Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Apple's EU Changes: 'They Think the Rules Don't Apply to Them'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let’s find out? It could be that apple charging .50 to a store they don’t run for an install on a phone they don’t own is totally legal and the EU will be ok with that.
As someone who uses an Galaxy S23 Ultra and soon an S24 Ultra, this is exactly why I switched to Samsung years ago.
On Android, the user is not treated with kid gloves like on iPhone. You are treated the exact same as you would be using a Mac or a PC. The consequences of using third party apps on my phone are the exact same as on my PC.
Why does Apple insist on treating the 'smart' phone differently than their Macs? It's purely due to greed and not security/privacy as if that was the case, the Mac should be equally locked down.
I never liked Apple behaviour to start with which is why I moved to Android and didn't look back. I am also not in the US so most of the Apple advantages like iMessage are irrelevant here.
On Android, the user is not treated with kid gloves like on iPhone. You are treated the exact same as you would be using a Mac or a PC. The consequences of using third party apps on my phone are the exact same as on my PC.
Why does Apple insist on treating the 'smart' phone differently than their Macs? It's purely due to greed and not security/privacy as if that was the case, the Mac should be equally locked down.
I never liked Apple behaviour to start with which is why I moved to Android and didn't look back. I am also not in the US so most of the Apple advantages like iMessage are irrelevant here.
There is no point in finding out because Apple will try to find every loophole in the book no matter how many times the law is redrafted to prevent third party stores from functioning effectively. If Apple does not intend to comply with the spirit of the law, they won't.
If you want freedom of choice, use third party apps and browsers as default and don't want to be treated withkid gloves, just buy a Samsung like I did. My S23 Ultra respects my intelligence and allows me to do whatever I want.
Apple's business model is to curate everything on their phone so the user only experiences what they want the user to experience and they want to exclusively charge users for it by virtue of it being their platform. That is completely fine.
Users have a choice if they don't like how Apple behaves.
Is it illegal when Microsoft or Sony charge for an app they don’t sell on a console they don’t own? Of course not, because what you describe is a completely normal business arrangement.
I was making the simple point that - at least here in the United States - you don’t “own” the software.
Nowhere in the world do you own software you buy merely one license to. The extent what you are allowed to do with that software or license may vary, eg whether you are allowed to sell that license. For sure you are not allowed to reverse engineer the software, make derivative works out of it, duplicate it for resale, or circumvent protective measures*. The license agreement governs what you are allowed to do with the software. This is not different in the EU or anywhere else.
* One exception here is copy protection, which you are allowed to circumvent for one reason only: make personal backup copies.
Not sure how anybody is shocked by this behavior coming from Apple. Another race to the bottom it seems.
This is just wrong. EULAs saying you "own a perpetual license" doesn't make it so, at least in the EU. See the Steam case about it. An indefinitely long license to something is equal to a purchase according to EU laws. And you do own a copy of the OS that comes preinstalled on your phone/tablet/computer/whatever. It is a copy you can legally resell (see the Microsoft cases) but not freely distribute so as not to run afoul of copyright laws.
Reverse engineering is not illegal in the EU. You can't distribute another person's product you have reverse engineered and recompiled, but that is because of other laws.
This is right, people mixed up owning, leasing to the owner when it is buyer, No reselling, no reverse engineering, no modifying, etc. As I was involved with the modifying world this was always the topic. It circumvented the features and other functionalities of said software. So, people didn't have to pay. It resulted in manipulating the outcomes or enhancing features close to upgraded full versions, regardless of where the people are from, Europe, Russia, etc.
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court disagrees with you on that matter.
Well you’re quite right of course. The EU will definitely allow Apple to tax freely distributed software and not in anyway stand in the way of this new plan. Everything will be fine and carry on in a lovely apple promoting way.
You're moving the goalposts. No one was talking about the implementation of Apple's APIs.
No one implied that except you. I made it very clear I'm talking about local modifications.
It’s always so annoying seeing this misinformation continually spreading. This isn’t the case in EU.
The general principles that may affect the validity of EULAs in the EU are:
THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL EU CONTRACT LAW
A CONTRACT (that is what EULA and Terms of Service are) MUST BE PRESENTED TO A CONSUMER BEFORE THE PURCHASE IS COMPLETED AND/OR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IS FINALIZED
If the seller fails to fulfill this single obligation, then no contract is signed and the terms of the deal is a standard transfer of ownership.- The EULA must be presented to the user before the purchase or installation of the software, and the user must have the opportunity to review and accept it
- The EULA must not contain terms that are unfair, unclear, or contrary to the mandatory provisions of the EU law. For example,
- terms that limit the liability of the software supplier
- restrict the user’s rights to use the software
- Grant the software supplier access to the user’s personal data without consent
- Not contain terms that are surprising, unclear, or unreasonable, or that disadvantage the consumer in a way that is incompatible with the principle of good faith.
- must respect the user’s right to withdraw from the contract within 14 days of the purchase or installation of the software
- The EULA can’t prevent the user from exercising their rights under the EU law, such as the right to decompile the software for interoperability purposes, the right to resell the software, or the right to benefit from the exceptions and limitations to the software protection.
Last edited:
That's not EU specific, unfortunately. The usual politician response to that outcome is to deny they supported the law even if they voted for it and say that was not the intent, and thus are not to blame.
The Mac came about when software distribution was based on a different model. Everyone didn't have access to easy software downloads, developers had to box their product, get a distributor and hope people bought it from the stores it was in or buy ads to get customers. After all the effort and costs, many were lucky to get 30% of the retail price.
The phone market evolved differently. At first, cell phone companies controlled what could be installed, until Apple changed the model. I have no doubt Apple and Jobs went that way to exert control and make money. We can disagree with that model, but it is a result of how the market evolved.
Palm was an interesting outlier as they had their own retail stores as but didn't lock down the device.
Reverse engineering is not per se illegal, it all depends how you do it. Compaq did that to create the a legal IBM clone.
But at the end of the day, Mac, Windows and Android have all shown that there have been no negative repercussions to user satisfaction by giving the user access to sideloading in the proper sense.
I read an article on Techcrunch today which essentially stated that Apple's whole response on the EU legislation essentially feels like a small kid throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants.
Everywhere on the support page, Apple splashes warnings about how EU doesn't care about the security and privacy of users and it's thanks to your governments that the iPhone is less secure.
Essentially, Apple is calling it's own customers stupid and that they won't be able to function without Apple's handholding when that very same userbase already is exposed to a greater risk when they use their dekstops/laptops running Mac/Windows. EU isn't doing anything new here apart from standardizing iOS to function like every other OS in the world.
This security and privacy BS is a complete eyewash. In reality, Apple is more worried about their services revenue coming from the EU as it accounts for nearly 30% of their revenues. Allowing third party stores and allowing other browsers to be set as default takes away Apple's control over those revenues. Apple's iPhone revenues have already stagnated with stable y-o-y growth so they desperately need services to remain a fast growth company.
Apple is behaving like a petulant child in it's release notes as if EU is being a villain here.
Their changes also reflect their complete disregard for customer satisfaction. You can use Firefox on iPhone but not on iPad because that's running iPad OS. What a load of crock. This is coming from a company who keeps parroting about how consistent it's ecosystem is.
Apple's behaviour here makes me satisfied a out my transition to Android 2 years ago. The freedom was a breath of fresh air.
The App Store is like a consignment store. You bring in the product to put in the storefront that an owner is paying for. You, as the owner of the product, do not pay to have the product on display in the store. The store owner gets a cut of the sale only AFTER the product is sold. IMO, the creation of the App Store allowed for an entirely new generation of entrepreneurs and developers without the typical cost of doing so.
This feels like Apple's typical way of spreading their propaganda to make a few extra bucks.
The iOS security cannot rely on App Store review process, due to the fact that it's theoretical impossible to know whenever given application is harmful or not. The only way to secure a system is an old good way of permission control and applications isolation.
Even more, the App Store review process exists because iOS isn't secure enough. Instead of fixing the real vulnerabilities and making iOS more secure, Apple just spends time reviewing tons of apps.
So, these "reviews" serve two purposes: to justify their tight control over the App Store and to cover up iOS security problems.
First. Opening up iOS will never ruin iOS on any circumstances, because it won't affect you in any ways if you still want to use Apple's services or apps like you do normally. Simply just use the iPhone like you do now already.
This will only benefit those of us who doesn't want to be handheld or be babysat by Apple in everything we want to do on the iPhones. Or for those of us that want to use our own braincells as security over having Apple determine what security for us all is.
Secondly. Nothing unusual will happen to the 'App Store' if Apple will allow 3rd party app stores. Those who want the "so called" security and benefits from Apple will still use Apples services and stuffs all day long. Those of us who want to have access to a wider aspect of apps that Apple would never accept in their 'nazi-regime', will gladly welcome the freedom to choose another app store that will have tons apps that Apple doesn't allow.
Take for example game emulators for PSX, PS2, SNES and so on. Why on earth doesn't Apple allow that?
That alone is good enough reason to avoid Apple's app store at all cost and welcome 3rd party app stores. So yes, this is mostly just for having a much better access to apps over avoiding Apple's app store tax, even though having the ability to avoid Apple's app store tax is also a benefit for some.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's wrong on many levels. If my favorite app disappears to go to an alternate app store, my user experience is diminished. Secondly this could be a race to the bottom with scamware, phishware and malware apps.
There is something called app rating / reviews of such bad apps in a 3rd party app store.
If an app is bad, app rating / reviews will let peoples know about that, so not an issue at all.
Not only that, but if your favourite app is going away from Apples own App Store (I doubt that will ever happen though) and over to a 3rd party app store, then you can get it on that 3rd party app store and just download it like you would do on the original app store. And you would still be able to use the app like normal.
Simply just DON'T download apps that you don't know if you want to be on the safe side on those 3rd party app stores.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not only the letter of the law, but also its intention and meaning.
Besides that, they don't have to write a new law.
This is not the first EU regulation I've read, I've read a few. And I can tell you that the Digital Markets Act explicitly leaves more leeway than other regulations to find gatekeepers afoul of circumvention and also adopt other, delegated acts.
"The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design."
...on apps the consumers don't even use.