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

[ackmondual]

Governments force automakers to install features all the time, from ABS to three-point seatbelts, airbags, child-proof door locks, emissions standards, etc; drivers are required to use snow-tires or install chains in many jurisdictions, others require safety-kits, spare tires, high-vis vests, etc. Considering four-wheel drive is a safety advantage, it’s pretty far from outlandish to imagine a government requiring it on new cars sold sometime in the future, just like anti-lock brakes went from an add-on feature to requirement in many jurisdictions. We already live in the world you so fear, and it seems automakers have survived just fine.

The big ones to me are requiring you have liability insurance (I'm sure this is on a state-level, but the places I've lived in all have this requirement), and how as of May 2018, all new vehicles must have a backup camera installed. The latter has definitely been something I use all the time!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Was that taken from a private corporation and told you can't use it the way you designed it 13 years ago?

No one is taking anything from Apple. Practices that were allowed might be no longer … it happens all the time.

There was a time people could smoke in restaurants … for decades

 

[Beautyspin]

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.

Not always. Google is not the sole player in the Android realm, if you look at an Apple to Apple's comparison.

 

[I7guy]

No one is taking anything from Apple. Practices that were allowed aren’t no longer … it happens all the time.

There was a time people could smoke in restaurants … for decades

A restaurant isn't intellectual property. People can still smoke. Get the difference?

 

[njpryan]

Why in gods name do governments have to stick their oars into something that works well. If people want to be able to side load or have a very open product then don’t buy Apple.
You buy a Apple devices for their security. They way it’s all setup should tell you how good it works. Developers can decide to make apps for Apple and also for android users.

This is madness by the EU.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A restaurant isn't intellectual property. People can still smoke. Get the difference?

It is nevertheless property. I think you might not know what intelectual property is.

Apple has no intelectual property over vertical integration or digital stores. It’s not even unique. What is being regulated are practices much as it was in the restaurant in my example.

You might disagree over regulating the practice, but it has no reason in intelectual property laws.

 

[jakey rolling]

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.

If you want to see what the effect of meaningful competitive pressure vs. sitting in a comfortable, captive monopoly position, compare Apple's technological progress in the late 90's and early 00's to the Apple of the last decade. And then do the same for Microsoft.

 

[jlc1978]

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 is many want to live in their echo chamber to reinforce their beliefs. Facts do not sway them, it just makes them more entrenched in their beliefs.

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.

I am not against regulation, but people need to realize it will have unintended consequences and eventually help incumbents keep out competition.

But back than it was decided that would not be the case of the Internet. After computers, the Internet changed the world.

The internet, however, was started as a research and gov't / academic tool, not a business. You couldn't even carry out commercial activities. Before that, things such as USENET flourished as non-commercial entities.

 

[I7guy]

It is nevertheless property. I think you might not know what intelectual property is.

Apple has no intelectual property over vertical integration or digital stores. It’s not even unique. What is being regulated are practices much as it was in the restaurant in my example.

You might disagree over regulating the practice, but it has no reason in intelectual property laws.

Those smoking regulations were for the public health. An example of a public health edict is lowering the SAR from cell phone antennas. The app store is all Apple's proprietary intellectual market offering a market place, which Apple controls same as other market places.

Being told they need to support sideloading hearkens back to socialism, imo.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The app store is all Apple's proprietary intellectual market offering a market place, which Apple controls same as other market places.

The App Store is a property selling digital goods and services like a Restaurant is selling and serving meals. If you want to use the terms use them properly.

The regulation is not targeting the property. It’s targeting the vertical integration between the devices business and the App Store business (each Apple properties), along with users devices (which aren’t Apple properties) as well as digital services (which are not Apple properties either). This integration is not unique neither has an IP holder. It’s just practice.

Has I’ve said you may disagree regulating the practice but bares no reason in IP law. It might have on general concept of property considering that it impact the use (practice) of properties. Like traffic regulation.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I am not against regulation, but people need to realize it will have unintended consequences and eventually help incumbents keep out competition.

For certain it does not seam to be designed for that matter. So it looks odd to think that such thing is the inevitable result as a counter. But if it is, Apple is for certain well positioned to take it.

What you point out as the origins of the Internet is not the reason why the thing was regulated as per Net Neutral principles … principles contested multiple times in the US … . There was no need to be just a vision shared across multiple layers of the human endeavor. It’s incredible that such thing came through multiple conflictual interests, from private to public, political … incredible.

I’m sure the fall of the Berlin Wall served has an inspiration for many … who knows. That was a long time ago indeed.

 

[I7guy]

The App Store is a property selling digital goods and services like a Restaurant is selling and serving meals. If you want to use the terms use them properly.

The regulation is not targeting the property. It’s targeting the vertical integration between the devices business and the App Store business (each Apple properties), along with users devices (which aren’t Apple properties) as well as digital services (which are not Apple properties either). This integration is not unique neither has an IP holder. It’s just practice.

Has I’ve said you may disagree regulating the practice but bares no reason in IP law. It might have on general concept of property considering that it impact the use (practice) of properties. Like traffic regulation.

These regulations are in the same ballpark as telling restaurants what meals to service and the recipes to use.

 

[Ethosik]

Your what if scenario is getting quite tiresome….

If I want Final Fantasy 7 on PC, tell me how I’m not forced to use the Epic Store.

 

[Ethosik]

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".

We also have existing markets to base our historical trends. Look at Final Fantasy 7 Remake on PC. Who has exclusives now? People don’t think Epic would do the same on iOS?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

These regulations are in the same ballpark as telling restaurants what meals to service and the recipes to use.

