Impending EU Regulation to Force Apple to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Open Up iMessage

[vipergts2207]

All true. But nobody has forced anyone to operate on the App Store. Apple should be successful from allowing third-party apps on the App Store. McDonald’s is a success because of its customers too, how much legal say should we have in what food they serve or what they put on their menu?

I hate to keep using the fast food analogies, but they’re apt.

Apple has a platform in place that people are free to utilize or not to sell their apps and make money. Many people get through life with no cell phone or only a generic flip-phone, so I don’t see the devices or App marketplace being critical to everyday life like electricity, running water or even the internet. There’s other phones, other operating systems, other ways to get what you need done. I would hate to operate a store that became a success, then be told what I must sell in my store and what commission I can or can’t take after the fact.

Here's the thing. iOS is not a store, it's an operating system. The iOS App Store is a store. Nobody is taking Apple's store from them. What they're likely going to be told is that they cannot prevent others from opening up competing stores. The situation we have now is one where two entities have bought up 99% of all available land and have put their stores on it. This leaves nobody else with any land upon which to put a store. However, one of the land owners has graciously allowed anyone who wants to to build a store on their land. The other owner has told other would-be proprietors to sell your wares in the stores they own or get lost.

 

[user002]

All true. But nobody has forced anyone to operate on the App Store. Apple should be successful from allowing third-party apps on the App Store. McDonald’s is a success because of its customers too, how much legal say should we have in what food they serve or what they put on their menu?

I hate to keep using the fast food analogies, but they’re apt.

Apple has a platform in place that people are free to utilize or not to sell their apps and make money. Many people get through life with no cell phone or only a generic flip-phone, so I don’t see the devices or App marketplace being critical to everyday life like electricity, running water or even the internet. There’s other phones, other operating systems, other ways to get what you need done. I would hate to operate a store that became a success, then be told what I must sell in my store and what commission I can or can’t take after the fact.

If someone owns an iPhone, they should be free to outfit it with whatever cover they like, customize with whatever ringtone they prefer, and install whatever software they deem fit, at their own risk.

 

[Dremmel]

This is fantastic news for indie developers. Can't wait to see what 3rd Party Store Developers come up with. A real search? Genuine charts? A new apps page?

 

[d686546s]

I'm sorry, alternate video calling services aren't allowed?? What about Skype, Teams, Jabber, Zoom, etc.?

I'll give you that this one slipped in because one of the reports specifically mentioned FaceTime.

However, the rest still stands.

 

[Cartoonkid]

Let's say a developer comes up with some awesome new feature for a messaging app. Today the problem exists that, in order for the app to be successful they have to work tremendously hard to try to get existing users of well-established platforms like iMessage and WhatsApp to use it. As cool as the new innovative feature may be, it's useless to a user if there's nobody else to communicate with on the app. But if basic interoperability is required, now suddenly the developer's users can communicate with everyone else already. While these outside users can't use the innovative app-specific feature with non-users of the app, they're still able to interoperate on the basics of the standard for communication, just like every other app. There's a built-in, basic, and level playing field. If the feature is really that innovative, they'll eventually be able to amass a sizable number of app users. Conversely, today because of the difficulty of the prospect of breaking through to users of established players, Apple, Google, or Facebook may see this new feature and decide to buy them out, with the developer taking them up on the offer because they realize the prospect of succeeding is low and it's a big payday. So now instead of "future SnapChat" some day becoming a large company of their own, it becomes just another cog in the Apple or Google machine. This is what really kills innovation. Large competitors buying up smaller, innovative ones, just to add their IP to their own portfolio. If regulation can make it more viable for smaller players to exist on their own, rather than having to count on a buyout from a FAANG company, then that's a win for both innovation and competition.

If you want to be successful, you should have to work tremendously hard, regardless of the industry. Nobody should get anything handed to them based on the hard work by others.

And interoperability won't stop stifling competition through acquisition. In fact, it may accelerate it. If FB truly felt threatened by some new cool app, they've got the financial resources to make an offer that not even the most principled developer could refuse.

 

[vipergts2207]

If you want to be successful, you should have to work tremendously hard, regardless of the industry. Nobody should get anything handed to them based on the hard work by others.

Sure, but there’s nothing wrong with taking the task from Herculean to merely difficult.

And interoperability won't stop stifling competition through acquisition. In fact, it may accelerate it. If FB truly felt threatened by some new cool app, they've got the financial resources to make an offer that not even the most principled developer could refuse.

That happens under the current regime already. See Instagram and WhatsApp as examples. We can’t expect anything to change by continuing with the status quo.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Forcing 3rd party stores and side loading isn't going to accomplish anything and I think the EU already knows that. They're just using "competition" as an excuse to scuttle privacy/security on mobile.

Do you even macOS, bro?

 

[Cartoonkid]

WhatsApp/Meta is likely a gatekeeper itself in this scenario. I'm an iPhone user in a country where WhatsApp is a de facto standard that is basically impossible to escape.

If services are interoperable it lower the entry bar for new services. I might even be able to use iMessage to talk with my colleagues, eliminating the need to install WhatsApp completely.

Maybe a new messenger has the right idea for additional features but is unable to even make a dent. Opening it up might help because using the service would not disrupt your existing conversations.

If WhatsApp is impossible to escape, it sounds like your beef is with your own government for allowing them to become a monopoly. And why should Apple be forced to open up iMessage just to rescue you from that when you literally have a universal option called SMS?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Yes, it does. Because what is immediately going to happen is that Meta is going to create their own app store, which will be the only place to download Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, and which will conveniently circumvent many if not all the privacy protections Apple has spent the last decade building.

And your sister has no malware that she knows of.

Do you even macOS, bro?

 

[Cartoonkid]

Sure, but there’s nothing wrong with taking the task from Herculean to merely difficult.


That happens under the current regime already. See Instagram and WhatsApp as examples. We can’t expect anything to change by continuing with the status quo.

But forcing Apple to make it easier isn't the solution. Neither is forcing them to open up iMessage just because IG and WA are stifling competition.

 

[vipergts2207]

But forcing Apple to make it easier isn't the solution. Neither is forcing them to open up iMessage just because IG and WA are stifling competition.

Really that provision is directed at Facebook, though Apple is getting caught up in it as well. At the end of the day, I’m not going to complain about iMessage becoming more useful.

 

[GermanSuplex]

If someone owns an iPhone, they should be free to outfit it with whatever cover they like, customize with whatever ringtone they prefer, and install whatever software they deem fit, at their own risk.

I don’t entirely disagree, but why should that be true of iPhones and not virtually any other hardware/software combo?

 

[user002]

That goes without saying and there’s been no debate about that. The argument is not whether the EU has the right to legislate in such a way. This is a philosophical argument about whether they should, not if they can.

Fair enough. We can also have a philosophical argument about whether its right for Apple to sidestep taxes, bribe politicians, or not include chargers with new, $1000+ phones.

 

[Cartoonkid]

I'll give you that this one slipped in because one of the reports specifically mentioned FaceTime.

However, the rest still stands.

Not all of it.

I'm vegan and there are no vegan fast food options in my area. Does that mean McDonalds should be forced to offer truly vegan burgers (meaning separate food storage, food prep areas, cooking areas, etc.) to enable competition?

As much as I hate McDonalds, I would never expect that of them.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Here's the thing. iOS is not a store, it's an operating system. The iOS App Store is a store. Nobody is taking Apple's store from them. What they're likely going to be told is that they cannot prevent others from opening up competing stores. The situation we have now is one where two entities have bought up 99% of all available land and have put their stores on it. This leaves nobody else with any land upon which to put a store. However, one of the land owners has graciously allowed anyone who wants to to build a store on their land. The other owner has told other would-be proprietors to sell your wares in the stores they own or get lost.

This makes more sense in getting to the root of the issue, but land is finite. App stores and devices are not. Nothing is stopping anyone from creating an awesome new device or software to have a go at Apple or Android. Indeed, while not as successful, there are other platforms. And again, Apple has a way for you to make money on their platforms.

Just seems like people want to utilize Apple’s products to take a bigger piece of the pie.

As for being an OS, does that automatically trigger something that says if something is able to run an app, it must be allowed to do so?

 

[user002]

You're not understanding - not sure whether that's intentional or not. The entire iPhone ecosystem model is the walled garden. If what you wanted was something other than the walled garden model, and you bought an iPhone, then you failed to do the proper research before buying - which sees like a serious mistake to make when preparing to purchase something costing many hundreds of dollars. If it's within the first 14 days of buying the iPhone, return it and get an Android phone. If you're past the return window, well, that's on you. You can probably sell it on the used market and put the money towards an Android phone.

Buying an iPhone and then insisting it must be opened up so that it's no longer a walled garden (and, no, you can't put in an expressway and still try to call it a walled garden) is like buying an electric vehicle and demanding it be retrofitted to run on gasoline so you can fill it up at gas stations. If you wanted a car that ran on gasoline and you bought an electric vehicle, that's your problem, no something for the government to fix for you.

