Proposed Law Against Apple's 'Walled Garden' Software Approach Sparks Fears of iPhone Ban in Italy

[SeaFox]

I am completely against this. I like the walled garden. Occasionally there's something I'd like to do but can't but that's rare and (despite some notable exception cases) I prefer the safeguards of app store only. If Apple has to build a process to load apps untethered I would expect that to be exploited for malware.

You know, just because you want the protection of the walled garden doesn't mean you have to subject everyone else to your restrictions. There no reason there couldn't be a preference that allow apps to be loaded easily from other sources, or restricted to just the Apple App Store. Apple could even have this preference turned on by default, but still have it available for users to turn off if they want. Then, the only way to get infected by these malicious third-party apps would be to if you actively decided to turn off this protection. You, personally, could just not do this on your own iPhone.

Oh, wait. That's exactly how this is handled on Android.

So the reason people are getting hit on Android is 1) the apps on the Google Play store are not vetted as well as Apple's iOS App Store (possibly true), or 2) Android handset owners are turning off this restriction -- in other words, it's their own fault, and not due to some extra protection Apple's App Store would have given them. All automobiles have seat belts now, but you can't blame the car manufacturer if people don't use them.

 

[fermat-au]

All iPhone would need to do is use the Android approach: You can download anything from the official app store, if you download from other stores, a warning appears saying something to the effect that this is from an untrusted source, if you install this things may not work properly. They could even add in a clause that says if you need warranty service you have to uninstall all apps from untrusted sources first.

This would actually be a reasonable balance between the two positions.

That is quiet reasonable. If you take a Mac to the Genius Bar, Apple isn't responsible to support all the software running on the system, but if you install and use Chrome rather than Safari, that don't void your hardware warranty.
[doublepost=1498267154][/doublepost]While you may personally disagree with this proposed law, Italy has the right to make laws regard to products sold in Italy.
If Apple disagrees with Italian law, Apple is free to stop selling the iPhone in Italy.
[doublepost=1498268564][/doublepost]

I have a solution for this. Apple should just sell an Android phone in Italy and slap some Apple branding on it. Proble solved!

Given that Apple is as much a luxury brand, like Prada or Gucci or Rolex, as a tech company these days, running Android may not impact sales that much as you think.

 

[germinator]

Well, very interesting bill. And lots of brainwashed (and brain-dead) fanboys here.

Who thinks that Apple should control what software YOU are allowed to run on YOUR devices, which YOU have bought and PAID FOR? That's an obviously untenable position. Just think about it for a moment. Remember, SJ didn't even want apps, period. The walled garden approach is not only ludicrous, it has already lost in the market place: Look at the global market share, Android is the clear winner.

The fact that Apple has been successful with their model is not an indication that the model is right, but rather comes from the fact that the iPhone was (is?) the superior product, so people SWALLOWED those drawbacks in order to have the better phone. Again, the iPhone has (had?) better hardware and better software integration. A walled-garden approach is nor needed nor is it a factor the average consumers care about--when confronted with their drawbacks, they are likely to turn against it.

Nowadays the differences have become small (Galaxy phones for example), and Apple is clearly losing the market share war in places like China. It still retains a good market share in stronghold countries like US and Japan. That again is more for historical reasons than for the merit of the model.

Personally, I would welcome Apple removing the walls of their walled garden. You could still buy exclusively from the app store if you think that it's the only way to guarantee security. I suspect all those who claim Apple's wall garden is more secure will be the first to get outside apps given the opportunity.

I also think it's OK for a nation to impose such a rule, especially if more countries adopt similar laws. It's hard to be the first. But if, say, the whole EU agrees, Apple simply will not be able to exit that market and will have to change its ways. What would be the burden for Apple? Not much I say. The diversity of apps will increase with positive effects.

Sadly, I also agree that this is unlikely to happen. Lobbyists have as much influence on the European bureaucracy and legislation as they have in Congress.

 

[AdonisSMU]

This is going to ban a lot more than just iPhones!

I can't run open-source games on my xbox, ps4 or Nintendo switch.

Tbh, I'm sure that if Apple said "sure we'll pull out of Italy" Italy would be mourning the tax losses before Apple misses the revenue.

