iOS 17.4 Coming Soon as iPhone App Sideloading Deadline in EU Nears

[Kal Madda]

Just a question, what makes Apple's MDM/Enterprise system more secure? Because if the app files themselves are the exact same there won't be any difference for the end user.

Has it ever happened before with that kind of services?

1. It’s more secure because the software it’s used for is from the company, it’s proprietary internal company software. Internal company software generally doesn’t carry malware and try to trick average users when they go to look it up on the web to install it. It’s just right there in the Enterprise management tools, and they install it from a known and secure location. They’re not looking for some website and getting duped into installing a spoofed version of the software that’s a malware carrier.

2. On the Mac, that is the case with lots of business tools. I’m pretty sure that even Zoom isn’t in the Mac App Store. So many third-party business tools that some businesses require aren’t available in the Mac App Store and have to be installed via sideloading. It’s entirely speculative whether this would happen on iOS, but it’s a possibility that can’t be entirely written off. It’s very possible that some people that otherwise wouldn’t have to sideload would be forced to by a mission critical app leaving the App Store and requiring sideloading.

 

[Samplasion]

It’s more secure because the software it’s used for is from the company, it’s proprietary internal company software. Internal company software generally doesn’t carry malware and try to trick average users when they go to look it up on the web to install it. It’s just right there in the Enterprise management tools, and they install it from a known and secure location. They’re not looking for some website and getting duped into installing a spoofed version of the software that’s a malware carrier.

Then it's not more secure. As you said, those apps come from the company. What difference does it make if they're installed through MDM or otherwise? (Assuming the company itself isn't developing malware)

On the Mac, that is the case with lots of business tools. I’m pretty sure that even Zoom isn’t in the Mac App Store.

We're talking about the phone market, though. On the Mac it's normal to download apps from third-party sources, but that's not what this is about.

 

[Samplasion]

It’s very possible that some people that otherwise wouldn’t have to sideload would be forced to by a mission critical app leaving the App Store and requiring sideloading.

If they trust the developer then why is that an issue? If they don't, alternatives will probably fill the space left by such an app going missing.

 

[Kal Madda]

Antitrust laws are an important way to help protect consumers and small(er) businesses from dominant companies wielding too much power and control on significant portions of a particular market such as Apple does through its sideloading and alternative app store restrictions.

Lowe's and Home Depot do not represent the vast majority of the home improvement market as there are many other stores that offer home improvement products including national, regional and local chains as well as independent single store "mom and pop" businesses. If a product is not available at Lowe's or Home Depot, there are still many more places it can be. For iOS users and developers (which account for a significant portion of the mobile OS market), the only option is Apple's App Store. By restricting sideloading and alternative app stores, Apple is stifling competition in a significant portion of the mobile OS market.

I disagree, more often than not, many “antitrust” legislation is lobbied for by competitors to force businesses into making changes that favor their competitor’s interests. Companies like Epic are lobbying for these kinds of legislation to advance their own agenda and their own business plans. Most “antitrust” legislation being written today is completely outside of the scope of proper government authority, at least in my opinion as a Conservative, Constitutionalist American.

And the comparison is like Lowe’s and Home Depot, because iOS and Android aren’t the only options either. There are Linux phones, I believe there are still even Windows phones, and there’s plenty of opportunity for rival platforms. Many choose to use Android as a base, but heavily modify it with their own platform features and stores. “Mom and pop” stores can spring up at any point, and they do. There are plenty of lesser known mobile platforms that use either a Linux distro, or a heavily modified Android base. In fact, Linux phones are actually a growing market. Just because iOS and Android are the most popular and well known doesn’t mean there aren’t other options. Mobile developers have several markets they can target, they can choose to distribute via PWA, an increasingly common distribution method due to advancements with Progressive Web Apps, and fully cross platform support with one app, rather than maintaining separate versions for separate platforms. They can also choose to sell on Linux or Android. But product vendors aren’t just entitled to sell their wares in Lowe’s facilities because Lowe’s is one of two very popular home improvement stores (hypothetically in this hypothetical scenario). Government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing businesses to allow vendors to sell products in their stores that they don’t want to offer.

