I7guy
macrumors Westmere
In other words, it's a socialist move. Take someones IP and give it to the people. Can't explain it any better.
Leaked EU Document Could Spell Major Changes for App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Browsers, and Siri
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jlc1978
macrumors 603
Actually, the US had CDMA and GSM in competition. Given the market and geographic size, as well as user travel habits, it really didn't matter to most users or companies their phones would only work in the US. A bigger issue was pasre coverage outside of major metropolitan areas early on. Japan also used a CDMA variant, IIRC. It made sense Europe decided on a standard, simply due to the political structure. Most European countries are the size of a mid sized US state, and the market would simply not been able to grow if each had their own standard and users would be frustrated when their German phone did not work in Portugal in August. Markets develop differentlt, for example I could roam for free across the US long before I could in the EU. Even now I just use my US phone since I get free data and texting, which means WhatsApp/FaceTime/Skype works for calls and iMessage for texting.
CDMA had an advantage in being more secure due to way it used the spectrum and built in encryption; as well as faster data speeds. Even so, switching carriers was not a CDMA restriction per se, it was the carriers, the only ones selling phones, who kept a database of devices and if your serial was not in it they would not activate it. It could be done, it just was a pain.
Porting has been easy and free in the US for a long time as well. I've gone from Ma Bell to a Baby Bell to Verizon to ATT to TMobile and have the same number I've had for years.
I think many will find that 30% is a much smaller cut than going at it alone; once all the costs currently included in the 30% now need to be paid by the developer. That 30% covers a lot more than just a credit card fee, including, but limited to, storage, bandwidth, worldwide distribution, tax compliance, currency conversion, advertising, etc. Not to mention upfront costs if they decide to host it them selves, for example. All a developer needs is a link on their website to the store, if they have a website. I doubt it will be easier, cheaper, and less stressful dealing with a bunch of stores in various countries, getting paid and converting the payment for a fee, dealing with local tax laws, etc. They may simply eschew markets the App Store now operates in to avoid the problems, leaving some consumers with no choice.
The big players will have no problem because EPIC has the cash to develop an iOS part to their store. I oubt they will be any more developer friendly than Apple. Want to sell stuff for FortNight? Sorry, we like that all the in game sales requires paying us, and only us.
As with any store, they markup the price to make their profit; and don't care how much you earn.
We seem to be talking across each other. Never said the App Store would be forced to be open.
My point is the legislative proposals specifically call out revenue and user base size as far as applicability. It's not aimed at Apple per se, just that they are one company big enough to fall under its purview. If it wasn't about business size or revenue then they would not have specified it in the law. Note: There are several pieces of legislation that have been intertwined in the discussion, I am referring to one that does call out size and revenue; others may not be as explicit.
A company could still build a proprietary protocol as long as they do not get too big.
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
Well I got confused when you mentioned Epic. Quoted that part and all.
You can have a huge amount of user base, huge sizes bigger and more revenue than Apple if you will. Take for instance Amazon Retail … I bet it has more customers than iPhone and iPad users exist. This is an example of a business is not a participant in the communication infrastructure given the nature of its business … at least for now.
On the other hand take Microsoft with Windows probably has more user of their services than Apple has iPhone and iPad users … it was regulated and it’s market share has not changed …. Take Intel and other hardware and device manufacturers, there are strict regulations regarding routers and all that. Even the use routers by ISPs … all aimed at Net Neutrality principles of the communication infrastructure.
Apple well as Google and others by the virtue of their products, case in case devices and OSs are a major players in the communication infrastructure. Epic is not even a player in this context.
The thing is … these are the least challenges for anyone company to have in a competitive market. What Apple built is the hardest part of any business … relevance.
Last edited:
RadioHedgeFund
Cancelled
Universal Healthcare is also a socialist move but then again I don't have to put myself or my family in crippling debt should I want to actually survive some life threatening illness.
The move isn't about taking Apple's IP and giving it away; its about creating an open standard for messaging apps in a similar way to how we have an open standard to email which I will assume you use without issue.
We really do have the Apple Defence Force out in full today. The opposition from people against a democratic global supranational wanting to take down the monopolisation of dictatorial tech companies is something to behold.
The EU is probably already missing out on some innovation because companies cannot or will not make their products work in accordance with local regulation. There's nothing wrong with that per se, that's a decision for individual companies to make.
It does become a problem if you sell a, for the lack of a better word, global product such as iOS (or Android) but you only allow yourself to use the full potential of the platform. If Apple Pay is not available in your region, then there's really no comparably convenient way to use your iPhone for touchless payment services in shops or public transportation. In some ways that may be insignificant, but it multiplies across several areas.
The obvious rebuttal to forcing platforms to be more open is that they have created the platform and it should therefore be up to them what you can do with them. Don't like it, create your own platform. Fair enough, but pragmatically also not very feasible. Companies such as Apple know that, which is why they are making this argument in the first place.
Ideally, therefore, our smartphones should be open and modular platforms that allow competition not just between platforms but also (to the extent possible) on core services. If Apple does not want to offer touchless payments in your region, use this local solution instead to tap and pay. If Siri doesn't work with your language, swap out out for something that does while still being able to use an iPhone.
No I'm not saying that the DMA/DSA will deliver this, I don't believe they go that far. We shall see what impact they will have in a couple of years. What I do believe, very strongly, is that it would open up room for innovation in places that are not at the forefront of product road maps in Cupertino or Mountain View. As most non-US users of these devices will know, there's always a long list of things that just doesn't work outside of the US and, where local alternatives do exist, it's always a second rate experience because some things just cannot be easily integrated into the "seamless experience." Until the platform provider realises, of course, that it would be profitable, in which case the competitor is immediately at a disadvantage.
Big tech will likely kick and scream, not everything will work as intended and mistakes will be made, but I very strongly believe that more open systems would benefit everyone in the long run.
You didn't say it you suggested it by the use of " " as a counter to the other user's argument that there are people or entities that considered themselves at the same level as nations in terms of influence and power, resources (financial or otherwise).
Also you claimed that bills are issued by private entities that are not subordinated to states which is also not true.
Also I never said a country's debt in it's entirely is heald by the National Bank or Banks.
It baffles me that you think this is "extraordinary easy". Because it isn't. Also if you had read the section that I quoted it's not just messages, it's voice and videocalls too. If you really think it's "extraordinary easy" you should let Apple know. They are going to want to hire you.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Was that taken from a private corporation and told you can't use it the way you designed it 13 years ago?
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
You really hit a wall there. When reason does not work play the existential card. No different than Putin line of argumentation.
PS: No Apple ideas are being stolen and given to the people. None. Fake information much?
RadioHedgeFund
Cancelled
Apple Pay is an interesting example because european countries adopted contactless payments, both mobile and card-based at a rate when the USA was still signing for things on a piece of paper.
RadioHedgeFund
Cancelled
What is being taken from a private corporation that they are not using their market position to abuse?
jlc1978
macrumors 603
I think it will come down to how a gatekeeper is determined. One category mentioned was social networking, which why I brought up EPIC because games can act as a social media platform, especially once the user base gets large enough.
Which was may point about it'll be interesting to see who gets caught in the crossfire and their responses. Spotify controls a significant chunk of the streaming add space, has the user base to meet the regulations, toyed with the valuation and may have the revenue numbers. Will they be considered a gatekeeper since the regulation is not aimed solely on communications infrastructure?
It will be interesting to see this play out.
Of course, which is why I see little impact on the App Store, beyond Apple tweaking how they get paid. If the loss from external payments is small they may ignore it, or adjust other fees to make up for it if it is too big.
No, you’re not forced…. No matter how many times you say that, it still doesn’t make it any more true….
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
Oh, yes see your reasoning now. Say a social network becoming so big that a black out might affect the flow of information and money. Before Epic you have Facebook, Twitter and others to be concerned really.
The challenges in that space is more of misinformation, fake news and journalistic integrity. Any citizen can change channels with a change in URLs or App. The GDPR was made to address some concerns in that department.
