Yes. iOS engineers are having to write significant code to enable the DMA, which is being handwaved away as “no big deal.” I’m pointing out it is a big deal.
Apple is using Airdrop to differentiate its products from the competition - one of the selling points of buying all Apple hardware is access to Airdrop. The EU is requiring Apple give that advantage to its competitors. Otherwise known as giving Apple’s IP away.
The comical part is that they are the ones boycotting IOS and Android, not the other way around.
Again sometimes it’s important to take a step back and look at the big picture instead of the bushes. 80 to 90% of the post have nothing to do with what Epic and Tencent really want. It’s not about money, it’s clearly not about making things cheaper, it’s not about choice.
It’s all about having direct asses to your phone, they want you to use their store, they want you to follow their rules. They are state sponsored, thats why the primary goal is not profit, they lose billions each year they are out of the iOS store, they dont care about the money, they want access direct asses to you, your phone by making you use their store and follow their terms and conditions.
I will say—I agree with what the EU is doing but I actually disagree with their reasons. To me, the idea that a phone is ultimately owned by the phone manufacturer, and not the individual consumer, is extremely dangerous to democracy and free society at large. A prime example is what happened when China asked Apple to pull the Hong Kong protester safety app.
No one company should be able to control what everyone else is able to do with their phones, just because some government they want to appease wants to stop an inconvenient political movement.
Apple's approach does increase security, but the risk isn't worth it. It makes it too easy to take away people's individual freedom.
It MY Nintendo Switch, or PS5. Or Xbox. But if I mod it or jailbreak it I can get banned. And they aren’t forced to instruct me how to mod it. It’s how these products work.
It MY Nintendo Switch, or PS5. Or Xbox. But if I mod it or jailbreak it I can get banned. And they aren’t forced to instruct me how to mod it. It’s how these products work.
I wish game consoles were open too, but I don't care as much because absolutely no one uses a Nintendo Switch as their primary or only computer. So it's not as major a freedom of speech concern.
A classic example when the vocal minority makes so much noise that a problem feels like a devastating global problem. When in reality no one really cares and doesn't have any effect on regular people. lol.
Since this whole EU thing, has any subscription prices gone down? I know there's still fees and limitations, but all these companies talking about how they're forced to charge higher prices, will never lower their prices even if it was free.They would continue to go up. As a consumer at this point I don't care. I'll never say poor Apple, but its so crazy to see these platforms that owe the iPhone their entire company, and themselves have stores that charge other companies a percentage complain how unfair things are.
The fact that Apple thinks they have a right to charge customers $ because they built the device is as ludicrous as Google saying every purchase you make on Amazon.com they should get a cut because they built the browser.
Do you think it cost Apple money to download Mac Apps from the web?
Do you think it cost Apple money to go to Macrumors.com?
Apple does try to charge every Mac developer through their $100/year notarized fee, but that is a self-inflicted cost only as a control grab in the vanity of "security."
If I gave you a link to an App right now, for you to download, that costs Apple 0. 0. 0.
The fact that Apple thinks they have a right to charge customers $ because they built the device is as ludicrous as Google saying every purchase you make on Amazon.com they should get a cut because they built the browser.
They do have a right to charge customers, not because they build the device, but because they built and maintain the operating system and APIs that allow the app to function.
Well, I assume they have to pay an ISP of some type, but for all intents and purposes, no, it doesn't cost them money. Not sure what that has to do with charging for apps though.
Apple does try to charge every Mac developer through their $100/year notarized fee, but that is a self-inflicted cost only as a control grab in the vanity of "security."
Again, the OS, APIs, developer tools and resources don't cost Apple $0.00. They're perfectly within their rights to ask for compensation for those costs in whatever way they see fit. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy/develop for an Apple device.
Rewrite history much? Boycott is a voluntary action. Anyone can easily look up history to see...
Eviction. By the lone gatekeeper to the ONE iOS store... which- through objective eyes- can be cast as the "landlord" seeking to protect & maintain a very lucrative cash stream vs. taking the action for some collective good.
