iOS 19 and iOS 20 Must Include a Long List of Major Changes, EU Says

[surferfb]

haha that's not quite an accurate comparison. Sony or Bose don't provide a platform (ie OS) holding back features that are made available for AirPods for no reason other than to give Apple an advantage over competitors. It's not exactly consumer friendly.

It’s not like they make it so other headphones don’t work - they just (until recently) held back their own invention for use in their own products.

Kinda like how Bose holds back its noise cancellation algorithm for use in its own products.

Again, if Apple somehow created an amazing real-time translation algorithm that took input from the mic and outputted into the AirPods, but because it was so advanced it had to run run on the phone rather than the headphones, Apple would be required by the EU law to provide an API for that functionality to all of its competitors. In what world is that fair?

 

[R2FX]

You do not vote directly for a president. Case in point, Clinton won the 2016 election but Trump was elected president. You vote for a mandate in a state electoral college. The electoral college representative of that state should, in theory, cast a vote or votes (depending on the population of that state) for the candidate attaining the most votes in that state. However, the representative can ignore that and vote how he or she deems appropriate.

This system is anything but democratic. A swing and a wide miss.

true, electoral college is a thing in US, but US is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy' like EU clowns seem to float around... I don't remember voting for any EU commissioners or head of the commission

 

[weckart]

true, electoral college is a thing in US, but US is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy' like EU clowns seem to float around... I don't remember voting for any EU commissioners or head of the commission

I don't remember voting for a prime minister of my country either. Those are selected by party members, same as the commissioners are voted by representatives of each member state's government. This is weak sauce.

 

[R2FX]

I don't remember voting for a prime minister of my country either. Those are selected by party members, same as the commissioners are voted by representatives of each member state's government. This is weak sauce.

EU wants to become like US, hence I used that comparison...not sure why you bring PM level voting into this

let's stick to the topic

/OT

 

[weckart]

EU wants to become like US, hence I used that comparison...not sure why you bring PM level voting into this

let's stick to the topic

/OT

Because even at country level, the only "democratic" country in Europe would appear to be Switzerland, where a lot more is decided by referendum. Otherwise I don't think the EU is doing much else differently from what is happening at member state level.

Prime Ministers have a lot more power than commissioners and even EU presidents (all five of them). That is why I brought that up.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Man I don’t care about any of this **** I just wanted to be able to sideload ipas and they couldn’t even get Apple to do that properly

 

[turbineseaplane]

Man I don’t care about any of this **** I just wanted to be able to sideload ipas and they couldn’t even get Apple to do that properly

I'd like sideloading and the ability to have "real" browser options

Real Firefox (not Safari reskinned) on my iPad would be magic

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

I'd like sideloading and the ability to have "real" browser options

Real Firefox (not Safari reskinned) on my iPad would be magic

Luckily alternative browsing engines ARE allowed now but only on iPhone, which sucks

 

[jfreedle2]

What?? LOL! The EU cares deeply about customer protection. Without the EU we would still pay roaming fees, money transfer fees, we would have hidden fees and taxes when shopping instead of the final price, no right to repair, unsafe food, no free returns on online shopping, no compensation on late flights and trains, and countless other rights other countries customers don’t have.

The EU cares, that is the next best joke ever told, right after Android is secure and Google cares for privacy.

 

[Abazigal]

interesting if true.

EU will go easy with Apple, Facebook punishment to avoid Trump’s wrath

Lawbreaking under DMA to be punished—but not too severely.

arstechnica.com

 

[surferfb]

interesting if true.

EU will go easy with Apple, Facebook punishment to avoid Trump’s wrath

Lawbreaking under DMA to be punished—but not too severely.

arstechnica.com

I am not a Facebook fan, but that decision against them is insane. Offering “paid (at a reasonable price) with no tracking” vs. “free with tracking” isn’t good enough? What on earth.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Had to pop in to see how "EU vs non-EU" fighting was going ...

I'm so fascinated with how long this can go on, seemingly without end, topic after topic, day after day, post after post.

 

[bcortens]

I am not a Facebook fan, but that decision against them is insane. Offering “paid (at a reasonable price) with no tracking” vs. “free with tracking” isn’t good enough? What on earth.

Of course it’s not good enough. If you have to pay not to have tracking it isn’t really a fair and free choice to consent to tracking.

I don’t buy facebooks argument because they can raise the price of untargetted ads, what are advertisers going to do? Stop advertising? I doubt it…

 

[surferfb]

Of course it’s not good enough. If you have to pay not to have tracking it isn’t really a fair and free choice to consent to tracking.

The other option is not to use the product.

I don’t buy facebooks argument because they can raise the price of untargetted ads, what are advertisers going to do? Stop advertising? I doubt it…

Advertisers don’t want un-targeted ads. They’re certainly not going to pay more for them because the EU doesn’t understand that.

Again I don’t like Facebook at all, but this is literally crazy.

 

[bcortens]

The other option is not to use the product.

If companies are required to gain freely given consent before targeting ads they can either do so or stop operating in the EU.

Advertisers don’t want un-targeted ads. They’re certainly not going to pay more for them because the EU doesn’t understand that.

Again I don’t like Facebook at all, but this is literally crazy.

Who cares if advertisers don’t want in-targeted ads. Unless the advertisers are just going to stop advertising they are going to have to pay more … if all the companies serving ads have a choice of raising the price of in-targeted ads or going out of business then they are going to raise prices… what are the advertisers going to do?

 

[surferfb]

If companies are required to gain freely given consent before targeting ads they can either do so or stop operating in the EU.

The way it should work: “users can freely consent, pay, or not use the product.”

The way it shouldn’t: “the government gets to decide Meta must offer a way to use the product that makes them no money.”

Especially when the fee is $6 euros a month. Come on.

Who cares if advertisers don’t want in-targeted ads. Unless the advertisers are just going to stop advertising they are going to have to pay more … if all the companies serving ads have a choice of raising the price of in-targeted ads or going out of business then they are going to raise prices… what are the advertisers going to do?

I don’t think you understand how this works. Most companies aren’t going pay for untargeted ads, period. Which means Facebook has to actually lower the price to convince companies to do it. Like end up “making pennies on the dollar” lower. And users will get absolutely terrible ads that aren’t relevant to them. You know, ads like this:

So Facebook’s options:

• Make their product worse by showing more ads to make up the difference (probably illegal under the DMA)
• Make their product worse by showing unskippable ads (probably illegal under the DMA assuming they don’t make targeted ad users watch unskippable ads)
• Make their product worse by show ads that don’t actually make them money and their users hate.

This is how Ben Thompson describes is (emphasis mine)

Personalized ads are both far more valuable to advertisers, who only want to advertise to potential customers, not the entire Meta user base, and also a better experience for users, who get more relevant ads instead of random nonsense that isn’t pertinent to them. Indeed, personalized ads are so valuable that Eric Seufert has estimated that charging a subscription in lieu of personalized ads would cost Meta 60% of its E.U. revenue; being forced to offer completely un-personalized ads would be far more injurious.

And again, I really don’t like Facebook/Meta. The fact that I’m defending them makes me feel gross. But that’s how much of an absurd overreach this is.

 

[bcortens]

The way it should work: “users can freely consent, pay, or not use the product.”

The way it shouldn’t: “the government gets to decide Meta must offer a way to use the product that makes them no money.”

Especially when the fee is $6 euros a month. Come on.

There is no law of the universe that states any business practice that can be dreamed up by an executive must be legal. Especially when that business practice is exploitative. If facebook cannot make money without selling targeted ads then facebook will go out of business. Again, there is no law of the universe that says that businesses get to survive while exploiting the people. It is easily possible to imagine exploitative business models that would be profitable if not for pesky government regulation.

I don’t think you understand how this works. Most companies aren’t going pay for untargeted ads, period. Which means Facebook has to actually lower the price to convince companies to do it. Like end up “making pennies on the dollar” lower. And users will get absolutely terrible ads that aren’t relevant to them. You know, ads like this:

If companies aren’t going to pay for those ads then they don’t pay for them and facebook goes under in Europe or switches to a pure paid business model. The EU can’t require facebook to offer its services for free but it can require them to do so according to the law.

View attachment 2497367

So Facebook’s options:

• Make their product worse by showing more ads to make up the difference (probably illegal under the DMA)
• Make their product worse by showing unskippable ads (probably illegal under the DMA assuming they don’t make targeted ad users watch unskippable ads)
• Make their product worse by show ads that don’t actually make them money and their users hate.

This is how Ben Thompson describes is (emphasis mine)


And again, I really don’t like Facebook/Meta. The fact that I’m defending them makes me feel gross. But that’s how much of an absurd overreach this is.

IMO this law doesnt go far enough on prohibiting data collection and harvesting by these companies. All companies, not just the big ones, should have their data harvesting practices radically restrained.

 

[weckart]

I don't think Europe and the US will ever see eye to eye on how big corporations operate.

Meta Helped Write a Delaware Law Protecting Mark Zuckerberg

This week, Delaware passed a bill that would shield tech billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk from litigation. Zuckerberg’s company, Meta, helped write the law.

jacobin.com

The above being a case in point. Unthinkable outside the US. I remember how Sarbanes-Oxley was imposed outside of the US to ensure corporate governance, even when only tangentally involving the US. How things change.

 

[turbineseaplane]

There I was reading the reply from @surferfb and I got totally distracted and tried to click on this one ..

(scrolling, reading, scrolling.... WTF is that?? )

 

[turbineseaplane]

IMO this law doesnt go far enough on prohibiting data collection and harvesting by these companies. All companies, not just the big ones, should have their data harvesting practices radially restrained.

Amen x 10

It's all so gross to see where this has ended up as a result of this

 

[I7guy]

Amen x 10

It's all so gross to see where this has ended up as a result of this

Amen x 100 and let’s start with windows. Then I will be fully on board.

 

[SBlue1]

The way it should work: “users can freely consent, pay, or not use the product.”

The way it shouldn’t: “the government gets to decide Meta must offer a way to use the product that makes them no money.”

Especially when the fee is $6 euros a month. Come on.


I don’t think you understand how this works. Most companies aren’t going pay for untargeted ads, period. Which means Facebook has to actually lower the price to convince companies to do it. Like end up “making pennies on the dollar” lower. And users will get absolutely terrible ads that aren’t relevant to them. You know, ads like this:

View attachment 2497367

So Facebook’s options:

• Make their product worse by showing more ads to make up the difference (probably illegal under the DMA)
• Make their product worse by showing unskippable ads (probably illegal under the DMA assuming they don’t make targeted ad users watch unskippable ads)
• Make their product worse by show ads that don’t actually make them money and their users hate.

This is how Ben Thompson describes is (emphasis mine)


And again, I really don’t like Facebook/Meta. The fact that I’m defending them makes me feel gross. But that’s how much of an absurd overreach this is.

Any ad is terrible so if I have to see them I rather see ads that are not targeting me. I don't know what makes you think getting ads for headphones over and over again for weeks after I already bought some is a great experience?

 

[surferfb]

Any ad is terrible so if I have to see them I rather see ads that are not targeting me. I don't know what makes you think getting ads for headphones over and over again for weeks after I already bought some is a great experience?

Then (if you’re in the EU) pay for the service! Or don’t use it.

Again, I am not a fan of Meta (or targeted ads) at all. All I am saying is that the EU shouldn’t be allowed to force a company to offer their product in a way that makes them no money. Meta is offering a way to use the product without being tracked. It’s priced incredibly reasonably.

But the EU is saying they have to offer an “equivalent service” without tracking or charging, (so that means they presumably can’t put in more ads, or unskippable video ads), but have to accept ads that pay them pennies on the dollar - essentially giving away the product for free.

It’s so outrageous it has me defending Meta. Which if you knew me, is actually crazy!

 

[SBlue1]

Meta is gonna make money. Sure it's not as much as with targeted ads, but they will make money so they will not pull out of a market generating cash almost for free.

I understand your point and I agree since I myself was in charge of advertising and booking ads for Facebook. But as a customer the less data is collected the less the general public is in danger of all kinds of problems.

 

[bcortens]

Then (if you’re in the EU) pay for the service! Or don’t use it.

The law requires freely given consent to tracking and an option to opt out of tracking. The fact that companies cannot offer free products with tracking vs paid without is a good thing. Companies are required to gain freely given consent to track, that is the rule. If Facebook cannot make money this way, then Facebook will go out of business (in the EU).

Again, I am not a fan of Meta (or targeted ads) at all. All I am saying is that the EU shouldn’t be allowed to force a company to offer their product in a way that makes them no money. Meta is offering a way to use the product without being tracked. It’s priced incredibly reasonably.
But the EU is saying they have to offer an “equivalent service” without tracking or charging, (so that means they presumably can’t put in more ads, or unskippable video ads), but have to accept ads that pay them pennies on the dollar - essentially giving away the product for free.

It’s so outrageous it has me defending Meta. Which if you knew me, is actually crazy!

The EU can absolutely require businesses to offer their products in a way that complies with the law. If that cannot be done profitably then perhaps you might consider that the business was not inherently a viable one to begin with?