Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's simply part of being a company that happens to have a dominant position in a market or markets. It's ultimately up to regulators and courts to decide if a "dominant" company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior and what actions, if any, need to be taken to try to bring more balance, fairness, etc. to the market(s) in question. These are reasons why countries/regions have antitrust laws and regulations.

Well, in this instance, there has been no decisions by any court that determined iOS or Android are guilty of anything. This commission just went ahead and came up with a set of rules to destroy iOS.
 
Once these regulations are put into effect... we're still gonna be stuck with two "dominant" mobile platforms.

I don't think we will ever see a third platform again... either a new contender altogether... or players like Palm or Blackberry rising from the ashes.

And if some developers feel cheated by high commission fees... I hope for their sake they don't experience rampant piracy. It's better to get 70% of something than 0% of nothing.

And I also hope that encryption isn't compromised either with the whole messaging thing. It's one thing when a single company handles encryption end to end.

But it's another thing when any ol' jagoff can write a messaging app and demand that they have "equal access because of app fairness"

That whole language about "access to secure elements" is kinda terrifying too.

I'm trusting you couple of members in here that it will be alright.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: pastrychef
Once these regulations are put into effect... we're still gonna be stuck with two "dominant" mobile platforms.

I don't think we will ever see a third platform again... either a new contender altogether... or players like Palm or Blackberry rising from the ashes.

And if some developers feel cheated by high commission fees... I hope for their sake they don't experience rampant piracy. It's better to get 70% of something than 0% of nothing.

And I also hope that encryption isn't compromised either with the whole messaging thing. It's one thing when a single company handles encryption end to end.

But it's another thing when any ol' jagoff can write a messaging app and demand that they have access to all our data.

That whole language about "access to secure elements" is kinda terrifying too.

I'm trusting you couple of members in here that it will be alright.

I almost feel that it might be better to amputate the legs and save the life than leaving the legs intact to infect the rest of the body...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
Not happy about this but I think a way can be found to implement it. Regular App store stays as is, all the apps with new features only available through sideload. Massive warning screens and warranty void if you open up to sideload.
 
I welcome these regulations because we need to try something. I hope they also introduce regulationsns to keep our right not to be overruled by algorithms, like some sort of right to be "chronological".

Apple will probably need to make it clear that you will void your warranty if you sideload, loose access to Secure Enclave features, loose access to upgrades, etc. There's a lot they can do to demote sideloading wishes. It will be good to be able to use chrome to access websites, since some of them just don't work in safari.

I know some of the regulations seems like overstretch, but I am looking forward to be able to use iMessage to read Whatsapp msgs... Meta absolutely dominates communications in my country.
This is as dumb as it gets! This is not going to end well!
 
Not happy about this but I think a way can be found to implement it. Regular App store stays as is, all the apps with new features only available through sideload. Massive warning screens and warranty void if you open up to sideload.


I wonder if the following can allow Apple to circumvent this insanity:

  • Do not "sell" iPhones in the EU.
  • Only offer them for "lease".
  • Since the customers don't "own" the product, Apple can only dictate what the customers can do to their "leased" devices.
 
It's pretty clear this isn't about trying to undermine Apple and Google to boost European competitors (although that would be nice), but rather about curbing the vast power and reach tech platforms enjoy as a simple byproduct of the network effects of their businesses.

Now, whether or not the EU's laws and regulations are the right ones is up for debate (and personally, I have some major doubts about them).
This is a desperate cash grab, end of!
 
The idea is that third party apps need to be allowed to use NFC for their apps (like their banking aps) and not just use Apple Pay, not that Tinder is going to listen to you in your sleep.
The idea is to weaken security and privacy on the iPhone. I promise you all wether you like it or not that if this dumb move goes ahead then it will result in the world's criminals and hackers having a party and thinking all their Christmas's have come early.
I have known the EU do some dumb **** but this takes the biscuit!
They make Trump look like Einstein!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pastrychef
Forcing interoperability between messaging platforms it's actually a good thing.

I can finally start using iMessage and use Messages to chat with my whatsapp contacts, and delete whatsapp...
Actually it is dumb and stupid! What's wrong with you using WhatsApp to read WhatsApp messages? Are you THAT lazy or something?
There is a reason people with functioning brains tend not to want one single app that contains all their bank accounts and credit card details....I wonder what it could be 🤔!
 
Why? The standard is already there, RCS. If every app must comply to RCS, you have interoperability. Of course iMessage would have exclusive and richer features, but at least some of them like read receipt, groups, file sharing... are supported
it WILL WILL WILL I repeat WILL be a total giant awful mess! I can see the security mess from here!
I am not the smartest around but when it comes down to seeing the loopholes in systems I am extremely good at it!
I can then tell you that I can see multiple ways that criminals and hackers will use to absolutely wreck havoc on unsuspecting users!
Dumb dumb dumb move EU!
 
...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.

People will prefer Apple Pay, sure, but if you don't think companies will take advantage of new opportunities to block it, you're crazy. Why wouldn't companies take advantage of a new opportunity?

Apple can still require apps to disclose this usage, similar to how apps on macOS need to request access to your camera and microphone.

How? How can they require something if side-loading and full hardware access are required? By asking nicely? You use the word "require" when there's no basis for it. Apple will have no ability to require anything.

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.)

It's not about restricting iMessage to Apple devices. It's about forcing me to accept Facebook or Snapchat messages when, right now, I can prevent that by not installing those apps. That choice will be removed from me, the consumer.
 
It's ultimately up to regulators and courts to decide if a "dominant" company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior and what actions, if any, need to be taken to try to bring more balance, fairness, etc. to the market(s) in question. These are reasons why countries/regions have antitrust laws and regulations.
Yes, and those regulators and courts are free to be entirely arbitrary in their determination of a “dominant” company, as they have in this case. For these most recent regulations, they’ve defined “being successful” as “engaging in anticompetitive behavior”. Which, yes, sometimes those two things go together. But sometimes, companies just make a thing that people want to buy or use, limitations, costs, lack of features and all, because they just prefer it.

Anticompetitive used to mean, say, telling developers if they develop for you they CAN’T develop for anyone else, OR buying out other smartphone makers and ceasing their operations, OR working with carriers in order to freeze out any phones that might be competition. You know, actually taking steps to be anti-competitive. “Anti-competitive” now is simply “being good at what you do to to the point where customers would prefer you”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef
I wish Americans would stop whining about the EU. You’re not in the EU so why do you care?
Because plenty of people in the EU will get hurt by this and maybe YOU do not care for anyone but yourself but plenty of us outside the EU care about other people.
So I wish EU people would stop complaining and demanding that we all bow down to them and their facist narrative!
 
And it‘s not as if the competition couldn’t come up with alternatives - they‘ve been locked out by Apple.
Developers are locked out of using Android phones to create pay alternatives by Apple? If that was the case that would TRULY be anti-competitive… if Apple was, in some way, in direct control of what developers could do on Android phones. Of course, if that were the case, maybe Apple would have a greater percentage of the market in the EU. As it is, they’re far less than 50% of the phones.

And, as a result, must be stopped?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.