Not at all. All apps is forced to use the sandbox.
It will be forced to. And if Mac removed the ability to install apps outside the store, it will be killed as developers would abandon the Mac.
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.
Upcoming EU Sideloading Bill Would 'Cripple the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Expect, Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I claimed the constitution can be amended and the facts support my statement. Your argument seems to be "it happened but rarely enough that it doesn't matter, so I will ignore the facts": that's not "common sense" but, well, trying to ignore the facts which contradict your arguments.
The government is limited by the current laws, the most important being the constitution, but a country can change its laws, including the constitution. This also is not up for debate, because constitutional amendments actually happened.
To be an "overreach of power by the EU", the EU should be doing something their own laws prohibit. If not, it's not an overreach of power, it's simply exercising legitimate power.
I understand the laws of the US might prohibit exercising those powers, but the laws of the US are irrelevant when evaluating whether another government in another jurisdiction is "overreaching".
By your logic, the US could be accused of murder for legal executions of convicted felons sentenced to death since in the EU the death penalty is illegal... it's obviously not how it works.
I'm very much understanding how the EU does not favor large businesses. In fact that law is basically forbidding it from happening. The sky is the limit in the EU. Don't dare break past that.
I for one don't like how they limit. Tax more, not force changes to a companies product that was perfectly legal a day ago, but now they make too much and are too large? So change it up so others can play. I'm not in favor of this way at all. Not to mention they don't understand the underling technology. But, want to tell a tech company how to make this all work?
It's the job of our legislators (all of them, everywhere) to make rules/laws/regulations that benefits the people (in the US, Business are people too my friend). They should have a clue about what they are doing when making these laws. And if your going to be stubborn about having Apple change how it does things. Be prepared for them to say "you know what, I'm out". Or they just turn off the store and sell your citizens and iOS device that's pretty bare.
It's not. The claim is baseless. They can carry on to sell as many iPhones, apps and subscriptions as they want and become as big as they can. They'll only be subject to some moderate obligations on the conduct of their business.
So are the 10000 business users established in the Union that seek to offer their products and services through the core platform service and face barriers set up by platform operators that restrict their access to end users.
What the law does: Balance out the interests of the 10000+ „small people“ against the interests of one huge corporation (Apple/iTunes).
...and lose billions of revenue and earnings by doing so. I believe it when I see it.
Apple wouldn‘t have a smartphone product or market share to speak of (today), were it not for the existence and availability of third-party native apps on mobile devices. Yes, the original 1st gen iPhone may have been a moderate success without such apps in its first year, due to its superior handling and rendering of internet sites. But it would have stood no chance against Android, if Android had had apps and iPhone hadn‘t.
Last edited:
But the Google Play store launched after Apple introduced the App Store. So who says that apps on phones would ever be normalized without Apple?
Apple's strategy gave independent developers a nearly risk-free and financially affordable way of developing for a very popular platform. $99/year for libraries and tech support and 15%/30% after the fact sales. With no worry about distribution costs, accounting, etc, etc, etc.
We will never know how the success of Apple vs Android may have developed in a alternate universe where Apple didn't have an app store.
Just becomes it came out first (by ~6 months) doesn't mean that it is 'apple's model'.
Heck, apple wasn't even the first with a mobile store, I-mode was in 1999
Last edited:
It‘s a more or less logical evolution, once you have the processing power in mobile devices.
And given that Android is based on Linux, app‘s are a no-brainer.
I‘ve bought mobile apps for mobile phones in 2003.
Absolutely. Like a prison gives its prisoners affordable accommodation and food/meals. Now, comparing Apple‘s walled garden to a prison is certainly hyperbole. But the economics of the market are - not literally or legally, but quite practically - forcing many developers to develop for Apple‘s platform (and Android/Google Play). It‘s a platform that can‘t easily be ignored.
It‘s not hard to imagine.
Just look at Microsoft - and they even had a marketplace for Windows phone apps. As well as great hardware devices from Nokia & co. and a great smartphone OS.
Oh, and BlackBerry, too.
Yes, and will continue to pay regardless of what payment option they choose. They will also pay the fees for in app purchases regardless of payment method. This isn’t rocket science.
If we want to split hairs, the first digitial app store was in 1992. DoCoMo's app store was not the same as Apple's, the distribution model was different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-mode
Me as well...my first flip phone had vz navigator. But the catalog was extremely limited and was nothing like apples integrated app store for IOS.
That's a stupid analogy. Prison is a forced sentence, while Apples' app store is strictly opt-in and the terms are known to the dev prior to enrollment.
Glad you acknowledged the flaw in your analogy. Nobody is forcing a dev to sign up for the app store.
One can build a sci-fi case around what didn't happen. Sure.
Microsoft and Blackberry followed Apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_store
Well they did carry on, and now they need to be regulated. Some moderate obligations..... Really?
Through their (Apple's) device.. As a store owner/operator in the EU, do you have to sell everyone else's products in said store? Can you pick what you wish to sell, and charge how much you wish on top?
By forcing a huge corporation to change how it's software/hardware works. Ignoring better arguments against doing so by the maker of said devices. And, even if they did do what they ask. They would most likely solve zero problems for all this trouble.
