New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[monstermash]

But, a ‘small upstart’ company, focused on the ENTIRE rest of the world doesn’t have any new regulations applied on them just because they become successful. Selling only outside the EU means that, if they come up with something cool and unique that they want to control, it remains in their control. Sure, they’d miss out on any potential EU monies, but, last I checked, there are far more people in the world OUTSIDE the EU than in. For a company like Apple, it’s 75% or more of revenue (depending on how much of “Europe” is “The EU”). That’s a price worth paying for autonomy.

Just think about an Apple/iPhone with the current “don’t be successful” regulations in place, back then. There would be a serious discussion inside Apple regarding how much it would cost to take a system that only uses SMS and iMessage and support, seamlessly and securely, ALL the other messaging technologies from day one. Weighed against how much they would make if they just continued to focus on growing their marketshare outside of the EU. It wouldn’t be insane for them to “skip the EU, for now” and just increase in popularity around the rest of the world.

If Apple decided - for example to stop selling iPhones in the EU, but continue to sell Macs and watches and AppleTVs and all other non-phone hardware - I predict the following would happen:

1). EU would start investigations and threatening fines because Apple refused to sell its phones in the EU.

2). EU would start investigations and threatening fines because a lot of people in the EU would still get iPhones indirectly (black market imports, gray market imports, or self-imported), depriving the EU of tax revenue, and stating that Apple is somehow responsible for not preventing people from getting iPhones purchased outside the EU into the EU.

Guaranteed.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Stifling the competition, when Apple just released their own gaming subscription service.

You mean “stifling the competition” by working with the developer to improve the browser and helping the developer to ensure that streaming through the browser would provide the experience the developer wanted WITHOUT having to pay Apple anything other than their developer license fee? Such that, those products are widely available to any iOS user that wants them?

Or the way they “stifled” the “portable gaming” market by… well, ok, they only stifled the “portable gaming just on iOS devices” because they didn’t let anyone else make iOS devices. But that’s just like Nintendo stifling the “portable gaming just on Nintendo devices” because they didn’t let anyone else make Nintendo devices. There’s a LOT of companies stifling the competition my not letting the competition make their devices. I’m thinking the EU is going to be REALLY busy.

Making innovative ways of delivering gaming content financially unviable is not encouraging innovation.

It's opposing innovation.

The way they eventually came up with was MORE innovative and provides a solution that is FAR more financially viable.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Please read what actively happened. They pressured Netscape devs to stop working on the browser. They prevented OEMs from bundling other things than their software, they also made it intentionally difficult for Sun Java code to be modified/changed (it wasn't just Netscape, Sun was involved in it too).

You know, I think you’ve tagged it! See, as long as one leaves out ALL the details that make what Microsoft was doing back then VASTLY different from any actions that Apple has taken now, THEY LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You don't. You need a enterprise developer certificate.
You just trust the developeron your device and install apps (that could be from outside of the app store).
No Mac required. No signing with your own Apple ID required.

Soooooooo, what people who want to sideload want already exists! Maintain the status quo and everyone’s happy

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Man that pisses people off.

Companies of this size and influence are not permitted to be founded in the EU. And, if by coincidence they ARE founded in the EU and, by no fault of their own, get too large, it benefits them to leave the EU. Even MORE so under the new regulations.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There is no vast constituency actual of Apple customers demanding changes. Sure, some do. They are a tiny minority.

Could be most of the folks demanding change aren’t even Apple customers. They just want to “stick it to Apple” for… I don’t know, releasing a Mac Pro out of their price range? Ending development of iWeb?

 

[I7guy]

So, you would've been okay with something like two or so dominant carriers back in 2007 saying that phones using their network could only be sold through their websites or stores and/or must have a physical keyboard and/or could only use apps sold by the carrier and/or were required to display ads sold by the carrier? I doubt it.

In my locale there are two cable providers (three if you count dish). I'm not okay with my one choice, but this is a government sanctioned monopoly that I have no recourse with. As far as phones, there is a legitimate plethora of phones out there. Some trying their luck with their own operating system. To your question, if I had only one place to buy a phone I would not be okay with that. But that is not the case here. Android has everything everyone wants, so MR posters say. Go android.

I think what you are really saying is that you are "okay with dominant positions" only if you like the dominant company and their products. That's not how fair and open competition is meant to work.

No what I am really saying as long as there is competition that is more or less even, there is not a dominant position. Microsoft for example with a 90%+ share of the desktop market does not have any real competition. Now my position counts for naught. But remember that things don't always go as planned -- ask Martha Clark.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's not just that they want in - it's that many need to be in, in order to succeed a viable (or just maintain) business.