A "walled garden", in this case, is your euphemism for what is otherwise known as a monopoly. The EU doesnt like monopolies, deem them to be anti-consumer and against the interests of their citizens, and are legislating accordingly. If Apple doesnt like the EU's rules, they can take their ball and go home.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm vegan and there are no vegan fast food options in my area. Does that mean McDonalds should be forced to offer truly vegan burgers (meaning separate food storage, food prep areas, cooking areas, etc.) to enable competition?

You don't honestly think that's an even remotely similar situation, do you?

 

[vipergts2207]

This makes more sense in getting to the root of the issue, but land is finite. App stores and devices are not. Nothing is stopping anyone from creating an awesome new device or software to have a go at Apple or Android. Indeed, while not as successful, there are other platforms. And again, Apple has a way for you to make money on their platforms.

Just seems like people want to utilize Apple’s products to take a bigger piece of the pie.

If the market would support more than two mobile OS’s, Windows, BlackBerry, Palm, etc all wouldn’t have died off. And it’s not like Samsung, Amazon, or Facebook don’t have the resources necessary to make an attempt if they thought it were viable. Having another alternative is possible in a technical sense, but not really practically. This shouldn’t be surprising if we look at the macOS/Windows duopoly of the old computing paradigm.

As for being an OS, does that automatically trigger something that says if something is able to run an app, it must be allowed to do so?

Philosophically yes, particularly if it’s part of a duopoly, is a general computing platform, and is central to the lives of billions of people around the world. Otherwise one entity has too much control over too many people.

 

[CarlJ]

The point wasn't that people are choosing a device that doesn't meet their needs, the point is that you're bundling all the myriad considerations that go into people's decision for a specific platform and then interpret this as an explicit backing for every policy Apple has put in place. That's just not how these things work and you know it.

I will thank you kindly to stop misinterpreting my words and then trying to browbeat me with your misinterpretation of them. Yes, there are many things to consider when choosing a phone (or quite a few other things). For some of them you get exactly what you want. For others, you accept the consequences of your choice ("well, I really like how fast you can fill up a gasoline-burning car, but I want all the other benefits of an electric car, so I will knowingly forego that quick-fill advantage"). I have bought some things before knowing full well that they weren't quite the color that I really wanted, for instance. I did so knowing that, and it's on me. You make your selection from the choices available. If you buy something that works in a well-documented and understood way, and then complain later, you should be complaining at yourself for not researching your choice better ahead of time.

If, rather than just complaining, you lobby the government to bring in the magical after-purchase-change fairy to make your device work differently than it did when you bought it - especially when there are people who bought it partly on the basis of the features you're not trying to eliminate, that's a despicable position to take.

Here's a different example. Before the Apple Watch was a thing, I bought an analog watch I really like (a mid-size diver's watch). I bought this model specifically because it was comparatively small (IIRC, it's 38mm vs many other 45mm and larger watches out there). That wasn't the only reason I bought it, but it was one compelling reason. And I love that watch (one of my few disappointments about the Apple Watch, oddly, is it motivates me to not wear the other two watches I have). Anyway, this watch was not inexpensive (well, watch fanatics would probably consider it so, but it's nowhere near a checkout-line impulse purchase). I researched it a bunch, because it was an expensive purchase, and I was expecting to wear it every day, everywhere, for a long time. I got it from an authorized retailer to ensure the warranty was fully valid and such. Out of curiosity, I looked it up on Amazon, some months later, and found it had a bunch of 1-star reviews. But they were pretty much all of the form, "THIS WATCH IS TOO SMALL!!! It's only suitable for a woman or small child, not for a man" (FWIW, I'm a grown man over six feet tall and the watch fits just exactly the way that I want - they wanted a dinner-plate sized watch and this wasn't it). Basically, they were reviews left by a bunch of idiots, who dropped hundreds of dollars on a terrific watch that had all the specifications clearly listed, because they were too stupid to (1) read the listed size, (2) hold up a ruler, and (3) decide if the size was right for their needs. They were intentionally damaging the reputation and sales potential of the watch (search for "diver's watch" 4 stars and up, and it wouldn't appear), because somebody needed to be blamed for their mistake, and it certainly wasn't going to be themselves.

Again, if you're spending a large chunk of money on something, either you research it first, and you're happy with the purchase, or you research it and decide you see some faults but you can live with them because the good features outweigh those faults, or you go in blindly and take your chances, in which case you have nobody to blame but yourself if the product doesn't meet your needs. Trying to get someone to change the game for you (or retaliating against the manufacturer, like in the example above), after the fact, is not cool, especially when the thing you're trying to change is part of what specifically attracted other buyers to the item.

