Apple Warns UK Risks Feature Delays Under Proposed Competition Rules

[MilaM]

They're locking down Pixel phones ("certified Android devices"), not Android.

At least in the EU the vast majority of phones on the market are "Certified Android". This rule is not only for Pixel phones from Google.

Anyway, very soon the argument that disgruntled Apple customers should just use Android will be moot.

 

[BaldiMac]

There will be an update to GDPR to address this. However, I cannot see how the EU can review every single website to see if they comply. The user can report a site, which is the most practical way

What updates will address the problem? As long as the burden is on individual websites to implement their own cookie permissions, the problem cannot and will not be solved. Cookie permissions need to be addressed by browsers, not websites.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

We would not have USB C on iPhones if it wasn’t for EU anti competition laws for instance.

We would not have USB-C as an existing option if it wasn’t for tech companies ignoring the EU love for microUSB and creating it. And, we got USB-C on iPhones 10 years to the month after Apple said that lightning would be the connector for the next decade. All the EU did is require something in 2024 that all major manufacturers had completed by 2023. Which prevents companies from getting together and create the next best interface (Apple is fighting to have the restriction removed).

 

[theluggage]

I'll be lodging a complaint then! Amazon are very cut throat and have destroyed a lot of the high street through their business practices.

Well, yes, that's the point the law (which, dispite the impression you get here, doesn't only apply to Apple) - although in the case of the UK you might actually want to wait until the law is actually passed.

You can argue that Amazon have as well but their costs are a lot higher and they threaten to remove you if you don't give them favourable pricing!

I'm not going to defend Amazon too much - but it's not really a comparable situation. Firstly - there are plenty of other online stores & small manufacturers who sell direct, and we're long past the point where it is safe to assume that Amazon offer the best price. Secondly, Amazon are doing delivery and logistics for physical goods, which doesn't come cheap. In the case of Apple, (a) if you have an iDevice, their store is your only option and (b) they're selling digital downloads which is a lot simpler and cheaper than distributing and shipping physical goods. It would be a lot easier for a small outfit to set up their own web shop for their product... except that Apple are blocking that.

 

[paradox00]

At least in the EU the vast majority of phones on the market are "Certified Android". This rule is not only for Pixel phones from Google.

Anyway, very soon the argument that disgruntled Apple customers should just use Android will be moot.

Looked into what Google is doing and it’s what I’ve suggested Apple should be doing for years. An identity check/notarization is not a big deal as long as it remains merely that and more technical users can get around it with a developer account.

Most MacOS apps are developed to this standard. App certificates allow known bad actors to be blocked without actively moderating content. If certificates are revoked for legal content on the other hand, it would become a problem, but that can be handled through a legal process if necessary as Apple/Google would be the bad actors in that scenario.

 

[Shirasaki]

Both Apple and Google have lost lawsuits due to their efforts to restrict app sales to channels they take revenue from. Lawmakers across the world are starting take action against them. That’s literally what this article is about, I don’t know why you think the closing of open options is the inevitable outcome.

Google is closing their “open” doors on their latest pixel device (probably also other supported android devices too) as shown here. Google clearly sees how superior apples walled garden is despite growing legal pressure from around the world regarding dominant marketplaces, even though Google can definitely argue “there are alternative android app stores” but Apple can’t, except in EU.

Google will require developer verification to install Android apps, including sideloading

Google has announced that only apps from developers that have undergone verification can be installed on certified Android devices in 2026...

9to5google.com

I’m not saying that’s inevitable outcome but I mean android and iOS will become so similar in features people will not be able to tell apart which is which.

 

[Gabebear]

I fail to understand why cookie warnings, competition, etc is bad for users. Apple is basically saying that they do not want competition

What do users gain from cookie warnings? Customers get to pay more for all the busy work.

How has the EU helped competition? The EU countries as a whole are being left behind in tech, the ONLY country in the EU that can match the UK is Germany.

I do wonder if the EU hadn't formed the way it did if the powerhouse European tech companies like Nokia and Philips from before the EU would still be relevant.

 

[theluggage]

The EU initiatly pushed Micro USB which is an abomination.

We would not have USB-C as an existing option if it wasn’t for tech companies ignoring the EU love for microUSB and creating it.

