Setapp Mobile Launches in Open Beta as Alternative App Store in EU

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Sorry but Apple give away FREE Numbers, Pages software. These compete against Office and can open pretty well the file format yet noone gets upset about that.

You get OS upgrades for FREE too.
You have to pay for Windows sometimes...

EU can regulate how sores (physical or digital) treat customers. Return policies, pricing in clear ways.
But after that, unless an app break local laws, Apple should be able to do what it wants.

I dont see the EU complaining that Spotify arent paying music owners enough...

ANd they set the words up to not target consoles which are even more tightly controlled than Apple.

So maybe direct your outrage at the real issues...

Look harder...

Music streaming platforms must pay artists more, says EU

The European Parliament says “pre-digital royalty rates” need revising.

www.theverge.com

 

[boss.king]

Looking at the results of how the android platform operates is one of the most compelling reason I don't want that "functionality" on iOS.

It is certainly not the "harbinger of the apocalypse". But what it is, is another step towards the elimination of a product that many consumers want and for which they are willing to pay a premium. It is the opposite of protecting consumer choice.

But that is not the reason I'm against the EU (undoubtedly more governments are going to insert themselves) regulations. I believe that without serious and compelling evidence that harm is being caused to unwilling participants, market decisions and design choices should be between individuals and/or organizations.

My problem with the EU regulations/laws is not operational or functional, it is ethical. It is a question of what should government/s be able to mandate.

In this case we are asking the government to decide how a luxury product works. Not because the way it works presents some sort of risk to its users or others. But because the way it works potentially makes it less convenient or more expensive to switch to another product and/or to consume some services. Please keep in mind that the potential inconvenience and cost is well documented and publicly debated. The company presenting the product has actually included the "walled garden" approach as a benefit of the platform in its marketing.

The bottom line for me is that I want design decisions to be driven by consumer interest, not governmental compliance. If there was consumer demand for these system features there would be no need for regulation.

This is not a company that is withholding the cure for cancer to expand profits. It is a company that makes a luxury version of a ubiquitous item for which there are numerous alternatives.

Why should a government not have any say in how something as necessary and ubiquitous as a smartphone operates in the market? They’re not stepping in to redesign chips, it’s just saying that Apple can’t be the sole software vendor.

Smartphones are not a luxury, they’re pretty essential to living in modern society. Computers were about as necessary back in the day as smartphones are today and I don’t see anyone saying the US govt overstepped in the Microsoft antitrust trial in the 90s. Why is this different being you just not agreeing with the outcome?

 

[Adora]

So far, they are not doing it on Android, so why they would want to do it on iOS? Just for EU where iOS has 30% market share? Coding shop app is not free.

They do it for their Mac users, most of them will have rather iOS than Android and a Windows version also never existed.

And the Company creating it is also known as being Apple only. They have one Windows App that is called CleanMyPC. But I don't think that's even known in the Windows world.

I still wonder how this concepts even works. On Mac there are apps in it that alone cost more monthly.

I would rather compare it to a Spotify for apps than to an app store. At least on Mac they have already very much.

 

[LowKeyed]

You could certainly argue that for other aspects of the DMA like, say, messaging interoperability. But as it relates to the app marketplace provisions, billions of dollars go through the App Store and Play Store within the EU alone. It's well within any government's purview to regulate commerce within and through its borders.

Apple is facing these regulations because it chose to be the sole source for third-party software on iOS and has (as has been discussed at length and then some elsewhere) used that position abusively in competing against apps within their own marketplace. Even as the very obvious threat of regulation loomed, Apple refused to modify its terms to foster competition on its own terms, which I'll concede likely would have been a better user experience. Apple didn't fix it, so the EU decided it was time to "fix" it itself and brought down the hammer.

You have Apple to thank for this.

It is not a question of "does the government have the authority to dictate design choices", clearly they do. The government has the authority to do, whatever they say they have the authority to do. This has been proven in history time and time again. The question as I stated before, is it ethical to do so. My position is that outside very few instances where safety and/or fraud are concerned (I include environmental concerns in the safety category) the government should let a combination of individuals and organizations determine how products work.

The iOS marketplace is the result of design choices made at Apple that were perfectly legal on the day those choices were made. You even said it in your post "within their own marketplace", no one (at least it was not an issue) questioned the validity or the legality of the iOS experience (including the marketplace) operating the way Apple deemed best. That is until the profit potential by others was obvious, then it was no longer "their marketplace", it was the app marketplace (even though that specific marketplace only exists on iOS). The legislation and regulation is not targeted at bad behavior, it is targeted at outcomes. I suspect and I think it is obviously true, that governments will continue to apply regulations until the outcome is what they want. The ethics of asserting the control will not be considered (for very long).

