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

[russell_314]

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

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.

No it’s not a choice. The choice has been made for me by the government forcing sideloading. If I need the app and it’s not available in the App Store then I have to download it from sideloading. The reason why it’s not in the App Store is because a government decided it didn’t need to be. Saying just don’t download that app isn’t the answer because then at some point I won’t have any apps and the phone will be useless.

 

[gnipgnop]

The EU never bothered to provide any cost/quality/selection/satisfaction data to back up the idea that iOS was worse for consumers than Android/Windows/Mac so don't expect them to pay attention to any data that shows the new laws did absolutely nothing to improve competition or provide better cost/quality/selection/satisfaction to consumers.

I think it's mostly a cover for wanting to destroy privacy/security on mobile.

 

[vipergts2207]

The developers knew Apple’s rules when they wrote the apps. Why isn’t it immoral for developers, let alone governments, to tell the company that develops and supports the hardware and APIs required for their apps even to work how Apple has to operate that environment?

Because government has a bonafide interest in ensuring competitive markets and adherence to anti-trust law. Literally one of the main purposes of government is to regulate markets.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Massive government overreach. Play hardball Apple and threaten to pull out of the EU. They need you more than you need them.

Nobody needs Apple...

 

[Michael Scrip]

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.

I understand your point... but let's not forget that there are over 6 million mobile developers out in the world.

Apple and Google aren't preventing people from becoming developers... they are actually the reason people become mobile developers. Android and iOS are vibrant successful platforms... and developers are there.

In contrast... there were not a lot of developers making apps for "Blackberry App World"

?

 

[jahall05]

Not sure how this protects competition. Anyone can build an OS, make an App Store, develop a messaging service, and develop and build hardware.

All this is doing is asking Apple to do the hard work of creating APIs and development tools and updating an OS they built as well as creating updated/more powerful hardware and forcing them to allow anyone to piggyback off that hard work. If I was Apple I would leave the EU should this come to fruition, and it sounds like it will. The EU can import iPhones if they want them, but Apple should pull everything out of there. Just my opinion.

 

[Deguello]

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.

I don’t agree that the prospect of a fat payout from a deep pocket kills innovation. As you state, the original IP still exists.

 

[GMShadow]

The EU never bothered to provide any cost/quality/selection/satisfaction data to back up the idea that iOS was worse for consumers than Android/Windows/Mac so don't expect them to pay attention to any data that shows the new laws did absolutely nothing to improve competition or provide better cost/quality/selection/satisfaction to consumers.

I think it's mostly a cover for wanting to destroy privacy/security on mobile.

The easiest way would be for Apple to ensure their mobile devices are the first hit with malware, and all their personal data (much of which is no doubt illicit and illegal) to be leaked and spread widely.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Bad policy that’s going to open up endless new security vulnerabilities.

 

[Macative]

As time goes on my desire for sideloading and installing apps that Apple would never allow grows stronger so I have to say I support the EU lawmakers in this endeavour.

Terrible reason to support overreaches of power. "Because I would like the outcome personally" is not a reason to support such a thing.

If you can't separate "I want" from "This should be legally forced upon someone" then you're just part of the problem.

 

[Quu]

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.

A lot of things that the EU wants to regulate are not innovations. Text based chat over TCP/IP was around in the 90's. iMessage is a brand, Apple built a brand and shoehorned it into every iPhone to make it popular but they did not innovate the client-server message protocol. They didn't innovate being able to send messages to a list of friends using their email address etc

In-fact email which is a very open system (okay it's abused to hell by spam but that's more a product of its initial design limitations) is a good example of what's possible when something is open. Email is very cheap and accessible on every single device imaginable. Wouldn't it be great if we had that for every platform for real-time communication instead of mails? - I'm not suggesting iMessage be opened to third parties and that Apple be forced to pay for the servers and maintenance. I'm suggesting something more akin to a consortium of companies get together to make an open protocol.

Just like they did for WiFi, USB, Web standards, Video codecs etc - Apple is on many of these consortiums as are Google, Microsoft, Amazon and hundreds of other tech companies because there is a great deal of benefit to working together on foundational technologies.

You also mentioned FaceTime, again they didn't come up with video conferencing. We had it in the 1980's and it has just gotten more and more standardised since then, in-fact Facetime uses the H.264 (maybe even H.265 now) codecs which Apple is part of the consortium that make these standardised codecs possible.

The EU isn't saying to Apple you must provide other companies with your ARM chip designs or the operating system you made. But certain things that allow one iPhone to interact with another iPhone and no other phone hurt consumer choice. And this is also true for the rest of the market. All the messaging platforms that are locked down, all the video apps etc - It needs more standardisation and if the companies themselves won't do it then perhaps regulations are needed.

 

[russell_314]

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.

That would be funny but when you have governments that can just decide to fine a company on a whim then it wouldn’t work. In the end Apple is just a business and like any business they’re going to do what makes them the most amount of money even though it’s not necessarily best for the consumer.

This whole thing is a fight between multi billion dollar developers and Apple. Tim Cook is going to walk away from this smelling like roses and so will those developers. The consumer is the one that’s going to lose this.

 

[Deguello]

Because government has a bonafide interest in ensuring competitive markets and adherence to anti-trust law. Literally one of the main purposes of government is to regulate markets.

No, government has no such interest. Take an antitrust class sometime. The goal is almost universally to protect or aid certain competitors, not the consumer.

 

[Macative]

Because government has a bonafide interest in ensuring competitive markets and adherence to anti-trust law. Literally one of the main purposes of government is to regulate markets.

