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

[d686546s]

As someone living in the US, the EU is full of people who were not elected by me, do not represent me, but somehow have a pretty heavy hand in things that could impact me. That may be where they were going with that "unelected bureaucrats" comment. If the EU wants to demand and make decisions that impact everyone, then EVERYONE should get a say in those elections. Don't want our opinions on your elections? Then butt out of our lives, stay in your own lane and worry about the EU countries that elect you.

Oh no, if one country has never ever projected its power outside of their borders it's the US. How could they do this to you?! Apologies for being flippant, but if there's one defence the US very clearly cannot fall back on then it is how unfair it is that stuff people do domestically have an impact on them.

In seriousness, though, these proposals do not tell Apple how to run their business in the US. Sticking to your line of argument, how the Europeans regulate their markets is really for them to decide on how someone living in America feels about it doesn't really matter.

If the tech companies generally find it easier to make global changes, that's really a decision they make, isn't it?

 

[constructor]

As someone living in the US, the EU is full of people who were not elected by me, do not represent me, but somehow have a pretty heavy hand in things that could impact me. That may be where they were going with that "unelected bureaucrats" comment. If the EU wants to demand and make decisions that impact everyone, then EVERYONE should get a say in those elections. Don't want our opinions on your elections? Then butt out of our lives, stay in your own lane and worry about the EU countries that elect you. I don't get to have a say in their elections, but they seem to think they have this annoyingly large say on things that impact me.

That reads hilariously unaware of the impact of US politics on the entire rest of the globe! ?

And that specifically applies to how exactly those gatekeepers have been moulded by US legislation before then swamping the rest of the world including all the unwanted side effects.

 

[iOS Geek]

That reads hilariously unaware of the impact of US politics on the entire rest of the globe! ?

And that specifically applies to how exactly those gatekeepers have been moulded by US legislation before then swamping the rest of the world including all the unwanted side effects.

Oh I'm plenty aware of our impact on the rest of the globe. Trust me, our own government p***** us off quite a bit, too. So it's not justifiable in my opinion. Ffs, the US literally fought a war centered on representation ? Washington DC must have forgotten about that part. We didn't like when it happened to us, but somehow we seem to think we have the right to do it to everyone else! By the way...bringing up how the US impacts the globe is not the defense you may think it is, especially considering how much people around the world throw a fit about our "meddling". "But you're doing it too" is an excuse my kid would try to come up with.

If anyone, whether it's the US or the EU...wants to have such profound policy impacts on people outside of their jurisdiction...those people should have a say. Don't want them to have a say? Then it's best to stay in your own lane! If you don't stay in your lane but ALSO don't let them have a say...then be prepared to hear the criticisms!

 

[gnipgnop]

Others want the ability to install harmless game streaming applications without running through a browser app.

The games that are being made available in browser-based streaming applications could be made available for purchase in the App Store. Apple isn't preventing that from happening. It's the publishers/developers of the games that are deciding whether or not to port console or Windows games to iOS. Typically those games have a much higher price on Windows/console so it may not be financially feasible to try and port them to a platform where $9.99 is considered to be really expensive for an individual game title.

 

[siddavis]

Last exit. If you have a better idea, go ahead. There was lots of discussion with Apple without any result, so now there will be law. End of story. Apple could have moved.

I do have a better idea - buy something else.
We clearly have a differing view of the roles and limits of government. That's fine.

 

[constructor]

Apple, first of all, is not a monopoly. Their latest iPhone moment, the M1, is great, but sales went from the high teens to low '20s. And frankly, they still cost too much to get monopolies in the PC or phone or watch.

This is not about monopolies. it is about being a gatekeeper, so being in a position of significantly controlling influence which should not be allowed to damage smaller emerging competition.

I think it would be a good idea to let other stores into the Apple store-- but they'd have to have the same security standards, updating, etc. That would be for the benefit of Apple customers, all of them.

As far as I'm aware a platform provider can still impose security restrictions even so.

But, you know, I don't think too many corporations want to invest in all the servers, management, security from one end to the other-- I think this is phony populism, funded by less than serious companies that want all the benefits of the store, plus the ability to opt out of it when there is money to be made, and costs can be left in Apple's hands.

No, it is about gatekeeper corporations being restricted from abusing their control of critical resources by leveraging that into further entrenchment of their control, effectively excluding any effective competition.

As for the Messenger bit, that is just proof that some politicians don't understand tech. Messenger is encrypted end to end. Now, you want to receive text messages from other friends, greedy politicians and just, you know, android users, but they are not encrypted end to end.

It actually looks like you yourself don't understand as much of it as you think you do.

It is actually possible to preserve end-to-end encryption even across service boundaries if gateway interfaces are designed properly.

The EU does not mandate a specific technical solution and GDPR actually puts pressure on the service providers to maintain as much privacy and user consent and as possible.

There has to be some kind of flag.

It is much more than just that.

And the ultimate thing is, if we made a universal messaging system, it would not work the way people want. Some will stay with What's App, with one of the dozens of text message apps they have learned, or is frequented by a bunch of people you find interesting. I'm not saying regulation in this area isn't necessary. But this is surely not it.

And this regulation is not about creating a "universal messaging system"! It is about enabling gateways between different services and handing the choice whether to use such gateways to the user.

If the user chooses not to use it, nothing changes and they will stay within their "home" service the same as they've done so far.

 

[d686546s]

bringing up how the US impacts the globe is not the defense you may think it is, especially considering how much people around the world throw a fit about our "meddling". "But you're doing it too" is an excuse my kid would try to come up with.

If anyone, whether it's the US or the EU...wants to have such profound policy impacts on people outside of their jurisdiction...those people should have a say. Don't want them to have a say? Then it's best to stay in your own lane! If you don't stay in your lane but ALSO don't let them have a say...then be prepared to hear the criticisms!

We live in a globalised world. Pretty much everything of significance anyone does has an impact on everyone else. From emissions standards to tax law to tech regulation to foreign policy to to and to. It's inevitable.

Now if you want to be an idealist then maybe we need a massive global government that deals with these things effectively. We probably do, but we don't have one and pragmatically we need to address issues.

The EU in this case regulates its own internal market. Would Congress accept or consider anyone but American interests when legislating? Would Americans accept it if they did. No.

What's the alternative from a European perspective? Let things develop depending on the legislative framework in the US? We don't get a voice in that either.

Pragmatically, that's what it is.

 

[siddavis]

That reads hilariously unaware of the impact of US politics on the entire rest of the globe! ?

And that specifically applies to how exactly those gatekeepers have been moulded by US legislation before then swamping the rest of the world including all the unwanted side effects.

So you acknowledge unwanted side effects from overbearing regulation as a defense of overbearing regulation?

 

[gnipgnop]

No, it is about gatekeeper corporations being restricted from abusing their control of critical resources by leveraging that into further entrenchment of their control, effectively excluding any effective competition.

Can iOS, iPhone and the App Store really be viewed as "critical resources"? Every one of those things are an example of Apple's intellectual property, i.e., things that Apple is supposed to be able to control.

As for the apps themselves, the reality is that developers originally became interested in releasing their software on the App Store because of how successful the sales of the iPhone were. That sales rate = large customer base for apps. Apple didn't force them to release things on the App Store.

 

[Cartoonkid]

No, it is about gatekeeper corporations being restricted from abusing their control of critical resources by leveraging that into further entrenchment of their control, effectively excluding any effective competition.

How is iMessage a "critical resource"? If Apple shut it down tomorrow, would people die as a result?

How does Apple not opening it up exclude effective competition? There are plenty of alternate messaging apps on the App Store.

And we already have an universal instant messaging system. It's called SMS. If that doesn't work, there's another method of communication that's been around a while. It's called dialing the phone.

 

[d686546s]

So you acknowledge unwanted side effects from overbearing regulation as a defense of overbearing regulation?

I'm not sure why you're attributing this to me as this was someone else's statement, but generally unwanted side effects are always something to consider. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

However, the specific charge here was how unfair it was to Americans that they didn't get a say in this even though it might affect them. The response, of course, is that there will always be effects on someone else in a globalised economy, that letting big tech operate around the world mostly based on US regulation equally produces effects on everyone else without them getting a say, that alternatively you cannot expect everyone else not to regulate their markets just because it may have an impact on you and, finally, even if all of that wasn't true, the US is really really not in a position to bring this particular charge given all it has done over the last century. That's just embarrassing.

 

[constructor]

Oh I'm plenty aware of our impact on the rest of the globe. Trust me, our own government p***** us off quite a bit, too. So it's not justifiable in my opinion. Ffs, the US literally fought a war centered on representation ? Washington DC must have forgotten about that part. We didn't like when it happened to us, but somehow we seem to think we have the right to do it to everyone else! By the way...bringing up how the US impacts the globe is not the defense you may think it is, especially considering how much people around the world throw a fit about our "meddling". "But you're doing it too" is an excuse my kid would try to come up with.

You're missing the point. Important regulatory regions exert influence beyond their borders. That is inherently a consequence of how multinational corporations work.

Those corporations could also choose to split up for better regional compliance but they usually decide against that and try for global harmonization of their own internal rules instead. That deliberate choice is why things like this matter, not because the EU had any jurisdiction beyond its borders.

The only alternative would be for the EU to abandon the protection of its citizens' rights and I'm glad it doesn't.

(Disclaimer: "The EU" is actually a body controlled by the elected member nation governments and by its elected parliament; The EU Commission is basically just a shared appointed and parliament-confirmed cabinet to which the elected national governments delegate european matters, but in the end it's always the elected national governments and the elected members of parliament who have the actual decision power. The popular myth that "unelected bureaucrats" somehow ran the show is mostly an indicator of complete ignorance of what the EU actually is – unfortunately that myth rather than the reality was the trigger for Brexit, but that mess is for the britons to deal with now.)

 

[constructor]

So you acknowledge unwanted side effects from overbearing regulation as a defense of overbearing regulation?

I see no actual evidence for that "overbearing" claim being presented so far – at least most of the claims to that effect have been based on misunderstandings.

 

[Kastellen]

Lol they love money too much that will never happen.

With the fines they are suggesting, pulling out of the EU may be the cheaper option.

 

[constructor]

Can iOS, iPhone and the App Store really be viewed as "critical resources"? Every one of those things are an example of Apple's intellectual property, i.e., things that Apple is supposed to be able to control.

And that remains the case. But messaging is so essential (and at the same time effectively a commodity) that it's problematic when it is being used as a lever to manipulate users into unrelated hardware platform choices (Apple) or into coughing up their entire contacts database for aggressive and manipulative ad targeting (Facebook / WhatsApp).

As for the apps themselves, the reality is that developers originally became interested in releasing their software on the App Store because of how successful the sales of the iPhone were. That sales rate = large customer base for apps. Apple didn't force them to release things on the App Store.

The mobile market today is an entrenched duopoly and all the big gatekeepers (which then includes software platforms like Facebook / WhatsApp etc.) are playing hardball with whatever controlling influence they have over major resources, trying to leverage them into advantages in other fields which is inherently anti-competitive and not in the interest of the users.

 

[4492865]

For anyone who say something along the line of “EU is unfairly trying to regulate a US company„. If Apple were a EU company, the US would do something very similar.

Yes Americans here forget that that US pretty much bullies the entire world into their rules - whether is sanctions, trade deals, import tariffs, or how cheese should be produced. All their crocodile tears here when their country does the exact same to the world. Look at HUAWEI and the play store.

 

[constructor]

How is iMessage a "critical resource"? If Apple shut it down tomorrow, would people die as a result?

It is an essential service which is put into a privileged position on Apple's platforms.

How does Apple not opening it up exclude effective competition? There are plenty of alternate messaging apps on the App Store.

Incompatibility with all other systems (except SMS) is being used as an incentive to sell hardware. Which gets iffy when you own one of only two mobile platforms.

And we already have an universal instant messaging system. It's called SMS. If that doesn't work, there's another method of communication that's been around a while. It's called dialing the phone.

And that's universally compatible, so that is not an issue.

 

[constructor]

With the fines they are suggesting, pulling out of the EU may be the cheaper option.

Actual compliance will be far more effective financially.

 

[d686546s]

Can iOS, iPhone and the App Store really be viewed as "critical resources"? Every one of those things are an example of Apple's intellectual property, i.e., things that Apple is supposed to be able to control.

And Apple does control them, but the EU and its member states control the conditions you need to meet in order to provide goods and services in their jurisdiction. If your IP is not compatible with local laws, you need to change to be compliant or withdraw from the market.

 

[d686546s]

With the fines they are suggesting, pulling out of the EU may be the cheaper option.

I doubt it. Apple generates most of its profit through hardware sales, with the iPhone bringing in most of it. Additionally, Apple products work primarily well within the ecosystem, so withdrawing the iPhone and iPad (as I believe the DSA will not be such a massive issue for the Mac) then has implications for the Apple Watch and AirPods and all the rest. Maybe even the Mac.

So Apple will probably carefully consider its risk and conclude that even with alternative stores and all the rest, most of its service revenue will likely still be mostly unaffected. So they will comply. Maybe not always in good faith but they will.

 

[gnipgnop]

And that remains the case. But messaging is so essential (and at the same time effectively a commodity) that it's problematic when it is being used as a lever to manipulate users into unrelated hardware platform choices (Apple) or into coughing up their entire contacts database for aggressive and manipulative ad targeting (Facebook / WhatsApp).


The mobile market today is an entrenched duopoly and all the big gatekeepers (which then includes software platforms like Facebook / WhatsApp etc.) are playing hardball with whatever controlling influence they have over major resources, trying to leverage them into advantages in other fields which is inherently anti-competitive and not in the interest of the users.

Per your first point: did the EU ever provide data on how many iOS/iPhone customers were being "leveraged" into buying the hardware due to 1st party messaging apps? I don't think they ever did. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Per your second point: one of the hallmarks of the mobile era is that app prices were significantly LOWER than what previously existed on desktop/laptops. That sounds competitive to me. That by itself calls into question the focus on 3rd party stores and internet downloads as Windows/Mac already provided those things historically and were far more expensive for apps. Add to that the fact that the "open" Android OS failed to provide better prices/quality/selection for apps than iOS and you're left with a fairly flimsy justification per competition.

 

[Cartoonkid]

And that's universally compatible, so that is not an issue.

So since SMS and phone calls are universally compatible, why should Apple be required to open iMessage to other platforms?

If anything those would be the "essential services," not iMessage.

 

[nph]

I honestly don't get it. Why force Apple to change how it interacts with iMessage and FaceTime? I made a concious choice when I bought an iPhone since I want FaceTime and iMessage to use. For friends/relatives not using Apple sw I use Telegram, WhatsApp etc. This is wrong, if a company has a product why would they need to be forced to "open it up"? I love iMessage working on my, Mac, iPad and phone/watch. Payment system, maybe that could be up for discussion but to force them to change how their apps work is just plain wrong!

 

[robco74]

Apple just needs to ship a neutered version of iOS in the EU that removes the iMessage and FaceTime clients, then block those services completely in the EU, and just ship with SMS out of the box. Also remove Music, Podcasts, App Store, etc. Basically ship a device that makes calls, with a time-limited browser containing text links to other stores and services, with EU companies at the top, then alphabetical. Jack up prices in the EU by 20% to compensate for jumping through all of their hoops.

Apple will take a hit on services, but still get hardware revenue. They can also start implementing a plan to shut down Apple Pay and other services the EU will not explicitly allow. The EU should tell Apple specifically which services they may offer, and let them sunset the ones that aren't. They should also set up an agency where foreign companies can present their business plans first, before trying to enter the EU market, in order to know if their business will be permitted to operate there.

 

[jarman92]

That's the problem though, right? Sure they can switch to Android but then lose out on iMessage. Locking users behind that choice is exactly the kind of vendor lock in that EU wants to get rid of.

As an example, I recently switched to Android and my family is all using iMessage group chats. They don't work over SMS. All other chat apps are supported on both platforms but not iMessage. It's high time for a regulation. Having to choose your phone based on if iMessage is supported is crazy.

So the solution is to make iMessage just as terrible as every other messaging service? Brilliant!