Literally no one is doing anything with this bad legislation.
[doublepost=1498274267][/doublepost]

Well, very interesting bill. And lots of brainwashed (and brain-dead) fanboys here.

Who thinks that Apple should control what software YOU are allowed to run on YOUR devices, which YOU have bought and PAID FOR? That's an obviously untenable position. Just think about it for a moment. Remember, SJ didn't even want apps, period. The walled garden approach is not only ludicrous, it has already lost in the market place: Look at the global market share, Android is the clear winner.

The fact that Apple has been successful with their model is not an indication that the model is right, but rather comes from the fact that the iPhone was (is?) the superior product, so people SWALLOWED those drawbacks in order to have the better phone. Again, the iPhone has (had?) better hardware and better software integration. A walled-garden approach is nor needed nor is it a factor the average consumers care about--when confronted with their drawbacks, they are likely to turn against it.

Nowadays the differences have become small (Galaxy phones for example), and Apple is clearly losing the market share war in places like China. It still retains a good market share in stronghold countries like US and Japan. That again is more for historical reasons than for the merit of the model.

Personally, I would welcome Apple removing the walls of their walled garden. You could still buy exclusively from the app store if you think that it's the only way to guarantee security. I suspect all those who claim Apple's wall garden is more secure will be the first to get outside apps given the opportunity.

I also think it's OK for a nation to impose such a rule, especially if more countries adopt similar laws. It's hard to be the first. But if, say, the whole EU agrees, Apple simply will not be able to exit that market and will have to change its ways. What would be the burden for Apple? Not much I say. The diversity of apps will increase with positive effects.

Sadly, I also agree that this is unlikely to happen. Lobbyists have as much influence on the European bureaucracy and legislation as they have in Congress.

Instead calling people names and assuming they are brain dead maybe use a different device that suits your needs and wants. That's what a smart person does or they accept that the walled garden is part of the deal and accepts that there are valid reasons for having a walled garden particularly because you are dealing in telephone software.

The walled garden is part of the package with iOS. If you don't want that you are within your rights to jailbreak your iOS devices. Just don't expect Apple to support it.

 

[Abazigal]

Well, very interesting bill. And lots of brainwashed (and brain-dead) fanboys here.

Who thinks that Apple should control what software YOU are allowed to run on YOUR devices, which YOU have bought and PAID FOR? That's an obviously untenable position. Just think about it for a moment. Remember, SJ didn't even want apps, period. The walled garden approach is not only ludicrous, it has already lost in the market place: Look at the global market share, Android is the clear winner.

I was wondering when someone would trot out the old market share argument.

Market share is the means. Profit is the end. Just ask any OEM out there whether they would prefer Apple's profits or Android's market share. The answer will be unanimous.

Apple is winning where it counts. Why do you think developers release apps for iOS first despite its smaller market share?

Market share is the only metric Android fanboys can use to make it seem like they are anything but losing the war on mobile.

The fact that Apple has been successful with their model is not an indication that the model is right, but rather comes from the fact that the iPhone was (is?) the superior product, so people SWALLOWED those drawbacks in order to have the better phone. Again, the iPhone has (had?) better hardware and better software integration. A walled-garden approach is nor needed nor is it a factor the average consumers care about--when confronted with their drawbacks, they are likely to turn against it.

Nowadays the differences have become small (Galaxy phones for example), and Apple is clearly losing the market share war in places like China. It still retains a good market share in stronghold countries like US and Japan. That again is more for historical reasons than for the merit of the model.

Allowing access to third party app stores isn't going to help iPhone sales, so I don't see the validity of your argument.

My garden is not walled, it’s well protected, nourished, watered & kept in blossom by the best gardeners in the world. If there’s a weed, they wack it. If there’s a bad bug, they squash it. Everytime I walk in my garden I’m in awe of its palette & synchronicity. I’ve seen the neighbor's garden, and I am far less impressed. Sure there are way more flowers in the garden, but its formation is a mess & the lack of a fence just allows any dog to piss in it, weed to penetrate it & makes it harder to maintain.

Personally, I would welcome Apple removing the walls of their walled garden. You could still buy exclusively from the app store if you think that it's the only way to guarantee security. I suspect all those who claim Apple's wall garden is more secure will be the first to get outside apps given the opportunity.

