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

[MilaM]

What’s funny is that the exact opposite argument was just used some time back to argue why companies like Facebook and Google held Apple by the literal balls. That they could simply “choose” to withhold their apps and services from iOS, resulting in customers abandoning their iPhones in favour of android handsets. And now you are all saying that it’s the opposite, that Apple holds all the power in this relationship and that these services cannot afford to not serve iOS users.

Never seen that argument here on the forum. I'm sure FB/Google/Apple will find a way to collude, I mean, find an agreement about access to each other's platforms. I care more about the thousands of small and mid-sized developers who don't have C-Level access to Apples management.

That’s in part what irritates me. That the arguments being put forth keep flip-flopping to whatever paints Apple in the worst possible light at any one time.

You know what's also irritating. When you invent a counter-argument which you then try to refute 😂.

 

[wbeasley]

Never seen that argument here on the forum. I'm sure FB/Google/Apple will find a way to collude, I mean, find an agreement about access to each other's platforms. I care more about the thousands of small and mid-sized developers who don't have C-Level access to Apples management.

Apple like how their privacy policy is NOT to treat you as the product.
Unlike FB and Google who leverage all your info and target ads at you.

Why would devs need access to management?
They have free tools, cheap store access, and a heap of features they used to pay for.
And the millions of apps, mostly from small players, shows this strategy has worked handsomely for billions of paid app fees.

 

[MilaM]

The implication being if you can find a way to prevent the execution of arbitrary code - then you can charge / require payments or license agreements. But, as the 2600 hardware was cast in stone, its fate was sealed.

I can't really verify your claims because I don't have time to become an IP lawyer in my spare time. There is also the question of how relevant decisions by US courts about game consoles from eighties are about how the EU can legislate access to a platform that is under antitrust scrutiny.

You are certainly correct, that the DMA has not ruled out payments for access to Apple's services and APIs. That is most likely a deliberate decision in order to not open a can of worms around international IP treaties in this space.

What the EU can do, in my opinion as a layman, is ask Gatekeepers to charge their fees in a non-discriminatory way. That would mean, that Apple would have to charge the same fees it proposes for alternative stores on its own App Store, which would put them in a somewhat awkward position, because they would have to charge FB, Google and all the other providers of "free" apps. They would have to think about that very carefully, because it could indeed create a mass exodus of apps and make many customers very angry.

 

[wbeasley]

I can't really verify your claims because I don't have time to become an IP lawyer in my spare time. There is also the question of how relevant decisions by US courts about game consoles from eighties are about how the EU can legislate access to a platform that is under antitrust scrutiny.

You are certainly correct, that the DMA has not ruled out payments for access to Apple's services and APIs. That is most likely a deliberate decision in order to not open a can of worms around international IP treaties in this space.

What the EU can do, in my opinion as a layman, is ask Gatekeepers to charge their fees in a non-discriminatory way. That would mean, that Apple would have to charge the same fees it proposes for alternative stores on its own App Store, which would put them in a somewhat awkward position, because they would have to charge FB, Google and all the other providers of "free" apps. They would have to think about that very carefully, because it could indeed create a mass exodus of apps and make many customers very angry.

or given that, FB and others could just remove them from EU stores... and see how the phone buying public like that...

 

[I7guy]

[…].

What the EU can do, in my opinion as a layman, is ask Gatekeepers to charge their fees in a non-discriminatory way. That would mean, that Apple would have to charge the same fees it proposes for alternative stores on its own App Store, which would put them in a somewhat awkward position, because they would have to charge FB, Google and all the other providers of "free" apps. They would have to think about that very carefully, because it could indeed create a mass exodus of apps and make many customers very angry.

fees are as non discriminatory as taxes. (Which is to say all sorts of exceptions) But the exceptions are codified. It would be nice if “non-discriminatory “ actually really existed, but it’s just another control mechanism.

 

[MilaM]

fees are as non discriminatory as taxes. (Which is to say all sorts of exceptions) But the exceptions are codified. It would be nice if “non-discriminatory “ actually really existed, but it’s just another control mechanism.

I agree. Another control mechanism for Apple to discriminate where it suits them .

 

[I7guy]

I agree. Another control mechanism for Apple to discriminate where it suits them .

And another control mechanism for the eu to screw companies when it suits them.

 

[Dawn of Individual Merit]

And another control mechanism for the eu to screw companies when it suits them.

Good.

Screw companies!

 

[MilaM]

And another control mechanism for the eu to screw companies when it suits them.

We know. You don't trust governments, even democratically elected ones. I don't like to be taken advantage of by powerful monopolistic companies 🤷‍♂️. This includes all Gatekeepers, not only Apple!

 

[I7guy]

We know. You don't trust governments,

And you trust governments implicitly.

even democratically elected ones.

Free speech is wonderful let’s us all discuss all of this stuff.

I don't like to be taken advantage of by powerful monopolistic companies 🤷‍♂️. This includes all Gatekeepers, not only Apple!

So easy don’t buy their products when there are hundreds of different competitors. I understand the dam is to your liking, but it’s going to be worse not better.

 

[MilaM]

And you trust governments implicitly.

No. I look at the arguments of an initiative, the process, and then decide if I like what they are doing. When I don't like something, like the efforts to circumvent E2E encryption for private chats, then I voice this opinion and sometimes donate to NGOs that actively lobby in Brussels in my interest.

Free speech is wonderful let’s us all discuss all of this stuff.
And you trust governments implicitly.

Never said anything against free speech.

So easy don’t buy their products when there are hundreds of different competitors. I understand the dam is to your liking, but it’s going to be worse not better.

I only see two choices. Android or iOS. All others (on the Android side) are essentially identical. I don't count Chinese operating systems, because they don't have any of the apps I need for my daily life, and also don't trust authoritarian governments.

 

[BaldiMac]

I only see two choices. Android or iOS. All others (on the Android side) are essentially identical. I don't count Chinese operating systems, because they don't have any of the apps I need for my daily life, and also don't trust authoritarian governments.

Sure, but there aren't only two choices. And the fact that you have to pretend there is says something. Android is multiple competing OSs forked from the android open source project. There no more the same product than two different browsers from the same project.

The problem in the smartphone market is that Google has entered into actual anti-competition agreements with its horizontal competitors across 70% of the market to install Google Play Services. The DMA has ignored that fundamental issue to focus on remedies that have already failed across 70% of the market.

Again, despite the fact that I'm against some specific regulations in the DMA, I'm for regulation in the market. Is Apple's and Google's commission too high? Limit their commission. Does Apple exclude apps from the App Store that they shouldn't? Limit what they can exclude apps for. Does Apple have too much control over picking winners and losers through App Store promotion? Require that they allow other people to curate the App Store.

Don't throw out the most successful consumer app distribution model because somebody else does it differently.

 

[I7guy]

No. I look at the arguments of an initiative, the process, and then decide if I like what they are doing. When I don't like something, like the efforts to circumvent E2E encryption for private chats, then I voice this opinion and sometimes donate to NGOs that actively lobby in Brussels in my interest.

Making a blanket statement about my opinions and a nuanced statement about your opinions doesn’t fly, because it appears to be bias.

Never said anything against free speech.

No, I did.

I only see two choices. Android or iOS. All others (on the Android side) are essentially identical.

Try to tell Samsung it’s phones are nearly identical to oppo.

I don't count Chinese operating systems, because they don't have any of the apps I need for my daily life, and also don't trust authoritarian governments.

Those are still options in the market.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple like how their privacy policy is NOT to treat you as the product.
Unlike FB and Google who leverage all your info and target ads at you.

That’s why I made the correct choice („was forced“) to buy an iPhone over Android phones.

or given that, FB and others could just remove them from EU stores... and see how the phone buying public like that...

👉🏻 Yes. If you assume they‘d all blame Apple, you may be proven wrong.

And another control mechanism for the eu to screw companies when it suits them.

Non-discriminatory fees that are subject to competition (which is what the DMA aims to achieve) are not „screwing“ others.

Sure, but there aren't only two choices. And the fact that you have to pretend there is says something. Android is multiple competing OSs forked from the android open source project

…and yet the relevant apps consumers need and expect are available through the Google Play store - or don‘t work (well) without Play services. That’s why there’s basically only two choices of platform (with both having some variations), not hundreds. Even the layman on the street is aware of the duality of platforms.

Again, despite the fact that I'm against some specific regulations in the DMA, I'm for regulation in the market. Is Apple's and Google's commission too high? Limit their commission.

And what would these limits be?
Coming up with a random number is bad government policy and inefficient.

There’s just one reasonable way for government to set such a limits or price ceilings:
You look at costs incurred by Apple, allow for a certain reasonable margin or relative profit.

👉🏻 Prepare for Apple’s commissions to go down significantly. Their current 70+% gross margin on services won‘t stand.

The other reasonable alternative is to subject Apple‘s pricing to competition - which is what they‘ve chosen.

Does Apple exclude apps from the App Store that they shouldn't? Limit what they can exclude apps for.

Why? Surely Apple should be allowed to decide what apps they want to sell and what not - and create a „safe space“ for consumers.

