No mate. They don’t.
Apple shareholders might not like it either.
If themz the rules then there are two options. Do what the ref says or pick up your ball and go home.
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
Apple shareholders might not like it either.
If themz the rules then there are two options. Do what the ref says or pick up your ball and go home.
How can courts challenge laws passed by a parliament? They can only pass judgements on how they are applied. They cannot stop a law once it is passed. Generally, the courts cannot overrule legislation and EU Parliaments cannot pass laws that future EU Parliaments cannot change.
Yeah I mean there is precedent too, look how badly the Mac fared once it became possible to get software from wherever people wanted……..
We ain’t seen nothing yet.
Sure it’s easy to charge less than 30% when one doesn’t have to develop their own infrastructure.
Totally, opinion based. But in general the iOS App Store, save for Macrumors readers, has a good reputation. Multiple app stores will promote a race to the bottom. The iOS App Store as it stands today is nowhere a race to the bottom.
Ever wonder why apple didn’t make a deal with the EU?I would say he rather approves what his buddy Tim Crook is doing.
Flip your iPhone and read “not made the USA”
Yeah, yeah, i was thinking Americans were diehard patriots… make ?? great again, etc…
Sure, Tim is right here to help the American economy grow ??
What did Apple get out of its secret, $275 billion China deal in 2016? – The China Project
In the spring of 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook successfully lobbied Chinese officials to make a massive five-year deal, committing the company to invest billions in the Chinese economy. The Information, which revealed the existence of the deal, says that it helped Apple secure multiple regulatory...supchina.com
The first part is ok as that is how it is implemented in Android also. Regarding the second part, it is not happening. Unless Apple is ok being fined a minimum of 4% (upto a maximum of 20%) of their global revenue, they cannot stop the sideloaded apps access to any APIs that the first-party apps can access. So, denying access to contacts database etc., is ruled out.
Ok, but as a consumer, the ultimate benefit is lower prices; and developers have been profitable at the current price structure so any change is simply a windfall.
A lot depends on how well alternate app stores take off. For example, Apple could charge for downloads on it's store, or for product placement; not to mention for things now included in a developer account, such as certificate issuance and signing. If they remain the largest source of revenue for developers then the smaller ones who used to gt that for free will suffer.
True if you are referring to using a developer account which allows 7 days of use, which you renew every 7 days. But look at the impact of piracy on Android vs iOS, where app piracy is much more prevalent and developers are forced to use free apps with iAP to try to combat it. See: https://technastic.com/piracy-android-huge-problem-solution/
IIRC, there fee structure is no better than Apple's so the developers get a smaller user base and the same cut.
Which was my point - Apple could develop a proprietary charging solution and support the minimum requirements and so you still have a situation where, while any charger can charge, non-Apple ones will not give you the full experience. Apple could design a faster proprietary protocol, which is specifically allowed, that is faster than PD, for example. Not saying they will, but the notion that this rule will result in one charging solution that works the same is, IMHO, incorrect. At best it gives some minimal cross functionality.
Sideloading is fine, just have a way to disable it and make disabled the default. That will prevent a lot of users from falling for malware and allow enterprise control of devices as well. You want sideloading you can have it, so taht would be real choice vs making everyone have it by law.
A store has costs beyond the credit card fee. Complying with tax and regulatory items, salaries, storage and bandwidth, reviewing to keep illegal or pirated apps off, as examples. Then their is advertising to get people to actually use your store vs Apple's. I think it won't be as easy as some think.
Actually what I want is for Apple to have to compete in iOS app distribution, rather than being allowed to ban said competition.
Well, unlike you, I prefer to think that people who are intelligent enough to "know what choice they are making" when buying a phone to also be intelligent enough to understand the definition of a relatively simple term like "sideloading" after it has been described to them. Perhaps I have a bit more faith in the intelligence level of most of my relatives and am just projecting that on your relatives.
At least in some locations apple will continue to be in control of its App Store. For People who want complete freedom there already is an alternative.
The status quo isn’t just Apple owning the iOS App Store. It’s them owning the iOS App Store and controlling all of iOS app distribution. Those are two separate things and the former does not require the latter.
The fact that you used 2 American brands in your example instead of European companies makes this even more perfect.
remember when you could visit a website without having to click through a dialog asking if you are ok with cookies? I remember... and I much preferred it - I don't care who wants to track my purchases etc, I just want a seamless browsing experience. The more organisations like the EU get involved in making laws for the 'net the less I like the 'net...
