Upcoming EU Sideloading Bill Would 'Cripple the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Expect, Says Apple

[ct2k7]

WebKit isn't a browser, and Apple doesn't use its market position to force websites to only render on WebKit or run on Apple servers. They don't control the majority of internet devices, nor the majority of mobile devices. Safari isn't a market leader. They don't refuse to sell products to companies that work on competing standards.

This is what MS was doing in the 90s. Apple is nothing like that.

WebKit is the underlying engine. Because of how iOS works, a browser is an effective skin on WebKit.

I'm not saying they're acting as a monopoly.

 

[Morichan]

To all you guys whining:

Sideloading would take away the power from e.g. the russian government to disable the Nawalny App by simply telling Apple to remove it from the AppStore. It would take away the power from the Chinese government to remove the HKMapp app.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html

Last but not least - allowing different payment options takes away the power from Apple to collect insane Apple taxes. Apple will be forced to enter competition again - and competition is a good thing.

Your comment was written very sensibly.

 

[Wildkraut]

Apple doesn't have a moral obligation to do anything because Apple is an idea, not a person. Ideas don't have obligations least of all moral ones. They grow to the size and shape of their environment.

And good those laws will come to the rescue, in terms of strength the competition and tax enforcement.

 

[4jasontv]

WebKit is the underlying engine. Because of how iOS works, a browser is an effective skin on WebKit.

I'm not saying they're acting as a monopoly.

Sure - but unless Apple is forcing development for that skin with anything besides their userbase then a skin should be sufficient to allow competitors to link users into their ecosystem. I don't see how Apple has a responsibility to allow other engines.

No you didn't - someone but the person I initially replied to implied it by claiming they were the same as 90s MS.

 

[krigar_b]

You may have missed the part of the EU's proposal where platforms aren't defined as hardware devices - but as operating systems, too.

So offering Linux sideloading wouldn't satisfy that legal requirement with regards to iOS.

None of the lawsuits and new laws has until now been able to change the fact that Apple can decide on their business model. You can't require a company to develop software (OS etc) and api's for free.

 

[4jasontv]

And good those laws will come to the rescue, in terms of strength the competition and tax enforcement.

What you describe sounds like an agenda, not morals.

 

[d686546s]

SCOTUS. Prove Apple is a Monopoly and then you got something to go on. Apple will take any of these laws that are similar to what the EU is doing and run it up the courts. Their business is not anti-competitive or a monopoly.

So? Preventing monopolies or anti-competitive business behaviour are not the only reasons for Congress to make law and I have my doubts that the Supreme Court would strike down a law as unconstitutional because it promotes policy reasons you tend to disagree with.

 

[Wildkraut]

What you describe sounds like an agenda, not morals.

Anyway wildly leg kicking won’t help Apple anymore. They better start backporting macOS permissions into iOS, and put money aside, the deadline will be short once judged.

Looking forward to sideload a firewall like little snitch for iOS. ?

 

[djphat2000]

So? Preventing monopolies or anti-competitive business behaviour are not the only reasons for Congress to make law and I have my doubts that the Supreme Court would strike down a law as unconstitutional because it promotes policy reasons you tend to disagree with.

Not about me agreeing with or not. If it's not fair its not fair. You have to apply the law equally.
If Apple was to lose in this scenario. Why should the console makers not also have to comply? Heck Playstation and Xbox are darn near identical (x86). Why can't I run Spider-man on my Xbox? Why can't I have a Sony Playstation store on my Xbox? Or Nintendo? Should I have to go to Nintendo to play Mario? Should I have to play that 30% there as well?

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

On iOS you have to use WebKit, regardless of 'browser' or skin.

WebKit is a core part of iOS, and one of three features that made the iPhone revolutionary. Should Apple be forced to allow alternatives for SpringBoard? UIKit APIs? PhoneKit? iOS itself? How much of the iPhone is irreplaceable and integral, and how much is a built on top of it? Apple is vertically integrated, so they would say everything is part of iPhone. Regulators don't like what Apple's doing, so they have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Today it's the App Store and IAP, tomorrow it's WebKit and Apple Pay, and then what? How much of the iPhone must be replaceable? And at what point does making the iPhone so modular for the sake of "competition" destroy what the iPhone is supposed to be?

It all comes down to, what is an iPhone? And that question is purely philosophical one. We may like where regulators arbitrarily decide the line is today (e.g. sideloading), but once they are the ones deciding on the product, and not Apple, they will inevitably take things in a directions that may ultimately end up decreasing consumer choice.

 

[vipergts2207]

Not about me agreeing with or not. If it's not fair its not fair. You have to apply the law equally.
If Apple was to lose in this scenario. Why should the console makers not also have to comply? Heck Playstation and Xbox are darn near identical (x86). Why can't I run Spider-man on my Xbox? Why can't I have a Sony Playstation store on my Xbox? Or Nintendo? Should I have to go to Nintendo to play Mario? Should I have to play that 30% there as well?

While some of your analogies are misplaced, I think you'll find most of us who want Apple opened up don't disagree with your broader sentiment and wouldn't have an issue with the dominant console makers being forced to open up as well.

 

[icanhazmac]

It's not childish at all. You just don't like the implication of taking responsibility for yourself. If a person wants to stick with apps that have privacy labels, stay in the app store. If your bank doesn't have an app in the app store, find a better bank. Up until about a year ago, no software I ever downloaded in my 30+ years of existence had 'privacy labels' and I didn't have any qualms about using such software before then.

I care very deeply about personal responsibility so I don't appreciate the implication that simply because I enjoy Apple providing me ways to minimize my exposure that somehow I rely on that and do nothing else. Apps at this time are forced to be on the Apple store, if/when alt-stores are forced onto the ecosystem I may then have to make choices, as an example, say my bank decides to host their own app because they can, I then have to decide if I will undertake the hassle of my business elsewhere. I'd PREFER not to have that choice forced on me, I enjoy the fact that Apple's ecosystem protects me from needing to have 10+ app store apps, all with my personal info.

Also, if you are debating in good faith, mobile devices have heralded in an unprecedented assault on our privacy, everyone tracks you and collects data, your ISP, your mobile carrier, all your apps and even your device. Looking for ways to minimize this threat is an absolute no-brainer. Now YMMV, if you don't care at all about what all the software you have downloaded over 30+ years has collected and sold about you then good for you, most of those 30+ years would have involved desktop software which has far fewer data points to collect. When it comes to mobile devices and their apps they can, in theory, track our every movement and sell that data, I don't care for that and take whatever steps I can to thwart their efforts.

 

[ct2k7]

WebKit is a core part of iOS, and one of three features that made the iPhone revolutionary. Should Apple be forced to allow alternatives for SpringBoard? UIKit APIs? PhoneKit? iOS itself? How much of the iPhone is irreplaceable and integral, and how much is a built on top of it? Apple is vertically integrated, so they would say everything is part of iPhone. Regulators don't like what Apple's doing, so they have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Today it's the App Store and IAP, tomorrow it's WebKit and Apple Pay, and then what? How much of the iPhone must be replaceable? And at what point does making the iPhone so modular for the sake of "competition" destroy what the iPhone is supposed to be?

It all comes down to, what is an iPhone? And that question is purely philosophical one. We may like where regulators arbitrarily decide the line is today (e.g. sideloading), but once they are the ones deciding on the product, and not Apple, they will inevitably take things in a directions that may ultimately end up decreasing consumer choice.

Or you know, allow a different JavaScript interpreter, which isn’t tied to WebKit.

I don’t believe WebKit is tied to core iOS. There may be many components which use WebKit, but I don’t believe it’s part of the core OS.

Are you saying that the browser made iOS revolutionary?

 

[icanhazmac]

If your bank doesn't have an app in the app store, find a better bank.

PS - By making this statement I assume you mean that any dev that doesn't have their app listed on the Apple App store and using the Apple payment system needs to be "better". Thanks for making my point.