If Lowe’s were firebombing other stores that weren’t on their property, then it would be in the government’s authority to intervene for the obvious reason of destruction of private property. But if I decide I want to setup a booth to sell my commodity screwdrivers in the middle of a Lowe’s property without their permission, then Lowe’s is well within their rights to show me the door, and government shouldn’t be forcing Lowe’s to let me set up my booth on their property for free in the name of “antitrust”…

 

[Kal Madda]

Then it's not more secure. As you said, those apps come from the company. What difference does it make if they're installed through MDM or otherwise? (Assuming the company itself isn't developing malware)


We're talking about the phone market, though. On the Mac it's normal to download apps from third-party sources, but that's not what this is about.

Because you can’t be as easily duped into installing something wrong when using MDM. MDM is a trusted source for software. You don’t have to Google the app, and hope you’re installing the right one. Someone could install a piece of malware from the internet with the same name as their employer’s internal software, and be tricked into installing malware that way. With MDM, you know that the software you’re installing is from the company and not some other source with malware loaded into it. With certain companies, I could even see hackers purposefully creating fake copies of internal business software, that way if they can trick an employee into installing it, they can use them as a springboard to gain access to the company’s internal software system. MDM basically eliminates that possibility, because every software received through MDM is from the company, and there’s not really any way for hackers to create a fake MDM app that they can trick employees with.

The Mac is the only example we have in the Apple ecosystem that includes sideloading. And as I said, it’s a possibility. It may not happen, but it also could happen. Because it could happen, it shouldn’t be dismissed with a wave of the hand and “you’ll never have to sideload anything, you can just stick with the App Store if you’re worried about the security of sideloading”. And again, I am not saying this is a reason for not implementing sideloading, I think sideloading would be mostly beneficial, but I’m just pointing out that this is a valid concern for people who are opposed to sideloading, and it shouldn’t just be dismissed. The reason I know is that I started out in opposition to sideloading, but I’ve mostly moved to being in favor of sideloading at this point, so long as Apple can implement at the very least the level of security on macOS with sideloading, I’m hoping for something a bit more secure than that.

 

[webkit]

I disagree, more often than not, many “antitrust” legislation is lobbied for by competitors to force businesses into making changes that favor their competitor’s interests. Companies like Epic are lobbying for these kinds of legislation to advance their own agenda and their own business plans. Most “antitrust” legislation being written today is completely outside of the scope of proper government authority, at least in my opinion as a Conservative, Constitutionalist American.

I disagree and see no point in continuing to go back and forth on this

And the comparison is like Lowe’s and Home Depot, because iOS and Android aren’t the only options either. There are Linux phones, I believe there are still even Windows phones, and there’s plenty of opportunity for rival platforms. Many choose to use Android as a base, but heavily modify it with their own platform features and stores. “Mom and pop” stores can spring up at any point, and they do. There are plenty of lesser known mobile platforms that use either a Linux distro, or a heavily modified Android base. In fact, Linux phones are actually a growing market. Just because iOS and Android are the most popular and well known doesn’t mean there aren’t other options. Mobile developers have several markets they can target, they can choose to distribute via PWA, an increasingly common distribution method due to advancements with Progressive Web Apps, and fully cross platform support with one app, rather than maintaining separate versions for separate platforms. They can also choose to sell on Linux or Android. But product vendors aren’t just entitled to sell their wares in Lowe’s facilities because Lowe’s is one of two very popular home improvement stores (hypothetically in this hypothetical scenario). Government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing businesses to allow vendors to sell products in their stores that they don’t want to offer.

If Lowe’s were firebombing other stores that weren’t on their property, then it would be in the government’s authority to intervene for the obvious reason of destruction of private property. But if I decide I want to setup a booth to sell my commodity screwdrivers in the middle of a Lowe’s property without their permission, then Lowe’s is well within their rights to show me the door, and government shouldn’t be forcing Lowe’s to let me set up my booth on their property for free in the name of “antitrust”…

Lowe's and Home Depot don’t prevent a significant (or necessarily any) portion of the home improvement buying/selling market from having access to the home improvement product market as there are many alternatives stores out there. Lowe's and Home Depot don't block alternative stores from selling home improvement products.

The difference with the Apple situation is that the only app option for a large segment of the mobile OS market (iOS users and developers) is Apple’s App Store, and the problem is that this is not because other companies may not want to offer iOS apps through their own stores but because Apple specifically blocks/prevents alternative stores from being a viable option due to their sideloading and alternative app store restrictions. Again, Apple is stifling competition by these restrictions.

 

[Kal Madda]

I disagree and see no point in continuing to go back and forth on this

Lowe's and Home Depot don’t prevent a significant (or necessarily any) portion of the home improvement buying/selling market from having access to the home improvement product market as there are many alternatives stores out there. Lowe's and Home Depot don't block alternative stores from selling home improvement products.

The difference with the Apple situation is that the only app option for a large segment of the mobile OS market (iOS users and developers) is Apple’s App Store, and the problem is that this is not because other companies may not want to offer iOS apps through their own stores but because Apple specifically blocks/prevents alternative stores from being a viable option due to their sideloading and alternative app store restrictions. Again, Apple is stifling competition by these restrictions.

I agree. We clearly disagree on whether such antitrust legislation is within the scope of proper government authority, and so we should agree to disagree on this point. I respect that you have a different opinion on the matter, and I agree that we can leave that issue there. 👍🏻

As to the point about Lowe’s and Home Depot, neither is Apple. All that Apple is doing is choosing to not allow other sellers to set up their storefronts or booths on their property (iOS). Other app sellers are free to go next door and rent space on another business’s property. Android is right across the street, and there’s also Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. all other properties that welcome businesses to set up their booths or storefronts on their property.
It’s just like with gaming consoles. Gaming consoles create and maintain a property: the OS they preinstall on their consoles, and they only allow software (games) to be installed from their game store. By your logic, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so, and should be forced to allow other game console brands to sell all of their games to their rival’s console users rent-free. This would essentially nullify the whole point of a gaming console offering, and would just lead to what would essentially be PC gaming. Reality is that there are lots of other options that app sellers can use for distributing their apps.

 

[webkit]

As to the point about Lowe’s and Home Depot, neither is Apple. All that Apple is doing is choosing to not allow other sellers to set up their storefronts or booths on their property (iOS). Other app sellers are free to go next door and rent space on another business’s property. Android is right across the street, and there’s also Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. all other properties that welcome businesses to set up their booths or storefronts on their property.
It’s just like with gaming consoles. Gaming consoles create and maintain a property: the OS they preinstall on their consoles, and they only allow software (games) to be installed from their game store. By your logic, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so, and should be forced to allow other game console brands to sell all of their games to their rival’s console users rent-free. This would essentially nullify the whole point of a gaming console offering, and would just lead to what would essentially be PC gaming. Reality is that there are lots of other options that app sellers can use for distributing their apps.

It's more than that because iOS has a dominant position in the mobile OS market (as part of a duopoly with Android) and by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores they are stifling competition in a significant portion of that market.

It sounds like we may have to agree to disagree here too and therefore I see little reason to keep going back and forth on this either.

 

[Kal Madda]

It's more than that because iOS has a dominant position in the mobile OS market (as part of a duopoly with Android) and by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores they are stifling competition in a significant portion of that market.

It sounds like we may have to agree to disagree here too and therefore I see little reason to keep going back and forth on this either.

And PlayStation has a “dominant position” in gaming consoles. “Dominant position” or no doesn’t change your rights as an individual or business, not from a Conservative perspective. I agree, we probably just have to agree to disagree on this. 👍🏻

 

[webkit]

And PlayStation has a “dominant position” in gaming consoles. “Dominant position” or no doesn’t change your rights as an individual or business, not from a Conservative perspective.

But it's not just about dominance, it's about dominance combined with anticompetitive behavior and that's why Apple’s restrictions are an issue.

Even if PlayStation was similarly dominant, you can get PlayStation games from a variety of different places but due to Apple's restrictions you can't get iOS apps from a variety of different places (although that appears to be changing in the EU with other countries/regions possibly to follow) and that's why Apple’s situation has raised antitrust concerns.

 

[Kal Madda]

But it's not just about dominance, it's about dominance combined with anticompetitive behavior and that's why Apple’s restrictions are an issue.

Even if PlayStation was similarly dominant, you can get PlayStation games from a variety of different places but due to Apple's restrictions you can't get iOS apps from a variety of different places (although that appears to be changing in the EU with other countries/regions possibly to follow) and that's why Apple’s situation has raised antitrust concerns.

You can’t install other console’s games onto a PlayStation console. Only PlayStation games provided through PlayStation’s store. Just like on iOS. And this debate is getting pointless, since sideloading was announced today for the EU. How about we just agree to disagree. You’re not going to convince me that Apple shouldn’t be able to make decisions about it’s own platform, and that governments should be in the business of forcing businesses to provide certain products or services that they don’t want to…

 

[webkit]

You can’t install other console’s games onto a PlayStation console. Only PlayStation games provided through PlayStation’s store. Just like on iOS.

But PlayStation games can also potentially be acquired from a number of different sources including Amazon, GameStop, Best Buy, Walmart, Target, and many more. You can only acquire iOS apps (except now in the EU) through Apple's App Store, hence the issue which is now finally starting to be "corrected."

And this debate is getting pointless, since sideloading was announced today for the EU. How about we just agree to disagree.

Ok.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

1. Unfortunately the law doesn’t say that every iPhone users owns iOS. You don’t. You have access to it, but you do not own it. Just like I have access to FaceBook, but I do not own it. I can buy a Sam’s Club membership for access to Sam’s Club (it used to be that you couldn’t have access to the building at all if you didn’t have a membership), but having access to Sam’s Club doesn’t give me ownership of Sam’s Club. It’s the same with iOS. There’s a whole page of terms and conditions, and nowhere does Apple say “you own iOS now”. You never own iOS. You own your own files that you generate, and you own the apps that you purchase, but you do not own iOS. And just repeatedly saying the contrary doesn’t make it true.

2. They don’t need to allow unsigned software to be installed. They can choose to restrict sideloaded apps installation to only signed software. That’s already what macOS does, if a software isn’t signed, it will through up a bunch of red flags and imply to the average user that it can’t be installed. Theoretically it can, but it’s very risky to allow unsigned software, and it’s a complicated workaround that requires toggling settings and whatnot. I’d hope Apple would do at least that on iOS for security, but they could go a step further and have no complex workaround at all, which I think would be better for security.

3. Here’s the problem with your argument, Apple absolutely can block installs from certain websites and whatnot. That’s completely within their rights to do, and they’ve done it with known malware software. They could decide, this website looks sketchy, so we won’t accept files installed from it, as I already pointed out, they’ve already done this on macOS. They can’t shut down the website, because Apple doesn’t control the internet, that’s not within their rights to do, but preventing malicious code from installing on their OS is something they absolutely can do.

1. Yes that’s exactly what the law states. And corresponding legal rulings
2. And no that is a breach of consumer protection laws as you describe it

Legal framework​

The legal framework for this case consists of the following EU law and court rulings:
The Directive 2009/24/EC
The Directive 2019/770/EU
The Directive 2019/771/EU
The Directive 2019/2161

The judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle

The judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks v Microsoft Corp

The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd

The judgment in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box Srl and Others
The judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v
Commission
The judgment in Case C‑307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others
The judgment in Case C‑373/14 P

• The Directive 2009/24/ECon the legal protection of computer programs:
  • This directive harmonizes the rules on the protection of computer programs by copyright in the EU. It defines a computer program as “a set of instructions which can be used, directly or indirectly, in a computer system in order to bring about a certain result”. It also defines the author of a computer program as “the natural person or group of natural persons who has created the program or, where the legislation of the Member States permits, the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation”.
• The Directive 2019/770/EUon certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services:
  • This directive establishes common rules on the supply of digital content and digital services in the EU. It defines digital content as “data which are produced and supplied in digital form, such as video, audio, applications, digital games and any other software”. It also defines digital service as “a service which allows the creation, processing or storage of data in digital form, or the access to such data, such as video-sharing services, cloud services and social media”.
• The Directive 2019/771/EUon certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods:
  • This directive establishes common rules on the sale of goods in the EU. It defines goods as “any tangible movable item, with the exception of items sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law; water, gas and electricity shall be considered as goods where they are put up for sale in a limited volume or a set quantity”. It also defines seller as “any natural or legal person who, under a contract, sells or undertakes to sell goods to a consumer” and consumer as “any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession”.
• The Directive 2019/2161amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU
  • the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules introduces new rules on transparency and penalties for online marketplaces, free digital services, and personalised pricing, as well as new rights for consumers to terminate contracts and seek remedies in case of unfair commercial practices.
• The judgment in Case C-128/11UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp: This is a landmark case on the exhaustion of rights and the resale of software licenses in the EU.
  • The court ruled that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the rightholder, who has authorized, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier, has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period. The court also ruled that the exhaustion of the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program includes the right to make available to the public a copy of that program by resale, and that the original acquirer of a copy of a computer program, accompanied by an unlimited user license, may resell that copy and his license to a new acquirer, provided that he does not retain any copy of the program.
• The judgment in Case C-166/15Ranks and Vasiļevičs v Microsoft Corp: This is another case on the exhaustion of rights and the resale of software licenses in the EU.
  • The court concluded that Mr Ranks and Mr Vasiļevičs infringed the exclusive right of reproduction of the rightholder, and that they could not rely on the principle of exhaustion of the right of distribution to justify their actions. The court also clarified that its ruling did not affect the possibility of reselling ‘used’ copies of computer programs that are downloaded from the internet, as long as the original material medium of the software is transferred to the new acquirer, and the original acquirer makes his own copy unusable.
• The judgment in Case C-355/12Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and Others: This is a case on the legal protection of technological measures used by rightholders to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by them.
  • The court ruled that the protection of such measures must respect the principle of proportionality, and that national courts must balance the interests and rights of the rightholders, the users, and the public. The court also ruled that the circumvention of such measures may be justified in certain cases, such as when they prevent or restrict the use of computer programs protected by copyright, which are not essential for the use of the protected works, and which are supplied by the rightholder.
• The judgment in Case C-406/10SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd: This is a case on the scope of the legal protection of computer programs.
  • The court ruled that the functionality, the programming language, and the format of data files of a computer program are not protected by copyright, and that a person who has obtained a licence to use a computer program may observe, study, or test the functioning of that program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program.

Analysis​

Based on the legal framework, the analysis of the consumer’s legal arguments is as follows:

• The consumer owns the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The iPhone is a good, as it is a tangible movable item, according to the definition in the Directive 2019/771/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods.
• The consumer is a consumer, as he is a natural person who bought the iPhone for purposes outside his trade, business, craft or profession, according to the definition in the same directive.
• The purchase of the iPhone was a sale, as it involved a contract between the consumer and Apple, who is the seller, according to the definition in the same directive. The contract was concluded when the consumer paid the full price of the iPhone at the point of sale, and Apple delivered the iPhone to the consumer.
• The operating system is part of the good, as it is a computer program that is integrated in the hardware and essential for its function, according to the definition in the Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs. The operating system cannot be purchased separately from the hardware, and it is not a digital content or a digital service, according to the definitions in the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services.
• The consumer acquired the ownership of the good, as the transfer of ownership is the default rule in the sale of goods, according to the Directive 2019/771/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods. The transfer of ownership occurred when the consumer paid the full price of the iPhone and received the delivery of the iPhone from Apple. The ownership of the good includes the ownership of the operating system, as it is an essential and inseparable part of the good.

• The consumer’s rights to use and dispose of the operating system are exhausted, as Apple consented to the first sale of the software in the EU, and did not reserve any rights over the software after the sale. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The first sale of the software occurred when Apple sold the iPhone containing the operating system to the consumer in the EU, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The sale was authorized by Apple, who is the rightholder of the software, and who received a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the software. The sale was also accompanied by a perpetual license to use the software, which implies that Apple intended to transfer the software to the consumer permanently.
• The right of distribution of the software is exhausted after the first sale, according to the Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs and the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The exhaustion applies regardless of whether the software is distributed on a material medium or by download, according to the judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks and Vasiļevičs v Microsoft Corp. The exhaustion also includes the right to make available to the public a copy of the software by resale, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.
• The consumer has the right to use and dispose of the software as he wishes, as the exhaustion of the right of distribution implies the exhaustion of the right of use, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The consumer can also transfer his license to a new acquirer, provided that he does not retain any copy of the software, according to the same judgment.

• The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The iOS EULA is a contractual agreement that grants permission to use the software under certain terms and conditions, according to the definition of a license in the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The iOS EULA is also a standard contract, as it is a contract where all or most of the terms are predetermined by one of the parties and cannot be modified by the other party, according to the same directive.
• The iOS EULA is not binding on the consumer, as Apple did not provide the consumer with the information required by the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services before the conclusion of the contract. The information includes the main characteristics of the digital content or digital service, the total price, the duration and termination of the contract, and the functionality and interoperability of the digital content or digital service. The information must be provided in a clear and comprehensible manner, and must be confirmed on a durable medium, such as paper or email, according to the same directive.
• The consumer did not consent to the iOS EULA, as Apple did not obtain the consumer’s express and informed consent to the contract, according to the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The consent must be given by a statement or a clear affirmative action, such as clicking a button or ticking a box, according to the same directive. The consent must also be free and genuine, and not influenced by any undue pressure or unfair practices, such as tying the acceptance of the contract to the use of the phone, according to the same directive.

Conclusion​

Based on the analysis, the likely outcome of the case is that the consumer will win the case, and that the consumer’s legal position is strong. The consumer has a valid claim of ownership of the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. The consumer also has the right to use and dispose of the software as he wishes, as his rights are exhausted after the first sale of the software in the EU. The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. The consumer’s legal arguments are supported by the relevant EU law and court rulings, and are consistent with the principles of exhaustion of rights, free movement of goods, ownership, and transfer of ownership. Therefore, the consumer has a strong case against Apple, and Apple has a weak case against the consumer.

 

[Kal Madda]

1. Yes that’s exactly what the law states. And corresponding legal rulings
2. And no that is a breach of consumer protection laws as you describe it

Legal framework​

The legal framework for this case consists of the following EU law and court rulings:
The Directive 2009/24/EC
The Directive 2019/770/EU
The Directive 2019/771/EU
The Directive 2019/2161

The judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle

The judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks v Microsoft Corp

The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd

The judgment in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box Srl and Others
The judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v
Commission
The judgment in Case C‑307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others
The judgment in Case C‑373/14 P

Analysis​

Based on the legal framework, the analysis of the consumer’s legal arguments is as follows:

• The consumer owns the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The consumer’s rights to use and dispose of the operating system are exhausted, as Apple consented to the first sale of the software in the EU, and did not reserve any rights over the software after the sale. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. This argument is supported by the following points:

Conclusion​

Based on the analysis, the likely outcome of the case is that the consumer will win the case, and that the consumer’s legal position is strong. The consumer has a valid claim of ownership of the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. The consumer also has the right to use and dispose of the software as he wishes, as his rights are exhausted after the first sale of the software in the EU. The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. The consumer’s legal arguments are supported by the relevant EU law and court rulings, and are consistent with the principles of exhaustion of rights, free movement of goods, ownership, and transfer of ownership. Therefore, the consumer has a strong case against Apple, and Apple has a weak case against the consumer.

Look, this is pointless to debate about since Apple already announced how it’s planning on implementing sideloading in the EU. Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, a number of poster seem to think Apple will, or should be, forced to host apps for just the $99 developer fee; I forsee a change in how Apple charges for their App Store.

Indeed

The challenge will be to get exposure for such apps. Personally, I'd love to be able to run RetroArch on iOS/iPadOS with an external game controller as hat would be an easy way to have a home arcade using an older iPhone rather than trading it in.

Indeed and that’s for them to solve

Steam would be interesting, I wonder how they will handle DRM? Unless they have a way to limit use o a single ID they could become the electronic equivalent of old time Tortuga,

Exactly like they do now, the purchase is registered with your account. And the developer can choose to have DRM or not. Users can choose to share their games with friends, but only one can use it at a time unless the owner uses it with no online access

While there is a lot of good FOSS, much of it is unknown to most users; which is not going to be solved by sideloading.

True that

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Look, this is pointless to debate about since Apple already announced how it’s planning on implementing sideloading in the EU. Let’s agree to disagree.

Well I worked on that response before apples announcement.

And secondly the response is in regards to the users owning iOS

 

[Kal Madda]

Well I worked on that response before apples announcement.

And secondly the response is in regards to the users owning iOS

Sorry if my comment came across as confrontational. I get that you probably wrote it before the announcement. It’s just that now this debate is kind of irrelevant, and I don’t want to take the time to write a long response about the reasons why I disagree. Especially now that Apple has announced the way they will implement it. I think it’s better to agree to disagree at this point. 👍🏻

 

[Beautyspin]

The fact that the EU somehow has the authority to demand 10% of Apple's GLOBAL revenue is by far one of the most excessively overreaching bits of crap. The EU's economic authority ENDS at their boundaries. Therefore, they shouldn't be entitled to ANY revenue that doesn't come from within their boundaries. Demanding global revenue just shows one thing...those power-hungry bureaucrats want more money.

Imagine the uproar if the US demanded a piece of Apple's worldwide revenue. Uproar that would be rightly deserved

If a two-bit company like Apple can make arbitrary rules and expect governments to comply, the EU has more right to make rules that govern companies such as Apple whichever way they seem fit. I mean the EU is more potent than Apple, right? And they have the authority to make laws, which Apple has to comply with. In any case, DMA fines will be applicable on the worldwide revenues. Apple can take it or get out of the EU. Then it can also get out of Japan, South Korea, the EU, and possibly the US once they also implement similar rules. In fact, with all the billions that they have, they can buy an island, make arbitrary laws for that island and sell their products there

 

[sir1963nz]

Oh look another market the EU will crash.

Do you think devs are worried about losing the market?

yes, yes they are.

 

[Glenny2lappies]

27 of 44 European countries are in the EU. 30 countries are part of the European Economic Area, in which basicially EU rules apply. Plus Switzerland, which also adopts many EU regulations.

That might not be all of Europe, but it's by far the largest part of it.

Took a photo on a recent trip to Brussels. The Commission showing its contempt for any European countries: 28 flagpoles used to proudly fly all 28 member countries' flags, now replaced with the blue flag of subjugation.

 

[Janichsan]

Took a photo on a recent trip to Brussels. The Commission showing its contempt for any European countries: 28 flagpoles used to proudly fly all 28 member countries' flags, now replaced with the blue flag of subjugation.

The individual national flags are only flown in front of EU buildings on special occasion, amongst others when the national heads of state are present. If you had been there yesterday or the day before, you would have seen the national flags for the Special European Council.

Oh, and it's 27 member states since the Brits decided to leave in their eternal wisdom (certainly turned out great for them). There's always a number of flag poles equalling the number of member states plus one, which always flies the EU flag.

 

[Glenny2lappies]

Oh, and it's 27 member states since the Brits decided to leave in their eternal wisdom (certainly turned out great for them). There's always a number of flag poles equalling the number of member states plus one, which always flies the EU flag.

They've left the 28th flagpole in place in expectation of the Remainiacs sabotaging the UK's freedom and being forced to rejoin.

Not quite sure if you realise the UK is doing very well without the EU dragging it down.

 

[Janichsan]

They've left the 28th flagpole in place in expectation …

The concept that they remove or add flagpoles depending on the number of the member states seems to be hard to grasp…

Would if completely blow your mind when I tell you that they sometimes erect even more flag poles when the head of states of non-EU countries are visiting?

Not quite sure if you realise the UK is doing very well without the EU dragging it down.

Suuure…