Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is interesting if it indeed the case. It means the EU is not operating without any basis in standard economic theory at all.

Edit: This is an interesting read about ex-ante (vs. ex-post) regulation.

I continue to believe that this approach is going to do a whole lot of harm to Apple, the customer and many developers generally.
Good that you have given the link. Do you know?

Group That Takes Money From Tech Industry Complains That Tech Coverage Is Too Negative
 
Your comment doesn’t address my point: some people want a OS that actively doesn’t allow it. Besides polls (and even then), you’ll never know if people like an isolated factor or not. Neither with this EU regulation. We’d need a parallel universe where iPhones allow sideloading (with all its consequences on other parts of the phone and how customers make use of it, don’t forget it), and compare users’ happiness, market share, Apple’s reputation, etc. Thinking of features as isolated components is not correct.

In the end, if Apple decides forbidding sideloading is good and it turns out to be wrong, they will pay it. If the EU commissioner thinks forbidding sideloading is bad and it turns out to be wrong, she won’t pay it, Apple will. Do you see the problem?
My comment addresses exactly your point. Let the OS allow it and see how many people do not use it. If nobody uses it, the alternative markets will wither away. Nobody will sideload and it will not help any developer so nothing will happen on that front. Why should Apple decide sideloading is good? Why will it decide sideloading will be good. It had more than 10 years and it had decided that sideloading is not good (for its profits). Enough of it. Let the government decide now and see how people receive it. Apple has nothing to fear if it is not the right move.
 
I remember around 2000, Microsoft - outraged by what that saw as the results of lobbying from weaker companies who they considered to have fairly beaten - spent years fighting the browser choice antitrust case from the US gvt.

Of course, they didn’t win.

They spent years on this and lost Bill Gates as CEO along the way and - arguably lost their product focus missing both the personal digital audio player & then the smart phone revolution.

History appears to be repeating itself.

I think that Apple would’ve been wider to has seen where the wind - or the puck - was blowing and flexed accordingly.

Now they’ll be dictated to.

When huge maga companies lose the argument with gvts, they suddenly find that they are not as powerful as they thought.

And P.S. I think that this will be good - it’ll force apple to improve its core services and apps, if they have to fight to be used (ie 11 years after launch, Siri is still mostly terrible).
 
Again, no. I think you're both misunderstanding how law making in the EU works or the limits placed on it. The EU is not like a national parliament that has far-reaching powers to legislate every aspect of human life. There is a constitutional framework to challenge its legislative acts under and this is set out by the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union. Before it can legislate it needs to demonstrate that it has a legal basis in the treaties to do so and it cannot exceed the objectives set out in TEU/TFEU in doing so.

The DSA identifies Article 114 TFEU as its basis, which is for the harmonisation of national regulation to ensure functioning of the internal market. Again, what is permissible under Article 114 TFEU is not unlimited. These guys seem to think the DSA may be vulnerable to judicial review: https://antitrustlair.files.wordpre...nder-article-114-tfeu-and-how-to-fix-it-3.pdf

Personally I have no idea. Being able to challenge a law and being able to do so successfully in court are two very separate things. I'd have thought that very clever lawyers with more knowledge in EU law have thought about this very hard.
I am not an expert in EU law. However, from what I have been able to understand, The EU will designate Gatekeepers. Those who have been designated as Gatekeepers can contest that. That is the only thing that they can contest. Also, this is a bill on which the member states will vote separately, I think.
 
Wow very good. You haven’t even touched education and sanitation. Low taxes, incredible salaries, cheap everything, low household dept, capitol invasions … You guys are the best, experts in what other countries should … Gl.

I must have hit a nerve because you ignore my whole:

Each system has pluses and minuses. Not better, not worse, just different. I love Portugal, it is a beautiful country, but you have to look at the whole picture when comparing costs of living. Overall, Portugal is cheaper in some areas and more in others. How much is gas per liter? Sales tax (VAT)?

Yea, education is expensive. Although, since you asked, per the OECD, the US' household debt to disposable income ratio is 101 vs Portugal's 126. Net worth as a percentage of disposable income is 586 for the us vs. 394 for Portugal. As I said before, that doesn't make one better than the other, just different. I enjoy living in both countries, and there are things in both countries I find frustrating. But that's life. As the saying goes, "When in Rome..."

PS: I think taxation in the EU countries is a tad excessive, I agree with that.

Just this little thread here shows how fuped the planet is at the moment. Never once I came here to tell the US how rule their internal affairs. Just talked about Apple. But it seams that a Phone is enough for …

Notice I never said that the US should tell the EU how to run theirs; just that the law is likely to have unintended consequences that may wind up costing developers more than the current scheme and is unlikely to reduce costs to consumers.

My guess is most iPhone owners will never even know there are alternate app stores, and the major apps will be on the Apple App Store and that's where they will get downloaded. Smaller developers will have a hard time getting users if they aren't on Apple's store, so will either have to deal with multiple stores or simply stick with Apple.

If Apple decides to change their fee structure and unbundle things now included with a developers account they may wind up having to pay upfront for things now covered by Apple's cut, which can be a significant burden for a developer who has no idea if their app will even generate revenue.

Some say that developers can simply bolt for Android, and some might, but that's a lot like those that say "Apple should leave the EU;" it's simply unrealistic given the revenue and profits in those markets.

Personally, I just want Apple to allow the choice to continue to lockdown an iPhone for users that want to do that, much like they do currently with access to location data. that is real choice.

It exists there, and that’s a USA thing i never understood, they rent ready-furnished apartments and houses. When i move to somewhere, i want have my own furniture.

If you are only living in a place for a short period, having a furnished apartment is a lot less hassle than shipping or buying furniture that will have to be moved or disposed of in the near future. That's especially true if you already have a home you are maintaining and don't plan on moving.

For example, when I was on a 3 month training assignment my company rented a fully furnished apartment, down to the pots and pans, even though all I used out of that was a glass and never turned on the oven. When doing an ERP implementation it was pretty common to have a suite of furnished apartments for the staff who flew in and out each week. I stayed in hotels since I had no desire to cook or clean; but a lot of folks liked the apartments since it was theirs for the duration. For someone single it could mean no rent or house payment for a year or more.

It does put a strain on relationships. I'd ask my staff at the start "How many are in a relationship" and then ask "How many will still be in it or changed jobs in a year?" and tell them just leave your hand up.
 
Apple innovates. Those who can't muster up a modicum of drive and imagination are only able to whine and regulate.
 
I am thrilled to see the EU going big here.

It’s long past time on some of this stuff.
So you are saying that if this had been adopted say, 40 years ago and we were all today using the same generic OS, say based on PC-DOS that you would be happy? Or 20 years ago and we are all using phones running some version of Palm software?
 
I must have hit a nerve because you ignore my whole:



Yea, education is expensive. Although, since you asked, per the OECD, the US' debt to disposable income ratio is 101 vs Portugal's 126. Net worth as a percentage of income is 586 for the us vs. 394 for Portugal. As I said before, that doesn't make one better than the other, just different. I enjoy living in both countries, and there are things in both countries I find frustrating. But that's life. As the saying goes, "When in Rome..."



Notice I never said that the US should tell the EU how to run theirs; just that the law is likely to have unintended consequences that may wind up costing developers more than the current scheme and is unlikely to reduce costs to consumers.

My guess is most iPhone owners will never even know there are alternate app stores, and the major apps will be on the Apple App Store and that's where they will get downloaded. Smaller developers will have a hard time getting users if they aren't on Apple's store, so will either have to deal with multiple stores or simply stick with Apple.

If Apple decides to change their fee structure and unbundle things now included with a developers account they may wind up having to pay upfront for things now covered by Apple's cut, which can be a significant burden for a developer who has no idea if their app will even generate revenue.

Some say that developers can simply bolt for Android, and some might, but that's a lot like those that say "Apple should leave the EU;" it's simply unrealistic given the revenue and profits in those markets.

Personally, I just want Apple to allow the choice to continue to lockdown an iPhone for users that want to do that, much like they do currently with access to location data. that is real choice.



If you are only living in a place for a short period, having a furnished apartment is a lot less hassle than shipping or buying furniture that will have to be moved or disposed of in the near future. That's especially true if you already have a home you are maintaining and don't plan on moving.

For example, when I was on a 3 month training assignment my company rented a fully furnished apartment, down to the pots and pans, even though all I used out of that was a glass and never turned on the oven. When doing an ERP implementation it was pretty common to have a suite of furnished apartments for the staff who flew in and out each week. I stayed in hotels since I had no desire to cook or clean; but a lot of folks liked the apartments since it was theirs for the duration. For someone single it could mean no rent or house payment for a year or more.

It does put a strain on relationships. I'd ask my staff at the start "How many are in a relationship" and then ask "How many will still be in it or changed jobs in a year?" and tell them just leave your hand up.

Humm. You haven’t touch a nerve. I agree each system as plus and minus.

There is no intention to cripple American companies from the EU as suggested here … I guess not by you as I’ve not read all your posts. The same people that talk like that say that who stands to gain the most is Epic, Google, Microsoft … are these EU companies? This POV is totally inconsistent … it’s just weird. So weird it may touch some nerves.

If you actually have a view beyond the narrow view offered by Apple you will see how receptive is EU of American corps at all levels. Probably more so than American but that is subject for another topic.

Now if Americans want to dive into some kind of corporate dystopia by all means go for it. It does not mean the EU has to dive in. It does not mean it will not work, who knows.

Whatever we do there is always unintended effects. Part of sharing our principles is the respect for our differences.

I think the basic premise of this regulation is if any corporation with this kind of power thinks about pulling the plug on hundreds of millions of users devices because of whatever … people will still have the ability to take the most out their devices and aren’t left in the dark. With this procedures is not even a thought … it’s out of the way. You need to understand the these devices are a fundamental part of a larger communication infrastructure.

Competition and interdependency is the thing that makes our democracies safe.

It’s like GDPR but for device ecosystems.

Now we may disagree on the terms. I believe that they may be going too far maybe. I was expecting Apple be far ahead of the narrative controlling it. But the fact is that is been dragging their feet, totally uncooperative and that is not a sign of good faith. For what reason?
 
Last edited:
My comment addresses exactly your point. Let the OS allow it and see how many people do not use it. If nobody uses it, the alternative markets will wither away. Nobody will sideload and it will not help any developer so nothing will happen on that front. Why should Apple decide sideloading is good? Why will it decide sideloading will be good. It had more than 10 years and it had decided that sideloading is not good (for its profits). Enough of it. Let the government decide now and see how people receive it. Apple has nothing to fear if it is not the right move.
You still don’t get my point. There is a huge difference between choosing not sideloading and choosing an OS that doesn’t allow sideloading. Why should Apple decide it? Because they have created a platform, and that point has a lot of impact on its conception of the product. They could have decided to only offer 3rd party apps without App Store, or no apps at all. That‘s very basic.

Just one example. From my perspective, I want an operating system where I won’t be forced by my bank to use their app in order to enable NFC payments besides Apple Pay. That doesn’t depend on whether I personally enable sideloading or not, that depends on whether the OS does. From the company perspective: they’ve created a closed operating system where they don’t want a kid or grandpa to download malware after enabling sideloading (you will say it’ll be a toggle buried in settings; ok, but yes, they will enable it, we all know that).

Regardless of the specific case of Apple, it’s completely frustrating, and it reduces creativity and responsability, that a company cannot create a closed OS to maximise security. It’s even more clear with the future smart glasses: giving the option to sideload would make it instantly fail. We live in a society, not in a cubicle where if they give me some option it will be my choice.
 
So make sideloading a feature enabled in preferences that requires authentication. That way, you can have the iOS you want, that is, no sideloading, and people who want to sideload apps can enable the feature. And apple gets to stay in the EU market.
If sideloading is an option, everyone can ask to enable sideloading. That’s why I don’t want it to be an option. And yes, almost everyone who is required to sideload will enable it. Then, we’ll hear a lot of complains from users. Also tech-savy people, such as me, because if some company/public organism I’m tied to asks me to download something from their web, I’ll have to do it.

It’s much easier if companies can decide how to build their products, and then I, as a customer, can decide which one suits me best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KurtMann
It’s interesting. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I find it interesting how we’ll define monopoly going forward.

Does Microsoft have a monopoly on Xbox games?

Does Netflix have a monopoly on Netflix content?

That's the first question: "What is the market?" If you argue control over all aspects of a product then every game company could potentially be considered a monopoly, especially as they move away from physical media. Companies that cheer this move by the EU may regret it when their business model gets swept up in it.

2) “authorized” service meaning by apple its too much limited. I dont think that being “authorized” should mean applying a 3x costs multiplier on a repair, because, actually, thats its the main difference... Using genuine parts and have an certified experience should be the only requirements, but the main reason for high prices its having the apple logo

That is generally true in any product. If I buy a part in a BMW box it's often 2 to 3x as expensive as an OEM part. The big difference in Apple's and other electronic manufacture's prodcuts is tehre generallya re no OEM parts avaliable since they can, via IP and supplier agreements, prevent them from coming to the market.

So make sideloading a feature enabled in preferences that requires authentication. That way, you can have the iOS you want, that is, no sideloading, and people who want to sideload apps can enable the feature. And apple gets to stay in the EU market.

Exactly. Real consumer choice.

My comment addresses exactly your point. Let the OS allow it and see how many people do not use it. If nobody uses it, the alternative markets will wither away. Nobody will sideload and it will not help any developer so nothing will happen on that front. Why should Apple decide sideloading is good? Why will it decide sideloading will be good. It had more than 10 years and it had decided that sideloading is not good (for its profits). Enough of it. Let the government decide now and see how people receive it. Apple has nothing to fear if it is not the right move.

I suspect side loading will not be as popular as some suspect; unless it allows more efficent and easier pirating of software. That will necessitate developing some sort of DRM to limit it. The nice thing about the current model is once I buy an app I can run it on as many devices as I want without a second payment. Even subscriptions wok that way. DRM could end that, especially if it means developers can charge more than once for an app if you use it on multiple devices.

When huge maga companies lose the argument with gvts, they suddenly find that they are not as powerful as they thought.

And P.S. I think that this will be good - it’ll force apple to improve its core services and apps, if they have to fight to be used (ie 11 years after launch, Siri is still mostly terrible).

It will be interesting how it plays out. I am skeptical that it will result in any fundamental change and the big companies will simply find ways to use the law to their advantage. Do not underestimate the ability of companies to find ways to use regulations to strengthen their position and make it harder for competitors to enter.

Look at Tesla in the US. State franchising laws make it very difficult for Tesla to implement its sales model since they don't want an independent dealer network, raising barriers to entry and limiting their ability to compete with the major players. If Musk was not willing to lose a ton of money in building Tesla they'd have folded a long time ago; joining lot of other startup car companies in the list of "never made it."

There is no intention to cripple American companies from the EU as suggested here. The same people that talk like that say that who stands to gain the most is Epic, Google, Microsoft … are these EU companies? This POV is totally inconsistent … it’s just weird.

I agree, at last in the short term and may wind up catching some EU companies in its net as they grow. If I was EPIC I'd be concerned that gaming apps will wind up being targeted if they get big enough to be not just a game but a social network. IIRC, Fortnight is not that far way from meeting the criteria.

Now if Americans want to dive into some kind of corporate dystopia by all means go for it. It does not mean the EU has to dive in.

Part of sharing our principles is the respect for our differences.

PS: I think the basic premise of this regulation is if any corporation with this kind of power thinks pulling the plug on hundreds of millions of users devices because of whatever … people will still have the ability to take the most out their devices and aren’t left in the dark. You need to understand the these devices are a fundamental part of a larger communication infrastructure.

That won't happen. The suggestion that Apple will leave is stupid, Apple will simply find ways to use the law to their advantage.

Quite frankly, I bet 99% of US iPhone users don't care what the EU does.

Competition and interdependency is the thing that makes our democracies safe.

It’s like GDPR but for device ecosystems.

Now we may disagree on the terms. I believe that they may be going too far maybe. I was expecting Apple be far ahead of the narrative controlling it. But the fact is that is been dragging their feet, totally uncooperative and that is not a sign of good faith.

Of course, respect and cooperation are key. A lot depends on how it is enforced; and what consumers actually want.

It will be interesting to see how tech companies respond. I think it will be easier for a successful alternate App Store to spring up in a small, more homogeneous country such as Korea than in the EU or the US.
 
This will never come to pass.
Apple would be better off leaving all EU countries.
The same corrupt businesses pushing this bill would go out of business.
 
It’s interesting. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I find it interesting how we’ll define monopoly going forward.

Does Microsoft have a monopoly on Xbox games?

Does Netflix have a monopoly on Netflix content?
Does US dollar have a monopoly on reserve currency? Any unfair advantages associated with this?
 
We must remember that the EU's only "success" in any consistent way has been in regulation. It is, in this sense, a transnational super-regulator. Regulation is its spirit, and as someone who deals with global regulators I can recognise all the hallmarks of a regulating spirit. I think what is proposed is overreaching and not least because it may affect how Apple provides services outside the EU. Apple will have a bias towards consistency, and it is clear that what happens in the EU will heavily influence Apple worldwide.

However, this isn't just the EU overreaching. We must recognise that this has been on the cards for many years, and Apple has done little to avoid accusations of monopoly status. Apple's own centralising, protective and singular business model was never going to last forever. In as far as Apple wants to protect its customers from bad actors, that is conveniently coterminous with Apple's protection of its own bottom line.

This is all started with Apple's large app fees, which are widely considered greedy. In addition, the App Stores have let through an abundance of very poor and in some cases insecure apps, weakening the walled-garden argument and allowing its critics to question whether Apple really can be judge-and-jury on what is available to its customers.

The EU can be criticised here, and I'd be happy to do so all day and night; but Apple must also wake up to how naive it has been in handling its own status as the preeminent and most profitable global mobile platform. For a company that has learnt to do the opposite of Microsoft, and has traded on being the ante-Microsoft, Apple did not learn lessons from the fallout from Microsoft's former monopoly status.
 
We should put up a list of mr usernames who are against sideloading, so we can lock them in a pillory later, when we catch them using a sideloaded app.

I bet there will be quite a few of these antichrists!

b00c86db5d3aa8ce783a354827003f92.400x300x1.gif
 
Last edited:
If this didn't just boil down to Google vs. Apple and it wasn't one sided in the favor of Google in whichever flavor it would be competitive but that's not what it is. More importantly I'm wondering if Androids would be getting forced to open up to Apple software or is this just about giving Google everything they want through all their various proxies?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: vipergts2207
You still don’t get my point. There is a huge difference between choosing not sideloading and choosing an OS that doesn’t allow sideloading. Why should Apple decide it? Because they have created a platform, and that point has a lot of impact on its conception of the product. They could have decided to only offer 3rd party apps without App Store, or no apps at all. That‘s very basic.

Just one example. From my perspective, I want an operating system where I won’t be forced by my bank to use their app in order to enable NFC payments besides Apple Pay. That doesn’t depend on whether I personally enable sideloading or not, that depends on whether the OS does. From the company perspective: they’ve created a closed operating system where they don’t want a kid or grandpa to download malware after enabling sideloading (you will say it’ll be a toggle buried in settings; ok, but yes, they will enable it, we all know that).

Regardless of the specific case of Apple, it’s completely frustrating, and it reduces creativity and responsability, that a company cannot create a closed OS to maximise security. It’s even more clear with the future smart glasses: giving the option to sideload would make it instantly fail. We live in a society, not in a cubicle where if they give me some option it will be my choice.
I understand that you do not want sideloading. How can you be sure you are in the majority unless Apple allows sideloading but the majority reject it? Let us see Apple allowing sideloading and people rejecting it. Then we can believe that you are in the majority. There is no point in preempting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildkraut
Sorry, I can make my pc a 24/7 phone.
You went the floors, weight, etc…
I went to floors and weight because it is a direct result why a computer CANNOT be a phone 24/7. I don't take my computer when jogging or working out, but if my buddy faints or I injure myself I have a CELL PHONE with me.

To say a computer is the same as a cell phone and has the same mobility and 24/7 reliability is just ridiculous.
 
If your talking submarines, French contractors incompetence gave government a get out of jail free card.
The F35 project has shown plenty of incompetence yet I wonder, what would the US think if France conspired to convince a major customer of scrapping their purchase? And then went to the press and announced it like a big victory?

Do you think that attitude helps building reliable relationships?

What do you think the US would think if it were in a standoff with China in the Pacific, trying to negotiate a cease fire and the EU publicly said China are war criminals and Xi Jinping should be deposed, without consulting it with the US first?
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that if this had been adopted say, 40 years ago and we were all today using the same generic OS, say based on PC-DOS that you would be happy? Or 20 years ago and we are all using phones running some version of Palm software?

You’ve completely misunderstood all the situations you listed
 
We should put up a list of mr usernames who are against sideloading, so we can lock them in a pillory later, when we catch them using a sideloaded app.

I bet there will be quite a few of these antichrists!

b00c86db5d3aa8ce783a354827003f92.400x300x1.gif

It’s so strange how many are accounts that comment on little else…all while having incredibly low post counts, even if old accounts. Very odd indeed
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.