 

[vipergts2207]

I care very deeply about personal responsibility so I don't appreciate the implication that simply because I enjoy Apple providing me ways to minimize my exposure that somehow I rely on that and do nothing else. Apps at this time are forced to be on the Apple store, if/when alt-stores are forced onto the ecosystem I may then have to make choices, as an example, say my bank decides to host their own app because they can, I then have to decide if I will undertake the hassle of my business elsewhere. I'd PREFER not to have that choice forced on me, I enjoy the fact that Apple's ecosystem protects me from needing to have 10+ app store apps, all with my personal info.

Also, if you are debating in good faith, mobile devices have heralded in an unprecedented assault on our privacy, everyone tracks you and collects data, your ISP, your mobile carrier, all your apps and even your device. Looking for ways to minimize this threat is an absolute no-brainer. Now YMMV, if you don't care at all about what all the software you have downloaded over 30+ years has collected and sold about you then good for you, most of those 30+ years would have involved desktop software which has far fewer data points to collect. When it comes to mobile devices and their apps they can, in theory, track our every movement and sell that data, I don't care for that and take whatever steps I can to thwart their efforts.

Don't do business with businesses you don't find trustworthy, simple as that. If tracking and privacy concern you to this degree, why would you want to do business with a company that given the chance, would sell you out? Why are you consuming the services of shady and/or unethical companies? And let's take this to the extreme you laid out. What if an app tracks my every movement? What are the tangible consequences?

PS - By making this statement I assume you mean that any dev that doesn't have their app listed on the Apple App store and using the Apple payment system needs to be "better". Thanks for making my point.

Yes, any dev that doesn't offer an App Store app (who is actually allowed to offer one) probably isn't all that great. In a future where sideloading exists, savvy devs would have their app available on both the App Store and through other sources.

 

[djphat2000]

While some of your analogies are misplaced, I think you'll find most of us who want Apple opened up don't disagree with your broader sentiment and wouldn't have an issue with the dominant console makers being forced to open up as well.

I think you will find I don't agree with opening up the consoles either. I'm just saying it has to be fair. I'm only seeing them target Apple. Again, as if you can't choose Google. Which provides all everyone is asking for in some manor or fashion. Consoles are total lock in. Microsoft buying up the developers of popular games seems to get a pass, but Apple can't have control over its ecosystem? I mean they did build it, and didn't prevent anyone else from creating their own. Just was successful at it. I'm not in favor of punishing that.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Are you saying that the browser made iOS revolutionary?

Yes. Safari on iPhone was a massive leap forward for mobile browsing. How is it not a core component of iOS? It predates the App Store, the front facing camera, copy and paste... it has been part of the iPhone since day one. Why should Apple be forced to allow alternatives to a core part of their product? Unlike the App Store or IAP, which were introduced after the iPhone launched, I don't see how one can argue that keeping iOS WebKit only is illegal tying when it was always part of the iPhone as a headline feature.

 

[djphat2000]

Don't do business with businesses you don't find trustworthy, simple as that. If tracking and privacy concern you to this degree, why would you want to do business with a company that given the chance, would sell you out? Why are you consuming the services of shady and/or unethical companies? And let's take this to the extreme you laid out. What if an app tracks my every movement? What are the tangible consequences?

Invasion of privacy. The government shouldn't know your whereabouts 24/7/365.25, why should any app?

Yes, any dev that doesn't offer an App Store app (who is actually allowed to offer one) probably isn't all that great.

Thanks, now I'm out an app... Or more...

In a future where sideloading exists, savvy devs would have their app available on both the App Store and through other sources.

Except they will not. Since they are complaining that they want to offer you the store and the apps directly. IF they did still have it in the Appstore, they will want to advertise to you that it's cheaper in their store... Which, no physical store has to deal with. Why should you in a digital store?

 

[djphat2000]

Are you saying that the browser made iOS revolutionary?

partially yes. Remember, internet communicator, iPod, phone. All one device!!
Browsers sucked big time back then. This was a full web browser (minus Flash!) on a phone. It was a big deal.