Same could be said for many things Apple has done. Like I said before. Apple could sell you a device with an OS and that's it. You pick a browser or two or 3 at first boot. Everything else you side load. Charge more for it while they are at it. Call it the euro sidestep. Or you pick standard (normal) during first boot and get the iOS as it has always been.
Android copied iPhone if I remember correctly. In any event, Chicken or the Egg? In this exact instance, we know the iPhone came first. Moderate success? Yeah, ok. It was at the time the best phone, iPod and internet communication device you could get.
And that got i-mode where exactly? If anything it just proves that having 3rd party apps doesn't really make that much of a difference if the product sucks to begin with.
1999-2026 seems like a good run, for all we know, the App Store might become more restrictive and apps will dye out in favour of web apps (well, Safari mobile is just crap for PWAs and any real mobile app use. That feels intentional)
Does this company fold in the future?
If your saying to 2022, I've worked longer at one company than that. And Apple has been around since the late 70's. That's a good run.
I don't think NTT DoCoMo is going anywhere?
The App Store wasn't invented with Apple being around from the 70s.
It's not speculative fiction to say that the breath of available apps is essential to having a successful premium smartphone offering.
I think we can agree that Apple successfully leveraged their first-mover advantage to become a successful device manufacturer and app store operator.
Just sell AAPL shares and buy some app developers instead. Problem solved.
Most are to sell what they want, at the prices they chose.
Some stores are indeed regulated in what they have to sell, at what prices and to whom.
Pharmacies and public transport operators being prime examples. Also banks.
A lot of Apple's arguments are FUD. Such as the security argument, because you can sideload today. They've just made it as inconvenient as they could.
There's a very valid argument that malware and malfunctions from third-party sourced app may negatively attributed to Apple themselves - but that has to be weighed against the benefits of allowing
Like I said before: It doesn't matter. The DMA covers operating systems and marketplaces - the somewhat abstract concept of a core platform. If enough users sign up to that "platform", the mere offering of another OS - or "mode" that no normal person will use won't fulfil the requirements of said law. The attempt at circumvention isn't going to succeed.
I think we've had that discussion before. Yes, the press hype huge - but that was about it. The 1st gen iPhone was a moderate success at best.
First, most of the world (or even the US, given its limited carrier support) didn't have access to the 1st gen iPhone.
Second: When was the last time Apple doubled store capacity for a product of theirs simultaneously slashed within less than 3 months of its initial release? Doesn't sound like a resounding success.
Third... when and why did Apple feel compelled to pre-announce availability of an SDK, before having it ready to go? They also did that in October of 2007. Pre-empting . That promised applications running on a phone, not being limited to web apps.
There's no way in the world that Apple didn't know that Google would come out with "a full SDK" in October of 2007.
Apple - correctly - deduced that they wouldn't have a competitive product against Android, with iOS being limited to web apps and not offering native third-party apps. So they took the necessary steps and pre-empted Google's unveiling Android by a mere days.
Yes where your finances, health, etc are on the line there should be regulation. There should be regulation that protects the consumer against a myriad of things in modern society. This is a crap ruling.
In your opinion, they are fud. Yes, their arguments can be dismissed, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.
There is little benefit to allowing sideloading, imo.
True, the law is the law and the EU will reap what it sows.
Pretty much a great success. No?
Yes, they were glued to AT&T.
Preempting is a thing. Apple was out there first and not surprisingly the most successful to date.
For a new market entrant, yes. The model was still heavily outsold by things like Nokia N95.
Let's put it this way:
The 1st gen iPhone wasn't the game changer some make it out to be.
The real game changer was the SDK and App Store that enabled developers to develop apps - and the iPhone to take off (coinciding with the release of the 3G and expanded country/carrier support). Not only the iPhone, but the whole smartphone market/industry. And that's what killed Nokia and Microsoft's Windows Phone: Availability of apps.
And that's as true today as it was back then:
The App ecosystem is key.
Quoting again from above:
That's no viable course of action.
? Nobody will buy 500€ or 1000€ smartphones if they can't download and install native apps on them.
? It will cost Apple billions of dollars in revenue and earnings, and much valuable market share. Shareholders are not going to like it.
And it isn't a credible or effective threat in trying to force lawmakers' hands by public uproar either. By shutting down the App Store in the EU, Apple would be facing an uphill battle about public opinion that they can't win.
- There's very few people championing "free enterprise" and unregulated markets. A broad majority supports actively regulating big IT/tech companies (probably even more if these companies are American or British).
- Outside for a of the circles of a few Apple fanboys (and -girls), Apple doesn't enjoy great brand loyalty in the smartphone market. Most phone users are either indifferent about brand or consider Apple "as having almost extortionate prices but darn well-made products". That user experience will be severely compromised by shutting down the App Store. Or they are invested in the "ecosystem" - the very ecosystem that would be taken away from them.
- And neither will EU consumers keep buying Apple's products out of patriotism/for their American origin over, say, Korean or Taiwanese products (though Chinese products may be seen somewhat more critically).
Last edited: