Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don’t like Android and Google’s data collection but I like Apple very much. And sideloading or purchasing apps directly from developers.

So I currently have no “good” choice of OS.
I hopefully gain more choice by that legislation soon.

So I as a consumer will get more choice.
You will get a choice that was completely possible before but there wasn't demand for at the expense of a choice that there was demand for but is now impossible.

Do each of us get to have laws for the individual features we want mandated? That would save us a lot of trouble with this whole free market silliness. Rather than buy the things we want over the things we don't we can petition our government representatives to make detailed economic decisions on behalf of the consumer. That's worked well in the past-- with 20/20 foresight and to the shared prosperity of every comrade citizen.
 
For starters, here’s what I would want:

- Run a PHP-enabled webserver on my iPad for development purposes
- use my iOS device as an AirPlay receiver
- a PC or video game console emulator

There’s no reason such apps can’t exist.
They do on macOS.
There’s no security reasons as in “compromising the system” and exposing all my data either.
They could run nicely sandboxed.
I would even pay for them.

Where are they on the App Store?
If they aren’t there, why is that?
And what does that say about “choice” and innovation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M3gatron
If you know the iPhone doesn't allow you do something you want to do, why would you buy an iPhone? Why don't you just buy an Android phone?

Isn't choice great?
Doesn't matter why I buy a phone. The government cannot just do nothing while Apple is practicing anti-competitive behavior. Simple. If they do not want to be subject to the anti-competitive laws of a country, they can stop selling the phones.
 
Is Facebook an app developer? Did they make their own phone?

How did Apple not abide by laws?
Yes. Facebook is an App developer. They developed Facebook app. Every App developer develops an App to run their business. Uber developed an App because they run a cab aggregation service. Not sure why you think Facebook is not an App developer.

It is stopping Facebook from having the same data that it collects, thereby harming Facebook while self-preferencing itself and thereby increasing its Advertising business.


This is being found out in many regions.
 
So Apple is using their 30% market share to put Citibank out of business?
Nobody said they would necessarily put Citibank out of business and certainly not overnight. Apple is able to do something no other card issuer can which is advertise their card offering right in an app the comes pre-installed on your phone. Apple is using their position in the smartphone space to manipulate their ability to siphon up credit card users from competing banks.

They've used their 30% market share as a cudgel to get 15% market share in music streaming?
They're certainly trying with the way they've gone as far as obnoxiously advertising Apple Music in the Settings app.
 
Doesn't matter why I buy a phone. The government cannot just do nothing while Apple is practicing anti-competitive behavior. Simple. If they do not want to be subject to the anti-competitive laws of a country, they can stop selling the phones.

If they are guilty of anti competition, the government should prosecute them for anti competition.
 
Have you looked at the MacOS app store lately? It certainly is not a vibrant as the iOS app store.

And catastrophic malware problems have all occurred on the platforms you have listed. Indeed, my work place requires antivirus software be installed on all the operating systems you listed for any device used for work. I don't fancy having my employer installing antivirus software on my iPhone. Having their VPN and authentication apps is bad enough. If you want sideloading freedom like Android, then buy Android.
What security are you talking about regards iPhone? This one?



Feel free to think that iOS is more secure than the other OSes. It is not.





 
  • Like
Reactions: M3gatron
Yes. Facebook is an App developer. They developed Facebook app. Every App developer develops an App to run their business. Uber developed an App because they run a cab aggregation service. Not sure why you think Facebook is not an App developer.

It is stopping Facebook from having the same data that it collects, thereby harming Facebook while self-preferencing itself and thereby increasing its Advertising business.


This is being found out in many regions.

You said:
Screen Shot 2022-07-07 at 12.56.10 PM.png


If Facebook, an app developer, can make their own phone, why is suggesting other app developers make their own phones so preposterous?

What's completely idiotic is the suggestion that a company form their own country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
You know, nobody was being up Nokia when it was dominating the cell world. Apple was even laughed at for entering the market. People even laughed at the App Store. They only care once you are successful. Just lame.
There you go, right there. People want “something” done to Apple because they’re still sore about them actually becoming a valid option for smartphones in the marketplace :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef
Nobody said they would necessarily put Citibank out of business and certainly not overnight. Apple is able to do something no other card issuer can which is advertise their card offering right in an app the comes pre-installed on your phone. Apple is using their position in the smartphone space to manipulate their ability to siphon up credit card users from competing banks.


They're certainly trying with the way they've gone as far as obnoxiously advertising Apple Music in the Settings app.
So we should create laws to prevent a small share hardware maker from advertising a smaller share music service?
 
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in Europe.
Just because Google is bigger doesn't make Apple not a dominant player.

Not only, but this is what people keep whining about the most.
Ok.

And if as you say, most people don't care, they aren't going to care about these changes in the first place. Only a vocal minority actually cares about having "an option that only allows apps from a single source." Most people don't care one way or the other.
 
What security are you talking about regards iPhone? This one?



Feel free to think that iOS is more secure than the other OSes. It is not.





My claim was about relative vulnerability, but it is hard to evaluate because there are OS differences in vulnerability plus sideloading on Android. However, the stories you quoted don't invalidate what I said. Given there is a risk even to the iPhone, why make it worse? As I said, I think this legislation will backfire, which would be fine if the consequences were limited to the EU, but they won't be.
 
Last edited:
If they are guilty of anti competition, the government should prosecute them for anti competition.
I can’t speak to the EU, but if it’s anything like the U.S. their anti-trust laws may have been last updated a very long time ago, leaving gaping holes for tech companies to exploit.
 
So we should create laws to prevent a small share hardware maker from advertising a smaller share music service?
Is that what’s being done here? Last I checked having a third of a market isn’t a small share. Most competitors would consider ownership of one third of their relevant market a roaring success.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope that the people in Netherlands are demanding that their politicians are being transparent with where this money is or has gone.

Apple finds $5.5 million fine every week for months in the Netherlands instead of obey orders from the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to allow third-party payment systems in Dutch dating apps.
That money went to the government. As all fines go.
 
I can’t speak to the EU, but if it’s anything like the U.S. their anti-trust laws may have been last updated a very long time ago, leaving gaping holes for tech companies to exploit.
Their last update was yesterday. EU laws don’t work on precedent. A new law always supersedes old ones
 


European Union lawmakers have approved landmark legislation to heavily regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other big tech firms.

European-Commisssion.jpg

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) were proposed by the European Commission in December 2020. Now, collected in a "Digital Services Package," the legislation has been formally adopted by the European Parliament and seeks to address "gatekeeper" big tech companies.

Apple is almost certain to be classified as a "gatekeeper" due to the size of its annual turnover in the EU, its ownership and operation of platforms with a large number of active users, and its "entrenched and durable position" due to how long it has met these criteria, and will therefore be subject to the rules set out in the DMA. Under the DMA, gatekeepers may have to:

  • Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet.
  • Allow developers to offer third-party payment systems in apps and promote offers outside the gatekeeper's platforms.
  • Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request.
  • Give developers access to any hardware feature, such as "near-field communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms, and the software used to control those technologies."
  • Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription.
  • Give users the option to change the default voice assistant to a third-party option.
  • Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, including marketing and advertising performance data.
  • Set up an independent "compliance function" group to monitor its compliance with EU legislation with an independent senior manager and sufficient authority, resources, and access to management.
  • Inform the European Commission of their mergers and acquisitions.

The DMA also seeks to ensure that gatekeepers can no longer:
  • Pre-install certain software applications and require users to use any important default software services such as web browsers.
  • Require app developers to use certain services or frameworks, including browser engines, payment systems, and identity providers, to be listed in app stores.
  • Give their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment or rank them higher than those of others.
  • Reuse private data collected during a service for the purposes of another service.
  • Establish unfair conditions for business users.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires platforms to do more to police the internet for illegal content, has also been approved by the European Parliament.

