone dies, you die? What kind of fake logic is that?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'll spare you anything from now on except an Thumbs Down on ridiculous posts.

So? Hardly a difference to what you‘ve been doing anyway 😂

You say you have one app and when pushed "it's an example"? Really.
It's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend to have a discussion with someone who makes claims they are just making up...

You should tell that to @I7guy then.
I'll gladly provide context for my comment:

If you prefer to keep getting your apps from the App Store, go ahead! Nobody is forcing you to use alternative app stores.

Balogna. If my favorite apps move to alt stores….i am forced.

He isn't "forced" to use alternative App Store.
He can do exactly what's been preaching to others:

He can either suck it up and register with a different store to continue using his favourite apps. Or vote with his $$$ and find another app to use instead of his favourite app, only because it would be distributed somewhere else.

Just as he's been preaching to me (and others) to either suck it up and accept all of Apple's restrictions and limitations - or suck it up and buy Android to be able to install apps from other sources.

He wants his cake and eat it too - just as I want mine.
And Apple wants theirs, by introducing "dangerous" code to make more enterprise sales - while assuring consumers, they've got only their best interests of privacy and security in mind.

That's what my answer was about: He wouldn't be anymore "forced" to register and download from other stores than I'm "forced" to buy iPhones. We both just have preferences. He does for "his favourite apps" and the Apple App Store, as I have for iOS over Android.

It's disingenuous to say "Buy Android then" while claiming being "forced" to use other stores, just his favourite apps moved their distribution to them. I may just as well have my "forcing" reasons to make me buy iOS/iPhone.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So this is the logic. I need an app. My life depends on an app. So if your phone dies, you die? What kind of fake logic is that?

If your favourite apps move to alt stores (and you don't register with those stores), do you die?

No. That's why...

If my favorite apps move to alt stores….i am forced.

...that's fake logic.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm asking for your reasoning why you think Spotify should be regarded as a gatekeeper. It appears to me, that competition in the music streaming space is rather healthy and that labels and musicians have choices when it comes to the distribution of their product. But maybe I'm overlooking something?

Given Spotify's market share, they're hard to ignore commercially for smaller artists and music labels.

That said, there are many other services you can "distribute" through (Apple Music, YouTube Music), the entry barriers to the music streaming market are much lower, and there are more relevant providers than for mobile application stores.

isn't that law about more choice for customers? Fewer obstacles for smaller competitors? Level-playing field?

Consumers can get music in many alternative ways.
Unlike their iOS apps.

 

[I7guy]

So? Hardly a difference to what you‘ve been doing anyway 😂


You should tell that to @I7guy then.
I'll gladly provide context for my comment:


He isn't "forced" to use alternative App Store.
He can do exactly what's been preaching to others:

He can either suck it up and register with a different store to continue using his favourite apps. Or vote with his $$$ and find another app to use instead of his favourite app, only because it would be distributed somewhere else.

Just as he's been preaching to me (and others) to either suck it up and accept all of Apple's restrictions and limitations - or suck it up and buy Android to be able to install apps from other sources.

He wants his cake and eat it too - just as I want mine.
And Apple wants theirs, by introducing "dangerous" code to make more enterprise sales - while assuring consumers, they've got only their best interests of privacy and security in mind.

That's what my answer was about: He wouldn't be anymore "forced" to register and download from other stores than I'm "forced" to buy iPhones. We both just have preferences. He does for "his favourite apps" and the Apple App Store, as I have for iOS over Android.

It's disingenuous to say "Buy Android then" while claiming being "forced" to use other stores, just his favourite apps moved their distribution to them. I may just as well have my "forcing" reasons to make me buy iOS/iPhone.

The above is just word salad. You are just moving the goalposts with your earlier comments. The act of buying a consumer discretionary product of any price or type involves trade offs.

The dma ultimately will cause fragmentation whether or not supporters acknowledge it. The word monopoly is thrown around as if it’s a legal fact. (Now ultimately it may be somewhere, but today it isn’t) the amount of pretzel logic to defend the dma is astounding.