At some level we are just arguing the value of consequentialism vs deontology.

 

[Abazigal]

I guess I should be flattered that Setapp is being made available for iOS, but not Android despite all the years that Android has supported third party app stores. 😛

I still don't like the idea of the DMA, but based on principle alone, I hope Setapp can find some traction amongst iOS users regardless.

 

[surferfb]

i thought Americans where supposed to be all for freedom and choice?

Freedom from the government telling private actors what to do without a justifiable reason, yes.

I think you're just mad that the EU was able to tell Apple what to do.

Nope. I have a philosophical issue with the DMA, but I’m not mad about it. If the EU wants to have bureaucrats who think encryption backdoors are a good idea design how iOS works, then that's their prerogative. I'd recommend they really think through the second-order effects of their regulations, but if the Crowdstrike fiasco didn't change their tune I don't think anything will. But then they also don't get to complain about not having access to Apple AI, Screen Mirroring, etc.

Here's to hoping that Vestager and Breton's replacements agree with the former head of the European Central Bank that the EU needs to be cutting regulations, not adding to them, if the EU wants to be more competitive in the future.

 

[Adora]

I was wrong, it's a little more than 6 apps now. Seems to grow fast. And seems still free in Beta for me.

I wanted to post screenshots. I really began to hate iCloud photo sync since I am using it more often... Any good alternative out there?

Edit:

















Sorry, I cofused it a little. Should be 9 different screenshots to see all apps.

 

[LowKeyed]

Why should a government not have any say in how something as necessary and ubiquitous as a smartphone operates in the market? They’re not stepping in to redesign chips, it’s just saying that Apple can’t be the sole software vendor.

Smartphones are not a luxury, they’re pretty essential to living in modern society. Computers were about as necessary back in the day as smartphones are today and I don’t see anyone saying the US govt overstepped in the Microsoft antitrust trial in the 90s. Why is this different being you just not agreeing with the outcome?

You can argue that smartphones are not a luxury, I disagree as I know of people who are living very full lives without them, but I accept the validity of the position. However, it is a bit of a stretch to say that an iPhone is not a luxury item. Yes, Apple offers the SE, which is "entry priced" at $430 US. That is 10x more than an entry level alternative. So I think it clearly qualifies as luxury.

But, that is not to suggest that the government should no regulate luxury as well as necessary items. I simply think the reason should be because there is evidence of serious and significant harm that is being caused by the feature or detail being regulated.

I personally think it is just a matter of time before a government "steps in" to redesign chips. They already redesigned the charging port on some devices.

For what it is worth. I think the US Govt absolutely overstepped in the Microsoft Antitrust case in the 90s. I say that knowing that the antitrust case was a large influence in Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple in 97 (which may have meant the difference between Apple shutting down or at least being greatly diminished).

I simply have a hard time getting on board with "the ends justify the means".

 

[Ctrlos]

Looking at the results of how the android platform operates is one of the most compelling reason I don't want that "functionality" on iOS.

It is certainly not the "harbinger of the apocalypse". But what it is, is another step towards the elimination of a product that many consumers want and for which they are willing to pay a premium. It is the opposite of protecting consumer choice.

But that is not the reason I'm against the EU (undoubtedly more governments are going to insert themselves) regulations. I believe that without serious and compelling evidence that harm is being caused to unwilling participants, market decisions and design choices should be between individuals and/or organizations.

My problem with the EU regulations/laws is not operational or functional, it is ethical. It is a question of what should government/s be able to mandate.

In this case we are asking the government to decide how a luxury product works. Not because the way it works presents some sort of risk to its users or others. But because the way it works potentially makes it less convenient or more expensive to switch to another product and/or to consume some services. Please keep in mind that the potential inconvenience and cost is well documented and publicly debated. The company presenting the product has actually included the "walled garden" approach as a benefit of the platform in its marketing.

The bottom line for me is that I want design decisions to be driven by consumer interest, not governmental compliance. If there was consumer demand for these system features there would be no need for regulation.

This is not a company that is withholding the cure for cancer to expand profits. It is a company that makes a luxury version of a ubiquitous item for which there are numerous alternatives.

My point about Android was that less than 5% of users bother to sideload. Even Samsung, which preloads all of its phones with an alternate app portal couldn't put a dent in the Play Store. Having multiple stores hasn't hurt the platform but customers have shown nothing but apathy. Most of those 5% that bother will be chinese users adding to their Huawei devices which is just how things are done, not hobbyists and free marketeers.

With iOS being closed for so long, we still don't really know how customers will react or if they even care. What I do know though is the Mac and Windows haven't been hurt by being open platforms.

With regards to the EU? It was about time. I like the walled garden but Apple dragging their heels on USBC was embarrassing. Competition only improves products. Both Windows Phone and webOS shook up iOS and Android to the benefit of all users. Apple and Google operate a duopoly cartel and have done nothing but stifle software innovation for a decade. iOS18 is still iOS7 with an extra row.

 

[surferfb]

Apple and Google operate a duopoly cartel and have done nothing but stifle software innovation for a decade. iOS18 is still iOS7 with an extra row.

This might possibly be the most misinformed take I have ever seen on MacRumors. Innovations added since iOS 7 include, but are not limited to:

• Health App
• iCloud Photo Library
• Continuity
• Family Sharing
• Metal
• App thinning
• 3D Touch (RIP)
• Low Power Mode
• Universal clipboard
• New accessibility settings (magnifier, color filters)
• Portrait mode
• Siri translation and on-device learning for Siri
• Location privacy improvements
• Shortcuts
• Screen Time
• ARKit
• Widgets
• Privacy Notifications for microphone, camera, clipboard
• App Tracking Transparency, MAC address randomization, hiding IP address from known trackers
• Focus Modes
• Live text
• System-wide translation
• Spatial Audio support
• Offline Siri
• iCloud Private Relay

And that doesn't include all the performance enhancements, 5G support, MagSafe support, FaceID support, etc. Or any of the enhancements in iOS 18 or announced to be coming as a part of Apple Intelligence.

And all of this is besides the fact that the DMA does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support a third major phone OS. All it does is try to turn iOS into Android, and attack Apple's ability to integrate its products, while pretending to be about consumer choice.

 

[rman0726]

I can see this leading to fragmentation. How long before Zuck wants a Meta app "that combines the amazing experiences of Facebook, Instagram, Quest, WhatsApp and Threads into a single convenient App Store". And Amazon. Google.

All of those examples aren’t good ones because they don’t make money by selling products to customers. The customer’s data is the product. They all just want as many users as possible.

 

[randomsalad]

I’m sure most EU iOS users are much happier and thankful that they now have the ability to pay €9.50 a month for access to groundbreaking apps like “CleanMyPhone” than they would be if they had access to Apple Intelligence. Thanks EU!

Which AI feature are available?

 

[surferfb]

Which AI feature are available?

I'm currently using notification summary, summarize webpages, some of the writing tools, and photo clean up.

And yes, I realize I am running the beta and it's not publicly available. But it's not like anything is going to change dramatically between now and when Apple Intelligence's is released in October with regards to Apple's ability to provide the service in the EU.

 

[delsoul]

Imagine that...EU crying to open up the Apple iPhone to others who can't compete otherwise...then, customers having to pay additional prices to use the services by those who can't compete. What a wild world that we live in!

 

[Ctrlos]

This might possibly be the most misinformed take I have ever seen on MacRumors. Innovations added since iOS 7 include, but are not limited to:

• Health App
• iCloud Photo Library
• Continuity
• Family Sharing
• Metal
• App thinning
• 3D Touch (RIP)
• Low Power Mode
• Universal clipboard
• New accessibility settings (magnifier, color filters)
• Portrait mode
• Siri translation and on-device learning for Siri
• Location privacy improvements
• Shortcuts
• Screen Time
• ARKit
• Widgets
• Privacy Notifications for microphone, camera, clipboard
• App Tracking Transparency, MAC address randomization, hiding IP address from known trackers
• Focus Modes
• Live text
• System-wide translation
• Spatial Audio support
• Offline Siri
• iCloud Private Relay

And that doesn't include all the performance enhancements, 5G support, MagSafe support, FaceID support, etc. Or any of the enhancements in iOS 18 or announced to be coming as a part of Apple Intelligence.

And all of this is besides the fact that the DMA does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support a third major phone OS. All it does is try to turn iOS into Android, and attack Apple's ability to integrate its products, while pretending to be about consumer choice.

All nice extras or extra apps but some cribbed from Android. The point is that if I had gone into a coma 10 years ago and just woken up I wouldn’t have any trouble using an iPhone. This is a strength and a weakness.

The biggest indictment to Apple and Google is gadgets like the pop socket. Both of them increased the handset size but completely neglected an ergonomic redesign to compensate. I can live without widgets and Siri. I’d quite like to use my reasonable-sized iPhone with one hand.

 

[boss.king]

You can argue that smartphones are not a luxury, I disagree as I know of people who are living very full lives without them, but I accept the validity of the position. However, it is a bit of a stretch to say that an iPhone is not a luxury item. Yes, Apple offers the SE, which is "entry priced" at $430 US. That is 10x more than an entry level alternative. So I think it clearly qualifies as luxury.

But, that is not to suggest that the government should no regulate luxury as well as necessary items. I simply think the reason should be because there is evidence of serious and significant harm that is being caused by the feature or detail being regulated.

I personally think it is just a matter of time before a government "steps in" to redesign chips. They already redesigned the charging port on some devices.

For what it is worth. I think the US Govt absolutely overstepped in the Microsoft Antitrust case in the 90s. I say that knowing that the antitrust case was a large influence in Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple in 97 (which may have meant the difference between Apple shutting down or at least being greatly diminished).

I simply have a hard time getting on board with "the ends justify the means".

They didn’t redesign the post, they said we don’t want half a dozen ports and associated cables, so we picked one and it was one that Apple literally helped to design and was already using. If the port is bad, Apple takes partially blame for that. But the port isn’t bad, so it’s fine.

I do kind of get the sense that you feel businesses should just be able to do whatever they want with full disregard for society, so I think we just fundamentally disagree on the purposes of government and regulation.

 

[falainber]

Nothing says "incredible user experience" quite like paying a monthly fee of €9.49 so you can download an app called "CleanMyPhone."

You'd have a point if it was the only app in the store.

 

[falainber]

Sorry but Apple give away FREE Numbers, Pages software. These compete against Office and can open pretty well the file format yet noone gets upset about that.

You get OS upgrades for FREE too.
You have to pay for Windows sometimes...

EU can regulate how sores (physical or digital) treat customers. Return policies, pricing in clear ways.
But after that, unless an app break local laws, Apple should be able to do what it wants.

I dont see the EU complaining that Spotify arent paying music owners enough...

ANd they set the words up to not target consoles which are even more tightly controlled than Apple.

So maybe direct your outrage at the real issues...

And why should they? There are plenty of music services on all devices/platforms. The music owners don't have to use Spotify to reach any given customer. This is different from iOS where the only way to reach iPhone owner is through the App Store. The fact that music owners choose to work with Spotify clearly indicates that they are satisfied with the terms.

 

[boss.king]

The fact that music owners choose to work with Spotify clearly indicates that they are satisfied with the terms.

No, it means they can’t afford not to. There are millions of people for whom the streaming service they choose represents all the music they will ever listen to. If it’s not on the one service they pay for, it might as well not exist. Artists can’t afford to cut out a Spotify-sized chunk of listeners from their audience, and labels often don’t give them the choice even if they wanted to.

Being in the position of needing to use Spotify does not mean you are satisfied with the terms of the deal.

 

[Korito]

This might possibly be the most misinformed take I have ever seen on MacRumors. Innovations added since iOS 7 include, but are not limited to:

• Health App
• iCloud Photo Library
• Continuity
• Family Sharing
• Metal
• App thinning
• 3D Touch (RIP)
• Low Power Mode
• Universal clipboard
• New accessibility settings (magnifier, color filters)
• Portrait mode
• Siri translation and on-device learning for Siri
• Location privacy improvements
• Shortcuts
• Screen Time
• ARKit
• Widgets
• Privacy Notifications for microphone, camera, clipboard
• App Tracking Transparency, MAC address randomization, hiding IP address from known trackers
• Focus Modes
• Live text
• System-wide translation
• Spatial Audio support
• Offline Siri
• iCloud Private Relay

And that doesn't include all the performance enhancements, 5G support, MagSafe support, FaceID support, etc. Or any of the enhancements in iOS 18 or announced to be coming as a part of Apple Intelligence.

And all of this is besides the fact that the DMA does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support a third major phone OS. All it does is try to turn iOS into Android, and attack Apple's ability to integrate its products, while pretending to be about consumer choice.

You do know that a lot of “innovation” comes from buying and absorbing smaller cheaper actually innovative companies and startups. This includes and it’s not limited to Apple, Google, MS and other tech giants. We willingly let few mega corporations to run internet and services, and now everyone is shocked when they set the rules. And now when someone steps in to try to limit the damage, people are like “whoa, stop, we like being mindless drones and fanboys”.

Ever heard of s big email provider rising in last 5-10 years? Exept proton, none that is significant. Why? Because few giants rule the internet and squash competition like flies. And that’s just one service. Nobody can compete with them, they are either bought and assimilated or squashed. Let’s be clear, we let them, thinking they are doing it in our best interest - what a joke. Only interest is share value.

And they are at it again with AI. They want to corner the market so only few have control over it. You know OpenAI should’ve been open. Like opensource? And what do users do again and again? They let them. They let them corner and capture the market so they have full control. Even Apple must bow down as it doesn’t have enough “inovation” you mentioned so they are forced to use OpenAI and ChatGPT.

Long has past since Google, Apple et al were innovative. They just buy ideas and make them their own.

 

[wbeasley]

And why should they? There are plenty of music services on all devices/platforms. The music owners don't have to use Spotify to reach any given customer. This is different from iOS where the only way to reach iPhone owner is through the App Store. The fact that music owners choose to work with Spotify clearly indicates that they are satisfied with the terms.

Spotify are the LARGEST by far.

If you dont put your catalog on Spotify you significantly reduce your visibility.
EU argue about Apple being a GateKeeper with27% of the market yet Spotify escape this title with closer to 60%...???

You are making a huge assumption that any music rights holder are satisfied with streaming revenue.
But Spotify pay the least... unless its for some stupid podcast that hasnt delivered new subscribers...

 

[wbeasley]

You do know that a lot of “innovation” comes from buying and absorbing smaller cheaper actually innovative companies and startups. This includes and it’s not limited to Apple, Google, MS and other tech giants. We willingly let few mega corporations to run internet and services, and now everyone is shocked when they set the rules. And now when someone steps in to try to limit the damage, people are like “whoa, stop, we like being mindless drones and fanboys”.

Ever heard of s big email provider rising in last 5-10 years? Exept proton, none that is significant. Why? Because few giants rule the internet and squash competition like flies. And that’s just one service. Nobody can compete with them, they are either bought and assimilated or squashed. Let’s be clear, we let them, thinking they are doing it in our best interest - what a joke. Only interest is share value.

And they are at it again with AI. They want to corner the market so only few have control over it. You know OpenAI should’ve been open. Like opensource? And what do users do again and again? They let them. They let them corner and capture the market so they have full control. Even Apple must bow down as it doesn’t have enough “inovation” you mentioned so they are forced to use OpenAI and ChatGPT.

Long has past since Google, Apple et al were innovative. They just buy ideas and make them their own.

it's better to buy ideas than steal them and face patent challenges...

 

[falainber]

No, it means they can’t afford not to. There are millions of people for whom the streaming service they choose represents all the music they will ever listen to. If it’s not on the one service they pay for, it might as well not exist. Artists can’t afford to cut out a Spotify-sized chunk of listeners from their audience, and labels often don’t give them the choice even if they wanted to.

Being in the position of needing to use Spotify does not mean you are satisfied with the terms of the deal.

Incorrect. All popular music is on all streaming services. People who need something that is available only on Spotify are very rare. People too often say that Apple pays more to the music right owners. They get it wrong. Here is an explanation from Gemini:

According to current data, music rights owners generally earn significantly more per stream on Apple Music compared to Spotify, with Apple Music often paying almost twice as much per stream, meaning that for the same number of streams, artists would receive a larger payout from Apple Music than Spotify; however, Spotify often generates more overall revenue due to its larger user base.

So, Spotify actually pays more to music right owners than Apple, that's why they work with Spotify. For more details you can check this web site.

 

[falainber]

Spotify are the LARGEST by far.

If you dont put your catalog on Spotify you significantly reduce your visibility.
EU argue about Apple being a GateKeeper with27% of the market yet Spotify escape this title with closer to 60%...???

You are making a huge assumption that any music rights holder are satisfied with streaming revenue.
But Spotify pay the least... unless its for some stupid podcast that hasnt delivered new subscribers...

As I said, market share is not the only criteria for gatekeeping. People can get the same music from many different streaming services and it takes 5 minutes to switch. Spotify can't prevent them from it but Apple has exclusive access to iOS (not anymore in EU though). And switching from iOS to, say, Android may cost thousands of dollars and a lot of hassle.

 

[surferfb]

Incorrect. All popular music is on all streaming services. People who need something that is available only on Spotify are very rare. People too often say that Apple pays more to the music right owners. They get it wrong. Here is an explanation from Gemini:

According to current data, music rights owners generally earn significantly more per stream on Apple Music compared to Spotify, with Apple Music often paying almost twice as much per stream, meaning that for the same number of streams, artists would receive a larger payout from Apple Music than Spotify; however, Spotify often generates more overall revenue due to its larger user base.

So, Spotify actually pays more to music right owners than Apple, that's why they work with Spotify. For more details you can check this web site.

Your argument that rights holders don’t have to use Spotify, and therefore Spotify shouldn’t be regulated despite having 56% market share in the EU, is “even though they pay significantly less than their competitors, they generate more revenue because their user base is so much larger”

Seriously? Wow. And you think rights holders are ok with this arrangement?!?
🤣😂🤣😂🤣