Please, save some of that ignorance for reddit.
You stated previously Apple has 25% market share. Playing field appears to confer no advantage to Apple.
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
A functioning system that would allow me too buy apps, and buy updates when they add value for me, would be absolutely welcome.
I don't want free stuff and I've paid for a lot of apps, but I just don't like subscriptions. I get that there might be premium features that require ongoing payments, but it shouldn't be the default and only way to pay for apps.
I'd probably spend more if I could buy more apps outright. For now I just avoid 99% of subscription apps.
Does the EU really not understand that iPhone and Android already have an interoperability layer?
It's called the operating system.
Apps that run on that layer (the OS) are able to communicate with apps on other devices.
Why make this and app level thing when the underlying interoperability is already there, just a level deeper?
This ruling, while likely well-intended, will cause more problems than it solves.
It's called the operating system.
Apps that run on that layer (the OS) are able to communicate with apps on other devices.
Why make this and app level thing when the underlying interoperability is already there, just a level deeper?
This ruling, while likely well-intended, will cause more problems than it solves.
I would love to have the charging port to be USB C, no doubt as it helps everyone, but moreover i want iPhone to be super tight product. Though there's quite a bit of stuff i dont like in iPhone. like repairing is expensive and quite tricky, for simple things you got to replace the entire screen, per se etc etc.
What i dont understand is, if one doesn't like an iphone, then buy android. Imagine if everyone switches to android apple has to bow down and add in all the features that would reatain the customers.
I'm not saying all the demands of the EU are wrong. I would love iphone to have have typeC. Anyway, i have moved to wireless charging that is more standard across all devices and iPads/macs are already type C.
What i dont understand is, if one doesn't like an iphone, then buy android. Imagine if everyone switches to android apple has to bow down and add in all the features that would reatain the customers.
I'm not saying all the demands of the EU are wrong. I would love iphone to have have typeC. Anyway, i have moved to wireless charging that is more standard across all devices and iPads/macs are already type C.
I think you have the wrong perception of the goal. The concern of regulation is not company growth, companies can grow at will. Yet practices eschewing third party choice over their properties for personal growth is frowned upon in the EU. No matter the tactics used to implement this money making strategy, such strategy is sooner or later doomed in the EU.
Here is anecdote for all it is worth. Awhile back my iPhone X lighting port stopped working. So started to use wireless charging only. After awhile the battery capacity was down due to use ... normal. So decided to change the battery. Went to a certified Apple support center and asked to replace the battery. The guy did some tests, he came back: "Sorry sir we cannot change the battery as your lightning port is not working property and we need it for the purpose". I asked to fix the port also. They guy said that he could not. Per Apple policy the lighting port could not be fixed, consumer safety and all that crap! So he offered me the Apple solution which is to give me an iPhone X refurb in exchange of 560 Euros along with my phone. If I was to believe Apple that is what I would do, like many Americans do, after all paying less taxes and all why not? But did not believe, and went to a tiny shop, voila in 15 minutes got the lightning port replaced for 45 Euro then went back to the Apple Support center to change the battery ... 65 euros. The all thing ... 110 Euros. As I upgraded to the iPhone 13 Pro Max, the iPhone X went to my child ... so Apple still wins ... in a way that I think would be fair. If Apple had their way the tiny repair shop would be gone. Third party entities are unaware of these kinds of practices just until they face it ... than become news so on, laws suits so on and so forth ... eventually get regulated ... Regarding regulation there are always people that believe is government interference ...
Regarding the App Store. I think it's a good service, it as very interesting features for users. The benefits SJ played in its presentation hold strong. But as the anecdote above can have its dark side that third parties only know when they face it. The concern here is similar with the added concern explained on my previous post yet there is more ... at the core ....
Apple with great merit established it self with their devices has a major player in the communication infrastructure ... that is not a problem per si. Yet, at this level certain practices will be regulated like any other company was, is and will be. Regulation that Apple itself enjoyed at many levels. You see, the reason why data distribution is so cheap leading to App Store incredible margins has to do with the fact that communication companies are regulated ... Net Neutrality and all ... If not for it you bet probably App Stores would be paying a surplus for digital data distribution, either reducing its profit margins or increasing fees across the entire digital value chain ... or a mix of both ... heck Apple may not even exist in such a world who knows.
Building a consumer facing MAJOR absolutely non Net Neutral inter device communication infrastructure on top of whatever the tactic will simply not be allowed in the EU for many reasons if not for security reasons. Regardless if the headquarters of such companies are German, British, Korean, Chinese, American ... . Cooperation is key!
The EU has always been consistent on these matters. The leaked info is of no surprise! It has been coming for a long time. This is not about Apple per si although it may affect Apple.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Not to be pedantic, but the legislation would not force you to use an alternative store or an alternative payment provider. If the legislation enables third party app stores on iOS and people buy there because an app is only available there and/or it is cheaper there -- or people could choose different payment providers for in-app purchases after downloading an app from the App Store -- this is a market decision. If you and plenty others decide not to use alternative app stores and limit yourself to what you can get through Apple's channels, using Apple's payment services, and developers therefore release apps there to reach this audience -- this is a market decision.
What I don't understand, and I don't want to be flippant about this, is how we apparently do not need any alternatives because the market has so clearly and resoundingly chosen the App Store, yet we must protect it from competition at all cost because as soon as the barriers fall the App Store will be no more. Surely if it's so great as people say it is (and for the record, I tend to agree from a consumer perspective), then surely it will prosper and prevail even if iOS became a more open system.
Why? Most sockets are compatible with the Europlug anyway and those that aren't are rare cases that are hardly being used anymore.
Also "back doors"? LoL ?
Apps can have an incredibly basic registration, with little information needed to create an account- and they do not need payment information when PayPal can be utilised for payment.
Edit: As an aside, this new legislation could open the flood gates for piracy, which can be a good thing for the market because extortionate fees would be harder to justify when people can effectively steal your product with little difficulty. Harsh on devs, though, because many won't want to spent money on non-work applications.
Last edited:
Yes because he was absolutely correct. You were making suggestions an assumptions based on lack of knowledge about the subject. The legislation is very obviously not Apple dedicated and directed on Apple users at all.
Last edited:
From the EU's perspective there are likely public policy considerations that are unlikely to be ever mitigated by only relying on market forces, above of all softening the dependence on US tech companies and US-centric product road maps.
I've said this before but smartphones and tablets are likely to be the future of consumer computing and, to a large degree, they already are. While I do believe that European companies have been able to capitalise on this and provide services to European customers -- thinking about fintech in the UK for example and all those new digital banks that have sprung up over the last 10 years for example -- there is probably ample room for local innovation to compete with the big tech platforms if they were more open and thereby not only benefit European companies, but also make sure people in Europe get to benefit from technological development.
Take virtual assistants, for example. Say hypothetically Siri or (to a lesser degree, since Android is more modular) Google Assistant does not really work with your local language. Apple keeps innovating and making improvements for their core market (the US) and this drives real progress and basically enables "stuff" that consumers really want and benefit from. Unfortunately, your market is way too small to make it a priority and, because it's fragmented between two major platforms, it doesn't really make sense to develop a local alternative that will, at best, be useful to 50% of the people. However, if you could offer a local service that could (in theory) work for all people in a specific market, or could provide a better service for whole regions in Europe, it may be a different ball game.
Rinse/repeat for Apple Pay, WhatsApp and all the other services that provide some kind of lock-in through either their network effects or because the platform operator simply does not permit any competition to their own services.
Whether or not the DMA/DSA will actually have this effect and level the playing field for European providers remains to be seen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But consumer choice alone is unlikely to make a dent in what I think the Acts actually seek to achieve and therefore the EU will press on.
LoL, Europe is a Continent not a Nation and it's not poor at all.
Also this legislation comes from EU and excludes any country that is not a member of the Union.
And last the legislation doesn't involve at all excuses to sue american companies for extra $$
But I would love if Apple would follow your suggesting, just to see them sink ?
Some people hope that apps that I want to download/pay all exist in the app store. If even one of them pulls out from the app store, in a hypothetical scenario where Facebook app pulls out to go to their own app store, or google drive, etc, that will drive the point to why some people desire (could be a minority) for only want one app store for iOS.
I have read that it hasn't happen on android even though they have many app stores, so some people hope it will be the same for iOS once it happens. Some people do not want the Mac situation where many apps needs to be downloaded from the browser or from multiple exclusive app stores.
The same thing might apply for payment system where it might be possible that some payment system provides a very juicy deal so some developers might exclusively use that payment system, hence the need to input credit card info into many payment services (instead of only 1 which is apple) to make purchases and subscribe.
I think this is the reason some people do not like having the wall garden opened, even if that is the market decision.
A question that doesn't make any sense.
And the National Bank and Treasury are not privately owned in any country.
Apple is highly dependent on governments. For example Chinese government for being able to manufacture their phones or just for being able to access a market. India for example could just block apple from selling iphones in their country if they wanted and that for no reason if they wanted.
Apple doesn't have any true power against markets or countries, and in a standoff with any market Apple would lose by default.
Last edited:
The reason I moved to Apple (desktops, notebooks and phones) was for the industrial-strength security and I am happy with any downsides to this. Apple created the iPhone and invented the concept of the App Store, the developers signed up to the concept and Apple deserves to enjoy the fruits of its labour. The EU should 'butt out'.
I would argue that Apple makes other peoples' ideas better rather than purely innovating.
The OG iPhone was probably the most secretive project Apple ever worked on but prior to this the LG Prada was launched in Dec 2006 which featured the now familiar portrait touchscreen paradigm. This phone was developed entirely independently of the iPhone without knowledge of Apple's design work. This implies that smartphones would have inevitably ended up the way they are now in spite of Apple's work in the field.
Tablets like the Samsung Q1 (from 2006) or the Sony UX1 (2007) both predate the iPad and any design influence from Apple. The Sony UX1 still looks incredible, like a useful piece of technology instead of a featureless glass panel. In 2006 (!) it had a 32gb SSD, Memory Stick slot, Compact Flash slot (very useful for photographers), a 3mpx external camera, fingerprint reader, full slide-out QWERTY keyboard, USB-A port, 3.5 hours battery and an included dock with all the video and networking requirements you could need.
Of course the UX1 was also £2000, ran Windows Vista and is classic Sony overengineering but what a device!
Last edited:
Then Apple should ensure that its App Store is attractive and competitive and I'm sure consumers will continue to use it.
LOL, sometimes this is a sentence. "You don't show money in this neighbourhood."
I am wondering if it is possible to create a political situation that will encourage the flow of the capital from the EU to the US for the sake of safety?
Who is the owner of the global debt then? Are you saying that the governments borrow money from themselves and are paying it back again to themselves?
I think it illustrates just how different things are on either side of the atlantic.
In 1986 what was the EEC (prior to ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and the creation of the EU) signed into legislation the creation of GSM as a mobile communications' standard going forwards. It allowed consumers to switch between carriers and phones easily as they navigated the continent and later, the globe. Thus the EU has been fighting for common standards for consumers for decades. In the UK we have an additional 'PAC' system allowing the transference of a number from one carrier to another, free of charge.
On the opposite side of the pond many networks went with CDMA so the consumer couldn't switch networks even if they wanted to, monopolising their customer's cellular access.
I find it interesting how Apple went from driving the adoption of open standards like the USB-A port or WiFi to monopolising them too.
I see that if you don't have arguments you stick to the usual irrelevancies.
Is your question suppose to mean something? You are obviously not expecting an answer and that in itself you consider proves your point that real governments or real nations don't exist which is just pure nonsense.
Well here's the answer. National debts are owned by different parties which have been broken down by a Deutsche Bank chief economist(quite a reliable source I would say).
Where should I start? First of all "the market" is a set of regulations and rules. E.g. to sell electronic devices on the European market your products need to comply with the set of regulations for electronic devices. Wireless are only allowed to operate in a certain bandwidth. Mobile phones have to implement the correct specifications for lets say 5G/3G and so on.
We have people running around controlling scales and quality to avoid fraud an anti competitive behaviour.
Next the whole thing you talk about are customers. But the DMA is created to take care of companies and developers - so this is not about users. Everyone who want to offer something on a digital platform should have the same rights. No matter who the owner of the platform is.
This is nothing new by the way, it is indeed very old. DMA just extends the set of regulations to include the digital market.
The European market allows equality for participating parties. Image you develop the next disruptive e streaming service. There is nothing that can compete with your service. But if you make money with your service, you need to be present on Smartphones - and here comes the problem: Apple/Google want 30% of every dollar. Remember 30% of the sales price, not 30% of you earnings.
This way and by hiding several "private" Api your service cannot compete against any Google/Apple streaming service,
This is where the DMA kicks in. Monopoly blocks development of new service, but this is not allowed - the DMA tries to fix the current situation.
The problem for developers is most can't survive long term on a sale unless teh price is high enough, and the can introduce and sell upgrades; yet app pricing has conditioned users to expect every app is either free or 99 cents.
That would depend on local laws; in some places OEM does not invalidate a warranty unless they were the cause of a failure. Repair shops generally get manufacturer branded parts at a discount, called a jobbers rate or price; so tehy can get a markup on repair parts.
The cost depends on the shop - some authorized Apple service centers are cheaper, just as an indpendent shop may not be cheaper than a dealer.
Is it fair that EPIC licenses their engine and charges 5% even if you do not use their store?
I doubt it, given the App Store is likely to be the largest iOS/iPADOS marketplace, and any competitor that starts to rival it will probably wind up costing about the same; because it's cost structure will no doubt require a larger cut and if they get big enough they simply can.
Apple's repair policies are ridiculous, but Apple really doesn't want to be in the repair business. Component level repair requires some skill, which means training and higher wages, requires stocking a lot of components that increase costs, and have a higher risk of going wrong and causing unhappy consumers.
It also means designing for repair, beyond screen/battery/mobo swaps.
Swap to repair is a lower cost, and likely higher margin, business. No need for expensive repair techs,, parts inventories, and you simply ship the busted device to a central point for refurbishment or recycling.
I get that, my point was companies such as EPIC may welcome this now only to regret it when they get caught up in being forced to open up their store when they meet revenue and user base size requirements.
I do disagree to some extant that the EU places third party choice as primary, if so they'd have forced Spotify to change its model and not allow Car Thing to be Spotify only.
What you are saying is no company should be allowed to innovate beyond some common standard. Interoperability should be at some basic level with companies free to add features they believe users will want. Should WhatsApp be forced to limit itself to one universal encryption standard and let any company store messages sent from their app to the other companies app? That is what it sounds like you are proposing.
If the EU goes that route, they risk being cutoff from sone innovations. A company could still sell the interoperable device without the new features; much as Apple did with the watch's EKG features due to regulatory requirements. They won't abandon the market, companies will just modify a product to comply, which is a lot easier when features are software, not hardware based. The hardware could still be in the device, just not used by localized software. That's not a new idea, chip manufacturers have done it for some time, as well as car manufacturers. For example, I had a BMW that was prewired for bluetooth, only required the addition of a few components. Even so, until I coded the software to indicate Bluetooth was installed it would not work. Years earlier, a frind added some door lights by simply finding teh plug in the door and connecting it, since the car was wired for tehm even if you did not buy them.
Standards are important, but they tend to be lowest common denominator that ensures some level of interoperability. If only standards are allowed we'd still be in the POTS era.
Where did I say that real governments and real nations don't exist? You jumped in the middle of my conversation with someone else without understanding or point of your own.I see that if you don't have arguments you stick to the usual irrelevancies.
Is your question suppose to mean something? You are obviously not expecting an answer and that in itself you consider proves your point that real governments or real nations don't exist which is just pure nonsense.
Well here's the answer. National debts are owned by different parties which have been broken down by a Deutsche Bank chief economist(quite a reliable source I would say).
Your diagram shows that is the debt is mostly owned by private entities, while your National Bank and Treasury does not seem to own much at all.
As I’ve said you seam not to get it. The info leaked is not about opening the App Store. As per the info seams to be able to be as closed as it is like any other regular digital store.
Regarding the participants in the open communication infrastructure, the info seams to be targeting only the non Neutral vertical integration between the user ability to install and use digital end points in their devices (Apps) considering the rise of App Stores. Giving Apple and others participants in the EU communication infrastructure the same policies for business integration. Microsoft and other all went through this.
Apple business could be in many ways because of these principles set upon other businesses.
It’s not about revenue or business size. Don’t know how to explain it better.
Last edited: