Apple Warns UK Risks Feature Delays Under Proposed Competition Rules

[Radeon85]

Will this UK government just piss off already!

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

Because randomly on sites I go to you usually get do you want to accept this cookie, consent to this etc, I may visit a month later, and it may ask me again, ffs.

Just give me an option to accept every bloody cookie, I don't give a damn what they do with it. This cookie crap is the worst thing the EU has ever done for internet browsing.

And best of all, as I use pop up blockers, sites on my iPhone or PC may not work properly or be unresponsive, all because a damn cookie window popped up asking me to consent first, so I have to disable AdBlock extensions, refresh the page, accept the cookies and turn add blockers back on. Drives me bloody insane.

 

[germanbeer007]

No. Websites that insist on continuing to use persistent cookies gave us cookie popups.

Nope. EU caused it. EU saying you can't do XYZ, so ABC was done to comply with XYZ is still caused by EU.

 

[jlc1978]

Ultimately, this will just increase phone prices as a substitute, one income stream for another.

Exactly. Apple can figure out the potential lost revenue and merely spread the costs over all the countries that require alternate payments and app stores. I'm sure they will also figure out ways to charge for being on the App Store for high revenue developers such as EPIC. I can't see them giving the developers making millions a free ride on the App Store, nor should they be expected to so do. From numbers I found online, about 150 Euros/iPhone in the EU would cover all the App Store revenue. I suspect a UK number may be similar.

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.

The problem with that is there are sites where users want to allow cookies and others where they want them to block; so the browser would have to collect that data on the user, or the browser YES/NO replaces the sites.

 

[BaldiMac]

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).

In theory? Your questions are all just "Google won't follow the law." Then don't allow Chrome in the EU. The EU is certainly more capable of making Google follow the law with Chrome than in making millions of websites, most of which are out of their jurisdiction follow a law.

Again, there is no solution where the burden is on the individual websites that meets the goal of meaningful consent. Redesigning the popup does absolutely nothing to fix the massive problems with the approach.

 

[theluggage]

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

...it also prevents any other mobile phone manufacturer "cheating" by requiring a custom charger so that they can rake in money.

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...

Not true. Any device using more than the bog standard 5V@3A - I.e. anything with "fast charging" - is required to support the USB PD standard.

Directive - 2022/2380 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

(Search for "USB Power Delivery" - warning, absolutely turbid Euro-English document).

 

[germanbeer007]

The problem with that is there are sites where users want to allow cookies and others where they want them to block; so the browser would have to collect that data on the user, or the browser YES/NO replaces the sites.

This is no different than allowing camera access on sites. I can always allow, always block, or let the browser ask me.

I set it to always block but when needed (like google meet, zoom, etc...), I can manually set to allow.

 

[theluggage]

Again, there is no solution where the burden is on the individual websites that meets the goal of meaningful consent.

Only the individual websites know whether they need individual consent and only the website can supply their privacy policy (needed for meaningful consent). They'd have to supply that in the metadata if the browser is going to do more than just "block all non-session cookies". Who do you want to design that protocol - the EU? The W3C (with Google/MS/Apple/etc lobbying them like heck)? Pick one, because nobody else will do it.

Redesigning the popup does absolutely nothing to fix the massive problems with the approach.

The main massive problem is the ridiculously complex popups that present you with a multi-screen scrolling list of purposes, expect laypeople to understand GDPR-specific terms like "legitimate interest", with "dark pattern" designs that try and trick you into clicking on 'accept all' even after you've unchecked all the boxes and don't always have a simple "reject all" buttons. As it is, if it's not "accept persistant cookies yes/no - heres a link to our privacy policy" then it's malicious compliance.

 

[MilaM]

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.

I know the problem and have myself bought such devices in the past. Usually I return them the next day when they don't have USB-C compliant charging port.

The EU directive clearly states that the regulated devices should adhere to the spec. Is it the EU's fault, when lazy engineers ignore the spec? I think most gadget producers have already learned the lesson. I have not experienced this problem with recently bought devices.

The reason why USB-C chargers require the resistors on the side of the sink is safety. It prevents chargers sending power down the cable when you accidentally connect two of them (chargers) to each other. It's a pretty clever solution if you ask me.

 

[BaldiMac]

Only the individual websites know whether they need individual consent and only the website can supply their privacy policy (needed for meaningful consent). They'd have to supply that in the metadata if the browser is going to do more than just "block all non-session cookies". Who do you want to design that protocol - the EU? The W3C (with Google/MS/Apple/etc lobbying them like heck)? Pick one, because nobody else will do it.

I don't see the problem that you are pointing out here. My answer is the same as before. The browser developer should be responsible for whatever the EU decides is required for meaningful consent.

The main massive problem is the ridiculously complex popups that present you with a multi-screen scrolling list of purposes, expect laypeople to understand GDPR-specific terms like "legitimate interest", with "dark pattern" designs that try and trick you into clicking on 'accept all' even after you've unchecked all the boxes and don't always have a simple "reject all" buttons. As it is, if it's not "accept persistant cookies yes/no - heres a link to our privacy policy" then it's malicious compliance.

I completely disagree. The main problems are 1) no ability to enforce the mandate on millions of websites 2) no ability to permanently save preferences in a format that can be moved or synced across browsers once you've made a choice, so you have to respond to them over and over again 3) no ability to know if they website is respecting your decision.

 

[jlc1978]

This is no different than allowing camera access on sites. I can always allow, always block, or let the browser ask me.

I set it to always block but when needed (like google meet, zoom, etc...), I can manually set to allow.

Which is my whole point. Unless the browser remembers what sites to block or not block, I suspect it's likely to ask you each time, if only to ensure compliance with EU regulations.

In addition, it would also, IMHO, require the EU to remove the requirement for websites to ask permission, since the browser does it for them. Of course, if a browser doesn't implement the feature or is misconfigured the website is still in the clear with collecting data.

Then there is whole issue of having a standard way to identify what cookie are collected and the protocol for blocking them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

“we might not get Apple Intelligence?”

 

[Gabebear]

I know the problem and have myself bought such devices in the past. Usually I return them the next day when they don't have USB-C compliant charging port.

The EU directive clearly states that the regulated devices should adhere to the spec. Is it the EU's fault, when lazy engineers ignore the spec? I think most gadget producers have already learned the lesson. I have not experienced this problem with recently bought devices.

The reason why USB-C chargers require the resistors on the side of the sink is safety. It prevents chargers sending power down the cable when you accidentally connect two of them (chargers) to each other. It's a pretty clever solution if you ask me.

That's certainly some high horse you supposedly have there...

Firstly, I doubt you actually return all those devices.

Secondly, calling the engineers lazy seems to stem from an elitism of a person who sees manufacturing as below them.

Thirdly, a giant bureaucracy can't ignore the side effects of their decisions... the old devices would have kept their correct ports if the EU hadn't mandated they change them. This was simply the EU failing as a bureaucracy... which is its only purpose.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

The joke is on them. We can't afford any of the new products anyway

 

[BaldiMac]

Which is my whole point. Unless the browser remembers what sites to block or not block, I suspect it's likely to ask you each time, if only to ensure compliance with EU regulations.

In addition, it would also, IMHO, require the EU to remove the requirement for websites to ask permission, since the browser does it for them. Of course, if a browser doesn't implement the feature or is misconfigured the website is still in the clear with collecting data.

Then there is whole issue of having a standard way to identify what cookie are collected and the protocol for blocking them.

I think these are made up problems. Browsers already have robust cookie management options. This isn't inventing something new.

 

[germanbeer007]

Which is my whole point. Unless the browser remembers what sites to block or not block, I suspect it's likely to ask you each time, if only to ensure compliance with EU regulations.

Yes, that's my whole point as well. EU failed to realize this and caused the cookie popup headache.

 

[jdavid_rp]

From my understanding of the EU directive, it’s two years and the seller is responsible, not the manufacturer. In addition, after 6 months the seller can require the person to prove the fault was not due to normal wear and tear or misuse.

So you have to go to seller, which can be problematic if you bought on holiday, for example; or outside the EU where it would not apply.

It’s not the same as a full manufacturer’s warranty.

A manufacturer/seller can offer better terms, of course. Apple, for example, offers a worldwide warranty on most rechargeable devices, but not plug in ones.

yeah, made a small mistake, it’s 2 years but in my country, Spain, is 3 years. Typed too fast I forgot it’s a country specific law.

And yeah, you have to go to the seller, which I would say it’s better as there are not so many Apple stores around, but you still can buy it from Apple and then they’re your seller so no 3rd parties in between.

 

[MilaM]

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.

The reason even Tesla switched to CCS2 in Europe is that their connector does not support real three-phase charging. You can easily get a 22 kW three-phase wall box for your home with a CCS2 connector. NACS would be capped at around 7,5 kW.

 

[MilaM]

Firstly, I doubt you actually return all those devices.

Of course I returned them. Why would I keep a defective device? If the manufacturer can't even implement a simple spec detail I have zero trust that the rest of the product was engineered with sufficient care. It only happened two times with very cheap products. One was a LED-torch and the other one a small 12V power-tool.

