Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There are laws to comply with in any region, Apple is more than happy to make adjustments in China. That seems clear also
I have no idea what that has to do with the point we were discussing. Of course they have to obey local laws and regulations.

Certainly not unprecedented.
Volkswagen was fined for more than 50% of its global profit - in the United States of America.
I don't think that was based on global profits. It was based on buybacks of vehicles sold in the US.

Why only 20% of „profits“ - when they can fine up to 20% of global turnover? 😁
I stand corrected!
 
I have no idea what that has to do with the point we were discussing. Of course they have to obey local laws and regulations.

Well if they obey them there will be no 10% or 20% 'fees' or whatever you want to label them.

Also Fines and fees, not the same.


1671142811159.png




1671142863132.png
 
I read somewhere (not a fan when others starts a sentence like this because it sounds unfounded) that Manomio took pains with the licensing of their short lived c64 iOS app. I for my part was very careful in getting permission from the current IP owners of the system ROMs.

I’d love to add external loading of program files to my apps. Obviously my personal development builds have this trivial to add this functionality. But I think I understand Apple’s motivation - if they were to open the doors to apps being able to execute external code beyond simple scripts it means that functionality that was not present during the app review process would be added/extended later - kind of like our own personal limited app store within an app. If we were successful in convincing Apple that having external loaded code was innocuous for our specific emulation cases this would set a precedent for other apps and complicate their review process leading to per app basis exceptions. I believe changes to legislation are the only things that would get Apple to change at this point. Personally, I’m not that bothered and the extra effort I have made to reach out to authors of included programs has paid off leading to some interesting contacts and descriptions - more like a human interest project rather than another dry emulator.

Sorry I have gone off on a tangent - bottom line, you want to play Nintendo games on your Apple devices without messy workarounds and Apple’s developer policies are an obstacle unlike other platforms.

If I was Apple I would create an app that monitors and tells the user just what their new non-App Store app is collecting.Then again, would be no surprise to see 3rd party non-AppStore apps doing the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kevin Palser
I don't think that was based on global profits. It was based on buybacks of vehicles sold in the US.
Not to my knowledge, yes. I was just saying that the relative size of fines itself isn’t totally unprecedented.

Whether fees or fines (not the same), the EU isn‘t asking or „begging“ for them. They are merely threatening such fines for repeat offender’s non-compliance.

And the law sets out a defined process how to investigate and determine non-compliance. Gatekeepers are to be communicated its preliminary findings and given the opportunity to address them. Fines according to this regulation aren’t going to come out of the blue.
 
China’s not begging for a cut of Apple’s pie. :) Asking Apple to remove VPN apps and limit Airdrop is widely different from begging for 10% of WORLDWIDE profits in fees. There is literally no other region that derives potential fees from revenues made OUTSIDE the region. That’s right, not even China!

Why would China be concerned about the profits? Their main concern is control.
 
Not to my knowledge, yes. I was just saying that the relative size of fines itself isn’t totally unprecedented.
Right. The unprecedented part to me was basing it on revenue (not profits) outside of the EU. Seems crazy to me to threaten a $50-60 billion fine for something with so little potential consumer benefit.

Whether fees or fines (not the same), the EU isn‘t asking or „begging“ for them. They are merely threatening such fines for repeat offender’s non-compliance.

And the law sets out a defined process how to investigate and determine non-compliance. Gatekeepers are to be communicated its preliminary findings and given the opportunity to address them. Fines according to this regulation aren’t going to come out of the blue.
I agree completely. I wasn't supporting the other poster. I was just explaining what they were referring to.
 
Care to give an example of why it would make sense?

You talk about 'draconian regulations' but Apple are more than happy to comply with them in China.




China didn’t make the iPhone into a public utility.
 
It may, it may not.

If they childishly want to stick it to the Europeans cause they don't like this legislation, it probably makes good sense to drop out. If they want to earn as much money as they can, it won't.

Common sense.

Apple, in their last financial reporting year, had $ 35 billion operating income on £ 95 billion net sales in the "Europe" region (not all of that is the EU) and a worldwide gross margin of 72% on "services".

It really doesn't take a crystal ball to tell that they're going to be alright and hugely profitable, come this regulation or not.
If it’s a question about losing billions and killing their reputation? Sometimes you have to suck it up with your losses.
 
If you don’t understand what this means for end users or you don’t like it, you aren’t the target anyway. This will be great for things like youtube++ and apps that normally require a jailbreak to install and sign.
That AND hopefully this will solve the issue where we wont have to sign apps anymore using programs like Sideloadly every 7 days if you wanna keep using the app...
 


Apple is planning to allow for alternate app stores on iPhones and iPads ahead of European legislation that will require the company to support sideloading, reports Bloomberg.

iOS-App-Store-General-Feature-JoeBlue.jpg

The change would allow customers to download apps without needing to use the App Store, which would mean developers would not need to pay Apple's 15 to 30 percent fees, but to start with, Apple is only planning to implement sideloading support in Europe.

If other countries introduce similar legislation, alternate app stores could expand beyond the European Union. The United States, for example, is considering legislation that would require Apple to allow sideloading. Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.

The European Union's Digital Markets Act that went into effect on November 1 requires "gatekeeper" companies to open up their services and platforms to other companies and developers. The DMA will have a major impact on Apple's platforms, and it could result in Apple making major changes to the App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Siri, and more. Apple has until March 6, 2024 to comply with the EU's rules.

According to Bloomberg, Apple's software engineering and services employees are working to open up "key elements of Apple's platforms," with Apple using a "significant amount of resources" for the change. Apple is planning for the functionality to be ready for iOS 17 in 2023, which would put it ahead of the deadline. There is a danger that these drastic updates could impact work on new features slated for iOS 17, some employees told Bloomberg.

To protect users from the aforementioned risks of sideloading, Apple is considering implementing security requirements such as verification, a process that it could charge a fee for in lieu of collecting money from app sales. Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.

Apple could open up underlying app frameworks and APIs to third-party app developers, providing deeper access to core system functions and hardware. Third-party apps could in the future get access to camera technologies not available now, and Apple is working to open up NFC in a limited way that could allow for Apple Pay alternatives. Apple is also considering further opening up the Find My network to accessory makers like Tile. As of now, Apple lets third-party device makers create Find My accessories, but there is a requirement that prevents them from working with non-Find My apps and services.

There is an aspect of the Digital Markets Act that would require Apple to allow developers to install third-party payment systems within their apps, and Apple has not yet "made a final decision" on whether it will comply with the rule. Apple is also undecided on how the Messages app might be made available to third-party services, as the DMA requires interoperability between messaging platforms.

Apple has to comply with the Digital Markets Act because the European Union can fine a company as much as 20 percent of its global revenue if the laws are violated. If Apple does not implement the changes, fines could be as high as $80 billion.

In addition to resulting in major changes to the App Store and other Apple services, European legislation is also pushing Apple to adopt USB-C across all of its devices, a change that will be made in 2023.

Article Link: Apple Working to Add Support for Sideloading and Alternate App Stores in Europe
If apple was smart, they would not offer next years iPhone to the EU. I think the EU would be changing the law quickly...

And if the EU undoes the law, that will hopefully stop the US form making such laws.
 
Not what I said.
Currently there are three (basically) types of APIs for iOS apps:
1. Apple core - only Apple has access to these
2. Apple public - these are the APIs that allows dev access
3. Personal APIs - not developed by Apple and as far as I know will disqualify an app today

At this time ”there is nothing showing that Apple will intentionally limit APIs used”.
If Apple limits API access/use it could … basically the gatekeeper forcing the same rules as the app currently has for use. Potentially restrictive behavior.

Currently we don’t know what Apple is going to actually do.
Not sure you understand how the whole "API" thingy works tho. This is the first I've read about personal APIs when discussing iOS, or for any OS for that matter. Do you mean private APIs?

Just so you know, nobody except for Apple's OS development team can provide OS level APIs. Any other SDK APIs must in turn make use of OS level APIs that's exposed by Apple's OS development team. Nobody can provide APIs that affect system level operations other than Apple's OS development team.

As far as I know, there is no mechanism in iOS/iPad OS/tvOS/macOS that will stop anyone from using any APIs that is available within the OS. If Apple publishes the API details, it is meant for public consumption, otherwise it is meant strictly for use internally by Apple's development team, for whatever reasons. Apple is not stopping anyone from developing APIs for their SDKs.

Take for example the Unreal game engine for iOS, which have tons of APIs and frameworks that game developers uses. I guess these are your example of personal APIs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
If apple was smart, they would not offer next years iPhone to the EU. I think the EU would be changing the law quickly...

And if the EU undoes the law, that will hopefully stop the US form making such laws.
Thankfully, Apple is not as spiteful as some of the Apple bashers posting in this thread. They are in the business of making money.

Tho. when push comes to shove, when the risks of doing business in the EU outweigh the benefits, such that Apple no longer can profit from the EU market, you can be sure the Apple will pull out. I don't see that happening tho.

Apple is lead by smart and rational folks. They will find a solution whatever comes their way. That I'm sure of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AiPone12mini
If it’s a question about losing billions and killing their reputation?
You can sideload on Macs - and the platform’s reputation is fine.
You can also use shady third-party app stores on iPhones today and mess up your device - yet the iPhone’s reputation is fine.

Dropping out of Europe is a guaranteed way to lose billions in revenue and earnings every year.
And developer support from European developers probably too, over the longer term.

Whereas analysts seem to anticipate only little impact on Apple overall.
Sometimes you have to suck it up with your losses.
Sometime you have to suck it up and comply with local laws.
If apple was smart, they would not offer next years iPhone to the EU. I think the EU would be changing the law quickly...
Don‘t think so. I think they EU, as political entity, would rather make it a point of sticking with their decision - rather than show the whole world how susceptible to blackmail by billion dollar corporations they are.

Edit:
Keep in mind that it wouldn’t anything with regards to the law. If they still operate the App Store, they‘re still covered as a gatekeeper.

Also, if Apple reall did and withhold the newest iPhone from Europe the iPhone, I think chances are that it will create a big public ********* …err public backlash (really!?). But I really, really wouldn‘t count the public on siding with Apple and against the EU on this one.

We‘re more or less fan(boy)s for Apple and their products. But outside of small bubbles like this forum, large parts of the public and the mainstream media will probably brand Apple as the very worst and most evil among tech companies for thinking they’re above democratic legislation and blackmailing the EU to change its law.

The EU is not America and publicly supporting Apple and buying their products isn’t a patriotic thing there. There’s already enough ill will against Apple for their supposedly shady tax deals in Ireland.
 
Last edited:
You can sideload on Macs - and the platform’s reputation is fine.
The number of macs pale in comparison to the number of iphones.
You can also use shady third-party app stores on iPhones today and mess up your device - yet the iPhone’s reputation is fine.
You can use corporate app stores that require a certificate and an application.
Dropping out of Europe is a guaranteed way to lose billions in revenue and earnings every year.
And developer support from European developers probably too, over the longer term.

Whereas analysts seem to anticipate only little impact on Apple overall.

Sometime you have to suck it up and comply with local laws.

Don‘t think so. I think they EU, as political entity, would rather make it a point of sticking with their decision - rather than show the whole world how susceptible to blackmail by billion dollar corporations they are.

Edit:
Keep in mind that it wouldn’t anything with regards to the law. If they still operate the App Store, they‘re still covered as a gatekeeper.

Also, if Apple indeed did and withhold the newest iPhone from Europe the iPhone, I think chances are that it will create a big public ********* …err public backlash (really!?). But I really, really wouldn‘t count the public on siding with Apple and against the EU on this one.

We‘re more or less fan(boy)s for Apple and their products. But outside of small bubbles like this forum, large parts of the public and the mainstream media will probably brand Apple as the very worst and most evil among tech companies for thinking they’re above democratic legislation and blackmailing the EU to change its law.

The EU is not America and publicly supporting Apple and buying their products isn’t a patriotic thing there. There’s already enough ill will against Apple for their supposedly shady tax deals in Ireland.
I think the discussion of the above has gone around and around in various other threads.
 
Not sure you understand how the whole "API" thingy works tho. This is the first I've read about personal APIs when discussing iOS, or for any OS for that matter. Do you mean private APIs?

Just so you know, nobody except for Apple's OS development team can provide OS level APIs. Any other SDK APIs must in turn make use of OS level APIs that's exposed by Apple's OS development team. Nobody can provide APIs that affect system level operations other than Apple's OS development team.

As far as I know, there is no mechanism in iOS/iPad OS/tvOS/macOS that will stop anyone from using any APIs that is available within the OS. If Apple publishes the API details, it is meant for public consumption, otherwise it is meant strictly for use internally by Apple's development team, for whatever reasons. Apple is not stopping anyone from developing APIs for their SDKs.

Take for example the Unreal game engine for iOS, which have tons of APIs and frameworks that game developers uses. I guess these are your example of personal APIs?

Yes. I had a brain fart and couldn’t think of the actual type name.
Thx!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: quarkysg
The EU haven't asked Apple for a cut of their profits either. You seem to have invented that.
And they won’t as long as Apple does what’s needed to be the only two smartphone OS’s EVER to be offered in the region. Fact still remains, though, China did not ask Apple to fundamentally change how they do business OR get charged 10% of worldwide profits in fees… profits made outside the country. China said, “remove some apps” Apple did it. If the EU had said “remove some apps” then we’d be talking about same/same. But the EU is asking for far more than China ever did.

And China, being the region second to the US in profits, has far more leverage than the EU.
 
i must say, I’m usually on apple's side with this.. I don’t want the android feel on my iPhone. but on the other side, I also find it very frustrating when apple blocks services that a lot customers actually want just because they want their share cut from it, so yeah id sure be happy to see services such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, GForce Now native apps installable on my apple devices. I hope this includes opening up tvOS too.
 
Precisely. China main goal is control. The EU’s main goal is money. Couldn’t have put it better!
I will argue that the EU came up with the DMA less for the money, and more to prop up their own homegrown companies. However you look at it, the smartphone market is currently an android / iOS duopoly in the hands of two American companies, which the EU has little sway over. Short of coming up with their smartphone OS, the next best alternative is to poke holes in the iOS walled garden and allow competitors to better leverage the platform as they deem fit.

It's less about benefiting the consumers and small developers (which is why I am amused that there are so many people cheering this on, but then again, I suspect they will applaud anything that makes Apple look bad), and more about looking after the Spotifys of the world.

This is why while I feel that the DMA is one of the most absurd pieces of tech regulation / legislation to have existed, I also understand why the EU came up with it. It's protectionism, plain and simple, and were I an official in the EU government, I believe I would probably have done the same thing.
 
I will argue that the EU came up with the DMA less for the money, and more to prop up their own homegrown companies. However you look at it, the smartphone market is currently an android / iOS duopoly in the hands of two American companies, which the EU has little sway over. Short of coming up with their smartphone OS, the next best alternative is to poke holes in the iOS walled garden and allow competitors to better leverage the platform as they deem fit.

It's less about benefiting the consumers and small developers (which is why I am amused that there are so many people cheering this on, but then again, I suspect they will applaud anything that makes Apple look bad), and more about looking after the Spotifys of the world.

This is why while I feel that the DMA is one of the most absurd pieces of tech regulation / legislation to have existed, I also understand why the EU came up with it. It's protectionism, plain and simple, and were I an official in the EU government, I believe I would probably have done the same thing.
I don't think so tho. I think it's always about the money. It was Microsoft then. Now it is Apple's turn, and Apple is a much much bigger fish now compared to Microsoft then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I don't think so tho. I think it's always about the money. It was Microsoft then. Now it is Apple's turn, and Apple is a much much bigger fish now compared to Microsoft then.
If they wanted the money, they would have sued, pushed the taxes bills to close current loopholes, or outright introduced 'fees.' This is, as @Abazigal suggests, more about protectionism and enforcement of anti-competitive practices —the push for a 'level-playing field' actually goes beyond American vs European companies. The EC has taken similar steps for state-owned monopolies or even ones by European companies. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) actually targets Swedish Spotify and Dutch Booking.com as 'potential gatekeepers' in their sectors.

In the case of the DMA, like the Digital Service Act (DSA), the Act only covers platforms with more than 45 million European users. The 10% global turnover fine is—as the name suggests—a fine, i.e. you only get it if you do not comply. The idea of a global turnover is because the GDPR failed with its fine model; for example, Facebook got multiple fines from local regulators (GDPR is implemented and enforced at a country level) which always proved to be less than a day of earnings. In other words, GDPR does not have enough 'teeth' to deter its violation by certain companies. This is why both the DMA and DSA share the same fee structure.

Having said the above, the original Macrumor article is not because 'Apple is a gatekeeper.' The DMA includes the 'Device Neutrality Law' which requires any device manufacturer to follow certain requirements. Bigger losers are Google and Samsung as the new law requires them to allow users to uninstall any bloatware. You can read more about it here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3864972
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) actually targets Swedish Spotify and Dutch Booking.com as 'potential gatekeepers' in their sectors.
You sure? One of the requirement for DMA is yearly revenue and market cap. Doesn’t look like Spotify qualifies.

Well, it’s up to an individual to draw their conclusions, so I guess, let’s see?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.