Apple never “gave away” App Store access, virtually or otherwise. Although, I have to say I continue to find it enlightening the interesting facts people have acquired in attempting to explain the lack of logic in the EU decision.
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
I believe that, because the EU is a union just by name, each member country has a vested interest in seeing that no other country is doing far better than themselves. So, while fostering and financially supporting the technology companies that would have a good chance of inventing some new never-before-seen platform that becomes wildly successful in the EU AND abroad (thus the control of that platform would be EU companies) would be the right solution to the problem of the lack of smartphone competition… the FACT is that it would mean directing funding to a minority of the EU countries (that have the infrastructure required for such a venture) and would, of course, leave out most of the countries. Those left out of the story of success would, of course, work to ensure that NO countries are able to innovate.
In places like the US, a company in Wyoming could create a service tomorrow that uses technology created in Florida, licensed to run on infrastructure based in Texas and Maryland, with developers living in Alabama and Michigan (all taking advantage of various tax breaks and incentives) and a virtual call center based around the world (so that there’s always someone to answer the phones) with very little friction. If successful, they could have 10’s of millions of customers by the end of their first quarter of operations. This is the model that creates companies like WhatsApp and Apple. And, the model that doesn’t exist in the EU.
I understand but my point was that your suggestion is similar to or even more extreme (removing OS completely) than what some customers, developers and/or regulators have been asking Apple to do. Apple has been very resistant to sideloading, multiple app stores, multiple payment systems, multiple browser engines, etc. on the iPhone and this would be going even further by eliminating pre-loaded iOS.
So, the "free" iOS would still have the same current restrictions, or would customers be allowed "complete freedom" as you put it in your previous (#800) post?
Yes. I do not want Apple to make any changes to iOS. I, as a customer, like it exactly as it is and I would choose to install iOS immediately knowing how iOS works
The freedom is there from the moment customers purchase their iPhones. They are free to choose which type of OS they want. One that allows side loading or one that doesn't. One that allows multiple app stores or one that doesn't.
You can't get more free than this. 100% of the decisions are up to the customers.
Well I don’t, but that’s what I believe. Essentially your opinion would kill iPhone as a thing. And believe that apple would rather make money than no money
Fascinating considering it’s a broken mess that might work on iPhone 7.Android can already be installed on iPhones.
You Can Now Install Android On Your iPhone - BGR
If you've ever wanted to run Android on an iPhone, we're about to make your dream come true. Sort of. Well, it's not easy. And…bgr.com
I have read the entire legal draft. The foundation is legal precedent and existing shortcomings of anti competitive legislation. And still vertically integrated products will be 100% legal.
What’s made illegal is locking in users or forcing choices with no technical reason but business related.
I did read it, I just mixed the NFT and NFC acronyms, and didn’t realize it until someone pointed it out.. But I would expect context would help as NFT makes zero sense.
There is a difference in being hugely successful and successful. In EU we have big technology companies that have existed since US civil war. They have survived two world wars.
Stable growth is more desirable
No need you can be as successful as you want. Without a core platform it won’t affect you. Considering how successful Samsung is without being classified as a gatekeeper controlling the majority of the android phone/tablet market.
And multiple smaller companies are better than few big ones.
It’s two fold.
1: EU and every member don’t care at all how many companies are competing. Only that it’s happening under fair terms.
You are literally complaining about something they don’t want to do or even try.
2: venture capitalism isn’t mature and most company funds are from banks and not from private foundations etc
That's not Apple's problem. If users choose to install a broken mess, that's on the user. But at least they won't be behind a walled garden anymore, right?
Good thing it doesn't matter that it's a broken mess in the first place since that's not the route the EU is taking. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What is Apple's problem is that they'll have to comply with this new EU law.
If the sideloading, app store, payment system, browser engine, etc. restrictions with iOS are still there, I’m not sure how much that would necessarily change Apple's EU regulatory issues. They could, depending on how things played out, still end up having "gatekeeper" status and therefore still be subject to the same requirements.
Well users can’t as no jailbreak exist for the current iOS version.
Then again jailbreaking also removes the walled garden with less of an issue. And with DMA rules we can do both. Allowing unapproved apps to be installed, immediately increasing the amount of apps available that before was banned for arbitrary reasons.
I don't see this ever happening but if Apple were to open iPhones to other operating systems, they would have to work with OS developers to make the experience and end result worthwhile for both the OS developer and customers. Otherwise, why bother? Apple and the OS company/companies could end up looking bad.
It wouldn't. All these too clever by half ideas being spouted are nothing more than stamping one's feet over not getting one's way. Apple won't do any of these things because they won't fly and Apple isn't willing to lose ~$90 billion/year in revenue from the EU.