 

[icanhazmac]

What if an app tracks my every movement? What are the tangible consequences?

If that is your true feeling then you obviously don't care at all about privacy and cannot be reasoned with on this topic.

If your car insurance company tracks your every movement:
They can catch you speeding and increase your rates.

If your health insurance app tracks your every movement:
They might find you eat at McDonald's twice a day and raise your rates or drop you for unhealthy life choices.

etc.

I assume you also don't care if your phones camera is on 24/7 or if your phone is feeding audio to every app you have?

 

[ct2k7]

Yes. Safari on iPhone was a massive leap forward for mobile browsing. How is it not a core component of iOS? It predates the App Store, the front facing camera, copy and paste... it has been part of the iPhone since day one. Why should Apple be forced to allow alternatives to a core part of their product? Unlike the App Store or IAP, which were introduced after the iPhone launched, I don't see how one can argue that keeping iOS WebKit only is illegal tying when it was always part of the iPhone as a headline feature.

You do realise that phones had browsers before iPhone and even iPod Touch… right? If you ask most people why they buy iPhones or iOS devices nowadays, “browser” is not really high on that list.

You also have not explained to me how either WebKit or Safari are part of the core OS.

Apple were the first to push mobile web apps, simply because mobile applications were not the direction Apple chose at the time.

As to what Apple are doing, well.. WebKit/Safari doesn’t have the best reputation, and that’s for a reason.

So I believe that iOS should allow different JavaScript interpreters? Yes. Do I believe that there should be other browser engines available? Yes. Do I believe that we should be free to choose what we want to use? Yes.

You may ask why I don’t use Android and that’s a valid question to ask. I don’t believe Android offers the experience I’m after, and that is highly dependent on the device.

Do I want iOS to become a richer and more mature ecosystem? Yes.

 

[ct2k7]

partially yes. Remember, internet communicator, iPod, phone. All one device!!
Browsers sucked big time back then. This was a full web browser (minus Flash!) on a phone. It was a big deal.

Actually Safari on iPhoneOS, and even on iPod Touch wasn’t that great, it sucked less, but it still sucked.

A lot of my experience is from prior to iOS, using flip phones and Sony Walkman phones, which had featureful browsers.

 

[vipergts2207]

I think you will find I don't agree with opening up the consoles either. I'm just saying it has to be fair. I'm only seeing them target Apple. Again, as if you can't choose Google. Which provides all everyone is asking for in some manor or fashion. Consoles are total lock in. Microsoft buying up the developers of popular games seems to get a pass, but Apple can't have control over its ecosystem? I mean they did build it, and didn't prevent anyone else from creating their own. Just was successful at it. I'm not in favor of punishing that.

Seems kind of odd to support your argument with another argument that you actually disagree with, but ok.

Invasion of privacy. The government shouldn't know your whereabouts 24/7/365.25, why should any app?

What's the consequence of this invasion of privacy? And who said anything about the government? Simply don't download government apps.

Thanks, now I'm out an app... Or more...

Find a replacement app on the App Store. And stop supporting businesses who would like to sell you out, given the opportunity.

Except they will not. Since they are complaining that they want to offer you the store and the apps directly. IF they did still have it in the Appstore, they will want to advertise to you that it's cheaper in their store... Which, no physical store has to deal with. Why should you in a digital store?

Actually if I buy a game at a physical retailer, the developer is allowed to include their own advertising literature inside with the game. Why should the App Store be any different?

 

[d686546s]

Not about me agreeing with or not. If it's not fair its not fair. You have to apply the law equally.
If Apple was to lose in this scenario. Why should the console makers not also have to comply?

Yes the law must apply equally but consoles and smartphones are not the same -- whether in purpose, use, market reach or the importance they have for people to be part of society -- and the law has plenty of room to treat related but dissimilar things differently.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Apple bring Apple they could just sell the ability to side load as a $20 add on.