Why does anyone oppose third-party app stores?

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Being in the EU, I have come to see the following after we've gotten access to alternative app stores:

1. The majority of consumers can find all the apps they want in Apple's App Store and thus have no incentive to look elsewhere.
2. The majority of consumers don't grasp what alternative app stores are and thus won't even look into them. Or they'll worry that they're breaking their iPhones, etc.
3. Many think they can't use an alt. app store next to Apple's App Store so they stick with the latter.
4. Only "nerds" and professionals that rely on very specific apps that aren't available through the App Store will go through the steps to figure out how alt. stores work and use them. So really just niche users and nerds/gamers/coders/highly "tech-literate" users.
5. No part of post-side-loading iOS forces or pushes users to do anything. The only thing we all got was some new terms that were presented after updating. They quickly went through the options and what to do if the user wanted to change anything. Very unobtrusive and neutral language that neither favored sticking with Apple or bringing in alt. app stores. However, I'm convinced most didn't care to read through it and just swiped through it to get back into their iPhones.
6. Both private and publicly funded (government/consumer rights) "media" have completely ignored this change in iOS. No pamphlets, no articles, no news, (at large) nothing on how or why one would use alt. app stores.

In the end, alt. app stores will barely make a dent in Apple's App Store earnings. The average consumer trusts Apple and will default to what's convenient and familiar.

But alt. app stores will let users (theoretically) use their iPhones (aka their property) as they wish to even against Apple's ideas. We own these computers so that's the least they can let us do with them without having to jailbreak them and void warranty.

I really don't see the harm. And in practice next to nobody will use them so it's almost a pointless change (albeit a very important one for consumer rights and not something that should be reverted!).

But I still have to ask

-Would any of you willingly accept if the next macOS update deleted all your non- (Mac) App Store apps and Apple only allowed App Store apps to run on your Mac moving forward with no exceptions? If App Store-only is necessary and superior on iPhone, why is it not necessary and superior on Macs?

 

[Nudelpalm]

1. I want a one-stop shop for apps, I don’t want to hassle with multiple app stores.
2. No company is perfect when it comes to security, but I’d prefer to share my information with as few parties as possible (also why I’m 100% invested in apple software and services and don’t use Google for emails or Dropbox storage anymore)
3. Being the informal IT-support for my extended family, it’ll just give me more questions to answer and/or more crap to fix
4. I don’t buy the “it’s better for competition”-crap. The prices won’t go down without any other sacrifices (like security or usability)

 

[surferfb]

-Would any of you willingly accept if the next macOS update deleted all your non- (Mac) App Store apps and Apple only allowed App Store apps to run on your Mac moving forward with no exceptions?

Yes, I would. While I do have Mac apps that are non-App Store, I’m confident I could find App Store equivalents, even if the developers of the apps I use decided not to move to the App Store.

If App Store-only is necessary and superior on iPhone, why is it not necessary and superior on Macs?

I’d argue App Store only is actually superior on Mac for the vast majority of users. If you were around in the late 90s-early 2000s you saw what a cesspool of malware Windows was - it would have been much superior for users if there had been a trusted place to download software. Just because the Mac isn’t a large enough target for the bad guys to spend specific resources writing malware for doesn’t mean it’s an inherently safe computing paradigm.

As to why Apple allows it on Mac, Mac software predates the internet and digital distribution of apps. It’s much more difficult to take something away than to never offer it in the first place. But I’m confident that if Apple was introducing the Mac today, they’d follow the same App Store only paradigm. Not because they’re greedy, Tim Cook is a bean counter, or they’re trying to stifle completion, but because it’s actually a better model for most of their users, even if power users like us are inconvenienced.

 

[Shirasaki]

As mentioned this topic has been discussed ad nauseam before in multiple threads. All I want to say now is EU has forced apple hands to allow alternative App Store. We will see how it goes and how far it can push the competition, the potential spread of malware on iOS and more in 2025 and beyond.
Maybe this experiment becomes a huge success, and many more countries jump on board to follow suite (US will not be part of it I am very certain). Maybe this experiment leads to complete disaster, in which case EU users will bite the dust and rest just see how Apple take care of this mess or finally have the ball to pull out of EU once and for all, much to the satisfaction of most US users (see? I TOLD YOU).

 

[Ctrlos]

The issue I think for a lot of people is legacy support. It's all very well saying the Mac is an open platform but the iPhone was never designed that way. You open it up and consumers who have come to trust the closed platform are suddenly at the mercy of scammers.

But the centralised app store model only works if the company in control of it has some degree of 'benevolence' to it's users. Not that Meta were trustworthy to begin with but look how quickly they've pivoted even more against their users best interests. In the name of business or politics. Apple only remains trustworthy as long as it suits them to do so. If they turned around and, say only let you access legacy purchases through an Apple One sub users would be in uproar but what else can you do?


People often point at the games industry as being closed off but ignore that physical media is still a thing and obtainable from a variety of retailers. The App Store as a single storefront is a point of strength but it is simultaneously a point of weakness.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's all very well saying the Mac is an open platform but the iPhone was never designed that way. You open it up and consumers who have come to trust the closed platform are suddenly at the mercy of scammers.

We seem to have to refute this inaccurate point in every one of these threads

Sandboxing works wonderfully to assuage these concerns, just like with macOS apps

 

[TracerAnalog]

The point(s) of objecting to external potentially less secure app stores has been discussed in these forums many times. For me the biggest concern is that there is a new vector for nefarious apps to get on people's phones. It will not be on 'my' phone, but it might be on 'your' phone. It might be a Trojan horse app that syphons off data from 'your' phone that affects 'me', like my bank account, my phone number, my appointments with you, my private conversations with you. I do not know how clever, aware or safety conscious you are, so... I'm worried. On PC you need a virus scanner, a cookie blocker, a firewall and a VPN to be secure these days, but for mobile... there is not a lot that most people can and will do to protect their phone. For example: clever AI bots might impersonate you with all the info they glance of your phone, and fool me.
Apple (and Google) can build in lots of security in their OS, but they can't prevent people from being sloppy with their security. External stores seem to make this easier for hackers.
Counterpoint: you don't want any ONE company to control everything on your device, and a free market generally does improve the option for customers... Also Apple and Google will want to protect their ecosystem against hackers, so I hope my concerns are overrated.

 

[ThailandToo]

Let me offer 2 scenarios to help...

Scenanio 1: instead of renting some movie, you want to own it. What do you do now to own a movie? You might go to a single store like Amazon and pay whatever price Amazon wants for that movie. Done. Easy. One stop. Convenient. As secure as you perceive an Amazon transaction can be. Etc.

OR, you might hit- say google shopping- to quickly search MANY "stores" for the movie, discover that it costs $10 less at Target/Best Buy/Walmart/<other> and consider buying it there and saving $10. You would be forgoing Amazon store "security" for Target/Best Buy/Walmart/<other> store "security." But otherwise the transaction would feel mostly the same and the end result would be that you own the very same movie: you just paid less for it.

That's a major benefit of robust competition. Competitors compete and one of the main cards they tend to play is offering the same thing for a lower price. We see this every week with Apple "sales" from Best Buy/Walmart/etc in the "deals" posts. Compare those sale prices to the very same product offered for sale in Apple's own store at the very same point in time to see that you can actually buy the very same Apple product for less money from <not Apple>.

As a buyer, you can then choose to buy it from Apple anyway and pay the extra for it... or you can choose to buy from Best Buy/Walmart/etc and pay less for it during this sale. That's up to you... but at least you have such competitive choices.

Scenario 2: The movie you definitely want to buy is available. Your one-and-only general goto for movie purchases- let's say that's Best Buy- doesn't stock it for some reason. Turns out Best Buy has some bug to pick with the studio and is protesting by not carrying Studios movies until their business conflict is resolved. You still want the movie now... not at some potential, unknown date in the future when Best Buy and Movie studio finally settle their differences. Do without until then? Or go get it right now at Target/Walmart/Amazon/<other store>?

Again, you have a choice here. You can side with Best Buy and just deny yourself a desired movie. Or you can leave the bickering to 2 businesses and get the movie you want right now. Neither Best Buy nor the studio care if you join the protest or not as one transaction is no influence whatsoever in a much bigger picture situation.

Now bring this closer: Let's buy a Mac app...

Scenario 1: Mac App is available on the Mac App Store for- say- $20. Google shopping shows you can get the very same app from Amazon for $18. Look, a "Bundle hunt" email just hit and it's available in the various 10 or so apps you can choose and own it for $5. The app is exactly the same app. Do you want to pay $20, $18 or $5 for it? Note in that last competitive offer, not only do you get it for lowest price, but up to 9 other apps too for added value. That's ANOTHER card competition plays: added value... sometimes used when they can't offer a price any lower but they can add additional value to the same price.

Common analogy: you can buy this Apple Computer today for <same price it is at Apple.com> but if you buy it from us we'll also throw in <other stuff you won't get by buying from Apple>. If you value any of those bonuses, they might entice you to buy from them with the added value you won't get from Apple. Again, that's a commonly played card when there is competition.

When there is no competition, no need for one seller to throw in any bonuses that just costs them extra money to include.

Scenario 2: You want an app NOT available in the Mac App Store but definitely runs on Mac. Is that a "too bad" or can you just go get it from wherever it is available? The app developer likely sells it on their own website. Maybe it's offered in a broader selection of software from Target or Best Buy than what one finds in the Mac App Store? Maybe Apple is in conflict with some software developer and refuses to offer the app through Apple retail? If you want that app anyway, you have the options- the choice- to go get it right now. Buy & download it from the developer or Best Buy, etc and enjoy the app today. Let Apple and the studio work out their business differences without it denying you software you want on a computer you own. It's not still Apple's computer anymore, it's yours. And their squabble is not your squabble. They may never resolve their differences. Do you want to deny yourself until never?

The step from this very flexibility we all enjoy with our Macs now to getting the same with iDevices is a SMALL step. Both are just computers. Apps are just software. The EU has now proven that there is not evil boogeymen that are going to wreak havoc. Where are those criminal syndicates that were going to exploit this? Where is the news of iDevice trojans & viruses running rampant in the EU because of this? The law took effect nearly 1 year ago. I don't believe all that certain destruction & evil wrongdoing resulting from its implementation could be so very patient to do nothing for nearly a year.

Else, buy what is mostly nonsense and either do without or pay only 1 price- whatever the 1 seller demands for apps- and 1 price- whatever the seller demands for IAPs too. But, but, but... the developers actually set the price. Yes, they do... and they set that price to factor in the great big cut Apple takes FIRST, even before the developer gets to take a bite themselves. If there is competition competing on price, they may not demand as much of a cut and developer could then sell through them and either make more themselves as (arguably more deserving?) creators of the app or offer a lower price to make it more attractive to other buyers.

And should the ONE retailer arbitrarily decide to double all prices today, if you want apps for the device you own and they are the ONLY source of apps, you have no choice but to pay double. If Best Buy decided to charge double Apple's price for the weekly MBair offerings, odds are very high they would get ZERO sales of MBairs. Why? Because buyers can turn to other competition to get a MBair for a lower price. What works well in competitive environments is being "best price", not highest.



Introduce competition though and that will be very likely to quickly change... as it does every single time when the one local retailer of anything in some remote town has new competition come into town. One of the easiest ways for new competitor to take some share from the long-established company store is by undercutting them on prices.

Again, look at weekly deals: Best Buy/Amazon/etc. do not have to go to the great trouble of building MBairs to sell some of them. They just undercut the makers own retail pricing of MBairs. As such, they get some share of buyers of MBairs. And their buyers get the product they want for LESS MONEY. The consumer side of capitalism is supposed to be about that: get as much as we can on EVERYTHING we buy for the money we spend. The system is broken when some of the buyers themselves are prioritizing maximizing for the seller over their own self-interest and that of their fellow consumers. Yet, watch the replies to this post and you'll see exactly that... as if some of us work for the seller and are not thinking as consumers.

Robust competition is always good for consumers. No competition is always bad for consumers.

Best post I have read on MR in years.

 

[Analog Kid]

These are gross generalizations, veiled insults and attempts to negate the valid opinions of others. All of post #5 is as insulting as calling people "fanboys".

