EU Planning to Force Apple to Give Developers Access to All Hardware and Software Features

[CarlJ]

It's for the Apps to ask for interoperability. It means, if WhatsApp asks Apple to allow interoperability with iMessage, then Apple must allow it. How Apple would do it probably is creating a few general-purpose APIs that will allow access to any messaging platform. They have to use the APIs to create interoperability. It does not mean every feature in iMessage will work in WhatsApp. It just means that the APIs will allow a person on WhatsApp to communicate with a person on iMessage directly.

Then why can't WhatsApp just send SMS messages? Apple's Messages app already supports that. If you're not looking for feature support, then it's already done. If you want feature support, then we end up with some sort of bizarre incompatibility matrix, listing "if you're in program X, talking to someone on program Y, then A, B, and D work, but C, and E through K don't work". Great experience that'll be. Government regulations is not the way to get good APIs to happen.

It'll also mean entries showing up in your messages essentially saying, "Message from a source that WhatsApp purports is Jane Doe". Apple won't want to just trust whatever name WhatsApp (or whatever service) gives for the user on the other end, and that user won't have an AppleID (that Apple can trust, coming from WhatsApp - what's to keep WhatsApp/etc from saying "oh, yeah, the AppleID is tcook@apple.com". So, your native Messages app can't trust the identities beyond "WhatsApp says this is 'foo'", and the Messages app only works with AppleIDs and phone numbers. I haven't heard anyone talk yet of mandatory phonebook compatibility between devices.

This also seems like a great way for scammers to send spam messages, from some service that's easy to get accounts on, through these new gateways, onto other services, with limited potential for the receiving service to combat the spam.

 

[macar00n]

lmao

I assure you, one can absolutely install random garbage on their iPhone, right from the Apple iOS App Software Distribution Monopoly Store

It's chock-full of garbage Apps and scams

You're not wrong, but you want even more garbage across a bunch of app stores that are less secure and don't care at all about user privacy? Because this is how you get that. Every ethically bankrupt company will only have their app on THEIR app store. It'll be the only way to get it.

 

[CarlJ]

The choice will remain.
Everyone's to obtain his apps from Apple's walled garden exclusively.

People keep pushing this point as if it were true. Once you bulldoze a big hole through one of the walls, it is no longer a walled garden, dammit. There will be numerous apps that will jump to one or more 3rd-party stores instead of the App Store, and there will be 3rd-party stores pushing hard to make this happen (to bring attention to themselves). Before long, there will be apps that are very popular, or, say, something you need for work, that aren't available on Apple's App Store, and then you basically have to leave the walled garden. You're pushing hard to make a mess of the walled garden and then saying, "well, but you can still stay there, so everything is peachy", and I call ********. I'm sick and tired of this excuse being repeated ad nauseam.

 

[macar00n]

Seems that you have to resort to calling everyone names ("idiot", "unethical", "garbage", "scummy") that doesn't come from your supreme overlords (Apple). Quite telling.

It isn't unethical to sell things on your own.

There's no reason why other stores may not very well be more secure and care more about privacy than Apple.
And there's no guarantee that Apple will care as much as they do today.
Also, the law doesn't only apply to Apple. It can just as well apply to others.

Since there's many choices of apps for every conceivable thing you could want or do on your iPhone, that's still better than having one single party controlling the distribution of every single app (given the barriers to changing platforms for consumers).

Don't like an app, its developer or distribution model/policy. Go, choose another one. There's lots of alternatives.
Don't like a mobile operating system or its app distribution model? There aren't many relevant alternatives.

I'm on mobile so I can't format this neatly but will do my best to reply.

Yes, I call trash companies trash. Apple isn't a trash company but are far from my overlords, I can side with them on this issue and disagree on another. You don't have to all-or-nothing support or hate a company. Apple does garbage stuff, if it makes you feel better for me to say it. Like the fact that my $4k laptop has trouble waking from sleep via Bluetooth without kernel panicking - that's a joke. But I digress.

It's not unethical to sell things on your own, agreed. How is that working for all of us with streaming services? How is that working for Android? Terrible experience for users all around because companies exclusively only care about profit at the end of the day. 20 money-grubbing streaming services don't care if user experience is trash if they get their cut. These third party app stores and apps woukd happily collect and sell user data and do things that Apple currently doesn't allow for good reason.

When Apple cares less than they do today about privacy, we can talk. We don't need to destroy a solid ecosystem because Apple could be worse tomorrow. Android and its allowing the user to do whatever they want already exists and is already too much of a dumpster fire for any iPhone user. Nobody is stopping you or anyone from buying an Android phone and doing whatever. The choice of exists. If Apple's phone doesn't suit you, buy another one. Don't buy Apple's and then have some tech illiterate lawmakers drag it down to be as bad as Android which already exists

 

[CarlJ]

You clearly didn’t understand what’s really going on here, or my reply. Your opinion is fogged by blind fandom, blow the candles out and look beyond it, you will see all these changes are for the better of EVERYONE, except for Apple, of course.

I understand just fine, dammit. My opinion is not fogged, stop being so ****ing patronizing. These changes you're campaigning for will get you what you want - which you could get right now just by using Android instead of iOS - and it will take away some aspects of the current ecosystem that many of us chose on purpose - and I'll thank you kindly to stop ****ing telling me that it's "for the better of EVERYONE". Despite what you clearly seem to think, you do not actually know better than I do what is best for me, nor am I even the slightest bit interested in having you dictate that for me.

I'm sick and tired of people trying to take away one of the two currently available choices and telling us it's for our own good, because then we'll have more choice - it's Orwellian doublespeak - if you want a free-for-all ecosystem, then by all means go use Android. Stop trying to turn iOS into Android. That is literally getting rid of choice.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You're not wrong, but you want even more garbage across a bunch of app stores that are less secure and don't care at all about user privacy? Because this is how you get that.

Exactly.

It's unfortunate that there are scammy apps on the App Store. But for every one scammy app on the store... there are probably 100 others that didn't get on the App Store at all. They were blocked by Apple.

But no one will be blocking or removing scammy apps from "Frank's App Store" or "frankscoolgames.com"

Frank himself will be running his store. And Frank is a jerk. All of his apps and games are malware disguised as games.

Every ethically bankrupt company will only have their app on THEIR app store. It'll be the only way to get it.

Yep... as soon as Apple is forced to allow additional app stores and/or installing from the web... Meta will open the Meta App Store. And the only way to get Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or whatever is from their store.

And who knows what sort of privacy-stealing treasures will be hiding in those apps if no one is able to check them for malware.

?

 

[Beautyspin]

Well that brings up another question... would WhatsApp want people to message their users if they don't have a WhatsApp account?

Seems like WhatsApp would want me to register for a WhatsApp account in order to talk to their users. I thought the point of these messaging platforms is that you're a registered user. Membership and all that. It'd be kinda weird if non-registered people could send messages to WhatsApp members.

So who's asking for this?

Messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal? Or the EU?

I haven't heard Signal complaining that their users can't talk to Telegram users. Or vice-versa.

?

This is again on Apple. Apple used iMessage as a lock-in for their platform and authorities have noted that. Now, with this, they would have to open up iMessages so that it cannot be used as a lock-in. Similarly, with the other moves, the ultimate goal is that a user can easily switch between iOS and Android without pain, which is not happening now because of Apple's walled garden approach.

 

[Beautyspin]

Then why can't WhatsApp just send SMS messages? Apple's Messages app already supports that. If you're not looking for feature support, then it's already done. If you want feature support, then we end up with some sort of bizarre incompatibility matrix, listing "if you're in program X, talking to someone on program Y, then A, B, and D work, but C, and E through K don't work". Great experience that'll be. Government regulations is not the way to get good APIs to happen.

It'll also mean entries showing up in your messages essentially saying, "Message from a source that WhatsApp purports is Jane Doe". Apple won't want to just trust whatever name WhatsApp (or whatever service) gives for the user on the other end, and that user won't have an AppleID (that Apple can trust, coming from WhatsApp - what's to keep WhatsApp/etc from saying "oh, yeah, the AppleID is tcook@apple.com". So, your native Messages app can't trust the identities beyond "WhatsApp says this is 'foo'", and the Messages app only works with AppleIDs and phone numbers. I haven't heard anyone talk yet of mandatory phonebook compatibility between devices.

This also seems like a great way for scammers to send spam messages, from some service that's easy to get accounts on, through these new gateways, onto other services, with limited potential for the receiving service to combat the spam.

I do not know what each platform will do or how they achieve this interoperability. It could be through SMS or they could all sit together and finalize a method. I hear Matrix does something similar so maybe they could grab elements of it and make it the standard? I do not know as I am not an expert. Regarding spam, they will have to deal with it the same way they are dealing with it on the Email. Essentially, they want to make chat similar to Email so that you can chat with others without concern for what chat client they are using.

 

[dk001]

Well that brings up another question... would WhatsApp want people to message their users if they don't have a WhatsApp account?

Seems like WhatsApp would want me to register for a WhatsApp account in order to talk to their users. I thought the point of these messaging platforms is that you're a registered user. Membership and all that. It'd be kinda weird if non-registered people could send messages to WhatsApp members.

So who's asking for this?

Messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal? Or the EU?

I haven't heard Signal complaining that their users can't talk to Telegram users. Or vice-versa.

?

Then you can use your default messaging app and all is cool. Would love to make Signal my default on all OS’s.

It is a pita when you have global clients / vendors / peers / friends / family and several messaging apps are used.

JMO and many I communicate with.

 

[Michael Scrip]

This is again on Apple. Apple used iMessage as a lock-in for their platform and authorities have noted that. Now, with this, they would have to open up iMessages so that it cannot be used as a lock-in. Similarly, with the other moves, the ultimate goal is that a user can easily switch between iOS and Android without pain, which is not happening now because of Apple's walled garden approach.

It's funny... iMessage isn't really a big deal. I still use the the same app on my iPhone called "Messages" even though Apple built some extra features for iPhone-to-iPhone communication.

Anyone with a phone number can already send a message to my iPhone.

If it's from an Android user... I'll get an SMS text message in a green bubble.

And if it's from an iPhone user... I'll still get the message in the same app... but it'll be in a blue bubble and have some additional features.

But the point is... I AM REACHABLE. From any phone. Already.

And the same goes the other way too.

I can send a text message to anyone with an iPhone... and anyone with an Android phone. Done.

Ok... so what about these other messaging platforms... WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc?

Well if all these apps want "interoperability" then they should just use plain ol' SMS like some other user mentioned. It's free, open, and standard. Sending plain text isn't really a mystery anymore. It's like email.

But why all this focus on Apple?

You say Apple built a walled garden... well so did Signal. And Telegram. And Snapchat. Etc.

Are they getting pressured to tear down their walled gardens?

I can't currently send a SnapChat message unless I am also a SnapChat member. Evan Spiegel... tear down that wall!

Will the EU fix that little problem? I demand to have the ability to send little strings of text to SnapChat users without signing up for their service.

 

[dk001]

Then why can't WhatsApp just send SMS messages? Apple's Messages app already supports that. If you're not looking for feature support, then it's already done. If you want feature support, then we end up with some sort of bizarre incompatibility matrix, listing "if you're in program X, talking to someone on program Y, then A, B, and D work, but C, and E through K don't work". Great experience that'll be. Government regulations is not the way to get good APIs to happen.

It'll also mean entries showing up in your messages essentially saying, "Message from a source that WhatsApp purports is Jane Doe". Apple won't want to just trust whatever name WhatsApp (or whatever service) gives for the user on the other end, and that user won't have an AppleID (that Apple can trust, coming from WhatsApp - what's to keep WhatsApp/etc from saying "oh, yeah, the AppleID is tcook@apple.com". So, your native Messages app can't trust the identities beyond "WhatsApp says this is 'foo'", and the Messages app only works with AppleIDs and phone numbers. I haven't heard anyone talk yet of mandatory phonebook compatibility between devices.

This also seems like a great way for scammers to send spam messages, from some service that's easy to get accounts on, through these new gateways, onto other services, with limited potential for the receiving service to combat the spam.

How about something a little more up to date than almost 40 year old tech (SMS).
Would be nice.

 

[Beautyspin]

It's funny... iMessage isn't really a big deal. I still use the the same app on my iPhone called "Messages" even though Apple built some extra features for iPhone-to-iPhone communication.

Anyone with a phone number can already send a message to my iPhone.

If it's from an Android user... I'll get an SMS text message in a green bubble.