I also think it's OK for a nation to impose such a rule, especially if more countries adopt similar laws. It's hard to be the first. But if, say, the whole EU agrees, Apple simply will not be able to exit that market and will have to change its ways. What would be the burden for Apple? Not much I say. The diversity of apps will increase with positive effects.

Sadly, I also agree that this is unlikely to happen. Lobbyists have as much influence on the European bureaucracy and legislation as they have in Congress.

And what happens if an app removes itself from the App Store and forces us to buy it from a third party App Store so they don't need to give Apple its 30% cut? Where's my choice then?

Personally, I would like to see the EU try, and I would like to see Apple's response. Apple will have my eternal respect and patronage if they have the balls to stand up to the EU and remove their App Store from the EU market rather than capitulate.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Its not the job of a politician to 'understand how it works'.
The job of a politician is to set policy/enact law and have government employees/regulators and the private sector understand how 'things work' and how to implement the policy.

It's the job of a worthy politician to carefully research and fully understand any area he wishes to affect by introducing a bill. Too many politicians attempt to legislate ideology with broad strokes, with little interest or understanding of what unintended consequences it may bring.

Apple has no monopoly on smart phones, and the market requires no advice from the Parlamento to decide whether it prefers a walled garden or the wild west. Both are readily available to everyone, at competitive prices, and consumer experience, widely shared through social networks and myriad review websites, will determine the market share of each approach.

 

[phonique]

[...]
Perhaps you could kindly educate me, then. [...]
I'm well aware of, for example, Netflix working with Comcast to ensure that their video reaches customers more quickly. [...]
In a world where bandwidth is infinity, Netflix wouldn't be asked to pony up for the bandwidth they use. But we don't live in that world yet. And it's not as if Netflix, with nealy $9 billion in annual revenue and a market cap of $68 billion, is some little mom and pop operation. The fact that Netflix, Google, and other Internet behemoths lobby for so-called net neutrality regulation is because they like getting "free" bandwidth. They're running PR campaigns to make you think that they're looking out for you, and not their own interests, and evidently, these campaigns are working.
[...]

(emphasis added)
The way the internet works, is that everyone pays for their uplink. This includes peering with other providers.
The amount you pay to your ISP includes a certain amount of traffic, it is also used by your ISP to pay for transit if they're not big enough to swap traffic. They are not getting "free bandwidth," they pay for it, the same way you do for yours, except that they use more upstream, i.e. they provide content, whereas you use more downstream traffic, i.e. consume content.
Your argument that larger internet services should pay twice, is therefore invalid.
Again: Your connection is a dumb pipe. What flows there, is not the concern of your ISP. Allowing your ISP to control which traffic gets prioritized (e.g. youtube over vimeo, netflix over hulu, etc.) will lead to a division of the internet.
You don't want to read up? K, watch a video!

 

[germinator]

Instead calling people names and assuming they are brain dead maybe use a different device that suits your needs and wants.

I have an iPhone 5.

That's what a smart person does or they accept that the walled garden is part of the deal and accepts that there are valid reasons for having a walled garden particularly because you are dealing in telephone software.

No, I don't accept it. What does "telephone software" have to do with it?

The walled garden is part of the package with iOS. If you don't want that you are within your rights to jailbreak your iOS devices. Just don't expect Apple to support it.

And I did. For many years my iPhone was jailbroken. It would still be jailbroken if Apple didn't make it so hard. I never said that I expected Apple to support jailbroken devices. But I do want to be able to run whatever software I want on my devices.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I have an iPhone 5.



No, I don't accept it. What does "telephone software" have to do with it?



And I did. For many years my iPhone was jailbroken. It would still be jailbroken if Apple didn't make it so hard. I never said that I expected Apple to support jailbroken devices. But I do want to be able to run whatever software I want on my devices.

And by your own admission you can do that already. Now what?

 

[weckart]

Tbh, I'm sure that if Apple said "sure we'll pull out of Italy" Italy would be mourning the tax losses before Apple misses the revenue.

I'm sorry but LOL

 

[germinator]

I was wondering when someone would trot out the old market share argument.

Market share is the means. Profit is the end. Just ask any OEM out there whether they would prefer Apple's profits or Android's market share. The answer will be unanimous.

It's not old. In the long run, market share leads to profits. Ask Adobe why they prioritize Windows software over Mac software.

Apple is winning where it counts.

Yeah, like in China...

Why do you think developers release apps for iOS first despite its smaller market share?

Questionable.

Market share is the only metric Android fanboys can use to make it seem like they are anything but losing the war on mobile.

Again, I use an iPhone 5.

Allowing access to third party app stores isn't going to help iPhone sales, so I don't see the validity of your argument.

As a user, I couldn't care less about "increasing iPhone sales". I want to run the software I want on my device.

My garden is not walled, it’s well protected, nourished, watered & kept in blossom by the best gardeners in the world. If there’s a weed, they wack it. If there’s a bad bug, they squash it. Everytime I walk in my garden I’m in awe of its palette & synchronicity. I’ve seen the neighbor's garden, and I am far less impressed. Sure there are way more flowers in the garden, but its formation is a mess & the lack of a fence just allows any dog to piss in it, weed to penetrate it & makes it harder to maintain.

Yeah, and censored. You are delusional.

And what happens if an app removes itself from the App Store and forces us to buy it from a third party App Store so they don't need to give Apple its 30% cut? Where's my choice then?

Your choice is that you can buy it or not. It's fair.

 

[Wowereit]

I am completely against this. I like the walled garden.

So what?
If you like Apple's filtering nobody is forcing you to side-load things.

The approach on Android is a good solution.
Standard setting is to only allow the store. If you want to you can disable it and install other apps at your own risk.
[doublepost=1498279831][/doublepost]

Well, given that Android has a malware problem even greater than its market share, it's debatable whether their practices are "as safe as possible" - i.e. Apple's approach is obviously safer.

Android does not have a malware problem.
Infections are not even in the single digits.

It's just your perception which is deceived by the constant news of things like "Google patched 237 security bugs"
Hint: Apple is doing this as well. Android is open source so you can access the information, Apple is just like "Update XYZ enhances performance and security of your device" and that's it. You don't know what they've done in the background.

Most security problems are a very theoretical risk that some researches suggest could be potentially used some day to break out of the sandbox if this and that and the other condition are true at the same time.

Not saying that iOS doesn't have the edge in security, but Android is not even close to be as bad as some people here are stating.

 

[ravenstar]

I don't get it, why are there so many of you people spending so much money on phones that don't do what you want? If there was no alternative, maybe I might agree with you, but there are perfectly good phones that will let you install whatever software you want on them. Please, just go buy that and let the rest of us enjoy the service we get from our iPhones.

 

[Wowereit]

Everyone's saying that Apple should do it the Android way, but couldn't they just do it the Mac way? The Mac already comes with third part apps restricted (can't remember if it's App Store only by default or trusted developers that have a security certificate that can be revoked). But you can unlock the system to put anything you want on there.

Ehm, that's exactly the Android way as well.

 

[joueboy]

That is quiet reasonable. If you take a Mac to the Genius Bar, Apple isn't responsible to support all the software running on the system, but if you install and use Chrome rather than Safari, that don't void your hardware warranty.
[doublepost=1498267154][/doublepost]While you may personally disagree with this proposed law, Italy has the right to make laws regard to products sold in Italy.
If Apple disagrees with Italian law, Apple is free to stop selling the iPhone in Italy.
[doublepost=1498268564][/doublepost]
Given that Apple is as much a luxury brand, like Prada or Gucci or Rolex, as a tech company these days, running Android may not impact sales that much as you think.

Would you think Apple will open the iOS devices just for Italy or completely stop selling their product in Italy?

 

[nia820]

I understand why Apple keeps people walled. But not everyone is technological ignorant. Some of us know how to be safe with 3rd party apps and software.

One of the things I miss about android is that I have full control of how my device runs. With iOS its frustrating sometimes with their limitations. You can't even choose default programs.

Apple should consider a developers or pro mode that allows people the freedom to install what they want.

 

[Babyboi]

Could you compare this to macOS? macOS is a "walled garden" but I can install apps from 3rd party, and my mac is still secure. Surely, iOS can take this approach?

 

[mrochester]

I have an iPhone 5.



No, I don't accept it. What does "telephone software" have to do with it?



And I did. For many years my iPhone was jailbroken. It would still be jailbroken if Apple didn't make it so hard. I never said that I expected Apple to support jailbroken devices. But I do want to be able to run whatever software I want on my devices.

Sounds like you should use your power to choose as a consumer and get an android phone.

 

[Glassed Silver]

This is a terrific bill, hope it passes and spreads like wildfire.

Sidenote: you don't have to use those liberties and if anything let Apple warn about this all they want, make it opt-in and really hard to do by accident.
Beyond that: can't fix stupid! And you shouldn't attempt to. Nobody complains about their Macs running any software they want and being able to adjust which sources are trusted.

Make people more technology literate, don't fix the hopelessly stupid by being a cuck and passing on perfectly reasonable freedoms!

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[Tech198]

"...and other devices"

What other devices?

No one has to continue using iPhone's... if Italy don't like it, they don't get an Android which allows more leg room.

Some people like the restrictions, only because user can do whatever they like knowing their phone will still be alive.

Anything can be made secure (by the user)... it's just Apple decides that for us.

 

[firewood]

It's well known that iOS is a walled garden, in which apps can only be distributed through the App Store, and only if developers adhere to Apple's guidelines. The only way to download apps outside of Apple's parameters is by jailbreaking, which is in violation of Apple's end-user agreement.

Not true. Anyone can download open source apps to their own stock iOS device, with a $99/annum Apple Developer program enrollment and a recent Mac. Or with a Free Apple ID and access to a Mac running Xcode 7 or later using a Personal profile.

If you write apps, you can distribute your app to anyone with the above capabilities (or who has a friend with a Mac who can help them out). Just publish source code to your app that builds without errors.

Or if you want an app that's not in the App store, just ask the developer for bug-free source code please. Done.

Yes it does count but iPhones can't side load apps.

But iPhones can side load apps, for any iOS app with for which one can get a clean source code project, using Xcode 7.

 

[Colpeas]

No one's taking that right from anybody. Want open source? Buy an android phone.

I Really don't see the problem here.

 

[Grey Area]

I don't get it, why are there so many of you people spending so much money on phones that don't do what you want? If there was no alternative, maybe I might agree with you, but there are perfectly good phones that will let you install whatever software you want on them. Please, just go buy that and let the rest of us enjoy the service we get from our iPhones.

From my perspective, there are no perfectly good phones, as they are all severely flawed. I used Android for many years, until I got tired of manufacturers abandoning their phones regarding updates after a year. Instead they release bigger and bigger phones, there is hardly anything available in the 4-inch class. So now I use an iPhone SE, which I hope to be good for another four years or so. In the meantime I will have to suffer restrictions, lack of storage, iTunes, and an OS that is not nearly as elegant and intuitive as Mr Ive may think, but at least I have working apps in a small package with a headphone jack. Hopefully that outweighs the flaws, but I will stilll complain about them.

Once the SE's time is up, I will see what is available. Maybe Apple has become more flexible. Maybe Google has solved the Android update problem. Maybe a third OS has become less bad than Android and iOS. I have no brand loyalty, and I do my best not to get locked into any "ecosystem".

 

[haruhiko]

It's quite amazing that some alleged democratic governments are acting more like socialist than some of the major communist countries in the world. First the proposed banning of encryption, and then now they want to dictate how the iPhone should work. Amazing.

 

[fermat-au]

Would you think Apple will open the iOS devices just for Italy or completely stop selling their product in Italy?

First I think it is unlikely that this will happen. If it was Italy only, my guess is that Apple would stop selling the iPhone, and presumable the iPad, in Italy. The iPhone is far less popular in Italy and the EU in general than in the US. Kantar show iOS at around 15% in Italy. The reality maybe Italians would find a way to still buy iPhone, buying from France or Germany and having them shipped to Italy for example and Apple would know this.

If a law like this were enforced it would likely be EU wide, in this case Apple would have to consider changing iOS or releasing iOS EU edition. The EU as a whole is far to large for Apple to ignore.

To add to my original post "If Apple disagrees with Italian law, Apple is free to stop selling the iPhone in Italy". In most case it is my view that if a corporation wants to do business in country, they must do so under that country's rules. When there is a conflict between a corporation and country's laws, that laws should 'win out'. The exception to this is when the corporation believes the nation's law are immoral, I am think of Google and China or back doors to encryption.