That's true... Their goal isn't really about giving users choice... It's about punishing success...
Maybe forcing alternate app stores and side loaded apps to run within virtual machines to sandbox them from everything else can protect users.
Last edited:
Well gatekeeper status can’t be removed as long as you fulfill the three criteria’s.
1: yearly active Norma user and business users
2: fulfills revenue stream in EU covering minimum three members.
3: have core platform services.
Being a Gatekeeper means you have specific obligations
What's unclear about point #1 is what they mean by market capitalization. Are they talking about EU market cap or US market cap? The €7.5B can be circumvented.
Again, all three criteria to be considered a "gatekeeper" is based on success.
It's not about punishing success; it's about trying to create a less aniticompetitive environment in areas/markets dominated by few companies. Given the purpose of antitrust laws and regulations, dominant/successful companies (however that may be defined in the region in question) are typically going to be the target. Smaller, less successful companies tend to be the "victims" of anticompetitive behavior.
Allowing things like sideloading and multiple app stores, payment systems, browser engines, etc. does provide more choice.
Apple will have to work this out somehow. Of course, if whatever they come up with turns out well and there are few if any notable issues it may weaken their "privacy and security concern" arguments. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Again, given the purpose of antitrust laws and regulations, dominant/successful companies (however that may be defined in the region in question) are typically going to be the target. Smaller, less successful companies tend to be the "victims" of anticompetitive behavior.
If there were any anti competitive behavior and/or laws broken, they should have been prosecuted. However, I have not seen even attempts at prosecution. Now, they are changing the rule mid-way.
As seen in the criteria to be considered a gatekeeper, what mattered are (1) revenue and market cap, (2) number of users, and (3) how long they've been successful. Every one of these seem like measurements of success to me. It makes no mention of abuse.
Last edited:
Every rule change is done "mid-way." Laws exist today that did not used to exist. Laws will exist in the future that do not exist today. That's kind of just the way things work. In other news, water is wet.
This is not a bad idea, actually. I think it addresses my concerns. It certainly addresses both the choice and any claims of "anti-competitiveness". It sounds like the EU wants the hardware commoditized, so this is the way to do that.
It could ship with enough software to download an OS from a remote server.
How about you back up your own claim…No. I’ll leave you to look up what marketshare means, but as it undoes your point, you can just continue to think that, out of EVERY 10 people in the EU, 2 of them currently own iPhones.
That’s ONLY because you haven’t looked it up because you don’t want to be aware of any facts that don’t support your position.
“just like with prior EU regulations, it could mean that certain businesses simply stop doing certain business in the EU. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.”
…rather than smart-assedly telling me to “look things up” and do it for you? I’m certain there are companies that have withdrawn from the EU due to regulation - so what’s the best you can come up with?
I’m not at all sure what you’re talking about.
Apple’s marketshare in smartphones in the U.S. is about double that in the EU.
On the other hand, the EU has a higher population than the U.S.
My point still stands: the number of iPhones sold in the EU, compared to the U.S., their home market is not tiny.
Smartphones without software aren’t very popular and make things more difficult for consumers and for a terrible user experience.
I’m not sure why you’re suggesting Apple should replace popular, easy-to-use smartphones with a user experience that sucks.
The company isn’t operating to make bad products out of spite - they’re operatto make money.
Doesn’t change much with regard to the law.
You offer your OS and App Store - you may become designated a gatekeeper.
Well, seems you figured it out pretty quickly.
What’s that supposed to achieve?
You won’t be circumventing the DMA that way.
Let’s refine that idea just a little:
How about we’re not forcing them to make a decision at initial setup - but make it a (some) setting(s) in preferences, that can be changed subsequently? That would be the best of both worlds, wouldn’t it?
They are allowed sandboxing no further than is strictly necessary, proportionate and justified:
“The gatekeeper shall allow end users to access and use, through its core platform services, content, subscriptions, features or other items, by using the software application of a business user, including where those end users acquired such items from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper.”
“The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures go no further than is strictly necessary and proportionate and are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings go no further than is strictly necessary and proportionate and are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
Good thing Apple won't be doing that anyway. 😂
Last edited:
So far, iPhones have always been provided with an operating system preinstalled.
I’ll bet you a top-of-the-line next iPhone that that won’t stop with the DMA in force and applied on Apple.
That right there is just one of the reasons that shipping a phone without an OS wouldn't circumvent this law. When 99% of iPhone users proceed to download iOS to their new device, Apple is still going to be classified as a gatekeeper with requirements to meet regarding their 'core platform services'. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe I've seen reference to a provision that says "however if consumers manually install the OS to the phone, then the rest of this law is null and void." These ludicrous ideas for circumventing the law are both hilarious and deserving of derision.
Last edited: