Report: Apple to Announce More App Store Concessions for the EU

[Sophisticatednut]

I wasn't asking if you were aware of what happened.
What EU did caused the cookie popups no matter how you slice it.

Which caused website developers to make cookie popups. Law makers should be aware of the consequences of developing these laws.

Like the ACA. Yes it's good to make it illegal for healthcare providers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, but as the consequence of that, healthcare premiums go way up to this day.

Sure the EU caused it because it was unable to pass the ePrivacy Regulation that would have made it a browser level requirement because the senate and congress could not agree( council and parliament)

As well that websites wanted to track your private information they didn’t need so had to ask for consent and follow the local guidelines of the different states… and OBVIOUSLY it’s EUs fault that they must ask consent because your private information is your personal property.

Nope. future would have been great by banning inclusion of cables. That is objectively the best way to reduce ewaste. To force users to reuse cables that they have and only buy new cables if they need it. There's a surplus of lightning cables out there. Even if iPhone was still using lightning cables today, I'd gladly give away my lightning cables if I could, but everyone I know that had an iPhone didn't want any.

After shipping+fees, and the price people are willing to pay for it due to oversupply, not worth it.

No one wanted it because they had too many.

Yes, that's recycling ewaste. Emissions are involved in doing that.

So it’s to expensive to sell your older iPhone plus cables than giving Apple it to recycle as e-waste? While you still gave it to Apple to be recycled??

Wait wait wait...dictating the design of the product isn't an overreach, but forcing exclusion of a cable that most customers have is an overreach? Lol?

Oh so it's fine to force Apple to switch to USB-C, but it's not fine to force Apple to stop including the cable?

Apple isn’t the only one here. Everyone else who still used micro-USB had to do the same.

Well you’re the one who states that most of these actions are overreach.

That increases emissions. Overall shipping of the product increases because now you have packaging for usb and packaging for phones separate.
still same issue.
I'm sure internet speeds stayed the same since 2008.

SteamOS would have happened sooner if windows locked down

They still sell cables so no major difference here. I think they should be allowed to ship with a cable.
Is it? Without the competition you wouldn’t have the good shows available either.

Or steam would have gone bankrupt if windows had provided their store as the only option if they had better services. Just with IE and Netscape.

1. Desktop and Mobile are two separate platforms.
2. iOS App Store and Google Play already does a good job of handling digital distribution for games. I qualified my statement with " and [Microsoft] didn't improve their [Windows] store" fyi
3. Does Steam sell mobile games on Android. If they do, I don't know a single android user that does, myself included.

I would say the AppStore is one of the worst stores imaginable for game distribution
( windows didn’t have a store back then untill fairly recently)

no steam doesn’t sell mobile games. But now with the ability to expand the steam app with iOS and Android games for cross platform support they might provide is with the superior experience in every way

What?

I thought of jz0309. So wrong user.

 

[surferfb]

We’ve discussed that allegation before:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-slaps-warnings-on-apps-using-external-purchases-in-the-eu-updated.2457121/post-33910986

It’s dubious, does not make sense (in view of risk of being fined) and contradicts Apple’s own compliance reports.

The reporter saw the emails. It was reported by multiple outlets. The EU didn’t deny it when asked, and seemingly confirmed it in the above article.

It’s only dubious of you have blind faith the EU can do no wrong.

 

[breenmask]

Wrong.
It‘s the website operators.

1. Lol nope. Collecting data is essential to majority of businesses and if you didn't, you wouldn't be as competitive. EU should have realized that these businesses are not going to give up collecting data just for the sake of removing consent.
2. Notice how you changed your answer of "explaining why" to "website operators"?

As I said above: Consent obtained through cookie banners is not required for cookies that are strictly necessary for website functionality.

See point 1 about businesses needing to stay competitive.

 

[breenmask]

…but no economic feasibility to do so.

Game consoles existed before Windows was a thing.

They do take similar shares of revenue though, don‘t they?

Like steam does, yes.

 

[breenmask]

Well EU wanted to implement it on a browser level. As also the preferred option. But please feel free to actually check some of the actual information. It’s easy to be misled.
View attachment 2522499View attachment 2522500

Proposal for a Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications

The proposed Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications will increase the protection of people's private life and open up new opportunities for business. Other language versions will be available mid-February and will be accessible from this page.

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu

1. "wanted" but not actually do.
2. Looks like this proposal came after GDPR was first proposed. Not sure what your point is. GDPR completely screwed us with cookie popups and then EU is scrambling to fix their screw up.

the GDPR completely backfired as most end users don't know what this popup is and will click accept to anything just to remove the distraction.

 

[breenmask]

Sure the EU caused it because it was unable to pass the ePrivacy Regulation that would have made it a browser level requirement because the senate and congress could not agree( council and parliament)

As well that websites wanted to track your private information they didn’t need

Didn't need? Hard disagree. Data is invaluable to survive/stay in businesses. This is where you and EU didn't understand. If you want to stay competitive in a capitalist market, you need the data. Knowing that your users are just don't understand this data consent details, EU should have known that their law wasn't going to work the way they intended to.

This is no different than California's Prop 65 adding warnings to the majority of the foods/restaurants. Most Californians don't know what prop 65 really means and for those that do, they ignore it anyways because there's not much you can do to avoid foods that are affected.

so had to ask for consent and follow the local guidelines of the different states… and OBVIOUSLY it’s EUs fault that they must ask consent because your private information is your personal property.

I don't have any data, but I have a good guess the majority of people in the world that have access to the internet aren't manually clicking through to make sure only essential data is collected. And I'm not just talking about 51% but much closer to 99% of the applicable user base.

So it’s to expensive to sell your older iPhone plus cables than giving Apple it to recycle as e-waste? While you still gave it to Apple to be recycled??

What? I was talking about selling the cables as a bundle on eBay. No one wants them for a price that makes it worth my time to pack and ship.

Apple isn’t the only one here. Everyone else who still used micro-USB had to do the same.

Ok?

Well you’re the one who states that most of these actions are overreach.

Yes. If there had to be a law and if the intention is reducing ewaste, banning inclusion of cable would be the correct course, not the port. If it were up to me, I would advocate no law in regards to cables/ports.

They still sell cables so no major difference here.

Point is most people would reuse the cables they have. Switch ports means users who relied on past years of cables can no longer rely on them and either Apple needs to include the new cables or people are forced to buy new cables. Reusing what we have is the best way of reducing ewaste, not forcing end of life on a functioning port/cable

I think they should be allowed to ship with a cable.

Great? We're discussing EU's attempt to reduce ewaste.

Is it?

Yes.

Without the competition you wouldn’t have the good shows available either.

Competition in general? Of course. If it was gov run tv, we would have North Korea-style programming.
Competition in streaming? We have had amazing shows before streaming wars existed.

Or steam would have gone bankrupt if windows had provided their store as the only option

Well no. It's valve. Valve has a flat land hierarchy and people work on whatever they want to work on. No one is the boss of anyone. Steam was born from the initiative from a few engineers who decided to work on digital distribution. Valve wouldn't go bankrupt, they'll simply attempt it then give up if there's no traction because at the end of every quarter, everyone at Valve grade each other and would rate the Steam engineers as the lowest contributors to the company.

I would say the AppStore is one of the worst stores imaginable for game distribution

Mobile gaming is currently larger than console gaming and despite Android's larger marketshare of devices, iOS earns more money for a developer than Android.

no steam doesn’t sell mobile games. But now with the ability to expand the steam app with iOS and Android games for cross platform support they might provide is with the superior experience in every way

Yet Android is open and Valve hasn't opened up Steam store for mobile games.

 

[AppliedMicro]

See point 1 about businesses needing to stay competitive.

That‘s explicitly not a reason (exemption) to collect data and track users without consent.

 

[breenmask]

That‘s explicitly not a reason (exemption) to collect data and track users without consent.

it's a reason for collecting data more than essentially needed for website to function, with or without consent.

 

[AppliedMicro]

it's a reason for collecting data more than essentially needed for website to function

And the EU understood that - that’s why they’re allowing them to collect data after obtaining consent.
But they also understood that privacy is a human right - and should be your decision.

Just because it may help companies’ bottom lines isn’t a reason to legally tolerate similar creepy data handling practices as in other jurisdictions.

 

[breenmask]

And the EU understood that - that’s why they’re allowing them to collect data after obtaining consent.
But they also understood that privacy is a human right - and should be your decision.

I'm not debating whether it was wrong to ask for consent. I'm debating on how they implemented this.

They should have anticipated most people and websites don't care. So most websites would do the absolute minimum to comply and most people would do the absolute minimum to access/use the websites they need to do.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

1. "wanted" but not actually do.
2. Looks like this proposal came after GDPR was first proposed. Not sure what your point is. GDPR completely screwed us with cookie popups and then EU is scrambling to fix their screw up.

the GDPR completely backfired as most end users don't know what this popup is and will click accept to anything just to remove the distraction.

1: the commission just writes laws and enforce them. They can’t pass them.

ePrivacy Regulation proposal (2017/003 - COD)
Proposed in January 2017, after the GDPR had already been adopted. It was intended to Replace the outdated 2002 ePrivacy Directive.

Provide lex specialis rules for the telecom/digital communications sector.

it was part of the Digital Single Market Strategy and was meant to enter into force alongside the GDPR in 2018. But it got delayed for years due to political gridlock in the Council.

GDPR (Regulation 2016/679)
Proposed by the European Commission in 2012, adopted in 2016, enforced in 2018

Article 95 GDPR says:

“This Regulation shall not impose additional obligations regarding processing in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services…”​

That’s left to the ePrivacy framework.

ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC)

Also known as the “cookie law”, this is the existing (pre-GDPR) framework that regulates:

• Cookies and similar tracking
• Electronic communications confidentiality
• Metadata
• Spam and direct marketing

You had cookie banners long before GDPR was conceived.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm debating on how they implemented this.

Maybe they could have handled it differently or better.

That doesn’t mean that “gave us” the banners.
The underlying reason is the creepy data collection practices.

 

[surferfb]

Maybe they could have handled it differently or better.

That doesn’t mean that “gave us” the banners.
The underlying reason is the creepy data collection practices.

Yes it does! The banners explicitly came because of the legislation. If the legislation went away they would too. Cause and effect!

You can argue they’re worth it, but arguing they’re not because of the legislation is just silly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The reporter saw the emails

We didn’t. We don’t know at all what they said.

It was reported by multiple outlets

It was rehashed by multiple outlets - not independently reported.

The EU didn’t deny it when asked, and seemingly confirmed it in the above article.

Here’s what they said:

“The Commission made it very clear whenever Apple’s proposals were at the outset falling short of effective compliance and encouraged the company to seek market feedback”

So let’s assume the commission told Apple something like: “Well, we’d recommend you seek market feedback first”.

👉 So what market feedback did they receive? Were the “usual suspect” developers happy with Apple’s proposal? Obviously not.

👉 Also, why didn’t they enact these measures, even though it was abundantly clear to any layman that doing nothing would most probably constitute a violation of the law?

👉 Apple surely doesn’t lack professional legal advice. Do you honestly believe their legal counsel told them: “Well, taking the law at face value, you’re now most likely (or seriously in risk) of violation. But that non-public email you’ve received will cover you ***** and prevent you from being fined. So I recommend you to do nothing?”

 

[breenmask]

1: the commission just writes laws and enforce them. They can’t pass them.

Ok? Not sure why you're bringing them up then. EU is still to blame.

Proposed in January 2017, after the GDPR had already been adopted. It was intended to Replace the outdated 2002 ePrivacy Directive.

Yes so GDPR screwed up.

it was part of the Digital Single Market Strategy and was meant to enter into force alongside the GDPR in 2018. But it got delayed for years due to political gridlock in the Council.

GDPR (Regulation 2016/679)
Proposed by the European Commission in 2012, adopted in 2016, enforced in 2018

Article 95 GDPR says:

“This Regulation shall not impose additional obligations regarding processing in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services…”​

That’s left to the ePrivacy framework.

Sounds like EU needs to restructure themselves to have one coherent body to dictate these changes.

ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC)

Also known as the “cookie law”, this is the existing (pre-GDPR) framework that regulates:

• Cookies and similar tracking
• Electronic communications confidentiality
• Metadata
• Spam and direct marketing

You had cookie banners long before GDPR was conceived.