No, they are scare mongering and you're eating it up.
Their own App Store is filled with scam apps all over the "top" charts and they do nothing about it.
Additionally, making "scam apps" is one of the more labor intensive ways to even go about scamming people.
It's far easier and very very widespread to get people to click on messages or emails with links that open the scam operation right in a web browser.
The actual risk of issues isn't going to be impacted by any of this really at all.
Apple is just throwing out words that get reactions ... "safety!" .. "security!"
This is simply about Apple trying to protect their unjustified revenue cut due to a monopoly on iOS app distribution
Some pretty pedestrian regulations considering the industry should have already learned to do this 25 years ago in the Internet Explorer debacle.
Politically, they do. Can you imagine the public outcry if, because of this ridiculousness, Apple announced that they were going to pull all Apple products from the EU? The people would demand their leaders back down. And if there's one thing politicians fear, it's the joining-together of people for a cause... and this would be the one thing that all the people from all different sides of the political sphere would agree on all at once.
They (the EU) would cave.
Nope. They can only appeal if they are designated as Gatekeepers and that too against being designated as gatekeepers only.
Digital Markets Act Now Firmly on its Way
Especially when it's described as:
"You can just download and install XXX right from the developer of XXX"
Makes all the sense in the world.
I'm not the one arguing that allowing third-party app stores will compromise the security of Apple's devices. Apple is. If iOS and macOS are inherently more secure than Windows or Android, then this is a nonsense argument. If what Apple is arguing is true, then macOS and iOS are truly security swiss-cheese and can only be secure when functionality is restricted or when their market share is negligible.
Part of what you ask for is simply not up to any one company to create a consortium. Sure, Apple could lead the way, but no one else has to join them in anything. Plus this is an innovation killer sometimes as it will prevent Apple from creating something new that no one else does. Or no one else does the way they (Apple) do. Whom is to say when such things should be a collaborative effort and shared among those that worked towards said goal. VS it being the last thing you ever work on? You can't force a business to do business with another business for the benefit of the masses. You will end up with very few business since it takes resources (money and people, time and energy) to do this. All for what? To mostly give it away?
Yes, there will be times when it works out better for everyone involved and the consumer. But, not 100% of the time. If Microsoft went Open Source and just charged people for support, they would go from 2 Trillion value to a quarter that overnight. There are times it works, and times it does not. You can't have a successful business operate as a non-profit and expect to grow and continue to do it all. Something will give.
Take USB. There is a million different plugs and what 5 different revisions. Greater speeds etc. But, the EU wants everyone to use USB-C going forward. Ok, so does that mean I can't create USB-D? Are we locked to this exact interface or spec forever on any device? Why C? Why not A or B?
Heck, why are we not all driving on the same side of the road? Why don't all cars and trucks run on one type of fuel? Why aren't all power outlets the exact same? I can go on.
If I open my own store, I should get to decide what I sell, and how much I charge for shelf space. Who are you to tell me what I should charge? Who is the EU to tell me what I should charge? Apple is more than justified. The only reason you don't think they are, is because you are looking at it from a greedy, consumer's point of view. Look at it from the view of having your own company, and you will see it differently. Apple should be able to charge what they want. And if developers don't want to sell their products on their store due to the cost of doing business with them, they can find another store to sell their wares on... like Android.
Even I don't get the mentality of Apple consumers who have been in the ecosystem for so long knowing fully well that it fosters lockin and hence will be regulated by governments at ome time in the future. Why did you keepbuying Apple products and make it so big that it meets the threshold for Gatekeepers according to DMA?
I doubt regulations eill halt development of better technologies. They can submit their standards and get approval.
All areas such as the health sector, automotive sector, power sector etc., are heavily regulated. Is there no innovation in those sectors? Especially coming from the followers of a company that patents the hell out of rounded corners as if they are the pinnacle of innovation, this is rich.
Funny how everyone was ready to pounce on Apple when they first announced the App Store, for making iPhone less secure.
Then it was Apple is a joke with tiny market share.
Now iPhone is considered so successful Apple have a monopoly. Hmm.
Then it was Apple is a joke with tiny market share.
Now iPhone is considered so successful Apple have a monopoly. Hmm.