You're satirising the anti-EU Apple fanbois? It's sometimes hard to separate genuine opinion from parody on this forum.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.
- Thread starter Sophisticatednut
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
You're satirising the anti-EU Apple fanbois? It's sometimes hard to separate genuine opinion from parody on this forum.
Apple are masters at passive-aggressively dragging their feet over stuff like this. Their Windows integration gives me the same vibes - technically supported, but janky enough to put you off. Stuff that would receive loving care on the Mac is half-assed on Windows, in a bid to make you just give up and embrace the walled garden.
No, I'm satirizing the EU for its interference in the free market in an obvious attempt to slant the playing field towards EU companies. There's no difference between complaining that Apple doesn't make it easy to use other computer hardware and software and complaining that Apple wouldn't make it easy to use engines and other automotive hardware and software from EU manufacturers in their cars.
Last edited:
Yet the DoJ in the US is also accusing Apple of being a monopoly, so it clearly isn’t just sour grapes on the part of the EU.
That the EU hasn’t interfered with cars in the way you parody only demonstrates that this is specifically about digital gatekeepers like Apple, Google and Microsoft, and not a wider anti-US policy.
What complexity? Click install. If you haven't approved it before, approve it in Settings, and then click install again.
Seems reasonable to me. Similar to installing an unsigned app on the Mac.
Guess maybe I am spoiled by the alt store design in Android.
At this point I am going to watch what the end result for the Apple “solution”, like I am, and pass on the info. Good and bad.
The DoJ is full of crap also. These are bureaucrats responding to pressure from other players in the market who want government assistance to tilt the playing field. No one is stopping people from switching from Apple phones to any other manufacturer. DoJ's credibility is seriously undermined when Merrick Garland says with a serious look on his face that presenting non-encrypted text in green is anti-competitive.
The DoJ would do better to address real problems created by real mono/oligopolistic companies like corporate agribusiness, big pharma, and the grocery business. While food deserts exist in poor communities, the impoverished are charged higher prices for food, and people cannot afford life-saving medicine that is affordably available in other countries, it is immoral for the DoJ to spend so much effort trying to tilt the playing field to putatively lower the cost of things affluent people buy.
Emphasis was added by me.
That statement right there shows you do not understand the point the DOJ and AG’s are trying to make - right or wrong.
Keep in mind the DOJ is not a one item pony show. It would be of little surprise that there are groups within the DOJ that are looking at all you mentioned plus many more.
I understand completely. People are starving and dying due to anti-competitive practices in the food and drug arena. That problem has been getting worse for decades starting with Nixon changing healthcare into for-profit businesses. The time to act was in the 1980s or 1990s.
Instead, the DOJ is now acting on a recent “problem” in which affluent people might wind up paying a little more for their high-end luxury. You can have all the faith you want that the DOJ has been looking into REAL oligopolies. They are already at least 30 years late in acting. Thank goodness smug well-fed affluent people with first-world problems are being placated first. Of course, that’s because affluent people lobby and vote. Poor people? Well, they just die if you ignore them long enough.
Whataboutism aside, if it wasn’t for the DoJ’s earlier anti-trust case against Microsoft, Apple probably wouldn't exist.
Apple make some great products and have a tight ecosystem, but like any corporation, are obligated to maximise profits for their shareholders. They won’t - and can’t - always do the right thing by their customers, and will simply seek to avoid competition wherever they can. If implemented correctly, legislation helps companies be the best version of themselves.
Many iOS users are excited by the prospect of alternative app stores / are dismayed that only EU customers are benefitting (for now). Apple are clearly concerned their US customers will demand the same, hence the sudden acts of largess, such as the U-turn on banning console emulators.
Whataboutism? I didn’t say Apple should be able to do what they do because others get away with it also. I said the DOJ is wrong and is ignoring REAL life and death problems caused by REAL anti-competitive behavior.
A local resident where I live recently lost their legs due to complications of diabetes because she couldn’t afford insulin that is cheaply available in other countries. Other people have lost their lives. Children starve and have permanent health and educational disadvantages because of lack of access to affordable medicine and food. These are the costs of real anti-competitive behavior.
Frankly, trying to equate cheaper apps for affluent people with access to food and medicine is morally repugnant.
You're the one doing it. Frankly, bringing starving children and people losing limbs to diabetes into a discussion about iPhone app stores is just an appeal to emotion, rather than staying on topic.
Ah… pointing that the DOJ is wrong about Apple and anti-competitive behavior and bringing up examples of real anti-competitive industries and the dire life and death consequences is an equation of the two and an appeal to emotion. Hint: It is showing that real anti-competitive behavior is NOT comparable to what the DOJ is alleging is anti-competitive behavior on Apple’s part. You are woefully wrong, but that’s okay. I won’t make the mistake of taking you seriously again.
Is a valid opinion.
You got it.
Just make your case with respect to the smartphone market. Your point about the DoJ being inconsistent or even corrupt is fair enough. But you're overplaying your hand by claiming it's 'morally repugnant' to criticise Apple's business practices, just because more serious problems exist in society.
----
Apple is in a bit of a quandary with respect to the EU. They'd surely love EU users of alternative app stores to have problems with spyware and viruses, justifying Apple's general locked-down stance. But on the other hand, that wouldn't be a good look for iOS security, so Apple are forced to create a safe implementation. But then customers in other markets, particularly the US, will look at EU users enjoying greater freedoms without any apparent downsides, and understandably want that for themselves. To diffuse some of that pressure, Apple are now making concessions they've always flatly refused to entertain before. As a customer, rather than shareholder, I'm all for it.
It is interesting following Mysk on X as he works through the alternate store functionality in iOS for the EU.
Good, bad, or “say what?”, it is interesting to see just what Apple is doing. And just how different than what Apple “says” is going to happen.
Good, bad, or “say what?”, it is interesting to see just what Apple is doing. And just how different than what Apple “says” is going to happen.
This is a bit concerning especially for family plan folks or people with multiple devices.
Privacy and security has been a big Apple complaint
Then they have this...
Then they have this...
Apple doesn't want to do alternative marketplaces because of privacy and security issues. People claim they are lying. Governments force Apple to allow alternative marketplaces. People blame Apple for privacy and security issues with alternative marketplaces.
Sure.
Among other reasons.
Lying is a strong word. They can certainly be expected to advance an argument that furthers their corporate objectives.
Plenty of Apple users are on board too.
Yes, because the implementation is 100% Apple's. Or are you arguing that there's no possible way to implement alternative app stores without leaking data in such a way that users can be tracked? FWIW, the iOS version of Brave seems to have managed it.
I'm not commenting on the specific problem here, but additional privacy and security issues are certainly inevitable. Especially in the near term while they try to meet arbitrary deadlines and changing EU interpretations of the requirements..