They NEED to be on Apple devices to succeed? (I don’t think even Apple fans think THAT highly of Apple!) Even though most folks…by a wide margin, don’t own Apple devices? The entire EU App economy rests on developers getting their apps on Apple products? I mean, if THAT is TRULY the case, then Apple’s in the stronger negotiating position. If the EU’s app economy will collapse without Apple, maybe the regulators will hold their “analysis” of Apple until some indefinite future time, ensuring that Apple does not get labeled a Gatekeeper.

 

[monstermash]

They NEED to be on Apple devices to succeed? (I don’t think even Apple fans think THAT highly of Apple!) Even though most folks…by a wide margin, don’t own Apple devices? The entire EU App economy rests on developers getting their apps on Apple products? I mean, if THAT is TRULY the case, then Apple’s in the stronger negotiating position. If the EU’s app economy will collapse without Apple, maybe the regulators will hold their “analysis” of Apple until some indefinite future time, ensuring that Apple does not get labeled a Gatekeeper.

there are MANY companies that have nothing to do with Apple whatsoever. These companies that complain about Apple should go be one of those companies.

 

[webkit]

No what I am really saying as long as there is competition that is more or less even, there is not a dominant position. Microsoft for example with a 90%+ share of the desktop market does not have any real competition. Now my position counts for naught.

Two major players in mobile OS is a dominant position and when or more uses their dominant position to try to block competition, stifle innovation, etc., it rightfully raises antitrust/anticompetiive concerns, investigations, lawsuits, etc. As with other laws/regulations, there are degrees of violations and consequences but that doesn’t mean a lesser offender (if that is what you are trying to suggest Apple is versus Microsoft) should get off scot-free. Some feel Apple is being even more unfairly anticompetitive than Microsoft was.

But remember that things don't always go as planned -- ask Martha Clark.

Martha Clark? Do you mean Marsha Clark?

Sure, court cases don't always go as the prosecution may want or the defense may want, and can have an "incorrect" outcome. In the case of Apple, some feel they have unfairly and unjustly gotten away with violating antitrust laws and regulations.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the EU requires some people to use Android and other things, just to make things "equitable and fair"

You're making stuff up.
This

last I checked, there are far more people in the world OUTSIDE the EU than in

last I checked, most of them are poorer than the average EU resident (and less likely to be able or willing to afford an iPhone).

But, a ‘small upstart’ company, focused on the ENTIRE rest of the world doesn’t have any new regulations applied on them just because they become successful. Selling only outside the EU means that, if they come up with something cool and unique that they want to control, it remains in their control.

👉 With regards to mobile operating systems and app distribution/stores, that's a purely theoretical assertion.

As a matter of fact, there are no small upstart companies of any market relevance in that sector.
There haven't been any for a decade. Even Microsoft, Blackberry, Ubuntu and Mozilla gave up on that that business.

Apple should ignore and abandon the market altogether.

They won't. They're too greedy ...I mean shareholder-value minded to continue selling iPhones and apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

1). EU would start investigations and threatening fines because Apple refused to sell its phones in the EU.

You're imagining things. The EU hasn't and won't force anyone to sell things and Apple has no interest in abandoning the EU. Too much money is at stake for both parties.

You mean “stifling the competition” by working with the developer to improve the browser and helping the developer to ensure that streaming through the browser would provide the experience the developer wanted WITHOUT having to pay Apple anything other than their developer license fee?

Does the browser support native controls and external bluetooth input devices?

Streaming through the browser is an inferior experience to what native apps can provide.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Soooooooo, what people who want to sideload want already exists! Maintain the status quo and everyone’s happy

Being able to sideload - and comfortably use installed apps over time. And you know it.
(A bad actor like a scammer on the other hand can do a quick "hit&run" and needs access only for a brief period)

They NEED to be on Apple devices to succeed?

Yes. Or on Apple's iOS and Google's Android. And they've been colluding on their fees and policies.

The entire EU App economy rests on developers getting their apps on Apple products?

...and devices running Google's Play Store, yes.

I mean, if THAT is TRULY the case, then Apple’s in the stronger negotiating position

Exactly. 👉 That's why we need the government to step in and regulate.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In my locale there are two cable providers (three if you count dish). I'm not okay with my one choice, but this is a government sanctioned monopoly that I have no recourse with

Let's assume your two cable provider come up with a great idea:
Charging suppliers that use their network commissions.

"After all, it's our networks. We build them, we laid the cables. Why should anyone be able to freeload on our investment by raking in billions and we get nothing? We deserve a share of the revenue generated by them."

👉 So... they demand their "fair" 30% cut of any video streaming subscription service delivered over their lines.
And 30% of any App Store revenue that gets transmitted over their cables.

