The problem is that the EU is not actually attempting to regulate anti-competitive conduct in the market. That's why the market cap is required. They're fine with the exact same type of conduct below the cap so how can you really say it's actually anti-competitive?You say that based on??
"Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies."
Literally the first sentence from Wikipedia.
Competition law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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
Corporate control and monopolistic behavior is the worst and it's to the detriment of users and consumer choice.
Regulate 'em
/thread
This is really just history repeating itself. When the DOJ filed charges against Microsoft it was largely at the behest of competitors like Netscape, Sun, etc., not consumers. I'm not a MSFT supporter, but that event was more an abuse of power than legitimate oversight. Losers always want to pull the winners down. This is just the haves vs. the have-nots, at scale.
Guns are only needed when other avenues do not exist, which they do here. Please lay out the details of how guns will inevitably be required to enforce this law rather than courts, lawyers, and banks. This should be a doozy.
Is macOS more competitive for app prices, quality, selection, and customer satisfaction? Why did mobile hardware become so popular if consumers thought desktops/laptops were so much better for those things?
The annoying thing is a bit of regulation would actually be really great for the market, but an overreach would actually really compromise security. I'm not a fan of sideloading at all, and generally don't like regulation but a little regulation to open things up is good. Wish these idiots knew how far to tread.
Indeed! Look back at some of the regulations that were put in place based on what Philips, Siemens, and a few others "requested".
What school taught you the opposite of reality? Might be time to ask for a refund. I've never heard anyone claim governments don't have an interest in regulating their markets. This would be news to a lot of people.
The EU views privacy and security as a negative thing.
Such a system would *always* side with the developer, making it useless.
Epic is a Chinese Communist Party organ fighting so that the Chinese government can lock out the App Store and force Chinese-market iPhones to only use a CCP approved and created store. Tim Sweeney should have been investigated and charged years ago.
The EU is little more than a gang of bullies and thieves, and should be treated as such.
So you inadvertently install CrackMyCloud-xb107 malware along with your QuackQuackGo browser, resulting in all your cloud data being spooled to an outfit in China, then permanently deleted. Whose fault is that? Should an Apple Genius be expected to spend time and money investigating your recklessness?
With how iOS is designed along with how Apple would/could implement it (likely just like macOS), sideloading has essentially zero impact on "safety" or "security".
Also - let's please remember that "sideloading" simply means "installing Apps of your choice".
We've been doing that on computing devices for decades.
Sideloading makes it sound illicit and scary -- it is neither.
What is on your own computing devices should be up to you, not Apple.
Also - let's please remember that "sideloading" simply means "installing Apps of your choice".
We've been doing that on computing devices for decades.
Sideloading makes it sound illicit and scary -- it is neither.
What is on your own computing devices should be up to you, not Apple.
Apple's market power isn't solely because they have a popular product. They have implemented a system where they decide who and how you get access to around half of smartphone consumers.
Guns are needed to make sure the other, less drastic means, are respected.
Courts don’t enforce. Enforcement enforces. It won’t inevitably be required because it’s not in Apple’s interest. But that doesn’t change the fact that enforcement ultimately rests on the threat of force. That’s why, to the extent they do, people abide by court rulings. Not because the court can make them, but law enforcement can.
100%
Markets flat out don't exist without government regulations
Markets are not some "law of nature" that just pops up on its own and "works".
You’re moving the goalposts. What was your original quote? You know, the one I quoted and answered?
I’m not saying they don’t need developers, that’s the whole point of the App Store. But developers already make software for iOS and Apple makes the tools for them to do so. Why is it Apple’s job to allow other messaging platforms to plug into iMessage? I can get behind side loading and what not because it is the users choice to do that and take the risks, but making Apple make everything compatible with everything is a bit far for me.
You might need your phone to do that, which makes it your prerogative to only install software you trust not to interfere with what you view as a core functionality, as today. Apple itself makes absolutely no guarantees that your iPhone will ever be able to call 911, though, even under its current App Store-only “security” model.
You might find yourself without cell service. Maybe there’s a bug in your iOS version’s Phone app which breaks the dial pad. Perhaps you have coverage, but your carrier is experiencing an outage and unable to actually connect your call. Possibly, like my own iPhone did once several years ago, you attempt to open a stock iOS app and your phone immediately shuts down and won’t reboot without restoring via iTunes. Perhaps the 911 center is experiencing an outage. Maybe your battery died. You could’ve dropped your phone into some water and now the mic doesn’t work anymore. The list goes on.
The optional ability to install software outside a sanctioned storefront, as has been done for decades, changes precisely none of these numerous reasons why you might not be able to call 911 “at all times,” especially provided that you continue to install software from the App Store only.
Last edited:
Also let's not conflate "third party Applications" with "App Store"
The former is needed for a successful platform, the latter is not.
There should be many App Stores for folks to choose from -- or to not use at all.
These are computers in our pockets, nothing more, nothing less.
I have almost nothing on my macOS system that is from the Apple App Store (which is mostly full of junk)
Agreed, but tech is a good place to start. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and other large conglomerates have flaunted their influence before. As much as I don't like government overreach, corporate overreach is no good either.
I actually think you're mostly right, I think this goes too far since it requires Apple to do more than allow side loading but by requiring certain kinds of interoperability (iMessage protocol integrating with WhatsApp, voice assistant replacement) they are pushing too far into the details of OS architecture.
I would actually rather they regulate app review than the existence of the App Store.
Apple has paid every bit of tax that they are legally required to pay by law. Quit being mad at the companies and start being angry with the governments writing crappy tax law. Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required too? If your tax burden is say $1000.00, why not send $1200.00 instead because you had a good year and have some savings in place. I mean those less fortunate than you could really use the extra money to fund benefits, or those who live on streets with lots of pot holes could use them filled. Are you actually happy with how your taxes are currently being spent, I know I am not. If my government could show even a sliver of proper allocation of the money we currently send them then I could get on board with higher taxes to benefit the many but until then I want to keep as much of my money as I can and don't want anybody to pay more including Apple.
That would seem to me a way to keep from having the unintended consequences everyone seems to be so worried about. You wouldn't want to write a law intending to put constraints on anti-competitive actions by large software platforms, only to have some piece of it be technically applicable to some small company somewhere.
Basic interoperability across messaging standards is long overdue.
It's a net negative for consumers right now to have to juggle all the silos of messaging.
Imagine if iPhones could only call other iPhones (no landlines either)?
It would be a mess and awful and we would all rightfully demand change.
It's a net negative for consumers right now to have to juggle all the silos of messaging.
Imagine if iPhones could only call other iPhones (no landlines either)?
It would be a mess and awful and we would all rightfully demand change.
If the conduct is anti-competitive, why allow small companies to do it? You’re making an argument exactly in line with what I said earlier: it’s not about the consumer, it’s about the companies involved.