I do not remember seeing a single post, in this thread or the others on the topic of alt-stores, that is as simple minded as you imply.

Yep, it's not reportable because it's not targeted at an individual but it's a clear ad hominem attack that adds no value to the discussion. Those are the kinds of posts that make it an easy choice on the ignore button-- if that's how people see the world they clearly are ignoring plenty.

I'd add my thoughts into the thread but I really have nothing to add on your initial post-- starting with the sentiment "this has been discussed ad nauseam".

If I were to add anything it would just be to say that I hate what's happened to the Settings app because of all this egalitarian nonsense.

 

[triptolemus]

Some folks are incorrectly mapping "third party App Stores" onto "iPhone is now less secure"

(completely untrue)

Wrong.

iPhone is less secure when, in order to run an existing app which migrates to a third-party app store, one must now install the third party app store when they otherwise would not. This may require placing one's payment information into yet another online service, thereby increasing risk of fraud, identity theft, etc. This ignores any risk the third party store app introduces to the device itself, which admittedly may be minimal, but it's not zero.

Your assertion is completely and easily debunked.

 

[macfacts]

But I still have to ask

-Would any of you willingly accept if the next macOS update deleted all your non- (Mac) App Store apps and Apple only allowed App Store apps to run on your Mac moving forward with no exceptions? If App Store-only is necessary and superior on iPhone, why is it not necessary and superior on Macs?

Mac and iPhone users are both apple customers but iPhone fans/users are more fanatical. I suspect iPhone fans are more younger users and mac fans are more older fans stuck with mac for work (and grew up being able to upgrade their devices). Tim has all the stats on their users cause they all have apple accounts.

 

[HiVolt]

Reason: Apple doesn't want the competition of third party app stores. A relatively modest amount of very easy money is at stake.

Fact: Apple doesn't own our devices. We should be able to put what we want on them like we can on our computers.

Google somehow survived by letting their phones allow sideloading and alternative stores. Apple will survive too.

 

[Lihp8270]

Your license for PvZ2 doesn't change - you would be as entitled to continue using it and your in-app purchases if EA moved to the Epic store as you are today.

Not a guarantee though.

I purchased every Destiny 2 expansion through Steam.

But if I wish to play via epic store I have to buy them again, if u wish to play on Playstation I’d Have to buy then again despite being able to just the same account.

If Bungie decide to no longer use steam, then I’d have to use a different store and have to repurchase expansions

 

[CMoore515]

I want to preface this by saying I'm not against 3rd party app stores. Quite the opposite. But I am against Governments filled with largely septuagenarian's and octogenarian's making laws where they don't understand the tech involved and honestly, what they're doing.

I personally, although I'm not against it, would never use a 3rd party store anymore. The "one-stop shop" that Apple provides is a big part of what drew me to Apple over a decade ago. I was largely sick of Android and that feeling of it being an inferior platform never went away, even though I've dabbled since I moved to Apple. I've also evolved into being the type that if I can't pay for or subscribe to something that's in the app store using Apple's payment processing, I just won't use it. Period.

While I understand that consumers aren't forced into enabling the option, I also provide tech support for my whole family, specifically my parents and remaining grandmother and I know them well enough to know that if the setting existed, they'd find a way to enable and for sure get into something that they wouldn't know how to handle.

 

[london_apple]

Whatever happened to giving consumers the choice to not have a choice?

I feel that the closed nature of the iOS is the perfect foil to Android, and the inability to sideload means that users are not given enough rope to hang themselves with. I am not seeing how forcing iOS to become more like Android is giving users more meaningful choice, when both platforms are now more similar to each other than ever.

To your first point about users not having to sideload if they don't want to, I am sharing with you a problem that people in my country have been grappling with for a couple of years now.

Android malware scam victims lost more than S$10 million in first half of 2023: Police

Over 750 cases of Android malware-related scams were reported in the first half of 2023, including 11 cases involving the unauthorised withdrawal of Central Provident Fund savings.

www.channelnewsasia.com

I don't think these scam victims planned to get cheated of their life savings to begin with, and I am not saying that iPhone users can never get scammed, but this particular scenario would not have been possible on iOS where Apple at least gets to vet the apps they allow. Even the "scam" apps discovered on iOS do little more than trick users into signing up for pricey subscriptions, which they can easily monitor and terminate via the App Store app, and there is still the option of requesting for a refund via Apple. This is what I mean by "making a choice to not have a choice". I give up the choice of accessing apps otherwise not available in the App Store (like emulators until recently) in exchange for the peace of mind that malicious apps have a harder time finding their way onto my device.

Second, I am not happy about the manner that the EU is forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem and make it available to third parties for free. I view this as a violation of Apple's property rights. Do you think that Nintendo would be happy if the government stepped in and forced them to allow the epic games store on the Nintendo Switch? Tim Sweeney did not invest any money in developing their own hardware or OS, yet they would be able to come in and host other developers' apps and charge them a cut (while also depriving Nintendo of their cut).

I don't hold any Apple shares, and Apple's woes is really none of my business; it just rubs me the wrong way, even if I may have nothing to lose here.

You see a similar trend with Facebook being made to offer a non-tracking ad-based option for users that is also effectively unpaid, which would significantly reduce the amount of revenue they bring in from EU users. In my opinion, EU regulation has effectively neutered the ability of their own local businesses to compete and this is really just protectionism by another name.

Third, the issue with the DMA is not that it's an attack on the App Store, but that's an attack on Apple's integration, and the App Store is simply the first casualty. You have also seen how iPhone mirroring isn't available in the EU because Apple has decided it's not worth the effort to make it DMA-compliant.

The EU is forcing Apple to modularise itself and give up everything that made it unique (and successful) in the first place, and I guess I just don't see how this will end well for both Apple and end users. People see third party app stores and the ability to swap default apps and think it's all roses and rainbows from here. They just don't know what it will cost them in the long run.

I agree with your sentiments here whole heartedly. I can't put my words together as eloquently as you did here on this particular topic, but the issues you pointed out, in additon to noting the stories of folks being scammed on Android devices... just make me feel like the alternatives will be ghetto. 😭😭😭

 

[AlixSPQR]

The above is just hyperbole.

Yes, but it's basically true.

 

[henkie]

Reason: Apple doesn't want the competition of third party app stores. A relatively modest amount of very easy money is at stake.

If Apple doesn't want/like something, most Apple fans don't want/like something... even if some such stuff is good for consumers (such as competition).

If Apple flipped and decided they liked third party stores (which is exactly what we all enjoy with Mac & Mac apps), the same people would flip right with Apple.

Most simply:

• Apple like? Apple fans like.
• Apple doesn’t like? Fans don't like.
• Apple flip flop? Fans flip flop.
• Something benefit Apple? Fans love.
• Something go against Apple? Fans hate. If "something" is sometimes the SAME thing- such as patents- they are loved, working right, "protecting IP" when they work FOR Apple and detested, "system is broken" and "need to be overhauled," etc when they work against.
• Mama likes Apple? Best Mama ever.
• Mama doesn't like Apple? Disown Mama.
• God likes Apple? The one true God.
• God doesn't like Apple? False God, "religion is overrated", etc. Wait: Apple isn’t God???
• Dog likes Apple? Man's best friend.
• Dog doesn't like Apple? "We should've got a cat."

It's practically a universal law. Some say it is the lost 11th commandment, handed down to Moses himself (but fans disagree, because it could only be the first commandment, above all others). I think someone is trying to start a GoFundMe to drop #10, move the remaining 9 down 1 and slot it in where it belongs.

This. The hypocrisy of some adamant Apple fans. Just ask in every situation “what if Samsung (or Google) would have done exactly the same? What would your reactions be?” E.g. What if Samsung (and not Apple) would have hold on to Lightning until Eu forced them to use usbc? Would you still defend Samsung and raise your fist against EU’s “over regulation”?

 

[JapanApple]

The EU is forcing Apple to modularise itself and give up everything that made it unique (and successful) in the first place, and I guess I just don't see how this will end well for both Apple and end users. People see third party app stores and the ability to swap default apps and think it's all roses and rainbows from here. They just don't know what it will cost them in the long run.