 

[wbeasley]

The above is just word salad. You are just moving the goalposts with your earlier comments. The act of buying a consumer discretionary product of any price or type involves trade offs.

The dma ultimately will cause fragmentation whether or not supporters acknowledge it. The word monopoly is thrown around as if it’s a legal fact. (Now ultimately it may be somewhere, but today it isn’t) the amount of pretzel logic to defend the dma is astounding.

"Ignore" is your friend

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The fact is we have millions of other devices that have multiple ports. How was thunderbolt standardized again?
Thunderbolt was not standardized, it was developed by Intel and Apple.
They both spent millions in developing this technology,

Thunderbolt™ technology is an Intel-developed connectivity standard

Remember this is a charging port standard, USB isn’t the standard, but the type C port with USB power delivery.
So they should have two ports one for power and other for data ?
what if some one wants to develop better/faster technology to transfer data ?
they are struck with USB C for now.

They are currently free to use any data protocol of their choosing. They can use USB 2.0, 4.0 or thunderbolt etc in the same port.

There’s nothing that dictates usb c to be the future standard.

No data protocol has been standardized.

The firms that are part of the USB-IF consortium(Apple, Samsung, HP, intel, Microsoft, Texas Instruments etc) can invent a new port, present it to EU and it can become the new charging port standard.

The moment usb-if updates it becomes the new standard. Thunderbolt is part of the USB protocol standard today

USB-IF doesn't make much money, where do they get funding to develop new technology?
USB-IF was basically sleeping till thunderbolt kicked their ass.

The licensing fee is US$3,500 for a two year term (this fee is waived for USB-IF members)

If they can't handle task, they set their selves, they are just incompetent.

EDIT: And actually, what should worry you, if you are EU citizen, that no European company was indicated as gate keeper. We lost that race long ago, and no DMA will fix it.

There a few, booking.com is an EU company coverd by it

 

[AppliedMicro]

The above is just word salad

Whatever. Feel free to ignore.

The dma ultimately will cause fragmentation whether or not supporters acknowledge it.

Competition entails a certain amount of fragmentation, yes.
By definition. I never claimed anything different.

But even when software application stores are fragmented, you're not "forced" to use specific ones. Especially not as as a matter of "life and death" - which you often claim is the only thing that warranty government regulation.

The word monopoly is thrown around as if it’s a legal fact

Apple has (had) a monopoly on distribution of iOS apps to consumers.
It's an obvious fact.

The act of buying a consumer discretionary product of any price or type involves trade offs.

...and when there's too few choices and too many trade-offs for consumers and developers, government steps in to regulate the market and curb back on such trade-offs.

the amount of pretzel logic to defend the dma is astounding.

So is the licking the boots of the largest corporations in the world - when they're clearly not having consumers best interests in mind.

 

[I7guy]

Whatever. Feel free to ignore.

Competition entails a certain amount of fragmentation, yes.

Competition by taking a piece of someones business and giving it to someone else for free is the epitome of the "robin hood" effect. And dma supports do not believe apple is entitled to collect revenue on business that was given away for free. It it was your business you would be singing a different tune.

By definition. I never claimed anything different.

But even when software application stores are fragmented, you're not "forced" to use specific ones. Especially not as as a matter of "life and death" - which you often claim is the only thing that warranty government regulation.

Clearly those are examples of things that should be regulated. Obviously governmental regulation is required and nobody said otherwise. I'm against regulating the port, screen size, battery size and of course I'm not for the DMA. But nice generalization.

Apple has (had) a monopoly on distribution of iOS apps to consumers.

Where is the case law to support that opinion?

It's an obvious fact.

It's obvious to those who may be biased in their thinking.

...and when there's too few choices and too many trade-offs for consumers and developers, government steps in to regulate the market and tackle these trade-offs.

No, government is very capable of making bad laws, unless one has blinders on.

Now to be fair, I think some of what the DMA is forcing apple should have allowed anyway as a matter of course. But I am totally against taking away a company's business and giving it for free to all comers, especially bad actors.