Suppose they're able to technically enforce that charging scheme - do you approve of it as being "free business", without government intervention?

As far as phones, there is a legitimate plethora of phones out there. Some trying their luck with their own operating system.

Yes, I think we've heard the argument more than often enough. Even Apple makes like three dozen phones (half a dozen sizes times the number of storage capacities). So there's enough choice?

It's not about individual phones. Even if Apple sub-licensed their mobile OS to third parties, the gatekeeping power lies in the distribution of apps.

 

[I7guy]

Let's assume your two cable provider come up with a great idea:
Charging suppliers that use their network commissions.

"After all, it's our networks. We build them, we laid the cables. Why should anyone be able to freeload on our investment by raking in billions and we get nothing? We deserve a share of the revenue generated by them."

👉 So... they demand their "fair" 30% cut of any video streaming subscription service delivered over their lines.
And 30% of any App Store revenue that gets transmitted over their cables.

Suppose they're able to technically enforce that charging scheme - do you approve of it as being "free business", without government intervention?

This is a true definition of monopoly. Nowhere else to go to get service. Between ios and android if I wanted to stream using apps, I have a choice; netflix operates on both platforms.

Yes, I think we've heard the argument more than often enough. Even Apple makes like three dozen phones (half a dozen sizes times the number of storage capacities). So there's enough choice?

It's not about individual phones. Even if Apple sub-licensed their mobile OS to third parties, the gatekeeping power lies in the distribution of apps.

Gatekeeping is something craftily made up the EU.

 

[I7guy]

Two major players in mobile OS is a dominant position and when or more uses their dominant position to try to block competition, stifle innovation, etc., it rightfully raises antitrust/anticompetiive concerns, investigations, lawsuits, etc. As with other laws/regulations, there are degrees of violations and consequences but that doesn’t mean a lesser offender (if that is what you are trying to suggest Apple is versus Microsoft) should get off scot-free. Some feel Apple is being even more unfairly anticompetitive than Microsoft was.

If the only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail fits this to a "T". Everything appears to be monopolistic and anti-competitive.

Martha Clark? Do you mean Marsha Clark?

Yes, typo. TY!

Sure, court cases don't always go as the prosecution may want or the defense may want, and can have an "incorrect" outcome. In the case of Apple, some feel they have unfairly and unjustly gotten away with violating antitrust laws and regulations.

Yep, things don't always go as planned. In Apples' case they may be saying: "If the glove don't fit you must acquit".

 

[CarlJ]

Yes. Or on Apple's iOS and Google's Android. And they've been colluding on their fees and policies.

Citation needed.

 

[BaldiMac]

👉 With regards to mobile operating systems and app distribution/stores, that's a purely theoretical assertion.

As a matter of fact, there are no small upstart companies of any market relevance in that sector.
There haven't been any for a decade. Even Microsoft, Blackberry, Ubuntu and Mozilla gave up on that that business.

That's quite the qualifications on that statement. If they're of significant market relevance, you can say they're not small upstart companies. And if they're small upstart companies, you can say that they have no significant market relevance.

So, I'll just say there are dozens of android-based OSs released by large and small manufacturers. And dozens of app stores from large and small developers.

10 best third-party app stores for Android

We rely a lot on Google Play, but you do have other options. In this list, we'll explore the best alternative app stores available for Android devices!

www.androidauthority.com

 

[AppliedMicro]

Citation needed.

Just look at commission rates, in-app store purchase policy and the changes in them. Best example:

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/03/16/google-to-lower-play-store-commission/

• same "idea"
• same rate
• same threshold (though slightly differently calculated/applied)
• within less than 3 months of each other.
• after more than a dozen years in operation

Doesn't take Sherlock to figure out this ain't coincidence.
To be clear, I'm not claiming they have a agreement to do so.
They obviously seem to be implicitly colluding here.

 

[Ethosik]

All these arguments that apps are NEEDED on iOS.....think about it. What if one day Apple decides "We are done with iPhone". Should the government step in and FORCE a company to make a product they no longer want to make?

As a programmer writing several applications including a game, how exactly am I FORCED to release it on iOS?

 

[Ethosik]

You don't. You need a enterprise developer certificate.
You just trust the developeron your device and install apps (that could be from outside of the app store).
No Mac required. No signing with your own Apple ID required.

Apple's Enterprise Developer Program Also Being Used to Distribute Hacked Apps

Misuse of Apple's enterprise developer program certificates continues to make news, with a new report from Reuters outlining how software pirates...

www.macrumors.com

Google Also Exploiting Enterprise Certificates to Bypass iOS App Store for Data Collection [Update: Disabled]

Facebook is facing the wrath of Apple today for misusing an enterprise certificate meant for internal use to get Facebook users to sideload a data...

www.macrumors.com

Apple forbids their use to distribute apps to end-users.