Again sometimes it’s important to take a step back and look at the big picture instead of the bushes. 80 to 90% of the post have nothing to do with what Epic and Tencent really want. It’s not about money, it’s clearly not about making things cheaper, it’s not about choice.
There is no customer "choice" in Company Store models. You pay what the one seller wants because there's nowhere else to get what you want to buy. Shop around for a better price? You can't do that.
If you want consumer choices, you have to have robust competition. Competition works FOR customer interests. No competition is exclusively for Seller interests.
And no, the very tired "choose android" is not any kind of choice for the hundreds of millions who have already sunk their money into an iPhone. Blaming fellow customers for choosing the wrong type of phone is only siding with the seller against consumer choices.
No, it's not all about direct access to our phones. It's about setting up a software buying model of consumer choice EXACTLY like the one that already exists for Macs... in which customers can readily source Apps from the Apple Mac Store or third party stores or in bundle deals or direct from developers. I don't see many people so passionately arguing for preserving the Company Store model arguing for the same harsh restrictions being applied to Mac app sourcing.
Nor do I see anyone calling Apple out for being so stupid to allow those very freedoms of choice on Mac and thus putting all of the "security risks" in full play for all Macs everywhere.
Apparently where Apple has chosen to have an "open" store & competition for Mac apps, that's good & fine and ideal. And where Apple wants to preserve a "closed" store with iDevices, that's the only right way apps should be sold & fulfilled.
If "open" can work fine with Macs- and it certainly does and has for decades- it can work just fine with iDevices. If Apple are able to support it working fine with Macs, Apple can support it working fine with iDevices.
The ONLY negative here is that the closed "Company Store" model is very lucrative for Apple and embracing their very same Mac way would cut into some of that very easy revenue. That's ALL this is about to Apple. All this other stuff like spinning security risks is just smoke screens to try to rationalize protecting one of many Apple cash cows.
If the Apple App Store is the very best for customers, a Mac-like "open" approach shouldn't change a thing. Customers should still choose to only buy from the "obviously superior in every way" Apple App Store if that's where they can get what is being sold for best price and the overall experience is the best experience.
But, as it always works when competition is introduced into any Company Store situation, competition tends to drive down prices and thus it's a less lucrative model for the Seller that used to completely own & rule a market.
I'm about 90% confident that Epic Games is NOT state sponsored. Else, I believe the typical definition of that term for you is very different than the mainstream definition.
The primary goal IS profit. As creators of their own apps, they want to pocket more of the money paid than having the Company Store taking the first big bite right off the top and then bites of IAP thereafter.
If the tables were turned and Apples opportunity to maximize profit was being hindered by someone else being in the role of Company Store "caretaker," I suspect this kind of take would be dramatically different. And, in fact, we see that because now a greater power- GOV- is putting some pinch on Apple maximizing their own profit. We're thoroughly rebelling against GOV doing this while simultaneously arguing Apple has every right to do that to all developers everywhere.
You are correct. This has been enormously costly for Epic.
It's also been a big loss for Apple customers, some of which would have enjoyed playing some Epic games on their iDevices over these years. When this eviction occurred, Fortnite was extremely popular. Because "Daddy" decided to evict Epic, customers wanting to enjoy Fortnite lost any opportunity to install it.
It would be fine if the eviction still offered other ways for interested customers to buy and install Epic apps, but as global "gatekeeper", Daddy's decision to evict locked any interested customer out of getting software they wanted.
I'm confident they DO care about the money. Both parties care about the money. Both want to make as much as possible. One actually creates the things to be sold. The other is simply a store through which such things can be sold. The first doesn't like how much the latter wants to take as their cut... but then has no other channel through which to sell their creations to iDevice customers who would like to buy them... BECAUSE the retailer has a complete lock on what can and cannot be purchased on iDevices.
