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

[alexiaa]

Most of this sounds like a good idea, but I don't know how they imagine interoperability of end-to-end encrypted messaging apps without compromising privacy. They could just leave it at requiring Apple to support RCS, just like they support SMS now.

 

[WiseAJ]

Yes sure, Apple is certainly very happy to give up a market of almost 500 million people. I'm sure the shareholders would be very happy.

They wouldn't actually have to pull out. Its called a threat. All the EU Apple users would revolt on the lawmakers causing them to reconsider this harmful and stupid law.

 

[commander.data]

Earlier versions of the Digital Markets Act set out demands for big tech companies to share metrics with competitors, ensure that all apps are uninstallable, and not preference their own apps and services. Companies that fail to do so may face large fines, as high as ten percent of the company's worldwide annual turnover, or even forced disinvestment.

I wonder if Apple will refuse to re-architect their OS just to satisfy EU-specific regulations and treat the 10% worldwide annual turnover fine as an EU-specific tax and just pass it on to EU customers? I'm guessing EU lawmakers would be less than pleased with that strategy though.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple's been getting away with not paying it's share in taxes for a long time. What's your point?

Has anyone ever paid their fair share? Corps pay too little, regular people pay too much. Governments spends more than it takes in from everyone. What's the point of any of it?

 

[jonblatho]

Overregulation is not the way.

Then Apple and its Big Tech peers should have self-regulated so it never got to this point. It’s not like the specter of antitrust legislation snuck up on them.

Of course, Tim Cook himself was quite the proponent of self-regulation until it became clear that Apple was going to be a target of antitrust legislation as well. Now, they’re making out like bandits while they can, just like the rest of ‘em.

 

[Deguello]

LOL!!!!!! This is hilarious, considering its coming from someone who defends a company worth 2+ TRILLION dollars.

It’s likely there are many differences between a company that has value, however large, because it makes goods and services available to willing buyers and entities which enforce their will by force.

 

[bcortens]

The problem with the overreaching EU laws is that it actually hurts the user in the long run. Apps get built with malicious code, user gets tricked into installing them, complains about Apple.

The other thing that baffles me is Apple created the OS and the EU are expecting it to be a free and open house for anyone to do what they want with. You wouldn’t expect the company that owns a shopping mall to allow other businesses to set up in there for free. Because this is what the expectation is here for software.

What if all shopping malls were owned by the same two companies that chooses who can and cannot open up a business? That is the case we're in with mobile software.

 

[darngooddesign]

I’m all for allowing side loading and forcing Apple to make good on its promise me make FaceTime open source. That’s it. Why does iMessage need to work with WhatsApp when I can download WhatsApp instead?

Back in the day, I really enjoyed using Pidgin instead of several standalone chat apps.

 

[Quu]

But, what does that have to do with Apple limiting you on how iOS can have apps installed? They built them for separate purposes. they are not the "same". They may look and operate similarly enough, but they are not.
You can pick Android if you want something more "free to use as you like". If you want iPhone, you know how it works going in.

But, that doesn't mean you get to take them down (governments) because of one aspect you don't like. You can choose to not purchase it. You can choose to appeal to Apple for them to allow it or make some other compromise. But, to "Force" them to chance how they make what they make when they freaking made it. No, I don't think that is in anyway fair to anyone else that has chosen to purchase based on how it is working for them.

That's fantastic. Do you ever feel forced to develop for iOS? Anyone forcing you to do so? Could you develop for other devices/Android/macOS/Windows/Console?

Or do you sell to where the customers are?

Not by the DMA rules. Those choices are removed. All must comply to this BS. Even if you don't want to use 3rd party anythings. The system must be changed to allow it regardless. Which leaves the possibly (even if it is small) of having your favorite app installed outside the AppStore, or your devices security compromised in ways it was simply not possible before.

Not to mention the work Apple has to put in (at cost) to make all this work. It's not free, as you would very well know because you sell/make software.

You said in this reply to me that I can choose to not use an iPhone if I don't like that I can't sideload apps. But then you bemoan that you would feel compelled to install a 3rd party app store to gain access to an app you like. To that I would say, you can choose not to use that app and stay within the app store. It's the same logic.

 

[russell_314]

Apple's been getting away with not paying it's share in taxes for a long time. What's your point?

I’m sure Apple is paying the required amount of tax every year. You may not think it’s a fair share but that’s just your opinion. That doesn’t mean they’re getting away with something.

 

[Deguello]

Are we expecting this law to enforced at gunpoint? Pretty sure financial solutions exist that will readily take care of this. Additionally, if Apple doesn't like these new laws, they're free to pull their business from the EU. Pretty sure that mirrors Apple's own position for devs. "If you don't like the App Store's terms, pound sand and develop software somewhere else."

Every law is ultimately enforced at gunpoint. The threat of force is now government operates.

Yes, Apple can leave. Perhaps you can explain how that would foster competition in the EU.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Generally I think that its important to look at scale with this sort of thing, as a platform becomes crucial for business in the way iOS and Android have, the need for regulation grows, and it is definitely clear that the iPhone has grown to the point that it could be justified in forcing the platform to open up a bit.

iOS isn’t critical for business, though. ESPECIALLY not in the EU where it has little marketshare at all.

 

[GMShadow]

Please explain the difference and I will in detail tell you how each point you make is incorrect.

I hope Apple raises your developer fees to a flat $10000 per year.

Most of this sounds like a good idea, but I don't know how they imagine interoperability of end-to-end encrypted messaging apps without compromising privacy. They could just leave it at requiring Apple to support RCS, just like they support SMS now.

Hint: that's a feature, not a bug

 

[russell_314]

You said in this reply to me that I can choose to not use an iPhone if I don't like that I can't sideload apps. But then you bemoan that you would feel compelled to install a 3rd party app store to gain access to an app you like. To that I would say, you can choose not to use that app and stay within the app store. It's the same logic.

Maybe he’s not explaining it correctly but what I think he’s trying to say is once the App Store isn’t the exclusive place to get apps then some app developers will stop putting apps in the App Store. At that point you’ll be forced to go outside the App Store to get some apps you need. Right now you never need to go outside the App Store.

 

[Ethosik]

Please explain the difference and I will in detail tell you how each point you make is incorrect.

I need my phone to be able to call 911 at all times. Computers can’t do that. If my Windows or Mac is down due to malware and my family collapses, I can call 911 without touching a computer.

Now if my iPhone now has ransomware on it that locks it down, or a rogue process that causes my phone to be slow it’s a concern.

The difference is in the name of the product.

 

[likegadgets]

What Apple should consider is - a toggle switch that keeps the ecosystem as is, with full Apple support. With the toggle off support for hardware and software support only up to resetting iOS as shipped with the phone. No support for issues caused by side loaded apps. No representation of security or tracking unless you opt for secured close setting.

 

[bcortens]

I hope Apple raises your developer fees to a flat $10000 per year.



Hint: that's a feature, not a bug

I actually think a separate developer fee (and $10000 sounds reasonable) for people who use 3rd party payment processing is a reasonable compromise. I worry, a lot, that there won't be sufficient protection for users against apps that try and scam them out of money though, is there going to be an independent EU app auditing system that all apps must pass to ensure they are free of malware and don't behave in unethical ways?

 

[djphat2000]

I'm confused by your signature, you're an old mac user who owned an Apple II+ and have been using them ever since. The Mac would not even exist today if Apple was vetting all the software for that platform.

Different platform. These are not the same things. They appear similar in many ways, but they are not.

And you clearly know that Macs are not a diseased entity in computing, they are thriving and people are using them for all manner of tasks today, despite their ability to sideload and install third party stores.

This took some time to happen. Microsoft was WAY more successful in this regard. And still dominate to this day. They also make most of the things business need (and many consumers), Office, Exchange, SQL, IIS, etc. Apple is very niche in comparison.

Even with all of Apple's more recent successes, they still don't have parity on applications (games or otherwise), and hardware compatibility (even when it was solely on intel). Apple's desktop is not anywhere near as popular as the PC desktop, even when against a single PC maker (Say Dell or HP).

Look at the huge success of Steam and what it has done for PC and to a lesser extent Mac gaming. That sort of store would be wonderful to have on iOS.

We still don't have even 20% of the games that's on PC. Again, with or without intel. So pre intel, during and now with M1. We do better in the emulation space lately, but nothing like the PC space in games. So, this openness hasn't helped much.

 

[vipergts2207]

Your post was about “competition,” though. That the EU can make it legal doesn’t imply that doing so protects competition. If you have a point on how dictating how companies must interoperate fosters competition, feel free to make it.

I'm talking about the part of this law that would open up the iOS's software distribution. As for how forcing interoperability can foster competition, here's a point I made in another thread.

So let's say a developer comes up with some awesome new feature for a messaging app. Today the problem exists that, in order for the app to be successful they have to work tremendously hard to try to get existing users of well-established platforms like iMessage and WhatsApp to use it. As cool as the new innovative feature may be, it's useless to a user if there's nobody else to communicate with on the app. But if interoperability is required, now suddenly the developer's users can communicate with everyone else already. While these users can't use the innovative app-specific feature with non-users of the app, they're still able to interoperate on the basics of the standard for communication, just like every other app. There's a built-in, basic, and level playing field. If the feature is really that innovative, they'll eventually be able to amass a sizable number of app users. Conversely, today because of the difficulty of the prospect of breaking through to users of established players, Apple or Google may see this new feature and decide to buy them out, with the developer taking them up on the offer because they realize the prospect of succeeding is low and it's a big payday. So now instead of "future SnapChat" some day becoming a large company of their own, it becomes just another cog in the Apple or Google machine. This is what really kills innovation. Large competitors buying up smaller, innovative ones, just to add their IP to their own portfolio. If regulation can make it more viable for smaller players to exist on their own, rather than having to count on a buyout from a FAANG company, then that's a win for both innovation and competition.

 

[bcortens]

iOS isn’t critical for business, though. ESPECIALLY not in the EU where it has little marketshare at all.

Nonsense, apple has about 25% marketshare of the most lucrative customers, it is incredibly important for any mobile developer to be able to offer an iOS app.

Apple maintains second-place spot in Europe smartphone market in 2021 | AppleInsider

Apple is maintaining its iPhone market share in Europe as the current top brand, Samsung, declined and newcomer Realme broke into the top five for the first time.

appleinsider.com

 

[Crickster]

Wouldn't this affect innovation? Why would a company spend tons of money on R&D just to have to share their new tech or make sure it's compatible with competitors? I bet this would cause I large price increase, Canada did away with 3yr contracts as the consumers didn't like them and it resulted in more expensive rate plans and devices becoming more expensive so they ended up with higher monthly costs. In the end, it was a dumb move that negatively affected consumers.

I'm all for sideloading apps and just like others have mentioned having users see a warning and then use their passcode to install. Having to share innovative products like iMessage and FaceTime is anti-competitive, why would someone build a new feature when they can just wait for someone else to innovate it for them?

I could be wrong but I feel like the consumer will pay the price in the end with higher costs, like subscription services, device prices, and if Apple raises device prices for carriers your monthly rate plan cost goes up.

 

[bcortens]

I'm talking about the part of this law that would open up the iOS's software distribution. As for how forcing interoperability can foster competition, here's a point I made in another thread.

So let's say a developer comes up with some awesome new feature for a messaging app. Today the problem exists that, in order for the app to be successful they have to work tremendously hard to try to get existing users of well-established platforms like iMessage and WhatsApp to use it. As cool as the new innovative feature may be, it's useless to a user if there's nobody else to communicate with on the app. But if interoperability is required, now suddenly the developer's users can communicate with everyone else already. While these users can't use the innovative app-specific feature with non-users of the app, they're still able to interoperate on the basics of the standard for communication, just like every other app. There's a built-in, basic, and level playing field. If the feature is really that innovative, they'll eventually be able to amass a sizable number of app users. Conversely, today because of the difficulty of the prospect of breaking through to users of established players, Apple or Google may see this new feature and decide to buy them out, with the developer taking them up on the offer because they realize the prospect of succeeding is low and it's a big payday. So now instead of "future SnapChat" some day becoming a large company of their own, it becomes just another cog in the Apple or Google machine. This is what really kills innovation. Large competitors buying up smaller, innovative ones, just to add their IP to their own portfolio. If regulation can make it more viable for smaller players to exist on their own, rather than having to count on a buyout from a FAANG company, then that's a win for both innovation and competition.

Interoperability is good - but it seems like the intention here is that the iMessage protocol be interoperable rather than a more general messaging interoperability.

 

[Quu]

I hope Apple raises your developer fees to a flat $10000 per year.

That would be less than 1% of what they get from me with their 30% cut already. Probably better make it a million.

Maybe he’s not explaining it correctly but what I think he’s trying to say is once the App Store isn’t the exclusive place to get apps then some app developers will stop putting apps in the App Store. At that point you’ll be forced to go outside the App Store to get some apps you need. Right now you never need to go outside the App Store.

I understood that is what he meant. All I'm saying is it's still his choice if he chooses to follow that app to where it goes. We use the word need liberally here, we all need a banking app or we all need a word processor. But the reality is we don't actually need those to continue living they are just very good at making us time efficient. It's still a choice whether to use those apps we perceive that we need or not.

I am in full agreement that certain apps and maybe even certain categories of app will leave the apple App store forever but they will come roaring back if people choose not to install third party stores. As we've seen on Android it is extremely difficult to be a profitable paid app on a third party store and that is a device that allows sideloading and third party store fronts.

 

[robco74]

Apple shouldn't pull out of the EU forever, but they should announce that they will be suspending all sales while they come into compliance with EU regulations. That will take the better part of a year or more. Then they should release specific SKUs just for the EU market, with Messaging, FaceTime, and pretty much all the services removed. Basically, you get a blank brick that makes calls, everything else must be installed elsewhere.

And of course, Apple should jack up prices by a lot to cover the cost of complying with all of this nonsense.

 

[Ethosik]

I understood that is what he meant. All I'm saying is it's still his choice if he chooses to follow that app to where it goes. We use the word need liberally here, we all need a banking app or we all need a word processor. But the reality is we don't actually need those to continue living they are just very good at making us time efficient. It's still a choice whether to use those apps we perceive that we need or not.

Well then you don’t need side loading or interoperability. If you are telling us to no longer follow an app that is no longer on Apple App Store, then you don’t need whatever-random-app only available on their website.