If they don’t want to carry emulators, pornographic or vaping apps - despite them being legal - I support Apple to choose. Just don‘t let them access to the entire market and let competing store operators make differing decisions..

 

[MilaM]

Again, despite the fact that I'm against some specific regulations in the DMA, I'm for regulation in the market. Is Apple's and Google's commission too high? Limit their commission. Does Apple exclude apps from the App Store that they shouldn't? Limit what they can exclude apps for. Does Apple have too much control over picking winners and losers through App Store promotion? Require that they allow other people to curate the App Store.

Some nice ideas. But that kind of regulation would be very heavy handed. The current approach is to see if more competition can solve the problems with app distribution. In a couple of years there will be an evalutaion. If the current DMA does not work, well, then they might try to interfere more directly.

 

[MilaM]

Try to tell Samsung it’s phones are nearly identical to oppo.

Thanks for trying to convince me to buy an Android again. I appreciate the unsolicited advice. But I'm afraid your efforts are in vain.

 

[BaldiMac]

…and yet the relevant apps consumers need and expect are available through the Google Play store - or don‘t work (well) without Play services. That’s why there’s basically only two choices of platform (with both having some variations), not hundreds. Even the layman on the street is aware of the duality of platforms.

Congratulations. You refuted my statement by reiterating my point. Somehow that makes sense. Google's anti-competitive agreements consolidate the Android market.

And what would these limits be?
Coming up with a random number is bad government policy and inefficient.

How would I know? I'm not the one that thinks they're too high. Are you going to pretend that the EU has never set price caps before?

If you're arguing that we should leave the number to competitive forces, we did. And the result is the current pricing.

There’s just one reasonable way for government to set such a limits or price ceilings:
You look at costs incurred by Apple, allow for a certain reasonable margin or relative profit.

👉🏻 Prepare for Apple’s commissions to go down significantly. Their current 70+% gross margin on services won‘t stand.

The other reasonable alternative is to subject Apple‘s pricing to competition - which is what they‘ve chosen.

Nope. That's just you creating a false dichotomy while ignoring that competition lead to current pricing.

Why? Surely Apple should be allowed to decide what apps they want to sell and what not - and create a „safe space“ for consumers.

If they don’t want to carry emulators, pornographic or vaping apps - despite them being legal - I support Apple to choose. Just don‘t let them access to the entire market and let competing store operators make differing decisions..

The complete lack of self awareness in this statement is simply staggering.

Again, the point of my examples was to directly address the perceived problems, instead of messy, trickle down, underpants gnomes-style nonsense that has already failed in multiple ways. Alternative app stores failed across 70% of the market. Direct install of apps resulted in a trillion dollar malware industry.

 

[BaldiMac]

Some nice ideas. But that kind of regulation would be very heavy handed. The current approach is to see if more competition can solve the problems with app distribution. In a couple of years there will be an evalutaion. If the current DMA does not work, well, then they might try to interfere more directly.

"Let's just try something that already failed across 70% of the market. If not we can try something else." seems like bad regulation to me. If it doesn't work, we still have to live with it anyway. The EU is not going to say "Alt stores didn't have the effect we expected, so Apple can go ahead and remove them all. Sorry, you lose anything that you invested in them."

I prefer evidenced based regulation with specific goals. Want competition for browser engines on iOS? The DMA required alt browser engines on iOS. Great job!

Don't want the market dominated by a duopoly? Don't let Google enter into anticompetive agreements with its horizontal competitors to consolidate 70% of the market.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you're arguing that we should leave the number to competitive forces, we did. And the result is the current pricing.

No, it’s not. Because there’s a duopoly of relevant mobile OS and application stores. And many developers have to be on both platforms.

In competitive markets, commissions on the biggest sellers aren‘t staying at the same percentage for 15 years - despite business and economies scaling up hundred- or thousandfold.

If you're arguing that we should leave the number to competitive forces, we did. And the result is the current pricing

I‘m arguing they‘re not. And antitrust regulators (the DoJ) and legislators in the EU agree with me.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, it’s not. Because there’s a duopoly of relevant mobile OS and application stores. And many developers have to be on both platforms.

You're ignoring all the competition before the duopoly. Which was my point.

And again, you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the reason we have a duopoly is because of Google's anticompetitive agreements. It's ridiculous to punish Apple for Google's actions.

In competitive markets, commissions on the biggest sellers aren‘t staying at the same percentage for 15 years - despite business and economies scaling up hundred- or thousandfold.

Hah. You make this argument all the time. It's obviously not true. You're just trying to equate it with a commodity market. It's not. Plenty of large markets maintain or even increase pricing over time.