Again, I suspect if the player (as retailer) was a different brand- such as Samsung or Google or similar- we would feel very differently about this topic. Our consumer lens seems easily clouded when Apple is on the wrong end of something like this. Some of us even seem to flip like "WE" are the sellers prioritizing all seller interests over and above what's actually best for our customers (the group in which we belong ourselves).
...so try subbing in Apple for "they" and re-read the sentence. Does Apple:
have direct access to you? Absolutely & Exclusively
and to your phone? Absolutely & Exclusively
making you use their- and only their- store? Absolutely & Exclusively
and following their terms & conditions? Absolutely & Exclusively
Why is it better because Apple currently is yes to all of that? Well, ummmmmm, we love Apple and hate Epic. And why do we hate Epic? Because Apple & Epic are at odds and we can only side with Apple in all things. And why are they at odds? Because Apple has the 4 bullets above in place with a complete lock on all of that and demands a big, first cut out of the creations of others... and a cut of additional revenue thereafter... OR ELSE!
Flip the players so that Apple would be on Epics end of such a situation and I strongly doubt we would be arguing that Apple is getting exactly what they deserve... that their "billions of losses" are deserved, etc.
I feel no particular love or like for Epic in this situation. I even offer they should have handled this in a different way. They have needlessly cost themselves a relative fortune for towards half a decade by crossing the God of iDevice app access. The wrath of that God has been harsh for their revenue & profit for many years now. The wrath of that God's flock piles right on as if they committed some great crime against iDevice consumers too.
I do envy our EU Apple friends for gaining the ability to shop around for apps they want to buy and at least having the potential to get and use the very same apps for LESS money than is possible by leaving a lone Company Store model in place. I live in the heralded "land of the free" and our EU Apple friends actually have more freedom as app consumers there. Congratulations EU Apple people.
The fact that Apple thinks they have a right to charge customers $ because they built the device is as ludicrous as Google saying every purchase you make on Amazon.com they should get a cut because they built the browser.
Apple has no rights to customer spending. Customers are completely free to not buy or use Apple products. It's interesting how often this has to be repeated.
It costs Apple to develop systems and security guards. It costs Apple to run their business. But if you don't like how Apple chooses to monetize their business, you have all the rights not to use Apple.
Keep arguing Timo and others. The law is set. Apple is complying. They choose to comply. The code to comply is done (likely towards a year ago since the law is coming up on a first anniversary). EU people get whatever pros & cons this law delivers. If it destroys them, I think we would know that by now. If they hate it, I think we would be hearing from them instead of people who do NOT live in the EU but take a very passionate stance about a law that doesn't even affect them at all.
This is over. We can write a million posts for or against this topic and it doesn't change a thing. Apple has already decided... to comply... and it all seems to be working just fine for EU people. When a lot of them show up ranting & raving about how bad this is, the easy remedy for them is to vote OUT those who put the law in place and replace them with those who would repeal it. I just do not observe many EU Apple people participating in these kinds of threads with negative comments. What I do see is them generally being IN FAVOR of the law, and attempting to explain why to non-EU people who can't demonstrate an ounce of empathy by getting in the shoes of those to which this law actually applies.
They are wasting their time- as I am by trying to see this objectively too- with people locked to only one viewpoint even if what they write has no effect on them because they don't even live within the EU.
The fact that Apple thinks they have a right to charge customers $ because they built the device is as ludicrous as Google saying every purchase you make on Amazon.com they should get a cut because they built the browser.
Do you think it cost Apple money to download Mac Apps from the web?
Do you think it cost Apple money to go to Macrumors.com?
Apple does try to charge every Mac developer through their $100/year notarized fee, but that is a self-inflicted cost only as a control grab in the vanity of "security."
If I gave you a link to an App right now, for you to download, that costs Apple 0. 0. 0.
You think building browsers is free? Chrome built a browser so people would be tied into their services where they do charge and collect information to sell to advertisers.
An no company is asking for a percentage of goods, but of subscriptions that use their payment system… which costs money.
I wish game consoles were open too, but I don't care as much because absolutely no one uses a Nintendo Switch as their primary or only computer. So it's not as major a freedom of speech concern.
iOS engineers are having to write significant code to enable the DMA, which is being handwaved away as “no big deal.” I’m pointing out it is a big deal.
Apple is using Airdrop to differentiate its products from the competition - one of the selling points of buying all Apple hardware is access to Airdrop. The EU is requiring Apple give that advantage to its competitors.
They can still have it require an iOS device.
As far as I can see, they do, since it requires certificates signed by Apple.
That said, AirDrop is simply a method of transmitting data between two devices. Apple also has had more than 10 years to differentiate their devices with it. It‘s good if consumers can enjoy such interoperability, and it‘s not beneficial if such functionality remains restricted to a certain platform.
developer tools and resources don't cost Apple $0.00. They're perfectly within their rights to ask for compensation for those costs in whatever way they see fit
Monopolists (or duopolists) are not. When they leverage their right to ask for compensation anticompetitively (particularly in „important“ and valuable markets), they will be regulated.
how much money does Epic Games give it's developers ?
Serious question.
if Epic Games is complaining about Apple taking a cut then Epic games should let developers publish games in Epic Games Store for free ?
i think it is fair.
"Destroy" is a hyperbolic term, of course. I think the longterm effects of this, how it plays out in other countries, and what the results are over 5 to 10 years are a more important metric.
If they hate it, I think we would be hearing from them instead of people who do NOT live in the EU but take a very passionate stance about a law that doesn't even affect them at all.
When a lot of them show up ranting & raving about how bad this is, the easy remedy for them is to vote OUT those who put the law in place and replace them with those who would repeal it.
This particular "fix" will not likely have dramatic effects on the average EU user. That has never been my point. In fact part of my point has always been that there will be so little direct effect that it was never worth the effort. But the problem is when Government begins to insert itself into non-monopolistic practices to tell business how they should operate, going after a core value of Apple that many of use like. It's the good old slippery-slope argument.
And you know that how? Gruber noted on a podcast last year that he was told that Apple has spent tens of millions of dollars and was even having trouble finding engineers to work on EU compliance projects because no one at Apple wants to work on that sort of thing - they want to be working on features that delight customer, not having to develop things like browser choice screens that make using the device worse.
Apple also has had more than 10 years to differentiate their devices with it. It‘s good if consumers can enjoy such interoperability, and it‘s not beneficial if such functionality remains restricted to a certain platform.
And under the DMA, if AirDrop didn't exist and introduced it as a brand new feature in iOS 19, they would be required to give it to competitors IMMEDIATELY - no differentiated allowed. Which is why the EU doesn't get iPhone screen sharing as a part of iOS 18, for example.
Monopolists (or duopolists) are not. When they leverage their right to ask for compensation anticompetitively (particularly in „important“ and valuable markets), they will be regulated.
25% of the market does not a monopolist make. Charging for tools and resources they spend considerable time and money creating is fully justified. Just because the EU hasn't seen a business-strangling regulation it didn't love doesn't mean they're right to do so.
"Destroy" is a hyperbolic term, of course. I think the longterm effects of this, how it plays out in other countries, and what the results are over 5 to 10 years are a more important metric.
Then before summation judgement, perhaps both sides should give it the 5 or 10 years and then judge. I'm open to that. And if it is a disaster in 5 or 10 years, I'm happy to alter my current best guess view of it back in 2025.
Yes. I join some of these threads to take the counterpoint vs. generally the same people- yourself consistently included- who take an extreme view against this law. Generally such people- I now presume you included- don't even live within the EU, so the law (likely) doesn't affect most of the "loudest" at all... as it doesn't apply to them.
Since other people read such threads too, I perceive it's good for them to see that not everyone sees this topic exactly the same way. Whether they appreciate that or not... or I'm just wasting time... I don't know.
And I hope our EU Apple friends who read such threads don't assume that the world at large can only see their own law one way. Not everyone is so extremely against. In fact, I personally envy their added freedoms in this way. I happily enjoy what they are able to do on iDevices with my Macs.
the problem is when Government begins to insert itself into non-monopolistic practices to tell business how they should operate, going after a core value of Apple that many of use like. It's the good old slippery-slope argument.
I can much more readily buy some of this particular point than much of the rest of what you've shared. I too wish the GOV was not involved in this matter. I (agree?) that Apple- if Apple was proactively motivated- could have come up with the best possible way to address this with solid tech intelligence. Unfortunately, very different motivations conflicted with proactive action... so the GOV felt it HAD to step in and reel this in before it went too far.
Yes, I know you feel different about that... but history shows this very sequence of events over and over again. None of the companies with any kind of lock on any market ever want to proactively encourage some competition... even if that might better serve their customers. It always takes GOVs stepping in as "last resort." And now those GOVs don't wait until it IS a monopoly, but take action well before that, so there is still some competition ready to step in and compete vs. having to recreate competition completely from scratch.
I seem to be able to put myself in EU Apple people's shoes and appreciate the intent of this law. What's in it for "me" (if I'm them)? How is this potentially better for "me"? I can answer such questions as if I am them.
How does gaining the ability to shop around potentially harm "me"? How does getting to choose where I might buy an app for my iDevice harm me? I have a harder time objectively coming up with answers to those questions.
I certainly know that more competition takes a little more revenue that might have been captured by Apple from Apple but this little piece of a much greater whole that is Apple will not even dent their success. It's not like their business depends on this one stream of easy cash.
Most of us seem to be blind to any such EU customer benefits or potential. Instead, the counter seems that this is entirely bad in every way for <reasons>. I could be moved more in that direction myself if I could see lots of EU Apple people coming out so passionately against this law. But I don't see much of that. I wonder why? Where are THEY- the Apple people actually impacted by this law? Last I checked there are about 449M people in the EU. Where is a good loud group of them bashing away at this law around here? Per your kind of takes, I can only assume that all of their Mac tech is now bricked by security failures from this law and thus they are unable to come here and let us know.
To the rest, this topic (to me) seems more MYOB... but some of us can't help ourselves and need to bash away at a law that does not even apply to wherever we live... as if it is somehow harms us directly.
It doesn't apply to where I am either, but I'm basically appreciating the law... showing our EU friends that not all of us can only see this thing one way.
And you know that how? Gruber noted on a podcast last year that he was told that Apple has spent tens of millions of dollars and was even having trouble finding engineers to work on EU compliance projects because no one at Apple wants to work on that sort of thing
Gruber is Apple’s unofficial spokesman and no independent journalist.
And no doubt “compliance projects” are a euphemism for erecting more technological barriers, restriction, gates etc. to make it as difficult for third parties and their stores as financially unviable as possible.
I have basically no issue with them charging a justified fee.
Could be a “core technology fee” for developers.
What I take issue with:
Not charging a fee and giving away their tools and resources for free to “most”, in order to establish and maintain monopoly power as economic infrastructure - and then leveraging that to extract monopoly rent from a subset of third parties that depend on your economic infrastructure.
Case in point: giving away their services to Meta, Uber, Doordash, banking and transport apps for free
Then charging only the ones that deliver their services “digitally”.
And, on top of that, unfairly compete with them on related markets (e.g. streaming).
And apple shouldn’t have to give anything away for free. The model where regulation nationalizations tech assets so competitors get their assets for free and can then make a profit off of someone else’s back is not sustainable in the long term.
Gruber is Apple’s unofficial spokesman and no independent journalist.
And no doubt “compliance projects” are a euphemism for erecting more technological barriers, restriction, gates etc. to make it as difficult for third parties and their stores as financially unviable as possible.
What I take issue with:
Not charging a fee and giving away their tools and resources for free to “most”, in order to establish and maintain monopoly power - and then leveraging that to extract monopoly rent from a subset of third parties that depend on you.