This was simply the EU failing as a bureaucracy... which is its only purpose.

I wonder who is sitting on the high horse ...

 

[jdavid_rp]

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.



We have that in California actually. No EU needed.



Your iPhone costs more FYI.



You're in the minority.



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.

They should decide the port in the EU, it’s not EU fault that Apple thought it was not worth it to keep lightning elsewhere.
Yeah, no need to have EU for privacy tools, but you see that in USA is not a national right, it has to go through each state.
Yeah, my iPhone costs more, it has a 21% VAT (electronics VAT) as it’s non-essential good and that’s where money comes from for healthcare, unemployment benefits, youth discounts, etc… Can’t say it’s a bad thing.

And last two, wouldn’t you think that I’m in the minority because it was something impossible / hard to do? I’m sure I wouldn’t be in the minority if we were talking about downloading apps in Mac or Windows, where it has been always possible to download anything, or if we were talking about the dumb-phones era, when you could pop the back of the phone and swap your battery.

 

[germanbeer007]

The reason even Tesla switched to CCS2 in Europe is that their connector does not support real three-phase charging. You can easily get a 22 kW three-phase wall box for your home with a CCS2 connector. NACS would be capped at around 7,5 kW.

They used CCS2 because it became standardized. They were using a variant of the Mennekes IIRC.

 

[jlc1978]

I think these are made up problems. Browsers already have robust cookie management options. This isn't inventing something new.

No, it's not but government regulation changes the operating landscape; I suspect browser developers would respond with a lowest common denominator approach to avoid running afoul of regulators while websites would be released from regulatory compliance requirements. If they weren't they'd likely just add their popup anyway to stay compliant.

 

[germanbeer007]

They should decide the port in the EU, it’s not EU fault that Apple thought it was not worth it to keep lightning elsewhere.

Nope. It's EU's fault and EU shouldn't be deciding the port. We could have gotten something new like a MacBook MagSafe-like port but with thunderbolt like data connection but nope, EU stifling innovation as usual.

Yeah, my iPhone costs more, it has a 21% VAT (electronics VAT) as it’s non-essential good and that’s where money comes from for healthcare, unemployment benefits, youth discounts, etc… Can’t say it’s a bad thing.

You can say what the tax is for, but it doesn't negate the fact that 3 year warranty increases the cost of device. For those that upgrade every year or every other year, they're just paying more for something they don't need, or rather, they're paying AppleCare+ like prices without getting the full AppleCare+ benefits.

And last two, wouldn’t you think that I’m in the minority because it was something impossible / hard to do?

Majority aren't technical. If it's not a button that pushes out a component so that you can slide in a new one, it's too technical for the majority. (and no, I'm not advocating for an eject button).

I’m sure I wouldn’t be in the minority if we were talking about downloading apps in Mac or Windows, where it has been always possible to download anything

Talking apples and oranges. You can't really compare downloading apps to opening up phones to swap batteries.

 

[MilaM]

They were using a variant of the Mennekes IIRC.

The earliest Teslas used the proprietary plug. Mennekes is just the AC part of CCS2, which you still use at home. The somehow managed to modify it to also use the AC part for DC, but only on the superchargers.

 

[germanbeer007]

The earliest Teslas used the proprietary plug. Mennekes is just the AC part of CCS2, which you still use at home. The somehow managed to modify it to also use the AC part for DC, but only on the superchargers.

Yes.

 

[surferfb]

The reason even Tesla switched to CCS2 in Europe is that their connector does not support real three-phase charging. You can easily get a 22 kW three-phase wall box for your home with a CCS2 connector. NACS would be capped at around 7,5 kW.

Tesla didn’t “switch” voluntarily; the EU mandated CCS2 as the common standard. Tesla proposed its connector, which is smaller, lighter, and easier to use, but the EU said “no” because they already had decided on CCS2. Yes, CCS2 does support three-phase AC charging (up to 22 kW), which is common in Europe, but ergonomically it’s a significantly worse connector (I've used both - it's really bad - wouldn't be surprised if it has actually dissuaded people from buying electric cars). Meanwhile, the U.S. allowed the market to play out, and NACS has since won, and therefore the US has a much nicer common port than the EU does.

It’s similar to the EU’s failed push to mandate Micro-USB: in the short term you get standardization, but you risk locking into an inferior solution. Thankfully the EU failed with Micro-USB, but the fact that it was at all a consideration shows the idiocy of mandating charging connectors in the law. Who is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new charging port that can't be used in the EU? Especially when they look at the history of, say, electric charging cables and see the better solution is rejected because "we already have a standard."

The EU should stick to what it knows and not decide they know more than hardware and software engineers.