MicroUSB was chosen by the industry in response to the EU telling the industry to standardise. There was no EU MicroUSB directive - just a "memorandum of understanding" between the major manufacturers - which was renewed every few years and allowed the "get out" clause of selling an adaptor, as Apple did. All the EU really cares about is that there is a standard connector.

What is bizarre is that Apple - who had a leading role in creating USB-C - pushed USB-C like mad on Mac, going all-USB-C in 2016 before there was any uptake (and eventually backpedalling and restoring HDMI and MagSafe on MacBook Pros) - but kept pushing Lightning on the iPhone (and even less explicably, introduced it to the Mac 'Magic' peripherals).

 

[Shirasaki]

through a legal process if necessary as Apple/Google would be the bad actors in that scenario.

Except for most developers such legal process costs so much it can bankrupt them while for Google and Apple it’s like nothing, pushing away small devs even if Apple and Google is at the wrong there.

 

[Gabebear]

MicroUSB was chosen by the industry in response to the EU telling the industry to standardise. There was no EU MicroUSB directive - just a "memorandum of understanding" between the major manufacturers - which was renewed every few years and allowed the "get out" clause of selling an adaptor, as Apple did. All the EU really cares about is that there is a standard connector.

What is bizarre is that Apple - who had a leading role in creating USB-C - pushed USB-C like mad on Mac, going all-USB-C in 2016 before there was any uptake (and eventually backpedalling and restoring HDMI and MagSafe on MacBook Pros) - but kept pushing Lightning on the iPhone (and even less explicably, introduced it to the Mac 'Magic' peripherals).

If anything the EU's directive pushed USB-C iPhones up by a year... which is pretty pointless.

The dark side of the EU's directive is the idiotic way it was written to only require the physical USB-C port and not any of the underlying charging tech... so many devices were hastily converted to USB-C that don't adhere to anything sane for charging.

 

[BaldiMac]

What is bizarre is that Apple - who had a leading role in creating USB-C - pushed USB-C like mad on Mac, going all-USB-C in 2016 before there was any uptake (and eventually backpedalling and restoring HDMI and MagSafe on MacBook Pros) - but kept pushing Lightning on the iPhone (and even less explicably, introduced it to the Mac 'Magic' peripherals).

Why is it bizarre? Apple promised its customers that lightning would be the connector for a decade. The kept that promise.

 

[MilaM]

The dark side of the EU's directive is the idiotic way it was written to only require the physical USB-C port and not any of the underlying charging tech... so many devices were hastily converted to USB-C that don't adhere to anything sane for charging.

That is not true. The directive mandates USB-PD support if a device is capable of charging with more than 15 W. What other charging standards would be worth supporting in your opinion?

 

[martint235]

Why is it bizarre? Apple promised its customers that lightning would be the connector for a decade. The kept that promise.

You make it sound like Apple did the consumer a favour by first developing a proprietary charging connector and then sticking with it.

 

[MilaM]

Why is it bizarre? Apple promised its customers that lightning would be the connector for a decade. The kept that promise.

You don't think its bizarre that you needed a special, single-purpose cable from Apple to connect your phone to a charger?

 

[germanbeer007]

EU also gave us Apple users a unique charging port for all the ecosystem .

Which is ridiculous as they shouldn't be deciding that. Don't forget, EU standardized one of the worst ports for EV charging. Clearly Tesla's supercharger port is superior.

Also for EU users now we have more privacy tools (like the one allowing you to download all the data Apple has on you),

We have that in California actually. No EU needed.

3 years of warranty

Your iPhone costs more FYI.

and third party apps stores, which I use and yet no “virus” got into my device.

You're in the minority.

I would also add that the new easier system of replacing batteries (with the low current tool instead of glue) was also inspired by EU regulations.

wishful thinking that it's 100% due to EU. also, again, you're in the minority that would open up a cellphone to replace the battery by yourself.

 

[germanbeer007]

EU made the entire world realize big tech is selling their data like hot cakes.

which is also funny, as apples equivalent of cookie pop up (track / do not track question) is somehow a great privacy feature?

I'm going to go out of the limb here and say you don't always click through the cookie popups to reject all the non-essential tracking.

 

[germanbeer007]

You can always not have them and allow websites to follow you and track your personal data and sell it for profit?

I rather let them track me if I never have to click on these cookie popups again.

I'm willing to bet you don't click through the cookie popups to reject them on 100% of all websites you visit. It's just not worth wasting your life on earth doing multiple times a day.

 

[germanbeer007]

Better to shoot yourself in the foot than in the head, because you live in a country where big tech companies have no rules at all and they can do whatever they want with your data without your consent ...

We literally have the cookie consent popups. What are you talking about?

 

[theluggage]

What do users gain from cookie warnings?

A reminder that website operators are tracking them and possibly collecting and selling their personal data.
If the website didn't collect the data, it wouldn't need cookie popups - or it could just make them opt-in with a button saying 'click here if you like cookies' - but, apparently, the website operators would rather annoy their products users than give up all that juicy data.

Cookie permissions need to be addressed by browsers, not websites.

Absolutely the best idea in theory.

Except, in practice:
Q1: Who makes the browsers with the vast majority of market share?
Q2: Who has a massive advertising business that relies on collecting personal data?
Q3: Who has a penchant for making it difficult for third parties to provide content for their platform?
Q4: Who has a history of "malicious compliance" with EU rules?
Q4: So, who do you trust to properly implement browser-based privacy controls?

Also, remember, this is to protect people who are not necessarily tech-savvy and might not be up to configuring their in-browser cookie settings, especially if a browser-maker - let's call them "Schpoogle" - doesn't want you to find them or doesn't make them off-by-default.

The EU did mess up - (a) by not actually mandating the design of the pop-up, leading to deliberately over-complex and confusing designs and (b) by not being a *lot* clearer on the use of non-tracking 'session' cookies for things like maintaining a login session (which, I believe, don't need consent, but don't take my word for it since it is years since I needed to check that and you really have to dig).

 

[germanbeer007]

EU didn't give us cookie popups.

No. They did.

The purpose of GDPR is for people to have more control over their personal data.

Which caused the cookie popups.

 

[germanbeer007]

I fail to understand why cookie warnings, competition, etc is bad for users.

Majority don't care about it but they have to go through their lives clicking the annoying popup box to accept several times a day, wasting their human life on earth doing all the while increasing stress (even just a little bit, adds up multiple times a day).

 

[germanbeer007]

Ad tech gave us cookie pop ups

Because of the EU.

 

[Gabebear]

That is not true. The directive mandates USB-PD support if a device is capable of charging with more than 15 W. What other charging standards would be worth supporting in your opinion?

EXACTLY!!! That's a pretty GIANT if you put there... The VAST majority of USB-charged devices don't use more than 15W.

I'm sure you've run into incorrectly made USB-C devices... have you found things that ONLY charge with a USB-A -> USB-C cable or only certain USB-A -> USB-C cables?

USB-C devices can short two pins with resistors to signal they want 5W, 7.5W, or 15W charging via USB-PD with only simple resistors; with no resistors the device are supposed to get no power... and the EU only mandates a USB-C port... which is exactly what lead us to this mess of a situation.

USB-A -> USB-C cables don't need any resistor and will at a minimum supply 5W of power and usually 15W... which is why using one of those cables often "fixes" the issue. The problem is rampant and many power bricks violate the spec so that they can work with these incorrectly made devices, which then leads to more incorrectly made devices...

The reason there shouldn't be voltage all the time is because that creates more arcing... which burns the tiny pins in USB-C connectors pretty darn effectively.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/10kgtcl/where_to_add_resistors_to_fix_a_usbc_device_that

 

[germanbeer007]

To be fair the issue is that the World Wide Web is layers of sticky tape and excrement. All you can do is paste some more dung on the top.

Most of the privacy problems are abused misfeatures.

EU could have mandated browsers to handle the cookie consent and then the users can simply automate yes or no on the consent just like we automate location access to the browser. They didn't. They weren't smart enough.

 

[BaldiMac]

You make it sound like Apple did the consumer a favour by first developing a proprietary charging connector and then sticking with it.

A favor? No. Just a value for people who invested in lightning cables and accessories. I certainly don't think they should have kept the old dock connector around for another 3 or 4 years to wait for USB-C.

You don't think its bizarre that you needed a special, single-purpose cable from Apple to connect your phone to a charger?

No, since it was significantly better than the connector it replaced, as well as the alternatives at the time.