Nope because this change doesn't "suppress the wants of others" since you're still free to use Safari and the App Store. You're the one advocating for no change at all.
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 EU Core Technology Fee Could Bankrupt Freemium App Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure it does. There were many who didn't want Apple to be forced open. It happened. Their wants were suppressed whether they use these features or not. Clearly though it's a waste of time trying to explain that to you, because don't want to see that side of it anyway. You got what YOU wanted even though you already had the choice of another platform that offers everything you want, so screw what everyone else wanted, right? The security and stability we had is now lessened, whether we use it or not, because the code has to allow it. Even though I keep my sliding door closed, that doesn't change the fact that it is another door capable of entering my house!
Yup, you got me. Hope this comes to the US so you can enjoy it too.
You can, and it's not on Apple. I can create software for iOS and give it to anybody worldwide without paying Apple a penny by simply posting its source code on GitHub.
Oh, but did you want me to link it with software I didn't create, and give away somebody else's copyrighted code? (Apple's libraries).
I’m sure they can, it’s just a different kind of plant material. Pretty weird to refer to Volcano users as tobacco users though just because they could do that, however due to its lack of relevance here, I digress.
They’re diminishing Apple’s ability to play content nanny with iOS specifically. Apple doesn’t have the required market power with those other OSs for the EU to see fit to do that.
Last edited:
I’m struggling to understand what point you think you’re proving. Apple’s market power with iOS triggered the requirement of the DMA that they offer alternative avenues for app installation. If Apple had already offered alternate avenues, they already would’ve been in compliance with the requirements. Please explain where there’s disagreement on this.
It clearly says that Apple's (current) practices are "unfair":
"The rules that a gatekeeper sets for the distribution of software applications can, in certain circumstances, restrict the ability of end users to install and effectively use third-party software applications or software application stores on hardware or operating systems of that gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access such software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions can limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair ..."
It's also a lot less than 30% or 15 - on apps that are often, at their core, very basic (e.g. music streaming apps).
So then why hasn't the EU banned such practices universally? The answer is, of course, because preferencing one's own business is wholly normal and completely legal in every single business in the EU, excepting 1; Apple. And even then, in only 1 branch of Apple's business: IOS.
This is a tool the EU is experimenting with to try to curb Apple's market dominance. I don't think it will work. But it's what the EU is trying. So be it.
But many on this thread are acting as though what the EU is setting out to do is to prohibit business from doing what Apple is doing. They aren't. This is a manufactured "fix" for the defined problem of Gatekeeper. If the Gatekeeper status went away, then so would the prohibition against denying 3rd Party App Stores; as evidenced by the same rule not applying to iPadOS, etc.
The goal of the EU is not to prevent businesses from such practices, the goal is to reign in market dominance. If the goal were to mandate free 3rd party access to software platforms, then the EU would have passed a law that said that.
(and that might snare operators like Spotify, who don't allow anyone else to use their platform).
Last edited:
Given how much of people's lives today runs on (or is managed by) mobile phones, how few software ecosystems there are them, and how many developers and businesses are relying on these ecosystems, they absolutely should have that right.
It's absolutely worth reining in the gatekeeping power, particularly of Apple and Google on this. Just as it would be on Microsoft in the desktop computing space (though their business practices aren't nearly as restrictive or anticompetitive).
If they obstinately remain non-compliant, fine these companies for their worldwide earnings, break them apart - whatever. I fully support governments doing to force them into compliance.
Last edited:
Are you under the impression that Apple was the only one deemed a gatekeeper? Because they absolutely were not. They had three piece of their business identified as needing to meet compliance, iOS, Safari, and the App Store.
Digital Markets Act: Commission designates six gatekeepers
The European Commission has today designated, for the first time, six gatekeepers, under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Here’s where you’re unequivocally wrong. This isn’t a tool to curb Apple’s market dominance. This is a tool to mitigate Apple’s market dominance. The EU isn’t trying to stop Apple from growing. They’re trying to make sure that because of their market dominance, there are some safeguards in place to protect other businesses and consumers.
