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.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When the UK was part of the EU, they were one of the countries pushing this issue the hardest.
This ruling might not apply to the UK, but that doesn't make the UK a friendly place for Apple.
How do you know that for a fact? The cost of loss revenue, possible loss of Brand image, etc.
You said:
Oh, so that answer, then, is that “The number of users that use that ‘company phone to company phone’ method will be small? And, have virtually no impact whatsoever on how people use their phones? I don’t think the answer to “Then what?” is as horrible as you’re trying to make it sound.
Actually, with the direction that the UK is going in regarding USB-C, I wouldn’t count on them not being friendly. Even though they may be doing it just to be contrary to the EU, contrary to the EU would be friendly to Apple in this case.
WHAT? Does any Microsoft OS come without a browser? I'm guessing they do in the EU.
I believe these metrics would be data like: overall downloads, percentage of users by country etc, not any personal data. In general the EU has much stricter law about the protection of personal data than the US does. Looking at GDPR.
Again it depends. Right now they are going after iOS/iPhone/AppStore. Removing just those items from the EU in the form of any direct sales. Doesn't prevent them from selling Mac's/macOS. They "could" still support the older (before the new rules take affect) iPhones/iOS/iPad. Heck they could continue to sell them (in my opinion). Just as it was before the law. Since the EU wants Apple to pretty much upend their whole ecosystem here. They "could" agree to do so, or they "could" say we don't want to continue selling said devices/OS's. We will support what is there for the terms we agreed to, and for as long as we can source the parts to continue providing said support.
I think that, with a combination of simply selling way less of those devices to keep them under "gatekeeper" status. Could work while they fight it out in the courts. And if that ultimately failed, then you just live with less or leave and find new places to sell.
Once they have free reign of the hardware, how many stores do you think will go back to blocking Apple Pay and requiring you to use their own app to pay for stuff in their stores?
And how many of them will use gps and other NFC tags to track not just your sales, but your movements? A LOT of them, is the answer.
And yeah, great, let’s make messaging apps act like email, the spam wonderlands that they are. Don’t want Facebook messeges now? Easy. Don’t install Facebook. After this? Tough luck, it’s not up to you anymore.
These rules will enable companies to invade our phones, track and abuse us more than ever before.
They’re wonderful for companies. They are a nightmare for consumers who value privacy and having control over what they allow on their OWN phones
It is the exact opposite of “more choices” that people keep saying.
Yep, 100% agree, it’s for companies and not for the people… the only things EU does for its people is introduce more legislature and increase taxes, and they’re great at inventing taxes…
Well, I mean if it was truly stricter, there wouldn’t be any sharing of data at all. It just takes a clever algorithm and someone with the desire, to go through a mass of data and, from that heap, find which individual downloaded which apps. And purchased which IAP’s.
It feels like an attempt to undo a bit of GDPR, really.
...the same number that already block Apple Pay and require you to use a credit card? (Increasingly few.)
People will still prefer Apple Pay, partly because of the privacy it offers.
Apple can still require apps to disclose this usage, similar to how apps on macOS need to request access to your camera and microphone.
By the way, stores can already track you via BTLE, which is actually better for this use case because it doesn't require line of site.
How does restricting iMessage to Apple devices make spam more difficult? Spammers are perfectly capable of buying Macs and iPhones. (And I do get iMessage spam already.)
How can Apple require this on side loaded apps? The rules also force them to give full access to hardware.
I am not going to read all the comments, but how can it be a "secure enclave" if every developer has access to it. So much of this is just dumb overreach.
Last edited:
There has been plenty of competition thet failed to survive - including from Microsoft and the once almighty (in the mobile device space) Palm and even Blackberry. Who is going to realistically put up more competition than they were able to?
And charge significantly more for it because of all the changes they will have to make.
I think you just accidentally stumbled onto why this is asinine. At this point, it really is just email.
I do when I'm on my Mac
Yes, you can. And she can even be used with the wake word while the screen is off. On iOS the wakeword only works when the screen is on.
Again: there was a lot more competition out there and they chose to drop out. What should Apple and others do, make fake subsidiaries to give the illusion of "competition"?
Nitrokey has the Nitrophone, Purism that the Librem, and there are other Linux-based phones that a very niche market will buy.
Oh, they did sneak in a golden key by requiring that developers get full access to the no-longer-secure enclave.
*Ties the laces of a well-worn pair of dancing shoes.*
*Walks to the freshly filled grave of Apple's AppStore business model.*
*Notes the dampness from salty tears of "Apple can't be regulated, because they don't have a monopoly on Smartphones" fanbois, which will ensure no grass ever grows on the newly-turned earth.*
*Dances the "I Told You So" Boogie.*
*Walks to the freshly filled grave of Apple's AppStore business model.*
*Notes the dampness from salty tears of "Apple can't be regulated, because they don't have a monopoly on Smartphones" fanbois, which will ensure no grass ever grows on the newly-turned earth.*
*Dances the "I Told You So" Boogie.*
That question could be asked about pretty much any company viewed as being a monopoly, having monopoly power, etc.
Being a monopoly or part of duopoly is not itself illegal but companies that dominate an industry understandably face more scrutiny regarding business activities and potential anticompetitive behavior. A company is free to operate as a monopoly, part of a duopoly, etc. as long as they don't violate antitrust laws as determined by regulators in the region(s) they do business.