Others said it, I got it from there. I'm not an Android user so I can't vouch for it. but, it was stated that 95% used the Google Play store even with side-loading and 3rd party stores available. Which is why I said, why are we bothering for 5%? Anecdotal or not, doesn't make a difference to me. If you wanted that feature badly enough, you can purchase an Android phone and be happy.
A lot of people have said that they want the freedom to do whatever they want. That's why there is a community that works on Jailbreaks. Do you know that there are shops that get paid for jailbreaking iPhones for people who cannot themselves jailbreak in many countries? So, I am assuming it is an overwhelming endorsement for the DMA changes.
I'm happy you believe and or think that. I don't.
That's fine.
The laws they already follow until now. When the laws they are creating will affect how they do business.
I'm stating, they may not want to continue to do business in the EU because of these laws. Or, they may want to minimize how much business the do in the EU because of these laws. The rules they are creating state specific amounts of money made to become a gatekeeper, and subscribers or users. If you go under that amount, you could skirt any changes they are requesting. Maybe they fully comply? IDK. If I was them, I would tell the EU to change the E to F, but that's me.
The limits are not set in concrete. If Apple tries its shenanigans again, the EU might change the limits for designating a company as a Gatekeeper. We do not know as we are treading uncharted territory. If they minimize the amount of business they do in the EU, somebody who will comply with the rules will take up the slack. But seriously, do you think a company that would bend over backwards to simply protect a 12% market share would completely loose the EU market?
When Apple Inc begins hosting Chinese users' iCloud accounts in a new Chinese data center at the end of this month to comply with new laws there, Chinese authorities will have far easier access to text messages, email and other data stored in the cloud.
www.reuters.com
Why does Tesla use batteries instead of gas in their cars? Cause it's a selling point? Doesn't mean they have to let anyone else use their batters and or the software they use to make it work in their car. But I suppose if Tesla sold enough cars the EU would come for them too.
You can check Tesla's mission statement. You can determine if going the EV route is a selling point for them or not.
Well, Tesla’s batteries are particularly power-dense, but they come from Panasonic. Literally any automaker could buy the same cells from them.
Tesla has received 4680 battery cell samples from Panasonic ahead of the start of mass production expected next year.
electrek.co
Nobody is asking Apple to give away their software. Opening up APIs is not the same.
How Apple chooses to utilize NFC in the devices they make should be left to them to determine. If they wanted it open, they could let anyone use. Like Android phones do. But they think differently, and maybe just maybe they said for security reasons, why have another means in which to get into the device. If we limit its exposer, it shrinks the attack surface of the phone "while" also allowing for its use in Transit, or purchase (POS). Just a thought. But I'm sure it's because of money and they don't want anyone else to cut in on their action.
It really does not matter what Apple wants, right? This is not Apple country. The EU has framed the laws so that Apple is no longer in doubt about who determines who has access to hardware features for which customers have already paid. If they don't sell the phones, the attack vector would be incredibly small so would you welcome it? If Apple is incompetent to protect its phone from attacks unless it is closed, then shame on Apple. There has been no other popular OS that has followed this path, as far as I know.
And?
I'm sure they will not ignore it. And I'm sure Google broke whatever law the EU wrote. I said I don't agree with all the laws the EU has come up with. This Gatekeeper law being one of them.
I'm sure nobody enjoys the taxation laws. The majority still adhere to them; some try to circumvent them illegally and may or may not be caught. The really rich can use loopholes to legally circumvent those laws. If Apple is a law-abiding company, it would suck up and comply. You should be happy they are a law-abiding company which has a history of abiding by the laws of the country as witnessed by the alacrity with which they handed over the data of Chinese people to Chinese government. They will do so here also. You may be disappointed if you expect backbone from them.
I'm not entitled to anything. I pay for what I want. I'm very aware of the choices I have and make the one best for me. I'm only suggesting that others do the same. Vote with your money if you want change. It works faster, and in the long run works better.
Sorry for giving the wrong impression that I was talking about your entitlement. That was not the idea. I'm not talking about your entitlement. You feel that Apple is entitled. I'm saying Apple is not entitled to anything other than the price we pay for their devices or their Apps. Nothing else.
Object all they want. Why does Apple have to let anyone else use tech on the device they made? I know you referring to NFC here, which they didn't totally make. BUT, they also want access to the rest of the system. All of it.
See, this is the entitlement that I am talking about. They sold the phone. We paid for them. They're are not entitled to anything after that.
Are they charging anyone to use the Wallet App? I mean if you make a transaction via the Wallet App and use VISA/MC/AMEX/DISC/NYCE/JCB/UnionPay/etc. Does Apple get a cut? If the answer is no, then how is it anticompetitive of Apple to make them use this one means for transacting with NFC? I'm currently not finding an answer by my quick searching.
There is a class action suit in the USA that the payment card companies. That will answer all your questions.
A class-action lawsuit in federal court accuses Apple of using its Apple Pay to illegally profit from payment card issuers, taking in $1 billion a year in
www.pymnts.com
If Apple was more like intel or AMD and just sold chips and such and you can do with it what you wish. That would be one thing. But, they are not that. They make a lot of the technology inside an iPhone, and source parts they don't make from others. But, even with those sourced 3rd party parts. They still customize it to what they want it to do vs what others do. Which is just put it out and let the developers figure it out. Hence the choice the consumer has when purchasing an iPhone vs an Android. You get a complete package that one company thinks is the right way to do it. If they are wrong, and or you don't like it. You can pick from another manufacture(s) that will do something closer to what you want it to be.
Android is being given away for free. Yet it faces similar scrutiny. Why do you think Apple, which sells its devices for an exorbitant price, be given leeway? That's is an example of the entitlement that I was talking about. They made the device and we paid for it. There ends the matter.
And yet the rules in place are not enough.
Each rule covers a different aspect. Therefore, the rules are not enough as they need rules to cover all aspects.
Apparently because they are too big, they have to comply with new rules too.
Obviously. When Apple can make new rules for managing its Appstore regularly and expects developers to adhere to them, why should the EU not make new rules and expect Apple (and others) to adhere to them?
I'm for exiting markets, and let them eat cake. I mean Android.
News for you. They're not going to. They will capitulate.
They have enough money to do this you know. Don't put it past them. If Elon Musk can attempt to put a human on Mars before any government can. Anything is possible.
All the best.
Again, I'm looking for what Apple charges the banks for using the Wallet. I'm seeing references to Apple being a TAP and collecting about .15-.16% for the ability to perform the token-assurance provider function. So, it would be about the same if some other provider did it. Otherwise, they don't charge anything to merchant, user, or card company. So maybe not so big a deal? IDK.
Whatever Apple charges is on top of what the payment card companies charge. Nobody's telling Apple they cannot charge it. They're telling Apple that it has to allow access to the NFC for other companies so that the companies can decide if paying Apple tax is worth it or it is better to go on their own. Compete fairly. Not unfairly by withholding access to others.
27% goes to Apple. They saved a whopping 3% for all that? And will most likely cost them that much to do it themselves. Whoohoo....
1. Apple later amended that saying it will be 12% for those who were paying 15% and 27% for those who were paying 30%.
2. There is still a second part of the suit that is being kept under wraps, at Apple's insistence. That is awaiting court ruling. It is about the 30% cut Apple takes. There will be a ruling about this later.
The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The District Court of Rotterdam has partially suspended the order subject to periodic penalty payments that ACM had imposed on Apple.
www.acm.nl
"App providers pay 99 US dollars each year for using the App Store. Almost 85 percent of app providers pay only this fee. These are small businesses, but also major companies such as Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions. [suspended]* This situation applies to slightly over 15 percent of all app providers. [suspended]*
ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service. Furthermore, the conditions are not necessary for running the App Store. That is why ACM considers these conditions to be unreasonable and in violation of competition rules."
I'm ignoring the rest as they do not contribute to the discussion.
