Governments can essentially take your money- pay the fines, or be forbidden from trading, basically. They can also start arresting executives if law breaking continues, but it doesn't come to that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leaked EU Document Could Spell Major Changes for App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Browsers, and Siri
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know you agreed to their terms, right? Nobody has to develop for iOS.
And therein lies the core of the problem regulators have with this. There is a massive and one-sided power disparity where Apple can tell developers what the terms are and if they don’t like it, they can just not develop for iOS. So of course most mobile app developers “agree” because not agreeing likely means not being in business anymore. I can’t think of another time when the whims of a single company had so much power over even the very existence of hundreds of thousands to millions of other businesses.
Because governments can levy fines, and if need be freeze and seize assets and ban importation of product to enforce compliance. Governments have all kinds of potential avenues.
The only way I can agree with this is if you're considering the developing world, where many don't own a....
Actually, scrap that, I can't agree with that even then. My elderly dad is pretty much the only person I know who doesn't keep his phone with him all day. Even when we sleep our phone is usually within arm's reach.
Very true.
These are definitely uncharted waters. It's different than Microsoft in the 90's and AT&T whenever that was.
Do we trust these governments to make the right decisions with Apple here?
Or will they bung it up?
It'll be interesting to see... that's fo sho
The freedom of browser engine in third party apps is long overdue and should've been something Apple did on its own. Everything else seems crazy...
Forced to choose which I trust more, government (even with its flaws) or a powerful corporation whose prime directive is to increase shareholder value (ie bilk consumers for as much money as possible), I’m choosing the former. And the larger the company, the less I trust them, and Apple is among the largest. I don’t have some unending faith in government either. Having to choose to side with either big business or government is like being forced to choose between eating cat crap or dog crap. Neither is desirable.Very true.
These are definitely uncharted waters. It's different than Microsoft in the 90's and AT&T whenever that was.
Do we trust these governments to make the right decisions with Apple here?
Or will they bung it up?
It'll be interesting to see... that's fo sho
And the issue really is who owns the IOS app store. Apple should own it. They have the right for it not to turn into a garbage heap, imo, and to run it as they see fit, within the current framework of laws around the globe. Now that's my opinion, which counts for zilch in the universe. Now where this goes in the US, we will see.
I don't trust the government to make these types of decisions. Let them use the current framework to prove apple (or others) are anti-competitive or monopolistic.
Companies compete through their ideas. Limit the ideas, limit the competition. That answers your question. An important idea that Apple brought to the smartphone marketplace was the walled garden. That idea is being undermined, therefore competition is being undermined. It’s that simple.
This proposal is much more far reaching than sideloading, but I once again find myself arguing with someone saying “the law isn’t going to change anything meaningful” and “this law is really important” at the same time.
The less actual impact this law has, the more I think it’s not worth actually making a law for. The more impact it has on a company’s ability to create and pursue a particular business model in competition with other existing business models and with the possibility for yet more business models to be developed, the more damaging I think such a law would be.
There is no harm being mitigated here, but it is forcing change in a product ecosystem I’m quite satisfied with and driving homogeneity. There are people who would like the EU to mandate all phones be available in their favorite color if they could.
Apples wallet garden business model is coming to an end and they have nothing else to offer.
By the way the same thing happend to Microsoft, when they bundled the IE with Windows. And the same thing also happened to Google when it was showing own services in first place of search results.
Now it will happen to Apple.
But while lots of Apple fans cry out, I like the idea of competition. In there future there won‘t be only Apples 30% IAP but there will be other competing services and the price for those services will regulate itself.
Apple always told users that they are the product when they use Android while Apple makes its money by selling hardware. So what is the matter?
Apple will now finally turn into a service company and it will have to compete with other services. If Safari constantly fails to render pages - I‘m able to install a different browser in the future. I like it, because I like to be in control.
By the way the same thing happend to Microsoft, when they bundled the IE with Windows. And the same thing also happened to Google when it was showing own services in first place of search results.
Now it will happen to Apple.
But while lots of Apple fans cry out, I like the idea of competition. In there future there won‘t be only Apples 30% IAP but there will be other competing services and the price for those services will regulate itself.
Apple always told users that they are the product when they use Android while Apple makes its money by selling hardware. So what is the matter?
Apple will now finally turn into a service company and it will have to compete with other services. If Safari constantly fails to render pages - I‘m able to install a different browser in the future. I like it, because I like to be in control.
With side loading you wouldn't need competing app stores... and if anyone wanted to remain inside their walled garden they could. Downloading from unknown sources would be at owner's risk. Apple could presumably limit access to certain elements of the phone, to maintain a good grasp of security. Why would techie folks like those on this board not want this?
I can't wait for app prices to plummet when there are two or more stores on iOS... or when people can download apps directly from developer websites.
In this alternative universe we'll also see Netflix lower their prices... and my Verizon bill will shrink as well!
Lower prices for everything!
In this alternative universe we'll also see Netflix lower their prices... and my Verizon bill will shrink as well!
Lower prices for everything!
This a wrong assumption. For lots of people their smartphone is the only/major device to access the internet/information and it is used also for things like banking, id cards, tickets and so on.I love all this mob talk and shakedown talk.
You know you agreed to their terms, right? Nobody has to develop for iOS.
Companies have to offer services on those devices, cause those devices play a major role in todays economy.
I guess you understand that the governments have to tell Apple how to handle id cards. Apple is not in charge to tell governments how it should create id cards.
If you don't change with the times, the times are going to change you.
Apple could give the people the power to 'unlock the phone to a certain level' and allow to install the external Apps they want. But with an "Only On" switch, with a time stamp and disabling every major iOS security feature like Face ID, Touch ID, iCloud, Apple Services, and even their own Store, CarPlay, etc.
Before enabling 'external mode', show 2 or even 3 warnings in RED and with a slider at what cost they can 'unlock' this feature, and the only way to restore original 'closed Apple ecosystem' mode would be restoring the phone to factory settings asking help to an Apple service.
All will be happy and pleased: power-users, standard-users, IT staff (so they can block corporate apps if the iPhone has this option turned 'On'), the technocrats around the world, and Apple himself, that will can remind everyone that they lost all their security but could be back at anytime they want with a Genus Bar pro help (with a little service fee of course).
Folks, I have solved it.
Before enabling 'external mode', show 2 or even 3 warnings in RED and with a slider at what cost they can 'unlock' this feature, and the only way to restore original 'closed Apple ecosystem' mode would be restoring the phone to factory settings asking help to an Apple service.
All will be happy and pleased: power-users, standard-users, IT staff (so they can block corporate apps if the iPhone has this option turned 'On'), the technocrats around the world, and Apple himself, that will can remind everyone that they lost all their security but could be back at anytime they want with a Genus Bar pro help (with a little service fee of course).
Folks, I have solved it.
If other methods of app distribution exist, Apple can own the iOS App Store all they want and set whatever terms they want. Apple can then actually compete with others and if their offering is superior, devs and customers will flock to it regardless of the existence of other offerings.
Really, you're just overthinking it
They've already figured out all of this on macOS
There's no need for elaborate new hoops or "modes" or excessive scary warnings - or any of that.
I don’t see why Apple should be forced to treat their product, the iPhone, the same way as they treat their MacOS software devices.
And if Apple wanted to create a new OS for their desktops that was similar to iOS in being walled off, I don’t see that as an issue either. I think the difference with the Mac is the intended purpose for some time has been to run apps by Apple and anyone else who wants to. The iPhone was not like that, and so there’s always been an implicit understanding amongst consumers and developers that this is Apple’s device with Apple software, and they will let you in on the action if you agree to their terms. And for people who don’t like those terms, there’s other alternatives. It’s not the same as if Apple suddenly locked down MacOS, as the iPhone and iOS has opened up incrementally over time.
“Your side” never stops. They will come for you or things you care about at some point. By then it’s too late and you have no principle to stand on.No, I don't think I will. And I think my side will prevail so perhaps you should move to Windows Phone
Oh, didn't know that.
I'd prefer seeing the actual tax included price, before seeing how much less I'd pay if you can somehow avoid sales tax.
You do realize that all laws at the end of the day are enforced through the threat for force. Yes there are financial punishments, but if one doesn’t abide? Look, I realize I’m being hyperbolic. But folks just don’t care about things as long as it “sounds good” for them. No principle or thinking if it’s right to do or not. As long as it satisfies them in the short term, they good.
The amount of astro-turfing in this thread is over the top. People already have the choice of what phone to buy.
When you bought an iPhone you already knew it was a walled garden. And that if you wanted sideloading you could have gotten an Android phone.
Sounds like sour grapes over bad decisions. That isn't a reason you should put my security at risk.
The moment you allow sideloading you allow access to Apple's services unless they are otherwise blocked. That puts me and everyone else using those services at risk. You can claim that Apple should be able to mitigate that risk, but all it does is increase the attack surface of IOS since no software is perfect, especially software architected by some government agency.
When you bought an iPhone you already knew it was a walled garden. And that if you wanted sideloading you could have gotten an Android phone.
Sounds like sour grapes over bad decisions. That isn't a reason you should put my security at risk.
The moment you allow sideloading you allow access to Apple's services unless they are otherwise blocked. That puts me and everyone else using those services at risk. You can claim that Apple should be able to mitigate that risk, but all it does is increase the attack surface of IOS since no software is perfect, especially software architected by some government agency.
Cool. Now make the argument that some government should dictate software installation policy. It’s not about if people would care about the method one way or another. In fact, if it doesn’t matter, then GTFO.
jeez..Have any of you jailbroken your iPhone? If you get the apps from trusted source and do not pirate stuff, there are no safety issues. I love theming my iPhone and there are numerous tweaks I love that Apple has not yet stolen from the jb community. Give me a switch and I will happily customize my iPhone.
I am sick of Tim Cook telling me I can't customize my phone that I paid in full under the stupid pretense he has my privacy and security in mind. BS. Cook is just afraid the money will flow away. He would be smart to work with the politicians before they ramrod a real bad "law" that really causes Apple problems. Cook will regret it if he doesn't. Just like stupid lightning cable--just move to usb-c already
I am sick of Tim Cook telling me I can't customize my phone that I paid in full under the stupid pretense he has my privacy and security in mind. BS. Cook is just afraid the money will flow away. He would be smart to work with the politicians before they ramrod a real bad "law" that really causes Apple problems. Cook will regret it if he doesn't. Just like stupid lightning cable--just move to usb-c already