Again wrong. The goal isn’t to rein in market dominance. It’s to make sure that market dominance can’t be used in unfair ways, as cited a few posts above. If the EU actually wanted to stop Apple from being a major market force, the DMA is a terribly weak way to go about it. But of course that’s not what its purpose is, nor is it the EU’s goal.
Last edited:
No, it's based on size:
- Company revenue in the EU
- Number of monthly end-users in the EU
- Number of business users in the EU
- Number of EU countries the company has those users in
- Market cap on the stock exchange (or equivalent market price for non-publicly traded companies)
The ‘if’ is company size, the ‘then’ is third-party app installation. Is that better for you?
The DMA is there to stop certain practises by big companies and big services. DMA doesn't limit anything otherwise. There is no limitations if you have let's say just 30 million monthly users and you make €6 billion in yearly revenue.
Um yeah, exactly, because the EU isn’t trying to prevent Apple’s or anyone else’s market dominance. They’re putting up safeguards so that their market dominance can’t be abused in an unfair manner. Glad we could agree on this.
This is my point. The "if" is the point. The "then" is just a tool.
"Self-prefencing" is not illegal, immoral, or any of the other terms that many on these threads have used to say that Apple is evil. I don't even read the DMA as saying Apple did anything wrong; just that the EU thinks it has reached a size where it is diminishing a competitive market. (I still don't get how a 27% market share qualifies them for that, but oh well).
If you and/or others think that the EU is prohibiting "self-preferencing" in business, the DMA is not about that. Apple did nothing wrong, under normal business circumstances. And to treat Apple as though they are evil for doing normal business practices, while turning a blind eye to those same practices in nearly every company in the world, is to misunderstand the DMA.
Yes, then we agree. So if you fail the IF-statement you don't have to abide by the then-statement. Agree?
So,
If Big_Company_or_Service Then
Must_support_third_party_install
Else
Disregard_DMA
Agree?
To me this is saying the practise DMA forbids is just because the companies or services they provide are big not because they're wrong or unethical at all times for all parties.
Then the logic would something like
If Company_or_Service_of_any_size Then
Must_support_third_party_install
Absolutely agree. And that is just sas true for the tens of thousands of developers using and offering apps for iOS (or Android, for that matter).
...but that is (with respect to mobile devices and their software ecosystems) not due to governments.
Apple themselves are acting like that totalitarian overlord.
Treating iOS as their fiefdom where they do what they want. Where they themselves are acting as quasi government and regulatory authority. Taxing developers. Regulating, interfering and bossing them around on even the smallest, minuscule aspects of their apps. Right down to what links can be put into apps. What wording can be used to inform customers that they can't purchase or subscribe to the very same service in-app that that app accesses. Let alone dictating the type of content that apps can contain. All in the name of "security" and "protection of the people".
I had to look up Storz & Bickel. The devices claim to be "suitable for dry herbs - Not suitable for tobacco, tobacco products or nicotine"
I'm guessing their users aren't filling them with oregano... LOL 😀
They literally said Apple’s practice of limiting third-party software installs was unfair, so there goes that point. Also, I don’t recall anyone saying anything about it being evil, but maybe that’s just you emotionalizing it.
Right, the EU doesn’t care if small companies with comparatively little market power, self-preference, and frankly neither do I. Why would I or the EU care if some company’s practices aren’t negatively impacting the broader markets? You seem to be under the impression that because we don’t like trillion dollar corporations self-preferencing (among other things), that we don’t like mom and pop Jenny’s Bakery self-preferencing. If Jenny’s Bakery takes over a sizable portion of the EU market, effecting tens of millions of consumers and many other businesses, let us know and maybe the EU can look into it. Otherwise, who cares.
Even if Apple supported third-party install, they would still be bound by the DMA. It doesn't matter what they did or didn't do before the DMA.
Google's Android supported both individual side-loading and alternative application stores. And yet, it also became a gatekeeper under the DMA.
But if iOS was smaller in the EU and Apple was a smaller company, they would't be bound by the DMA no matter what kind of support they had for side-loading or third-party application stores.
What we're arguing is that if Apple's behaviour is bad or unethical or anti-competitive, it should have been made illegal irregardless of Apple size as a company and the popularity of iOS.
Apparently, iPad OS wasn't designated as a gatekeeper even though it behaves exactly the same as iOS. Why? It didn't have enough monthly users in the EU.
I find it completely ironic that people here justify Apple's behavior because they "develop a platform".
I pay them for the phone hardware and software and I have a right to do with my hardware what I want.
If I want to run open source or any other software on *MY* device who is it for Apple to say I can't?
I wouldn't buy a laptop that constrained me to the vendor's app store and I won't buy a phone that does the same.
This is true unless you hold the view that Apple has rights to the device you paid for.
I will not use an iPhone until I can sideload.
I use Android because I can specifically sideload. I can run a local VPN and block ads in my browser.
Apple is not the victim here. Apple has evolved MacOS/iOS over the years but let's not forget modern MacOS was deived from NextStep that used a CMU Mach Micro Kernel. While apple has replaced all the code over time with Apple Code; Apple's modern underpinnings weren't even the idea of Apple.
Once again, I will not buy a computer that I don't own and until you can install apps that you you want on your device without an app store you don't own your device. I don't need an app store to install an application on my Android. I can copy the application to the storage and just install it.
There are security concerns, but they belong to me not my device vendor. I don't need to be protected from myself.
I can install what I want, when I want on my MacOS computer, Windows, Linux and to a large extent my Android phone.
For those that talk about their personal information on the phone? My laptop has years of tax returns, W2's, banking information, etc. So stop with the whole "Apple wants to protect your information".
What Apple wants is to protect it's predatory practices with it's app store.
That being said I have been an Apple share holder for for multiple decades. That does not mean I excuse all the corporate decisions.
I pay them for the phone hardware and software and I have a right to do with my hardware what I want.
If I want to run open source or any other software on *MY* device who is it for Apple to say I can't?
I wouldn't buy a laptop that constrained me to the vendor's app store and I won't buy a phone that does the same.
This is true unless you hold the view that Apple has rights to the device you paid for.
I will not use an iPhone until I can sideload.
I use Android because I can specifically sideload. I can run a local VPN and block ads in my browser.
Apple is not the victim here. Apple has evolved MacOS/iOS over the years but let's not forget modern MacOS was deived from NextStep that used a CMU Mach Micro Kernel. While apple has replaced all the code over time with Apple Code; Apple's modern underpinnings weren't even the idea of Apple.
Once again, I will not buy a computer that I don't own and until you can install apps that you you want on your device without an app store you don't own your device. I don't need an app store to install an application on my Android. I can copy the application to the storage and just install it.
There are security concerns, but they belong to me not my device vendor. I don't need to be protected from myself.
I can install what I want, when I want on my MacOS computer, Windows, Linux and to a large extent my Android phone.
For those that talk about their personal information on the phone? My laptop has years of tax returns, W2's, banking information, etc. So stop with the whole "Apple wants to protect your information".
What Apple wants is to protect it's predatory practices with it's app store.
That being said I have been an Apple share holder for for multiple decades. That does not mean I excuse all the corporate decisions.
Only ONCE they reached the point of being a "Gatekeeper." A point that didn't exist until they created the legislation defining a Gatekeeper. So, up until that point, Apple was operating just like every other business, using self-preferencing. I read the DMA to mean that going forward, it would be unfair of Apple to deny 3rd Party App Stores. Not that retroactively it was unfair of them to have done so. Where would that have been defined prior to the DMA?