And if it's from an iPhone user... I'll still get the message in the same app... but it'll be in a blue bubble and have some additional features.

But the point is... I AM REACHABLE. From any phone. Already.

And the same goes the other way too.

I can send a text message to anyone with an iPhone... and anyone with an Android phone. Done.

Ok... so what about these other messaging platforms... WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc?

Well if all these apps want "interoperability" then they should just use plain ol' SMS like some other user mentioned. It's free, open, and standard. Sending plain text isn't really a mystery anymore. It's like email.

But why all this focus on Apple?

You say Apple built a walled garden... well so did Signal. And Telegram. And Snapchat. Etc.

Are they getting pressured to tear down their walled gardens?

I can't currently send a SnapChat message unless I am also a SnapChat member. Evan Spiegel... tear down that wall!

Will the EU fix that little problem? I demand to have the ability to send little strings of text to SnapChat users without signing up for their service.

Then Maybe Apple needs to do nothing but it is WhatsApp, Telegram, and others who have to work on being interoperable? I'm pretty sure the DMA is not just for Apple. Also, I hope they ensure porting message history to alternate chat apps is also a criterion.

 

[CarlJ]

You say Apple built a walled garden... well so did Signal. And Telegram. And Snapchat. Etc.

Are they getting pressured to tear down their walled gardens?

I can't currently send a SnapChat message unless I am also a SnapChat member. Evan Spiegel... tear down that wall!

Actually, I'm seeing another angle nobody's bringing up - they keep saying this deal with the messaging gateways is for the benefit of the users - but it only gets set up if the companies making each messaging app request it, and they can pick and choose which other messaging apps to hook up to. So, you'll get a haphazard matrix of connections between some services but not others.

If they really wanted this to benefit the users, they'd make it mandatory for every messaging app to be able to exchange messages with every other messaging app, so nobody would be left out. Sounds to me like this is really being done for the benefit of (some of) the companies, not the users.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Then Maybe Apple needs to do nothing but it is WhatsApp, Telegram, and others who have to work on being interoperable? I'm pretty sure the DMA is not just for Apple.

Yeah maybe...

I guess it's not a sexy headline to say "EU Planning To Force Telegram To Interoperate with SnapChat..." 🤣

But seriously... and as I said before... who is asking for this? Users? Companies? Governments?

Do all these messaging platforms really want interoperability with each other? Did they all have a meeting to discuss this?

Should I be able to send a Telegram user a message without having a Telegram account? By just using my email address or telephone number?

Coming soon... anyone can reply to this comment without having a MacRumors account! Freedom!!!!

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

So, now you're suggesting that we should force every smartphone maker to include Lightning support on their phones, then? Because the equivalent is what people in this thread are suggesting, that every phone manufacturer be forced to include RCS support.

I don't have a lot of love for the MFi program (no, despite what some people might assume, I don't like / agree with everything Apple has ever done, they make their mistakes/missteps too), but the Lightning connector itself is physically a better connector than USB-C, which has a lot more fiddly little bits to it.

Not to mention that USB-C has kind of gotten out of hand, with lots of horror stories about equipment and cables that can all cheerfully plug together, yet in some cases the cables can damage the equipment, and vice versa, because there's so many variants of the spec all running through the same One True connector. With, say, AC power, if you have a US standard AC power plug (yes, there are a few variants, grounded-or-not, polarized-or-not), either you can plug the bits together and they work, or you just can't plug them together. With USB-C, you can easily break things.

Yes, companies should eventually be forced into adopting standards. They will all carry on with their own proprietary things otherwise which is detrimental to everyone. SMS was always lucrative for carriers. Remember when it was 10p to send one message and now they are unlimited the carriers are raking it in from bandwidth limits instead?

It doesn’t matter how much you keep selling it, the fact is Apple keeping the lightning port is a prime example of this. If Apple brought USBC to the iPhone it would be of the same high standard as the iPad. You keep talking about broken ports but where is the evidence? I don’t doubt there aren’t any; people mistreat their tech all the time. But I really don’t think it’s as widespread an issue as you think. ‘Horror Stories’ are normally the tech-literate less than 1% of the market who bother to go on Reddit and complain.

The iPhone is the outlier here as all other Apple products have transitioned to C.

