Which doesn't actually matter from a competitive standpoint since Spotify had no problem getting customers to pay for the subscription on the web. Complaining that you only got 99% of your iOS customers to avoid the commission isn't much of a complaint.
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.
Tim Cook Meets EU Antitrust Chief Ahead of iPhone App Sideloading Deadline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m getting tired of people repeating the same what if without any new claim to reinforce their stance, without admitting they have been brainwashed completely by tech companies, as soon as sideloading is involved.
Apple approved way of using iOS devices. We should go with this.
Yeah let’s categorically deny all uses of sideloading, legitimate or otherwise, demonise it to the tilt.
Yeah let’s go even further. Why go with App Store at all? No App Store, no scam app. No security risks caused by nefarious apps and Apple will become the only vendor creating and updating apps.
Apple approved way of using iOS devices. We should go with this.
Despite completely missing the whole meaning of social engineering is targeting people’s weakness for malicious gain. That is, the weakest link is YOU, and iPhone cannot do anything if you are compromised.
Obvious: the EU thinks the mobile market is uncompetitive when the evidence doesn't support it. Windows/Mac is not a more competitive market for consumers relative to iOS/Android despite Windows/Mac having all the qualities that the EU believes make a more competitive market. So it doesn't really add up and the EU is just ignoring that reality.
I don't consider Spotify, Qobuz and Deezer to be "major" players in the digital realm. In the niche of Music streaming? Sure.
I don't think you consider them major players, either, since you then said:
See? Even you think that Spotify et al rise to the level of "duopoly" that you've identified. But, for exmaple, you could likely conclude that Spotify is a gatekeeper in the digital streaming market. Do you? Is Spotify a "gatekeeper" in your estimation? Why or why not?
You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes "the law" if you think Apple is operating like it.
Look, there's no facts if we don't agree on the basic parameters of the discussion. You have a preference. I have a preference. I've already said you and your country are free to pass any laws you like.
So, this argument only leads to making IOS more closed, rather than more open.
I've heard that before - yet it has newer made sense.
A single, centralised App repository (or "Store") run by a single gatekeeper as a software distribution model is the best any controlling government could want!
Encrypted communication? There’s no easier way to discourage or abolish encrypted communication if you all you have to do is regulate a monopoly or duopoly of mobile application stores: Make any app distributed subject to obtaining a government licence. Easy-peasy, if you only need to force the hands of one or two operation systems and/or App Store operators in a duopoly (by, for example threatening a ban on device sales) Make them pull any non-complying messenger app from their stores.
Don't like VPN tunnels? Just ban them outright. The idea is certainly not new to the Chinese.
Want to control the political narrative on social media? As MacBH928 correctly said above, the version of Telegram available from Apple's App Store has censored some channels.
Whereas sideloading enables users to install unregulated apps that use end-to-end encryption that has not been weakened by government intervention - and can access Telegram groups uncensored.
👉 If I were a big, controlling, possibly evil government wanting to ban end-to-end encryption... the first thing I‘d do is outlaw sideloading.
No, can you teach me?
Then no sideloading needed, right? If it's cheap and easy to do, what's the complaint?
Again, I have a preference, you have a preference. You're trying to convince me here that my preference isn't real, but yours is. So much for my sense of "choice." You're saying, "you're free to choose, so long as you choose what I prefer." That's very consistent with taking "choice" out of a marketplace and placing it into the hands of the government.
But again, I have conceded over and over again that you and your choice of governance have the right to impose anything you like on companies and products that compete in your borders. What more do you want?
I just don't think your "logic" achieves what you think it does. And you don't think mine does. As evidenced by this statement:
Apparently I don't if the idea of metaphor/analogy only leads to your conclusion and not mine.
Perhaps you could teach me all about metaphor and analogy.
So, you're getting tired of us just not admitting we're brainwashed?
Nice argument.I could start a mobile phone business today and completely deny sideloading. I could even deny 3rd party development altogether. And I would be in perfect compliance with the DMA.
If a company wanted to pursue that strategy, what's the problem? Even the DMA wouldn't deny a company that strategy, right?
BTW, you EU folk...I wish you'd force BMW to allow me to sideload Apple Car Play on my 1250 GSA motorcycle. They force me to use their terrible software!
The fact that you have some customers use your work-around doesn't mean that you aren't competitively disadvantaged - or that there's fair competition.
Actually, according to the way that the EU "defines" (makes up) the title of Gatekeeper, it means exactly that. The EU hasn't passed a general law to force ALL companies to operate in this way. They've only narrowly targeted a few companies specifically. So, Spotify can and does operate their platform in a completley closed manner, locking everyone out, forcing artists to only use their payment system, denying artists the ability to link to outside payment processors.