And FWIW, yes, there are cases where I would absolutely say (and have said), "well, there's 19 things about this product that I love, but there's 1 that I really hate, and because of that I'm not buying it and I'll go buy my second choice instead and make do with that".

In the case of the iPhone, the way that the App Store and the ecosystem work are pretty damn clear, and have been for a long time. If you research the iPhone before buying, and don't mind (or actively like) the way the App Store works, great. If you don't like the way the App Store works, the dealer you're at almost certainly has a bunch of Android phones to look at (unless you're actually standing in an Apple Store). Get the one that you want. If you buy an iPhone simply because you like the color, or because you like the camera, or because you like the song that was playing in the commercial, and you didn't pay attention to any of the other details... the responsibility for that is on you - you've accepted all of them by default.

I don't accept the argument of "well, but someone bought it for other attributes and didn't pay attention to the ecosystem and now you want them to spend lots of money to untangle from that and move to Android?" I'm not the one that made that poor choice for them, they did that themselves. If I'm driving down a road and make a wrong turn and drive another ten miles in the wrong direction, when I figure it out, should I (a) turn around and head back in the right direction, or (b) lobby the government to uproot and move my destination to be in front of the direction I'm going (causing trouble for all the other people thus displaced)? Driving further in the wrong direction doesn't help things, or make the case for choice (b) any stronger.

Frankly, if folks who have iPhones who really want sideloading started a massive letter writing campaign to Apple, saying, "we want sideloading!", encouraging and cajoling Apple to change, and taking their money elsewhere if Apple doesn't, I'd be totally fine with that. I wouldn't help, of course, because I don't support their position. But when they start pressuring governments to make the behavior they don't like illegal, I have a problem with that. And I strongly suspect that, outside of tech forums like this, most of the pressure on lawmakers is coming from lobbyists for big software companies (who want a free slice of that market that Apple created), not from your typical iPhone user.

 

[CarlJ]

A "walled garden", in this case, is your euphemism for what is otherwise known as a monopoly. The EU doesnt like monopolies, deem them to be anti-consumer and against the interests of their citizens, and are legislating accordingly. If Apple doesnt like the EU's rules, they can take their ball and go home.

So you would argue that McDonalds has a monopoly on what food is sold in McDonalds restaurants, and other newcomers should be allowed to set up stands inside of McDonalds restaurants to sell their own food?

 

[CarlJ]

If the market would support more than two mobile OS’s, Windows, BlackBerry, Palm, etc all wouldn’t have died off. And it’s not like Samsung, Amazon, or Facebook don’t have the resources necessary to make an attempt if they thought it were viable. Having another alternative is possible in a technical sense, but not really practically.

Windows, BlackBerry, and Palm died off because they couldn't offer anything compellingly better than Apple and Google.

 

[Admiralbison]

AWESOME NEWS!! - a win for developer choice and consumer freedom.

bring down the wall garden.

ACTUAL Steam store on iPhones/iPads here we come!!!
potentially as well:

GOG
Adobe


Also we consumers can continue to push and fight for “SIDELOADING”

I.e. something that regular computer and even Android users do and refer to as “downloading”

 

[klasma]

Looking forward to Android emulators running on iOS.

 

[Admiralbison]

the same place you signed to successfully stop Brexit. 😀

LOL.

no kidding ha?

many of the corporate shareholders here can’t hide their disdain for consumer choice and worker freedom (developers) arguing it all in the guise of “government is regulating us too much”

well tough for Apple corporation.
They want to reap the all benefits of operating and monopolizing a market, dodging taxes while not following regulations and anti-trust measures.

 

[Admiralbison]

They should just officially pull out of EU. iPhones would become contraband and sell as much ! The actual Apple Users would probably complain enough that....

LOL



I would love Apple to actually do that.

1. It means competitors will be more than happy to fill in a need in the European. - more competition, better products, software and services via for the European market.


EU developers will then have to consider developing for other stores and no longer confined to just Apple’s App Store.


2. customers will be pissed off at Apple, NOT EU regulations. If Apple is going to be that belligerent by “threatening“ to pull out of a huge market like EU.


3. I personally don’t give a crap about greedy Apple shareholders they are a major part of the problem, but given that scenario they would end Tim cook and fire half the board in heart beat due to the MASSIVE earning losses from pulling out of Europe and they will turn the ship back right quick.