 

[bushman4]

Tim Cook and company to smart to let EU dictate what they want
I’m sure their legal team is looking at it

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

People keep pushing this point as if it were true. Once you bulldoze a big hole through one of the walls, it is no longer a walled garden, dammit. There will be numerous apps that will jump to one or more 3rd-party stores instead of the App Store, and there will be 3rd-party stores pushing hard to make this happen (to bring attention to themselves). Before long, there will be apps that are very popular, or, say, something you need for work, that aren't available on Apple's App Store, and then you basically have to leave the walled garden. You're pushing hard to make a mess of the walled garden and then saying, "well, but you can still stay there, so everything is peachy", and I call ********. I'm sick and tired of this excuse being repeated ad nauseam.

This system already exists and works pretty well: it’s called PC Gaming. You have Steam, Epic, EA, Windows (Microsoft), Good Old Games, Humble, GameFly, itch.io etc alongside a plethora of streaming and subscription services like Stadia, Luna, Gamepass, Shield and so on.

Steam might have the largest market share but players are not limited to just using Steam. However Valve take 30% just like Apple but devs still put up with it because it’s where the largest player base is.

If Apple opened up iOS to rival stores a similar thing would happen except on a much larger scale. People would stick with the App Store because of convenience and developers would therefore still swallow Apple’s cut to reach the largest set of customers whilst simultaneously giving us the option of not using Apple if we so wished.

Apples arguments against opening up iOS are 100% financially motivated and 0% customer motivated. They harp on about privacy this and innovation that but what this really boils down to is numbers on a spreadsheet and maintaining control and thus their overheads. They don’t give a rats ass about you, me or anyone else.

Ever see Total Recall? Apple (and every other tech monopoly. Let’s not pretend Google or Microsoft are saints in this) are just another Corhagen controlling the air supply via their tight monopoly.

And I will stand by the ‘air’ analogy because we are not talking about a small company with a hundred million installs; we are talking about companies in control of a device 6.6th people around the world use to navigate the modern world. Smartphones are a necessity in 2022 and not just for the wealthy or better off. We see refugees pouring into the west and they have smartphones, probably as their last possession. This doesn’t mean they are liars, it means this is how much they mean to people, from communicating with family members to accessing government services and banking.

This isn’t just the EU: The UK, Japan, China, India, the USA etc are all gunning for the tech monopolies because they see how reliant their citizens are on their smart devices. People like to propose unrealistic solutions like pulling out of markets of millions of customers but in reality this would cause untold chaos worldwide as stock values plummet, jobs are lost and livelihoods are wrecked.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Steam might have the largest market share but players are not limited to just using Steam. However Valve take 30% just like Apple but devs still put up with it because it’s where the largest player base is.

If Apple opened up iOS to rival stores a similar thing would happen except on a much larger scale. People would stick with the App Store because of convenience and developers would therefore still swallow Apple’s cut to reach the largest set of customers whilst simultaneously giving us the option of not using Apple if we so wished.

Quick question:

Every PC game developer/studio has their own website, right?

So why do they give Valve 30% instead of selling on their own website and pocketing that extra coin?

I mean... at least on PC you can install from anywhere. Unlike Apple at the moment.

<thinking, thinking>

Hmmm... it's almost like there's some sort of value in having a lot of games available in a single store... with a single method of payment... ease of (re)installation... etc. There is something to having a large audience in one place.

Maybe if Apple is forced to allow 3rd-party app stores and web installs... many (most?) developers will stick with the App Store anyway. I'll be curious to see.

Isn't there a stat that says 95% of Android users still get their apps from the Google Play Store? Even though Android has had 3rd-party app stores and web installs since... the beginning?

I wonder what that stat will be on iOS if (when?) Apple is forced to allow alternatives?

Fun times ahead!

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Quick question:

Every PC game developer/studio has their own website, right?

So why do they give Valve 30% instead of selling on their own website and pocketing that extra coin?

I mean... at least on PC you can install from anywhere. Unlike Apple at the moment.

<thinking, thinking>

Hmmm... it's almost like there's some sort of value in having a lot of games available in a single store... with a single method of payment... ease of (re)installation... etc. There is something to having a large audience in one place.

Maybe if Apple is forced to allow 3rd-party app stores and web installs... many (most?) developers will stick with the App Store anyway. I'll be curious to see.

Isn't there a stat that says 95% of Android users still get their apps from the Google Play Store? Even though Android has had 3rd-party app stores and web installs since... the beginning?

I wonder what that stat will be on iOS if (when?) Apple is forced to allow alternatives?

Fun times ahead!

Everything you say is true. Convenience always wins! But choice is always welcome. I can install defunct Android apps and games no longer on the play store via sideloading. I can buy my Xbox games on disc instead of downloading them. I can install Windows apps from all sorts of places.

The App Store is brilliant but it would still be nice to have other options.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Before long, there will be apps that are very popular, or, say, something you need for work, that aren't available on Apple's App Store, and then you basically have to leave the walled garden

Oh, we can agree that there are apps that you "basically have to" have and use.
And they do "steer" people to particular systems or stores or force consumers hands.

But here's the thing: If one particular app or lack of choice for one is such an issue, then lack of choice among operating systems and App Store is an even bigger issue.

There are relatively low entry barriers to become an app developer and make an app. Developing and popularising a mobile operating system though? Even Microsoft with its vast resources failed at that. It's a winner-takes-all market.

The biggest "bottleneck" in competition (or its lack thereof) we - developers and consumers - are facing is in mobile operating systems and app stores. Not particular apps. That's why app store operators and mobile OS developers should be regulated.

Once you bulldoze a big hole through one of the walls, it is no longer a walled garden, dammit

There is no big hole.
You just open the existing gates from inside a bit, to allow people to leave that garden.
In no way does that mean lowering the guard against outside actors that want to get inside that walled garden.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It'll also mean entries showing up in your messages essentially saying, "Message from a source that WhatsApp purports is Jane Doe". Apple won't want to just trust whatever name WhatsApp (or whatever service) gives for the user on the other end, and that user won't have an AppleID (that Apple can trust, coming from WhatsApp - what's to keep WhatsApp/etc from saying "oh, yeah, the AppleID is tcook@apple.com". So, your native Messages app can't trust the identities beyond "WhatsApp says this is 'foo'"

WhatsApp verifies mobile numbers for their users / accounts by verification through SMS.

Just the same way as Apple do. It's a non-issue.

 

[threesixty360]

This whole thing is turning from a mild rom-com into a horror movie!

The overreach is outstanding!
I don’t know of any market sector that has seen such aggressive policies. Not even medicine or auto manufacturers have anything like this.

The EU are basically asking everyone to upend the business models they have had since tech began. The IBM PC compatible thing was literally an accident. Its not normal for businesses to operate by spending ridiculous amounts on R+d only to give it away by making it 100% exploitable by competitors. Who would do that?

Inventors must benefit from their inventions. Thats the principle of copyright law. It’s why we enforce patents etc.. it’s why in the west we have anything worthwhile because we enforce this stuff.

It feels like because the EU don’t actually care about building tech companies themselves, they subsequently don’t care about destroying innovation through these draconian policies. They are using their customer base as ransom.

The worst thing is I can’t see how any customer has been harmed by any of this. We have better and cheaper technology than we’ve ever had. With less barriers to entry than ever before. And the EU want MORE legislation? Like wow…

Lobbyists and brown paper envelopes have won the game yet again it seems.
Not even sure what apple can do as the eu is a big market. I think you may have to sue each country in turn and pursue it all through the courts and hope it damages the bill.

I think if the tech companies got together to apple legal pressure I’m not sure it would all stand up in court. It all feels unnecessary and draconian.

 

[H2SO4]

I'm on mobile so I can't format this neatly but will do my best to reply.

Yes, I call trash companies trash. Apple isn't a trash company but are far from my overlords, I can side with them on this issue and disagree on another. You don't have to all-or-nothing support or hate a company. Apple does garbage stuff, if it makes you feel better for me to say it. Like the fact that my $4k laptop has trouble waking from sleep via Bluetooth without kernel panicking - that's a joke. But I digress.

It's not unethical to sell things on your own, agreed. How is that working for all of us with streaming services? How is that working for Android? Terrible experience for users all around because companies exclusively only care about profit at the end of the day. 20 money-grubbing streaming services don't care if user experience is trash if they get their cut. These third party app stores and apps woukd happily collect and sell user data and do things that Apple currently doesn't allow for good reason.

When Apple cares less than they do today about privacy, we can talk. We don't need to destroy a solid ecosystem because Apple could be worse tomorrow. Android and its allowing the user to do whatever they want already exists and is already too much of a dumpster fire for any iPhone user. Nobody is stopping you or anyone from buying an Android phone and doing whatever. The choice of exists. If Apple's phone doesn't suit you, buy another one. Don't buy Apple's and then have some tech illiterate lawmakers drag it down to be as bad as Android which already exists

The fact that you go on a tirade with your trash this and trash that without examples, makes your posts seem pretty silly actually.
You sound like a teenager on a rant.
As for privacy, do you really know what Apple is up to, I mean really? No, (and neither do I), but I'd suggest that they are involved in as much shady stuff. as those they moan about.
You really think that even though they don't, 'treat you as the product' that they aren't complicit?

There are a number of reasons that shell companies exist and MOST of those reasons are NOT altruistic. Do you really think that them shunning Google on one hand and them having them as a default search engine on the other is really what they purport to be about?
The cognitive dissonance is incredible here.

As you keep saying we are free to buy our own trash phone, Apple are free to trade in their own NON EU countries. They should just buy a few hundred thousand square K's and fill it with Apple Stores.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The overreach is outstanding!
I don’t know of any market sector that has seen such aggressive policies. Not even medicine or auto manufacturers have anything like this.

Banking and finance, air travel, telecommunications, energy, health care and medicinal - they are all heavily regulated.

The EU are basically asking everyone to upend the business models they have had since tech began

IT and communications have rarely been about proprietary systems and walled platforms. Computers have been able to exchange information across manufacturers and platforms for decades. There has been technical interoperability "since computing began".

I as an Apple user am using the same internet access and internet protocol standards as my neighbours on Windows and Android. Same as twenty-five years ago, when we were using the same phone network with different - but interoperable - phones and modems from different manufacturers. And the same interoperable GSM standard for mobile communications.

Its not normal for businesses to operate by spending ridiculous amounts on R+d only to give it away by making it 100% exploitable by competitors. Who would do that?

Microsoft did just that. Their success was built on low barriers to entry for developers, on the availability of everyone being able to develop and offer software for their platforms.

On the flip side, that success has allowed them to become the dominant desktop computing platform (OS) and in the process created huge barriers to changing platforms - for developers and consumers. And that in turn has allowed them to push what is basically spyware (Windows 11) on the market.

But coming back to Apple: Mobile communication systems / platforms such as iMessage and Facetime aren't rocket science. Steve Jobs, in fact, boasted on stage how they were using existing protocols and pieces and planning on making it an open standard. These things don't require "ridiculous amounts" of R&D.

Again, interoperability of communication systems has been a key driver in making them as cheap, accessible and ubiquitous as they are today.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Quick question:

Every PC game developer/studio has their own website, right?

So why do they give Valve 30% instead of selling on their own website and pocketing that extra coin?

I mean... at least on PC you can install from anywhere. Unlike Apple at the moment.

<thinking, thinking>

Well… they do. It’s called multihoming. Existing on multiple places to maximize reach and revenue.

Hmmm... it's almost like there's some sort of value in having a lot of games available in a single store... with a single method of payment... ease of (re)installation... etc. There is something to having a large audience in one place.

Maybe if Apple is forced to allow 3rd-party app stores and web installs... many (most?) developers will stick with the App Store anyway. I'll be curious to see.

Yep, exactly like steam. No negative side effects but massive benefits. EA tried to have their own store exclusives, but consumers made them concede and make their games available on steam. Epic store have exclusives, but after a while they also come to steam, because steam offer the best service for consumers.

Isn't there a stat that says 95% of Android users still get their apps from the Google Play Store? Even though Android has had 3rd-party app stores and web installs since... the beginning?

So then why so against the option for choosing? Why against choice that will have no real impact? And if a company exists the iOS AppStore the difference will be great you can still download their app somewhere else. You can install older iOS games that apple will just remove for lack of updates.

I wonder what that stat will be on iOS if (when?) Apple is forced to allow alternatives?

Fun times ahead!

More choices. Legacy support and even greater programs that uses uneque functions not available in iOS AppStore for policy reasons.