The DMA says that gatekeepers who ignore the rules will face fines of up to 10 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover, or 20 percent in the event of repeated infringements, as well as periodic penalties of up to 5 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover. Where gatekeepers perpetrate "systematic infringements," the European Commission will be able to impose additional sanctions, such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, including units, assets, intellectual property rights, or brands, or banning a gatekeeper from acquiring any company that provides services in the digital sector.

So far, Apple has heavily resisted attempts by governments to enforce changes to its operating systems and services. For example, Apple simply chose to pay a $5.5 million fine every week for months in the Netherlands instead of obey orders from the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to allow third-party payment systems in Dutch dating apps.

EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager has set up a DMA taskforce, with about 80 officials expected to join, but some lawmakers have called for an even bigger taskforce to counter the power of big tech companies. The Digital Services Package now simply needs to be adopted by the European Council before coming into force in the fall.

Beyond the European Union, Apple's ecosystem is increasingly coming under intense scrutiny by governments around the world, including in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and more, with a clear appetite from global regulators to explore requirements around app sideloading and interoperability. Further cooperation is expected between governments around the world on the issue and experts are anticipating a "brutal battle" between Apple and global regulators.

Article Link: EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
Oh boy, Chromium us coming to iOS! Can't wait, enough with different flavors of Safari.
 
You got any proof of that?

Lets see. Apple could make iOS and the iPhone so open as to basically have to become Google/Microsoft with that level of support. Because they are being forced to make everything work with everyone that wants to play. Secure it just the same, and having to incur all the costs associated with that, with no real new revenue model that will come from it. Other than increase the price of everything.

OR

FU EU.

All Apple has to do, in truth is to not change anything. I doubt the laws can be retro active. So it will have to apply to anything going forward (from the time the law takes affect). So, sell them old ass iPhone 13's forever. :D

And if for some reason this law is retro active. I'm sure Apple will go to whatever court exists in the EU over it.
And if that doesn't work, well. FU EU. We out!
The laws aren’t retroactive, they start applying to any company at a specific date. Meaning the goods they sell must follow the new requirements. Or do you honestly believe that if I started selling a car with led paint would still be legal to sell just because i did it before the ban on lead?
How exactly?

"This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request" does not equal the death of encryption. No developer would ever do this anyway.


One, What's APP (or any services for that matter) would never want to do this because it would mean they'd have to create end-to-end encryption with iMessages thats different than their. They'll keep their loops closed. This is more about playing nice with other open standards like RCS. Two, if voice/video/chat app wanted to bastardize their encryption, they would likely be creating a separate channel for for Apple, and another for Google, plus their app-to-app protocols.... which again, NO ONE is doing that. You can also build bridges in between that translate back and forth... but no one is going to do that. The effort and development needed would be insanity and not have any return on investment.

What's App would have to request that Apple or Google give them the ability to be cross platform with their default messaging apps.

They will never do this in the first place.

In addition to what I already said on this, What's App or Snap Chat could also alert you that "You are messaging an IOS/Android user and What's App standard end-to-end encryption does not apply to message outside of What's App and will use default encryption for SMS" or something.

Everyone be freaking out but the reality is, if you create a secure messaging app that's encryption is its feature, YOU ARE NOT ASKING ANOTHER COMPANY TO SHARE YOUR STUFF. Snap Chat would have to want to open up their encryption to Apple and request it.... they're not doing that.
Sorry but you both have no clue how this would work. There already exist protocols and services right now that can work interchangeably, and that you pay fore. The investment has already been done, the inventions have already been invented. The bigger companies just refuse to allow interoperability for business reasons.

And could simply use Signal as the standard interoperability protocol for little to no cost, there is zero need for WhatsApp or iMessage to share their own protocols when a separate one can be used. Just as 4G and 3G is seperate network/radio protocols, phones can use both.
Why would they have to stop their services?

There are unlocked phones.

Why do they have to end customer support?

If they are forced to sell phones that are basically the same as everyone else's, how would they turn a profit? If they can't turn a profit, why do business there?
I didn’t know iPhones, mac, iPad and Apple Watches was selling at a loss.

Apple is selling hardware at varying security levels and those levels range from very high to high, with iOS being very high and macOS being high. There ARE folks that want to reduce the security of iOS down to the level of macOS, though.
There is zero evidence iOS is less secure than macOS. Apple never presented any data and even admitted they didn’t have any data to back up this claim. And the court agreed
Not at all. If the ONLY thing that Apple produces that runs afoul of these rules are the iPhone and the iOS App Store, they can simply disable the App Store in the EU, stop selling iPhones in the EU, etc. etc. I mean, It’s likely that the EU will have something to say about the monopoly Apple has on the Mac App Store as well at some point in the future, but that’s not now, so that business is not affected. Plus, there’s still Apple One and other services that could continue as well.
Eu will never in a million years care about the Mac AppStore as it’s close to dead when it comes to user base, market share on macOS and revenue. Mac already complies 100% with the gatekeeper requirements, even though they don’t need to.
 
Well, I mean outside the EU there’s no VAT… so there’s that. And, there’s international exchange rates, which isn’t really in Apple’s control either. And, it’s obviously very expensive to operate in the EU. Currently, those expenses are offset by the profits they’re able to make. The profits they’re able to make WILL change over the coming years and it remains to be seen if the lowered return will continue to be worth the effort in investment.

Either way it goes, both the EU and Apple will be fine. It’s nothing alarming, just business.
The only profit that will take a hit is a sliver of their service revenue related to the AppStore. Everything else will continue as normal.
 
I said:
View attachment 2027247

How do you interpret that as iPhones, Macs, iPads, and Apple Watches currently selling at losses?
You said if they are forced to sell phones that are same as other phones. These phones are still sold with a record profit margins.

So you speculate of how they would make a profit when they already have the best industry profits on hardware. Nothing will change. Only service profits will change.
 
You said if they are forced to sell phones that are same as other phones. These phones are still sold with a record profit margins.

So you speculate of how they would make a profit when they already have the best industry profits on hardware. Nothing will change. Only service profits will change.

Exactly, "if".

If they force Apple to turn iPhones in to "dumb terminals", it will be a race to the bottom where the only thing that matters is lowest price.
 
They have pretty clearly defined what classifies a company as dominant or a "gatekeeper" e.g., turnover, sales in at least 3 EU countries, number of active members, etc. It is obviously meant to target the biggest companies which is what antitrust laws do. No surprises here.
Definition of dominant as an adjective:
“most important, powerful, or influential.”

Because Apple clearly wasn’t dominant, they created a term “gatekeeper” that would arbitrarily allow them to propose changes that Apple’s simple “lack of dominance” would not allow. They’ve clearly arbitrarily defined a classification based on “which company they want to impact”. And, antitrust laws don’t target the biggest companies just for being big. They target dominant[/] companies that are using their dominance illegally. Applied against Apple, then, these aren’t even antitrust rules. By the simple fact that Apple’s not dominant. It’s more like “consumer success” rules.

It can be a fine line but these laws aren't always just about the consumer as they can be designed to help competitors or potential competitors which hopefully help consumers at least eventually through lower prices, more choices, etc.
The thing is, historically, it’s NOT a fine line. When a company makes a product people want to buy, developers want to support and that benefits each in a way that continues it’s success, that’s “how business is done”. If a business sets up exclusivity rules to restrict apps being in other app stores, OR buys up and shuts down smartphone competitors, that’s NOT a fine line, it’s anti-competitive and should be punished for what it is.

Not really. While technologies, markets, and other things have changed and evolved over time, "anticompetitive" behavior has long covered a variety of potential business activities. Also, antitrust laws have always targeted "successful" (dominant position) companies as that is essentially what they are designed to do.
“behavior has long covered a variety of potential business activities.”
So, I’ve actually provided a few that are clearly anticompetitive behaviors (not in quotes, actually proven to be). I’m guessing your using “anticompetitive” in quotes must mean “being successful in the market such that consumers buy your products over your competitors”. Which does certainly align with the EU’s recent rules.

And, again, Apple has no dominant position in the EU. You should probably use the EU coined term “gatekeeper” or put quotes around “dominant” so as to clearly portray that Apple is “dominant” in only “putting Apple logos on their products and services”.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.