I really have to laugh at this.
Fortune 500 in 2006:
159. Apple (Revenue of $13.9 billion)
Fortune 500 in 2021:
3. Apple (Revenue of $274.5 billion)
Yes, Apple will surely be a lesson to those everywhere not to drive innovation.
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 to Accuse Apple of Unfairly Blocking Third-Party Access to NFC Payment Technology on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fortune 500 in 2006:
159. Apple (Revenue of $13.9 billion)
Fortune 500 in 2021:
3. Apple (Revenue of $274.5 billion)
Yes, Apple will surely be a lesson to those everywhere not to drive innovation.
Even the US is bringing some sort of Anti-trust bill or Open Markets Act or something similar. They can buy an island with their cash and sell exclusively there, I suppose. Why else are they hoarding their cash?
Can someone explain this to me?
So I make a phone without NFC, no one who buys it cares cuz obviously if they did they would buy a different phone, and no developer cares cuz again if their software needs NFC to work they won't deveop apps for my phone. There's no law that says I have to make a phone with NFC for users or provide an NFC phone so that developers who happen to need NFC can develop apps for my phone, right? And specifically, there's no law that says anyone who builds a phone MUST put NFC in there so that Paypal and Venmo can do wireless payments, right?
Ok, great, so then I decide I want to give just myself a cool feature on my phone and that feature happens to need NFC, so I put NFC on my phone and only make it usable for me. So now what is the problem? There is still no law that says I have to provide an NFC phone for my users right? And there's still no law that says I have to make a phone that has NFC for developers to access for their software.
So I just don't understand what the problem is here. Isn't this the very thing the free market is supposed to take care of by default? If you want to use NFC and my phone doesn's provide NFC, then you don't buy my phone or make apps for my phone. It seems pretty simple to me, but maybe there's something I'm not understanding.
Same with the iMessage multi-platform thing. Are you telling me that there may be a day where I am not allowed by law to release a messaging app only for the iPhone? So I'm gonna have to put in all the extra time and money to develop the same app for just whatever platforms the government decided I have to develop for? Or is that just for messaging platforms that have a certain number of users or a certain percentage of the marketshare? Or is it just for Apple specifically since it seems to be the cool trend to just target Apple for some reason?
So I make a phone without NFC, no one who buys it cares cuz obviously if they did they would buy a different phone, and no developer cares cuz again if their software needs NFC to work they won't deveop apps for my phone. There's no law that says I have to make a phone with NFC for users or provide an NFC phone so that developers who happen to need NFC can develop apps for my phone, right? And specifically, there's no law that says anyone who builds a phone MUST put NFC in there so that Paypal and Venmo can do wireless payments, right?
Ok, great, so then I decide I want to give just myself a cool feature on my phone and that feature happens to need NFC, so I put NFC on my phone and only make it usable for me. So now what is the problem? There is still no law that says I have to provide an NFC phone for my users right? And there's still no law that says I have to make a phone that has NFC for developers to access for their software.
So I just don't understand what the problem is here. Isn't this the very thing the free market is supposed to take care of by default? If you want to use NFC and my phone doesn's provide NFC, then you don't buy my phone or make apps for my phone. It seems pretty simple to me, but maybe there's something I'm not understanding.
Same with the iMessage multi-platform thing. Are you telling me that there may be a day where I am not allowed by law to release a messaging app only for the iPhone? So I'm gonna have to put in all the extra time and money to develop the same app for just whatever platforms the government decided I have to develop for? Or is that just for messaging platforms that have a certain number of users or a certain percentage of the marketshare? Or is it just for Apple specifically since it seems to be the cool trend to just target Apple for some reason?
Can this ridiculous line of argument be banned? It’s never going to happen and all it does is inflame discussions. It’s first grade logic at best.
I don't know, I think it's a useful and easy way to tell those who are able to think critically apart from those who aren't.
Well, we've had the Apple Pay / Visa exploit last year (or was it the year before?) while at the same time Samsung Pay / Visa was secure. We've had this: https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/07/emai...os-users-were-affected-by-xcodeghost-malware/, we've had developers (it was a MIT or Harvard security test many years ago) that released official apps in the App Store and that app later modified itself to turn into malware.
Apple isn't driving innovation on iOS/iPadOS or mobile devices right now. They did it with the release of the original iPhone which changed the world from keys and no apps to touchscreen and installable apps. Or rather, they put a whole package of software and hardware together that did that. They didn't invent it, just like the mouse. They've been riding on that same horse ever since and they learned to make a ton of money with it by taking a cut from developers.Yes, Apple will surely be a lesson to those everywhere not to drive innovation.