Again, their enforcement doesn't seem to serve as an effective security measure - but merely an efficient protection of their revenue streams.

What? This makes absolutely no sense. You need a Mac to package the app to upload to embed the certificate. I cannot create an Apple iOS app on Windows only, distribute it through the Enterprise Program and offer it to others without ANY Mac involved. Macs are needed to build the apps. And how can I, and individual, use the Enterprise Developer Certs?

Apple's own page puts me out of the Eligibility category. So no, stop speaking like it is an "easy" thing to do or is "wide spread"

Apple Developer Enterprise Program

The Apple Developer Enterprise Program allows large organizations to develop and deploy proprietary, internal-use apps to their employees.

developer.apple.com

Eligibility​

The Apple Developer Enterprise Program is only for the internal use and distribution of proprietary apps in specific use cases that are not adequately addressed with public apps on the App Store, custom apps through Apple Business Manager or Ad Hoc distribution, or beta testing through TestFlight. Your proprietary app must be developed by you for use on Apple platforms.

In addition, the following eligibility requirements apply. Your organization must:

• Have 100 or more employees.
• Be a legal entity. We do not accept DBAs, fictitious businesses, trade names, or branches.
• Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization.
• Have systems in place to ensure only employees can download your internal-use apps, and to protect membership credentials and assets.
• Participate in and pass Apple’s verification interview and continuous evaluation process.

 

[AppliedMicro]

think about it. What if one day Apple decides "We are done with iPhone". Should the government step in and FORCE a company to make a product they no longer want to make?

It’s an interesting but purely theoretical question.
Same as for Microsoft stopping making Windows or Office.

Apple won‘t decide to be done as long as they’re making money off making iPhones - which they‘re making tons of. One of the reasons being that society, consumers and businesses are increasingly depending on smartphones and mobile internet devices that run apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What? This makes absolutely no sense. You need a Mac to package the app to upload to embed the certificate. I cannot create an Apple iOS app on Windows only, distribute it through the Enterprise Program and offer it to others without ANY Mac involved.

What I mean by sideloading: To distribute, download and and install apps independently from Apple’s App Store, distribution, review and payment process.

In other words: to have a system like on macOS. That doesn’t necessarily do without signing. Signing is practically a requirement on macOS today, too (though not technically - but the option to run unsigned apps is hidden). Yet Apple doesn’t review or approve all signed third-party apps.

I cannot create an Apple iOS app on Windows only, distribute it through the Enterprise Program and offer it to others without ANY Mac involved

Software development is besides the point. I‘m not talking about doing everything on Windows/Linux or „homebrewing“ (see above).

And how can I, and individual, use the Enterprise Developer Certs?

You can‘t. That’s the point.
But the „bad guys“ can.

They‘ve been proving it for years. The enterprise developer approval criteria may look strict on paper. But alternate, piracy-focused stores (in this case most apparently from China indeed) have proven there are enough holes to get through. Does this mean their party is going to be on, that their certificate will work forever? No - but they‘ll just use another certificate in case of revocation. Apple’s verification process is lax.

For the „evil scammers“ that are being mentioned as a negative effect of allowing sideloading, it doesn’t matter if their „scam“ runs obly for weeks or months. They could just get their app signed on the black market.

Note that this doesn’t eliminate the requirement of the user to explicitly „trust“ the certificate owner for these apps - which limits the effectiveness to be used for nefarious purposes.

„Thankfully“ though, scam app develop often don’t need to use enterprise certificates, when they can relatively easily just slip their apps past Apple‘s App Store review process and release on the official App Store.

 

[quarkysg]

Have to wonder why the EU is not looking into the Symbian OS in the early 2000s, as many in the forums claims that the EU is now only dominated by two mobiles OSes, but prior to iPhone and Android, almost all mobile OSes are Symbian based.

 

[webkit]

Have to wonder why the EU is not looking into the Symbian OS in the early 2000s, as many in the forums claims that the EU is now only dominated by two mobiles OSes, but prior to iPhone and Android, almost all mobile OSes are Symbian based.

It seems to take a while for the EU to act on legislation as iOS and Android have been dominating mobile OS for years. Although mobile device operating systems were largely "closed" or "walled gardens" in the 1990s, they were starting to open up in the early 2000s. Restrictions on sideloading, software/app access, etc. (seen today with iOS) were quickly disappearing back then thereby removing or at least significantly lessening any need to investigate.