Regulating markets has been redefined as meaning "Let's force this popular company to do business differently for no other reason than they become popular"

 

[Sergio The One]

I would like platform neutrality to the degree that macOS affords users. You are free to disagree and you are also free to stay within Apples walled garden and never install a third party app store or sideload an app, your phone your choice.

I see your point and don't doubt your knowledge of the platform, however, I don't think you've considered the fact that it might become impossible for people to even stay 100% within the App Store if companies decide to force you have to side load their app or install it from their website, think companies... like Amazon, or a Netflix-type service that could think they have enough pull-power to force that on consumers because of their business reasons.

I personally would say that from someone that just got their first Mac a few months ago, I would've preferred to install everything from the App Store but many of the utilities I needed for professional reasons weren't there. I had to do a lot of digging and researching to make sure those utilities were legit and I wasn't being scammed or getting infected with malware.

So all I'm saying is that I agree Apple goes overboard sometimes with how they handle the App Store, but some of us choose to get an iPhone because we can rely on feeling safer with the apps we install on a device that mind you, never leaves your side and has all of your personal things on it.

And just as a side note, encryption interoperability in messaging sounds like a nightmare and I'm not sure what purpose it would have since you can install those apps anyway.

 

[Ethosik]

Not sure how this protects competition. Anyone can build an OS, make an App Store, develop a messaging service, and develop and build hardware.

All this is doing is asking Apple to do the hard work of creating APIs and development tools and updating an OS they built as well as creating updated/more powerful hardware and forcing them to allow anyone to piggyback off that hard work. If I was Apple I would leave the EU should this come to fruition, and it sounds like it will. The EU can import iPhones if they want them, but Apple should pull everything out of there. Just my opinion.

Yep this is essentially “change everything on iPhone”. This will require more developers, or Apple to drop planned features to put those developers to implement this.

 

[Quu]

Terrible reason to support overreaches of power. "Because I would like the outcome personally" is not a reason to support such a thing.

If you can't separate "I want" from "This should be legally forced upon someone" then you're just part of the problem.

That's where we see things different. I don't see it as an overreach of power. I see it as a well reasoned defence of consumer rights. We own our devices and should be able to do what we want with them. If I want to smash it on the pavement I can and I should also be able to install the software I want.

I also believe this for game consoles and I hope one day it happens there too.

 

[Macative]

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.

Then watch EU citizens actually wake up and realize their out of control governing body that does whatever it wants is not acting in anyones best interest at all.

 

[Da_Hood]

I finally understand the motivation for Brexit.

 

[Macative]

That's where we see things different. I don't see it as an overreach of power. I see it as a well reasoned defence of consumer rights. We own our devices and should be able to do what we want with them. If I want to smash it on the pavement I can and I should also be able to install the software I want.

I also believe this for game consoles and I hope one day it happens there too.

Your beliefs are absurd to the point of laughable, so I can't take it seriously.

 

[bcortens]

I understand your point... but let's not forget that there are over 6 million mobile developers out in the world.

Apple and Google aren't preventing people from becoming developers... they are actually the reason people become mobile developers. Android and iOS are vibrant successful platforms.

In contrast... there weren't a lot of developers making apps for "Blackberry App World"

?

True, I actually am pretty much fine with the App Store being the primary way to get apps but the problem isn't the idea of the store its the fact that they are allowed to use their power to limit apps.

For example, I can see no real reason why game streaming should be excluded a-priori.
There are many potential options for allowing game streaming rather the rediculous requirement that all games be submitted to the App Store individually, this was a bad rule. Because apple gets to make the rules with an obscure and unaccountable appeals process there is no way to use something like GeForceNow on the iPad. The web interface doesn't allow mouse binding so most of the games you might want to use it to play aren't available. The malware argument doesn't work since there is nothing installed locally that could compromise the iPad, the content argument doesn't work either because Apple could have made a rule that game streaming platforms must not allow the user to bypass the built in parent guidance rules, that would have again, been a reasonable compromise.

 

[vipergts2207]

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

No it's not. Something like this is resolved by the government fining you and if need be, freezing your assets and draining your bank accounts. Guns are far from the only force governments can apply. Look at western sanctions on Russia for instance. NATO hasn't fired a single shot at Russia, but they're still coming down severely on Russia through economic measures.

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

If Google is the only competitor left, that opens the door to literally any other alternative to take Apple's place. I'm sure Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Samsung or any number of other companies would love the opportunity to become a major player in the mobile OS space.

 

[Sergio The One]

Socialism. Does. Not. Work.

I really hope you know that's not what socialism is.

 

[bcortens]

Not sure how this protects competition. Anyone can build an OS, make an App Store, develop a messaging service, and develop and build hardware.

All this is doing is asking Apple to do the hard work of creating APIs and development tools and updating an OS they built as well as creating updated/more powerful hardware and forcing them to allow anyone to piggyback off that hard work. If I was Apple I would leave the EU should this come to fruition, and it sounds like it will. The EU can import iPhones if they want them, but Apple should pull everything out of there. Just my opinion.

This is such a straw-man, if it was this easy windows phone and blackberry would still be around. its also just not true that apple doesn't benefit from developers as much as developers rely on apple. The platform would probably still be viable without apps but a platform without apps usually fails... Apple needs developers and developers need apple, so developers aren't just piggybacking off of the hard work for free...

 

[Deguello]

That's where we see things different. I don't see it as an overreach of power. I see it as a well reasoned defence of consumer rights. We own our devices and should be able to do what we want with them. If I want to smash it on the pavement I can and I should also be able to install the software I want.

I also believe this for game consoles and I hope one day it happens there too.

Even presuming for the sake of argument that this makes sense, it still doesn’t get you where you want to go.

Your being free to do what you wish with your device doesn’t mean Apple, for example, has to assist you.