I‘m arguing they‘re not. And antitrust regulators (the DoJ) and legislators in the EU agree with me.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority.

 

[I7guy]

Thanks for trying to convince me to buy an Android again. I appreciate the unsolicited advice. But I'm afraid your efforts are in vain.

I / we believe it’s a viable solution to many people’s woes about apple.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Non-discriminatory fees that are subject to competition (which is what the DMA aims to achieve) are not „screwing“ others.[…]

Nonsense. more frameworks for changing the business model of “needle threaded” gatekeepers

 

[arobert3434]

If users switch straight to Chrome (or any other browser) as soon as they get the chance, maybe it's because Safari isn't such a great browser after all.

I only use Safari on iOS because there is currently no other alternative with which I can use an adblocker and other add-ons (and no, Orion is not (yet) a good alternative).

Also, with the introduction of Manifest V3, Google has restricted the functionality of adblockers, leading some users to switch to other browsers. Perhaps their browser dominance issue will eventually resolve itself.

Forcing every user to use Safari is definitely NOT the solution.

I agree with everything you say in principle, though obviously users' preferences are going to vary. But the bit I quoted makes it seem like if the user has Safari selected Apple is required to ask them, "Are you sure?" with every iOS update, whereas if they have Chrome selected it gets left alone. Seems a bit like affirmative action for browsers and with Chrome at 65% market share it's hard to understand how it needs it.

 

[31 Flavas]

I can't really verify your claims because I don't have time to become an IP lawyer in my spare time. There is also the question of how relevant decisions by US courts about game consoles from eighties are about how the EU can legislate access to a platform that is under antitrust scrutiny.

Look, as far as, "how the EU can legislate" that's entirely for them to decide based upon their own beliefs, laws, and the desire of their member countries. They will literally have their own codified version of anti-trust and case history of what they have decided is anti-competitive. The EU and is member countries proposed and decided to ratify the DMA because they saw something they wanted to change and so they changed it. In case its not clear, they're independent from the US, the US legal system, and US legal precedence. But, you should understand that already.

That said, my question to you has been regardless of this fact -- the EU has still decided they don't have any problem with code lockout. And that's not just in relation to Apple. They've allowed video game consoles to "lockout code" since the 80's just the same as the US. And they've also allowed Google, Blackberry (RIM), Apple, Microsoft, Nokia to all start using "code lockout" in their mobile phone operating systems. They didn't sue, fine them, or take them to court over anti-trust or anti-competitive concerns. (anyone, please correct me here) That I know, no one or any other entity in the EU has sued Apple over it's code lockout like Epic did in the US. So why would that be?

Anyway, point is code lockout has a history. There is reason for it's existence that isn't just this villainous "corporate greed" easy to jump to narrative. It is not something that Apple invented just for the iPhone / iPad. And it's been challenged by many businesses and been under constant judicial supervision since it was started back in the 80's. Where companies employing it have over stepped and used it anti-competitively - they've been slapped down. But, the reason why courts still protect and allow for "code lockout" still exists. Apple v Epic is just the latest challenge to have it invalidated. And surprise, surprise, Apple won. Only the anti-steering provision was deem anti-competitive.

if you didn't know, now you will know, because I'm going to guess that you're someone who would be perplexed, maybe even upset, that Google of all "people" the one that openly allows for customization of the Android OS and, more specifically, allows its users to sideload any application or changes they want -- They were the one to be found by the US legal system to be operating an illegal monopoly and in violation of the US Sherman antitrust act for being anti-competitive. And I'm not talking about in web search -- I'm talking about the Android OS and Android mobile apps. Where as Apple beat the rap and got off nearly scot-free, Google was convicted on all 11 counts that Epic brought against Google in relation to the "Free Fortnite / Project Liberty" just a hair over 4 years ago.

I'm going to guess that you'll have got no clue as to why this was. I mean, they're the GOOD guy here. They specifically allow sideloading. Where as Apple, defiantly, absolutely does not allow sideloading.

I'll ask you again, since it's pretty relevant. Do you know what happened... do you know what the fallout was from the judges ruling back in the Atari v Activision?

 

[MilaM]

Anyway, point is code lockout has a history.

Even a practice that has history can at some point become uncompetitive.

Re Google. It was quite baffling to me why Google's business practices have been deemed anti-competitive and Apple's not. Please enlighten us why two different judges could come to such different conclusions.

I'll ask you again, since it's pretty relevant. Do you know what happened... do you know what the fallout was from the judges ruling back in the Atari v Activision?

I'm not sure if it's really relevant. But if you think it's important, then why don't you share your wisdom?