This is why all the arguments about the morality of how Apple operates are completely flat. This is simply protrectionism, and the EU going after large companies. Because they don't apply the laws universally. If you think, on principle, that all companies should be open in order to promote this so-called competition, then you'd be forcing Spotify to do the same thing.
Which, again and again, you're free to do in your country. Just stop pretending you're doing this for moral reasons and that you are in some way superior to we "Apple Fan Boys."
Some customers? 99%. Spotify has 30% market share. Apple, Tencent Music and Amazon are all in between 13-14%. Spotify appears to be in the drivers seat in terms of competition.
Well, to be fair, Apple was also competitively harming Microsoft when Window's had 90% market share and Apple had 5%. Right?
By the hatred we "fan boys" still recieved back then, I'm certain there are those who felt this was true.
We can agree on that assessment, too.
And that is the reason why Apple and Google and (some of) their platform services are regulated by the DMA - and others are not (like Spotify).
Spotify is operating in a niche of music streaming, as you said yourself (a niche by the way, in which there are more than two competitors offering a similar consumer experience and availabibility of content than there is for mobile apps). Whereas Apple and Google operate platforms that reach far beyond such a small niche.
It's relatively cheap and easy to do for the lawless, the ill-intentioned and rule-breakers - the ones that one should fear in terms of data security.
But it's impossible to use for trustworthy, law-abiding developers that want to offer their apps outside of the App Store. They'd just lose their customers (and customers the ability to run their apps) from one moment to the next one.
👉 Sideloading is possible today (and maybe feared) from a security perspective. Yet impossible to use from a contractual and commercially perspective for any trustworthy developer that's catering towards consumers.
With that, the sideloading restrictions of course fit Apple's intention:
1. Make iPhones viable in the enterprise. But at the same time...
2. allow them to charge supracompetitive rates from consumer purchases, and
3. ...maintain a level of convenience and purported security that can be marketed
Eu have always dictated how business practices are done. That’s why many norm’s practices in the states are just illegal to engage in. U.S. politicians is nothing like EU politics, I recommend you travel to Brussels and experience the difference.
And it isn’t the government’s job to subsidize competing OS. They regulate the market to be fair and merit based, they don’t pick winners.
EU law is consistent as it’s made up of 27 counties. It doesn’t benefit its own, could it be that most of the practices targeted is already illegal? You can read upon EU anti competitive laws. One thing is the previous laws are post-Anti= meaning it applies after the fact. While the DMA is ex-anti= meaning they are applied before the fact.
Post-anti= proving the action was harmful
Ex-anti= the action is presumed harmful as default
This is so fallacious, epic have never forced a single user to leave steam and use their store. It’s a completely legal practice not to offer your products everywhere.
And for some reason you think it’s okey that Apple forcing users to ONLY access software through their storefront, but the moment that same developer doesn’t want to provide their software anymore through the AppStore and users being able to use alternative storefronts it’s suddenly something that must never be allowed?
- iOS AppStore as the ONLY source for apps= good.
- Developers being forced to use the AppStore= good
- Developers offering their apps in the Macappstore & Mac steam= good
- Developers offering their apps only in the Macappstore= good
- iOS AppStore no longer the only source for apps= super bad
- Developers being free to leave the AppStore= super bad
- Developers offering their apps only in the Mac steam= super duper bad?
- Developers not being forced to use the AppStore= super bad
Apple directly competes against Spotify in their AppStore. That’s the issue. Spotify didn’t have an issue not having IAP or communicating with the consumers untill the microsecond Apple released their Apple Music and doing the same thing but with 0% commission.
The fact Spotify moved their subscriber base is irrelevant.
The problem is Apple Music is a direct competitor to Spotify.
Apple Music:
- Offer IAP with 0%
- Advertising directly in the appstore
- Communicating directly in the app with relevant information to the user
- offer subscription in the app
- Provide deals.
- Can only use IAP with 15-30%
- Can’t advertise in the AppStore
- Can’t communicate directly in the app without being forced to pay 15-30% commission
- Can’t offer subscription in the app
- Can’t provide deals.
Right. So we can dispense with all the arguments that try to make a moral case for sideloading or open platforms. Those are just after-the-fact justifications for the efforts taken by the EU. They are only tools that attempt to hobble Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.
Because if you and others felt that open platforms were the morally correct thing to do, then you'd legislate those things generally, to apply to all companies, including Spotify.
That's why so much of these arguments are pointless.
It's protectionism. Nothing more. Which you're free to do. Just stop trying to pretend your doing something morally superior.
Every game is allowed on Mac… they just sell it on steam instead of the Macappstore. 😂
In what relevance are platform exclusives to the AppStore? Can you purchase Xbox/playstation games in more places than the digital store?
Can you buy iOS apps in more places than the digital store?
Sure they can abandon their warranty, the law already have minimum stated guarantee that they need to provide anyway making it a pointless gesture.