The problem of vertical integration around devices … something that Comm corps tried, having their way would probably make Apple impossible to come, is one of cost of change. Without regulation It gets higher and higher until you get trapped with cost of change that can span years and years. But back than it was decided that would not be the case of the Internet. After computers, the Internet changed the world.
As IoT evolves, in the near future we will have smart cars, smart house, VR world with NFTs, many many many kinds of smart devices that people will buy. What we have now is just a taste of it. Imagine Apple reasoning applied to an extent that one day to change delivery companies you would need to change homes, your address is no longer yours … crazy.
Any attempt to glue this to the violation of the IP of a company or the liberal organisation of markets is pure misinformation. There is nothing liberal about these companies practices.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
What abuse?
icanhazmac
Cancelled
How exactly will I not be forced to "join" another store or site in order to get updates to an app I already own?
Example: I own Angry Birds, bought it way back of course from the iOS store. Now alt-stores are legislated into existence and the dev chooses to pull out of the iOS store and move the Angry Birds franchise to Steam. How am I going to get updates, if offered, without creating a Steam account so that my purchase can be verified? Do you really believe that Steam will allow apps to be hosted, and updated, from their platform without an account?
I will indeed be forced to either join Steam or abandon an app I own.
I'm not sure why this concept is called into question. Many here are saying "don't worry you will still be able to get all apps in the iOS store but now from other stores as well" and I challenge that thought with the realistic concept of devs going solo to avoid the 30% or larger stores offering devs deals for exclusive distribution rights. I don't see either of those options as being consumer friendly versus what we have now.
Last edited:
dk001
macrumors demi-god
On that regard, after having setup a few of these, I find while iOS has some decent child controls, Android is more flexible as it can better utilize 3rd party software for this.
Both work.
RadioHedgeFund
Cancelled
Apple, 2006:
"OSX and Mac hardware enables developers from across the world to build, sell and distribute their applications without limitation across the most stable and secure personal computer operating system on the planet. Apple's cut of app sales: 0%."
Apple, 2022:
"iOS and iPhone hardware only allows developers from across the world to build, sell and disitribute their applications via the app store portal. Our cut for this service is 10% rising to 30% if your app is successful. You have no other avanues of distribution and removing locks put on your iOS device by Apple to limit app installation to our store only breaks your warranty. Its our way or the highway."
icanhazmac
Cancelled
Difference is that Apple hosts, markets and processes payments for the iOS store, it is a service that comes at a cost. Why should Apple do all of this and make nothing?
In a perfect world the MacOS store would operate the same way.
Your what if scenario is getting quite tiresome….
I mean, yes.... they are....
Yes, especially if you're already using icloud.... but even without icloud most people load up their computers with personal info...
Uh, ok dude, whatever makes you feel happy
icanhazmac
Cancelled
Do you have anything to contribute to this conversation or are you just here to label dissenting opinions as tiresome?
I could say the same thing about all of comments from the pro alt-stores crowd claiming that "nothing will change", well prove that to me. Show me in writing how if alt-stores and alt-payment processors are legislated into existence that every single app will remain in the Apple iOS store (as well as other stores) and can be paid for via that same store. If you cannot do that then we are all free to discuss the "what-ifs" and how they will affect our individual experience.
No one knows what the post alt-stores and alt-payment processors world will look like so the only thing to discuss are the "what-ifs".
Last edited:
djphat2000
macrumors 65816
I don't recall typing that. I maybe misquoted here.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
And what's the issue? This is apple's app store. Apple's intellectual property. There is competition in the app store space across vendors.
Just like the editorial page is the Wall Street Journal. A single individual is not guaranteed to get their viewpoint on the editorial page.
GermanSuplex
macrumors 68000
Well, Apple is the sole player in iOS as much as most companies are over things they own. That’s not much of an argument to me. If the EU determines them to be a monopoly, that won’t set a good precedence in the future, imo.
It feels more like forcing Apple to let companies profit off of their work (more than Apple already permits them to) rather than fixing any anticompetitive behavior or unfair advantage.