So...it still is EU either way screwing this up regardless if it was GDPR or ePrivacy.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If the legislation went away they would too. Cause and effect!

If the data collection/tracking practices went away, so would the banners.
Even when the law stays in place.

Cause and effect.
It works both ways.

 

[surferfb]

If the data collection/tracking practices went away, so would the banners.
Even when the law stays in place.

Cause and effect.
It works both ways.

The banners didn’t show up until the law did. Game, set, match.

This is not an arguable point. Again, you can say it’s worth it, but to argue their law isn’t responsible for the banners is not based in reality.

 

[breenmask]

Maybe they could have handled it differently or better.

They absolutely could have handled it better.

That doesn’t mean that “gave us” the banners.
The underlying reason is the creepy data collection practices.

They absolutely did. It is the consequences of their actions for enacting these laws.

If the USA gov signed a law saying "free 10 doctor visits per year for any reason through health insurance" and the health insurance premiums went up, USA gov is to blame because health insurance companies are simply complying with the law and need to raise premiums to stay competitive.

EU similarly says "user needs to consent for data collection". Websites are simply complying with the law to stay competitive and that gave us cookie popups.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, you can say it’s worth it, but to argue their law isn’t responsible for the banners is not based in reality.

Arguing the EU “gave us” the banners (and be done with it) is ignoring the root cause.

 

[surferfb]

Arguing the EU “gave us” the banners (and be done with it) is ignoring the root cause.

The root cause is their law! Had they written the law that browsers had handle the cookie acceptance, not individual websites, there would be no banners.

This “the regulation can never be wrong, it’s only failed by the regulated entities” mindset is honestly baffling.

 

[AppliedMicro]

root cause is their law

It’s the data collection practices.
We can agree to disagree.

Had they written the law that browsers had handle the cookie acceptance

So how does the browser differentiate between cookies strictly necessary to provide a service/website - and ancillary cookies to track user behaviour?

Do not track? We’ve had such a scheme before, and it was a colossal failure.
Also browser settings are not informed consent.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Didn't need? Hard disagree. Data is invaluable to survive/stay in businesses. This is where you and EU didn't understand. If you want to stay competitive in a capitalist market, you need the data. Knowing that your users are just don't understand this data consent details, EU should have known that their law wasn't going to work the way they intended to.

This is no different than California's Prop 65 adding warnings to the majority of the foods/restaurants. Most Californians don't know what prop 65 really means and for those that do, they ignore it anyways because there's not much you can do to avoid foods that are affected.

They where fully aware but you’re literally pointing to the wrong legislation.
The directive is the issue because it’s a member states implementing it and endowing it. It’s not an EU level regulation.

EU Regulation = U.S. Federal Law or Agency Rule (e.g. Clean Air Act, FCC rules

EU Directive = U.S. Federal Requirement with State Implementation (e.g. No Child Left Behind, Medicaid expansion requirements)

A Regulation is “plug-and-play” law once passed, it applies across all EU states without modification.

A Directive is a “national homework assignment” it tells states what goal they must achieve, but lets them write the details into national law.

I don't have any data, but I have a good guess the majority of people in the world that have access to the internet aren't manually clicking through to make sure only essential data is collected. And I'm not just talking about 51% but much closer to 99% of the applicable user base.

Cookie banners are a side effect of fragmented national implementation of the ePrivacy Directive not a deliberate “EU design choice.”
It’s like blaming the federal government for a poorly worded state-level CCPA notice in California.

The states wanted more exceptions while the federal government wanted more restrictions.

What? I was talking about selling the cables as a bundle on eBay. No one wants them for a price that makes it worth my time to pack and ship.

Why would you speak of selling cables individually? When you can include it with the sale of the phone…

Ok?

Aka Apple isn’t the unique snowflake here. They aren’t the center of the world.

Yes. If there had to be a law and if the intention is reducing ewaste, banning inclusion of cable would be the correct course, not the port. If it were up to me, I would advocate no law in regards to cables/ports.

The intention is reducing waste as well as allow for better interoperability.

Hence the port is a charging interface so your headphones, keyboard, controller, computer, phone, mouse etc use the same USB-C port.

Point is most people would reuse the cables they have. Switch ports means users who relied on past years of cables can no longer rely on them and either Apple needs to include the new cables or people are forced to buy new cables. Reusing what we have is the best way of reducing ewaste, not forcing end of life on a functioning port/cable

And most people I would bet just donate away the cable with the device when switching. Or dont waste purchasing a new phone. Considering the prevalent of typ C cables

Great? We're discussing EU's attempt to reduce ewaste.

Yes.

It’s interoperability and ewaste.

Competition in general? Of course. If it was gov run tv, we would have North Korea-style programming.
Competition in streaming? We have had amazing shows before streaming wars existed.

Then what’s your concern then that you bought up earlier?

Well no. It's valve. Valve has a flat land hierarchy and people work on whatever they want to work on. No one is the boss of anyone. Steam was born from the initiative from a few engineers who decided to work on digital distribution. Valve wouldn't go bankrupt, they'll simply attempt it then give up if there's no traction because at the end of every quarter, everyone at Valve grade each other and would rate the Steam engineers as the lowest contributors to the company.

Today yes. This wasn’t always the case. It took them a solid decade to grow into the behemoth they are.

Mobile gaming is currently larger than console gaming and despite Android's larger marketshare of devices, iOS earns more money for a developer than Android.

Can both be true despite the store being a horrible product and user experience.

Yet Android is open and Valve hasn't opened up Steam store for mobile games.

Wasn’t worth it considering the anticompetitive activity of Google and Apple before.

Now it’s free for more proper inovation. Hopefully some proper iOS/android/windows/linux cross platform integration can develop.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The root cause is their law

There’s two undesirables here:

• Data collection and user tracking without consent
• Cookie banners - or consent required to be obtained - by clicking on a user interface element on websites.

One of them is a mere nuisance - and the other would be, transposed into the real world - amount to stalking.
That should give a pretty good indication about what’s the root cause or issue here.

It’s just so happens that one was first.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes it does! The banners explicitly came because of the legislation. If the legislation went away they would too. Cause and effect!

You can argue they’re worth it, but arguing they’re not because of the legislation is just silly.

The banner came explicitly from The ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and the The Citizens’ Rights Directive that amended ePrivacy (Directive 2009/136/EC)

If you remove the legislation nothing happens because it’s a national implementation. France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain etc etc legal requirements stays unaffected.

 

[surferfb]

It’s the data collection practices.
We can agree to disagree.

So how does the browser differentiate between cookies strictly necessary to provide a service/website - and ancillary cookies to track user behaviour?

Make the website operators categorize them (the way they do today). Browser settings can definitely handle this.

Do not track? We’ve had such a scheme before, and it was a colossal failure.
Also browser settings are not informed consent.

This is exactly what I’m talking about the EU not caring about user experience at all, which is why they are intent on ruining iOS to promote competition that already exists on Android.

Consent popups increase bounce rates and reduce conversions, especially on mobile. European websites saw a 5–15% decrease in engagement after GDPR due to consent fatigue and friction.

In addition, adding and maintaining a compliant consent manager also adds dozens of developer hours initially, and ongoing cost for audits, third-party service integrations, and updates as privacy laws evolve - a further drag on business.

The biggest good for the biggest number of people is not showing every person on planet earth a banner than the, at most, 15% of the population who cares about. Put it in the browser, let those who care about it change it. Same with browser choice screens.

How much productivity must be lost clicking accept or deny when you multiply every person on earth? Some math:

If you assume:

• 1 billion web users see ~20 cookie prompts a day
• 3 seconds per prompt = 60 seconds/day

That’s over 11,400 years of human time lost per day to cookie banners globally! And I suspect that’s significantly underestimated.

Further reading for you:

• Nouwens et al. (2020) – Found only 12% of users rejected all tracking when given a fair choice
• MIT Technology Review (2021) – Showed cookie banners are largely ineffective at protecting privacy and mostly serve to shift liability
• Consumer Reports (2022) – Documented user frustration and confusion with cookie popups
• Industry blogs report measurable UX degradation on ecommerce sites due to banners

Absolutely not worth the cost as implemented.