If you equate meals to Apps than no, that is not the case. No regulation is defining what apps the App Store should serve users.

Even though restaurant business are regulated … kitchens, gas handling, electricity network, waste disposal … fire escapes … get the picture? None of these regulation violates the restaurant as a property and business … Much less IPs such as the restaurant recipes, decor, design and all that jazz.

 

[dk001]

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.

Does this change anything in your opinion knowing that the actual document mentions neither Apple or Google?

 

[Sf844]

LOL. And who do you think are the "real governments" and "real nations"? Central banks are private so "real governments" don't exactly issue that "cotton paper".

Apple is being paid directly by the customers so it does not rely on a "real government" as much as you would like to think. "Real government" is more of a nuisance from Apple's perspective.

Yet the moment a law is about to pass they panic and try to lobby those who actually wield real power.

Any company is just a piggy bank for the government. They can be crushed as easy as the scratch of a pen. Ask Huawei.

It's not the government the one paying companies to gain favors, is it.

 

[Sf844]

Please, save some of that ignorance for reddit.

Don't you like the F35 topic?

How about the US refusing to approve different aircrafts for nuclear delivery to force allies to buy the F35?

Don't you like that either?

Because the Eurofighter Typhoon is more capable than their current nuclear delivery fighters, the Tornados, and has more than enough load capacity. But, but, it's not American!

And guess what, the F35 suffers structural problems and loses stealth capabilities at supersonic speeds. A nuclear bomber that isn't able to go supersonic, go figure! No problems for the Eurofighter there. No wonder they couldn't approve it.

 

[M3gatron]

Your what if scenario is getting quite tiresome….

Yeah it's really doubtful that apps with millions of users will just completely abandon the App Store, especially payed apps.
That scenario is only really palusible for small apps that are unsuccessful on the App Store.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Does this change anything in your opinion knowing that the actual document mentions neither Apple or Google?

If the document doesn't apply to Apple and/or Google, then it makes my (and many others') opinion moot. If it does, then I don't agree.

 

[GermanSuplex]

If you equate meals to Apps than no, that is not the case. No regulation is defining what apps the App Store should serve users.

Even though restaurant business are regulated … kitchens, gas handling, electricity network, waste disposal … fire escapes … get the picture? None of these regulation violates the restaurant as a property and business … Much less IPs such as the restaurant recipes, decor, design and all that jazz.

Well, in that sense Apple is regulated too - on many fronts.

Apple has a hardware device and software - they've designed both. Forcing them to allow other marketplaces on their device, utilizing their software, is very much like forcing an existing entity to make space for someone else to set up shop, like telling McDonald's they must allow someone in to set up a kiosk to sell their products, with McDonald's providing all of the infrastructure.

 

[M3gatron]

If I want Final Fantasy 7 on PC, tell me how I’m not forced to use the Epic Store.

You're not, you can just buy it on DVD if Epic Store is such a huge problem.

 

[d686546s]

Well, in that sense Apple is regulated too - on many fronts.

Apple has a hardware device and software - they've designed both. Forcing them to allow other marketplaces on their device, utilizing their software, is very much like forcing an existing entity to make space for someone else to set up shop, like telling McDonald's they must allow someone in to set up a kiosk to sell their products, with McDonald's providing all of the infrastructure.

Assuming McDonald's and Burger King are the only two restaurants left in the world, and they controlled all the real estate in which you could sell food, and in order to sell food you had to submit your recipes to McDonald's before you could sell it and they could refuse it, and you had to give them 30% of your revenue to compensate them for using the infrastructure they are forcing you to use and on top of that they have access to secret ingredients and equipment only they were able and allowed to use and if you happened to come up with a really really special dish they could integrate it into their table setting and remove your dish from your menu...

Maybe then we had a comparable example, in which case forcing McDonald's to let people set up a kiosk doesn't actually sound as ridiculous anymore as you made it out to be.

 

[dk001]

If the document doesn't apply to Apple and/or Google, then it makes my (and many others') opinion moot. If it does, then I don't agree.

Chuckle. Nice reply that says nada and doesn't answer the question.
Thanks anyway.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well, in that sense Apple is regulated too - on many fronts.

True. There is not much more to it as a participant in a EU communication network. If your devices and OSs wanna be in the game ... Regardless if they are at the center or at the edge of communications similar regulations apply. That is the message I get from this regulation.

Its not their device ... its the users device. Like your house is yours. Like your cars is yours. Their IP is not yours but the device is. They are your supplier not the other way around.

Now Apple has an history of fighting against Net Neutrality principles, or at least be out of it. Only in 2017 it seams it has joined in. Why? Because without it its business would be totally bonkers. Imagine ISP charging App Store traffic specifically and not others ... would be awesome right? Or charge extra for iPhone connections and none say for devices made or whose manufacturing is owned by ISPs ... awesome right? Demand others to follow interop rules yet not ready to follow similar ones in their OS ... that is not the way forward I guess but hey its a valid way to observe regulations.

Apple's Real Reason for Finally Joining the Net Neutrality Fight

Why a strong and open internet became "a top thing" for Tim Cook and co.

www.wired.com

PCs, Routers, Bridges, Wifi devices, ... all follow certain regulations towards neutrality to be part of the network serving consumers. It seams that this new one just bring some OSs and devices into the fold, in particular Smartphones and Tablets in general ... not just Apple's. This was expected at least in the EU which has been quite adamant on it since inception ... nothing new or unexpected from the EU market.