Their innovation right now is the M1-series SoC for Macs, not the mobile devices market or apps. If they can ride that horse for the next 15 years as well remains to be seen. They sure don't make anywhere near the money with it as with the App Store.
I’m upset???? ???? The irony of that statement ?????
The EU is really over stepping here.
Devs created this mess by only supporting two platforms. There were lots of platforms prior to Apple and Android to list a few…
Windows Phone, Palm OS, Blackberry, iOS, Android, Symbian.
If the EU wants more competition they should force devs to support more platforms. Android and iOS are both new comers they were the under dogs.
Consider the billions of dollars Microsoft invested and lost in Windows Phone including buying Nokia. Why didn’t developers rally around Windows Phone if competition is so important?
Devs created this mess by only supporting two platforms. There were lots of platforms prior to Apple and Android to list a few…
Windows Phone, Palm OS, Blackberry, iOS, Android, Symbian.
If the EU wants more competition they should force devs to support more platforms. Android and iOS are both new comers they were the under dogs.
Consider the billions of dollars Microsoft invested and lost in Windows Phone including buying Nokia. Why didn’t developers rally around Windows Phone if competition is so important?
No, it’s not but go on…..
New comers?? Lmao, they were released a decade and a half ago and the other OS's you mentioned don't even exist to support anymore.
So Apple’s argument isn’t about security, as this 3rd party option is already in place for macOS, but about how much money it will lose by giving people the option. Still, I think most people prefer convenience than hunting elsewhere, like AmazonOf course they could, but... the macOS market is next to nothing for them compared to iOS/iPadOS. They make a massive amount of money from taking a cut in the App Store for iOS/iPadOS, they also take a cut from every transaction with Apple Pay. So if they'd allow 3rd party app stores or NFC access to banks, they won't be able to take their cut. In return it might be cheaper for the end user, less/no transaction fees or in the case of apps, if app A costs $9.99 in the Apple App Store, but it's $8.99 in another App Store, because that store has a lower cut, then its cheaper for the end user, because there's a choice where to buy the same app. Just like when you buy a car, a TV or really anything else for that matter. Ironically you can easily buy an iPhone, Macbook and many other Apple products cheaper in "3rd party stores" vs Apples own stores.
The end is nigh.
Apple just made needs to make a EU Os that only lets you make calls. This is nothing more than a money grab.
why not just makes 2 versions of ios, 1 for us that like Apple's ecosystem and 1 for those that want shitdroid, then the user has a choice which to download to their iphone, ipad etc ?
Yeah sure guy that’s why companies require AV on computers attached to their network. But no, you want to attach your phone running apps you got from the internet and the company should accommodate you. Sure guy sure.
It’s no longer my choice but developer’s choice. That’s what people aren’t getting. As I said elsewhere, if it can be guaranteed by law or a clause in the regulation or whatever that any App on iOS sold elsewhere must also be sold on Apple’s App Store, then we have an agreement to your statement. Other than that, the “keep your phone locked down, nothing will change” take doesn’t line up.
Apps will be pulled from the App Store. Using historical trends says Epic will make their own store and buy up exclusives. How do I get Final Fantasy 7 Remake on PC as an example? Not “the” gaming platform Steam, but only via Epic. This will happen on iOS. And if you say ignore said apps because they aren’t important, well I say to you ignore side loading because it’s not important.
And no one is forcing you to use an iPhone. What Apple allows on its own OS should be Apple's decision, no the EU's or any other organization's.
The difference is that Google Identifier for Advertisers is allowed in the Google store. Apple knifed ids and any app violating their restrictions on fingerprinting users get sent off into the nether. Facebook lost billions on that change in the App Store, so it's very valid to worry that the second third party app stores are allowed, Facebook's going to pull their App off the Apple App Store and force all users to use it's store where it can start collecting data again.
If Apple doesn't like it, they can leave. Though they probably won't have many places left to sell their products by the time it's all said and done.
Ignoring the fact, of course, that you can use something other than Apple products if you don't like how they do things, can you give a specific example of how you as a consumer are being harmed the way things currently are with iOS? I don't mean simply inconvenienced or not getting your way, but actually harmed.
I don't think you get to use the phrase "new comers" when they've been around for 15 years, but you do you. And like I said, the others don't even exist anymore to support
Not philosophically, no, there isn’t. It’s perfectly conceivable that someone else could write the API and the code underlying it better than Apple.
You‘re making a completely different argument than the one pon which I was commenting or on my point regarding it.
It shouldn't be happening in the first place is my point. Clear government overreach.