Because the data protocol wasn’t part of the regulation… because it was a charging port regulation. Understand politics are specialized and specific instead of all encompassing and bloated.
The government dictates taxes. And citizens vote on their government so quite a weird question.
Apple isn’t single out. Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc are impacted more heavily than Apple.
If apple would pull out they would just be fined for breaking existing contracts and absolutely nothing would change in their favor. Selling items from UK would not be allowed in to EU unless following the EU laws. EU law reins supreme within EU territory and citizens.
The fact our world is connected doesn’t remove a single shred of the rights you as the rightful owner of your newly legitimately acquired property.
Screaming about security doesn’t provide you any legitimacy to impact legally protected property rights of market participants and consumers. If a user is a genius or a duns doesn’t change that. Right control must always be consensual that can be revoked at any point in time the owner wishes.
Because the encryption issue isn’t getting passed, it’s currently breaking existing away law and lacks support to ever pass. And everyone is complaining about it.
This has been the case for decades, if the ToS actually stated they took responsibility it has never been so otherwise. You as the manufacturer still must prove the consumer actually did something to cause a catastrophic failure of the device.
It’s joes Apple who can sell their goods in target and Walmart.
Right. I've said this over and over and over again. The EU is free to regulate business how it wants. The USA does the same thing.
Lots of governments subsidize lots of different business practices. For example, the USA gives tax benefits to renewable energy products. As do EU member countries, as I understand it. There's no reason that the EU couldn't choose to subsidize/incentivize development of an alternate OS. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this argument.
You misunderstand me. I'm fine with the way Spotify operates their platform. I'm merely showing the inconsistency in the arguments being made. Again, the EU is practicing protectionism; they're not enforcing some univerally moral way of operating, which seems to be the argument most EU supporters want to make. "Apple MUST allow sideloading because it's the only MORAL way to operate!" That's nonsense. As is shown by the different standard that is being applied to Spotify.
Perhaps because you're misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my position?
And Spotify doesn't even allow Apple to compete on their platform. So, Apple allows competition within their platform, and Spotify doesn't. And you've concluded that Apple is wrong and Spotify is justified.
But we've just shown you don't actually believe that. Because Spotify is allowed to run a closed system. But again, I'm FINE with Spotify operating that way; and it clearly hasn't harmed their ability to compete since they dominate the market.
Just say "The EU is practicising protectionism, which is our right" and you and I have no argument. But this silly "The EU is morally superior to everyone else" is just so much pearl clutching.
Last edited:
Yes - and for the reasons you've basically acknowledged yourself:
They're only targeting major digital players in the digital realm ("gatekeepers").
But not economic niches, such as music streaming.
Why shouldn't they do it otherwise? Competition law has and will of course focus on the really "major" issues of (lack of) competition that impact society. Not on small niches. A monopoly in model railways / model trains (or cars) be left alone - while one in real railways or running stock (or cars) will likely be regulated.
Regulating all companies, regardless of size, across all economic sectors according to the same rules isn't and hasn't been the intention of competition law. Doing so, would in fact, amount to overregulation - and choke functioning markets.
It's not.
You said it yourself: You don't consider the EU to harbour major players in the digital realm.
That means there are no relevant domestic competitors (to Apple and Google, or Meta) that could be protected with protectionist measures.
👉 So where's the protectionism, if there's no competitors to protect?
I have some EU supporters like Sophisticated Nut saying "all laws must be applied equally" (though he clearly doesn't believe that to be true) and you saying "the EU can apply any remedies and restrictions in any way it wants."
You're being too clever by half; Any country can pass laws of protectionism, even in markets that it doesn't compete in, with the effort to TRY to compete in those markets.
That said, you've already said that YOU believe the EU has significant players in the digital realm. And according to your argument, that would be the purpose of the EUs protectionism. To protect those that you think are signficant..
Again, the EU is just using protectionism. Nothing morally superior about it. But perfectly legal and justifiable from a self-interest perspective.
Should the USA impose tariffs on digital products, like music streaming services sold by foreign companies? This would, of course, be meant to protect music artists who have diminished choices as to where to earn money from their music, as well as for consumers, who once they choose a music streaming service, are "locked into" that service. Some firms use their power to pay less royalties to those artists, and completely deny them the ability to use 3rd party payment services to advertise alternate stores outside of their platforms. Of course, we'd only be targeting companies with 25% market share or greater.
Last edited:
Okay, so I don't own the software on my iPhone. Fine.
How do I boot my iPhone with my own software?
Good. Now go and get all the paperwork done, raises a capital, and start your own business today with your preferred philosophy. We shall see how far you can go.
Then I have to wonder why Apple doesn’t pursue that strategy given they hate sideloading to the tilt.
Same vein, Apple can choose to continue to operate in EU or decide to quit completely, thus protesting EU’s allegedly “overregulation” with solid actions. Will 2024 be the year?