Leaked EU Document Could Spell Major Changes for App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Browsers, and Siri

Thebrochure said:
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.
Click to expand...

The irony is, the cost to users will not go down. All that is being fought over is which pockets the money will end up in.
 
jlc1978 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with this. ?

If people are silly enough to download crazy stuff from every corner of the web... well, they'll be the ones in trouble. I wouldn't want the younger or older members of my family downloading stuff from outside the official Apple App Store, but it should be safe for anyone vaguely tech savvy.
 
Thebrochure said:
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.
Click to expand...
In your scenario, do you own one of only two stores in the continent? And the other store is owned by *******s whose business model is to harvest everyone's data?
 
vipergts2207 said:
That might make sense if Chevy and Dodge were the only ones making infotainment systems.

This has nothing to do with a warranty. If you damage your phone, you're still liable.
Click to expand...
Developers keep saying this BUT... they never take responsibility for the part they played.

At one point in time you had Nokia, RIM Blackberry, Windows Phone, Palm, Apple iOS, Google Android. So 6 companies making infotainment systems.

BUT DEVELOPERS decided which platforms they would support and DEVELOPERS chose to support TWO.

So please if you're going to tell the story TELL the ENTIRE story.

Platforms: Hey there's 6 platforms to choose from tons of choice... everyone should be happy right? (Nokia, RIM Blackberry, Windows Phone, Palm, Apple iOS, Google Android).
Consumers: We'll buy the phones with the most applications support.
Developers: OK we'll only support Android and iOS
Consumers: OK we'll only buy Android and iOS
Platforms: Umm well the other 4 platforms can't make money so they're going to stop making phones.
Developers: This sucks... there's only 2 major platforms to choose from there's not enough competition... Government please help it's not fair.
Platforms: Well if you had supported more platforms... there'd be more competition.
Developers: This sucks it's not fair Governments please help us.
 
Last edited:
I assume Apple would write code that would require the user to opt in to what every app (sideloaded or otherwise) can access. E.g. you download a game, you get to decide whether you want to let it access your photos, browsing history, contacts, other apps, etc.
 
jlc1978 said:
Considering this is played as "in the consumer's interest" unless more money goes in the consumer's pocket it isn't in their interest.

To see what is likely to happen, look at how many small developers cut their prices when Apple halved their fee.



Every store "increse (sic) the price of things" because that's how they make money. People forget, in the early days, a developer was lucky to get 30% and had to cover upfront the costs of development, packaging, marketting, etc. before a single penny came in. App stores changed that and give developers a much easier route to market.

My fear is the proposed changes will impact smaller developers who will face new costs to get their product too market, and not just have to support the development costs while Apple provides the store front access to a huge market for a small developer fee.

In addition, sideloading is likely to see an upsurge in piracy, hurting smaller developers as well as users when varou DRM schemes get tried.

It's like when everyone screamed for cord cutting to free themselves from high cable prices by being able to buy a la carte and now are finding that can be as expensive as cable or even more expensive.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.



Considering any rival App Store is unlikely to have the user base that Apple's will, they may cahrge less but the return or developers is likely to mean they will also stick with Apple.



While it may result in a common charging plug, that doesn't mean there will be a common charging standard, since USB-C allows for proprietary protocols as well checking for deice connectivity. Apple, could they want to, could create a USB-C charger that I Apple unique, except for perhaps a common 5V output; meaning a non-Apple cable would stll not work with the iPhone beyond a minimum charging capability and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Then why didn‘t Apple alteady go proprietary with iPads and Macbooks? If Apple tries to, the EU will hunt Apple down - it is an Anti Apple law, do you remember? The fines for violation are huge. …-
 
Wildkraut said:
Exactly, i can still play the original e.g. Monkey Island game i once bought for PC, while games i bought on the AppStore aren’t available in my purchases history anymore.
Click to expand...

Happened to me with a game a couple months ago on my iPad.

Luckily I had an IPA copy and Apple still "allowed me to install it" (gee thanks for allowing me to use my purchase still)
 
ineedanaccont said:
Developers keep saying this BUT... they never take responsibility for the part they played.

At one point in time you had Nokia, RIM Blackberry, Windows Phone, Palm, Apple iOS, Google Android. So 6 companies making infotainment systems.

BUT DEVELOPERS decided which platforms they would support and DEVELOPERS chose to support TWO.

So please if you're going to tell the story TELL the ENTIRE story.

Platforms: Hey there's 6 platforms to choose from tons of choice... everyone should be happy right? (Nokia, RIM Blackberry, Windows Phone, Palm, Apple iOS, Google Android).
Consumers: We'll buy the phones with the most applications support.
Developers: OK we'll only support Android and iOS
Consumers: OK we'll only buy Android and iOS
Platforms: Umm well the other 4 platforms can't make money so they're going to stop making phones.
Developers: This sucks... there's only 2 major platforms to choose from there's not enough competition... Government please help it's not fair.
Platforms: Well if you had supported more platforms... there'd be more competition.
Developers: This sucks it's not fair Governments please help us.
Click to expand...
Why would developers expend the resources on developing for a platform that has 2% of users? They wouldn’t, it’s not economical. Notice how the PC market got along just fine for decades with only Windows and Macintosh as mass market OS’s. The only reason it’s become an issue with smartphones is because one company has decided they get to fully control access to half of the market for distributing mobile apps.
 
Beautyspin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Judicial review of legislation is a pretty standard thing in most legal orders, for example whether legislation is constitutional or doesn't violate (international) human rights legislation.

Article 263 TFEU gives the ECJ a clear role in reviewing the legality of legislative acts. I am, as I said, not an expert but the EU treaties are reasonably specific on which areas the EU has competencies and if EU legislation were to sit outside it, I'd imagine the ECJ could strike it down.

Whether this is the case here is an entirely different question. The EU single market is quite clearly an EU competence and setting standards for it hardly sits outside the EU's remit. I'd think Apple (or any other tech company for that matter) will face an infinitely steeper uphill battle in challenging this in the courts than in previous cases on whether existing legislation was properly applied or whether they met certain thresholds in existing application. This is about a court going against the political will of the legislature.
 
dk001 said:
Technically we both are. You keep expanding the “requirements” to your claim. I keep making Swiss cheese (yum).
Actually, today if I fell and hurt myself, sans pc or phone, at home, I call out to GA via Nest and have it contact someone who can then contact emergency services.
Click to expand...
No, read my original post. I said one thing a phone does that a computer can't is be a phone AT ALL TIMES. I never once changed requirements. My original post on this is proof.

"I need my phone to be able to call 911 at all times. Computers can’t do that."

FIRST LINE from my original post on the topic. Look there.....Let me help you....

....at all times....

I never once changed requirements. I don't take my desktop or laptop when I go out running or riding my bike. But you better be sure of it I take my phone in case I get injured (its happened, not enough to call 911 but I could not make it back home and I needed to call to have someone pick me up). If you don't take your phone that is a risk you are taking. But that does not invalidate the claims that phones should be phones.
 
vipergts2207 said:
Why would developers expend the resources on developing for a platform that has 2% of users? They wouldn’t, it’s not economical. Notice how the PC market got along just fine for decades with only Windows and Macintosh as mass market OS’s. The only reason it’s become an issue with smartphones is because one company has decided they get to fully control access to half of the market for distributing mobile apps.
Click to expand...
Why did developers expend money on iPod touch and iPhone when they had 0% market share?
 
bousozoku said:
Why did developers expend money on iPod touch and iPhone when they had 0% market share?
Click to expand...
You’ll have to explain how you came to the conclusion that developers developed for the iPhone with 0% market share, when it launched in 2007, even though the App Store didn’t launch until the following year in 2008. Even by 2008, just one year after the iPhone launched, iOS had taken over 8% of mobile OS marketshare, which was already half of RIM’s marketshare and getting close to Microsoft’s. So not only did developers not develop for something with 0% market share, but the explosive growth and obviously revolutionary device that was the iPhone would’ve been clear to developers and an obvious choice to develop for. By the way, by 2009 iOS’s market share surpassed Windows Mobile.
 
Last edited:
Wildkraut said:
No, it’s because we don’t exploit our workers for the sake of a greedy company.
The EU simply put consumers and employees above company interests, as you can get from the thread news content.
[..]
Click to expand...
Because they are tech hostile?
 
vipergts2207 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes they own the App Store and set the policies. The former and latter should be the same. Government can strip that control and the App Store will become a bottom dweller.
 
jlc1978 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are already stores which charge less. I noted in the thread previously we were able to negotiate lower than 7% on both Amazon and Samsungs stores. And our rate on the Chinese stores (for Xiaomi phones etc) is even lower than that.

I didn't say stores should charge 1.5-2.5% which is what the bank fees are for small independents (Apple pays way less than 1% btw due to their negotiating position). I suggested all the way up to 7.5% which is still a far cry from Apples 15% for small and 30% for large developers.

Even Microsoft on the Windows store only charges 12% and they're pretty greedy. EPIC on their store charges 12% also and that goes as low as just 5% if you use the EPIC's game engine (Unreal Engine) in your game. It's funny, other stores give discounts to use their API's and Frameworks but Apple charges you the same regardless.

The difference of course is EPIC's store has competition (STEAM, GOG, Origin, uPlay etc). Where as Apple has no App Store competition so they can charge what they like.

djphat2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're really muddying the waters here trying to equate laws that require interoperability with giving away your prized possessions, in this case source code.

There are equivalents to iMessage, Facetime and many other features that Apple could and should be forced to offer some compatibility with and thankfully the law is seeing it that way too.

Look at FRAND licensing of patents as a gateway to how fundamental technologies have to be licensed on a fair basis for fair competition.

djphat2000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

USB-C is a very long lived connector as a physical standard. It's capable of over 140 Watts of power delivery and unfathomable speeds. Thunderbolt 4 at 40Gb/s runs over it and we will likely see 100Gb/s in the future. If companies decide to standardise on a USB-D it will happen as a natural progression.

djphat2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's funny you say this because there are movements in law to standardise these things across countries, especially in the EU. Multiple countries here have changed which side of the road they drive on to broaden the car markets and make things cheaper through scale. Same with electrical outlets in the EU.

And as for electrics in general there are thousands of regulations and they add more every year to increase safety. It's extremely regulated. Just like we have regulations about transformer efficiency.

Like going through this thread it's as if none of you are aware we have rules and regulations for pretty much every product and product category in existence. If it was up to some of you we'd still be letting companies make asbestos filled teddy bears and lead based painted swing sets.
 
Wonderful thread about this from Steve Troughton-Smith just now


Screen Shot 2022-04-23 at 13.35.57.png


And he finishes with:

"I set this down in writing as somebody who is not affiliated with any of the sides or companies battling this issue. I don’t own Apple stock (or Epic, Spotify, Match), have no stakeholders, and my opinions aren’t for sale. I’m a developer on Apple’s ecosystem, and an EU citizen"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top