Agreeing statement.....That is a good point to argue. People don't know what they cost them in the long run

 

[casperes1996]

It’s only developers for whom one App Store might not be the best model.

There’s an argument it’s better for developers too. Yes, you don’t have competition on the store fees. But you have the full addressable market on one platform.

If I publish to the App Store I reach 100% of iPhone users. As of now that’s basically also true in the EU as alternate app stores have very little content and few apps still.

But if they become popular and we end up with five evenly popular app stores, publishing to any one of them only gives access to 20% of iPhone users. If you once again want to reach them all you need to learn the publishing process for all the platforms, pay all their fees whatever they may be and adhere to whatever rules they may have and keep up with them

 

[Abazigal]

People say this, but it hasn't been true on Android at all

What more likely happens is that Apple is forced to compete on terms on their App Store in order to retain the business from large influential Apps

That's a GOOD THING!!

Which raises the question - to what extent should Apple be capitulating to developers when they should be working for consumers instead?

The best example was when Epic tried to force android users into sideloading Fortnite onto their devices, which was itself a security concern. On iOS, Fortnite had always been available since day 1, since sideloading was simply not possible then. This is a scenario where a developer tried a stunt which was not in the users' best interests at all, all for their own financial benefit.

Another example would be ATT. While Facebook is in the iOS App Store, they will be subject to it. If I subscribe to an app via iTunes, I can track and manage it through the App Store as well. You don't get these benefits if Facebook were to say, release its own App Store for its own library of apps. Apps like WhatsApp could theoretically include settings which may normally not have been approved by Apple, all because they are now no longer subject to Apple's jurisdiction. Same with Netflix now requiring users to subscribe directly via their website. Good for Netflix (because it is now more inconvenient to cancel), less so for the end user.

The inconvenient truth is that what is good for the developer may not necessarily be good for the end user, and vice versa. You will find that our interests are not always aligned in this regard, much as I acknowledge that developers too are human beings with mouths to feed and bills to pay.

It should either be a flat fee or have some scaled up tiers if it makes sense to compensate Apple if additional costs are incurred due to the scale of a given App (I honestly can't think of such a situation, but it's reasonable to consider it)

I personally think the CTF makes sense when you realise that Apple won't have insight into how much money an app makes (but they should still be able to monitor the number of app downloads). If they were to do something like charge developers 12% or 27% of app revenue for apps sold outside of the iOS App Store, the challenge would be in calculating how much to collect. How would Apple know if a developer is deliberately underdeclaring their earnings without resorting to costly audits?

If you have another solution that would not be too cumbersome for Apple to administer, I am all ears.

On macOS we call that “installing software”



I did it twice this morning. It was a very edgy and “dangerous” morning

I will also say from personal experience that I have way fewer apps installed on my Mac compared to my iOS devices, and needing to navigate to separate external websites in order to access them is probably one chief reason why. The other is well, a lot of iOS apps are available through the desktop browser (like banking or shopping apps), so managing apps on a PC isn't that much of a hassle yet.

When I want to restore my iPad, it's easy to just go into the App Store, view my list of purchased apps and tap on everything that I want to install. Then sit back and let the OS do its job. With my Mac, some apps come via the App Store (mostly my office apps, but also notability, pdf expert, telegram, 1blocker, things, infuse and ivory), the rest, I have to remember where I got them from (eg: Zoom, 4kvideodownloader, airbuddy, 1password, VLC and Teams). For the latter, the apps don't update themselves unless I open them first, I have had to purchase airbuddy more than once when I switched computers and couldn't locate my previous receipt that also contained my product key, and there are probably some apps which I used to use in the past, but just never got round to redownloading them.

It wasn't edgy or dangerous, it's more a one-off occurrence given how infrequently I upgrade my Macs, but it was more annoying than it had any right to be, IMO. Or maybe the convenience of iOS has made me complacent and not need to keep track of what apps I normally use.

-Would any of you willingly accept if the next macOS update deleted all your non- (Mac) App Store apps and Apple only allowed App Store apps to run on your Mac moving forward with no exceptions? If App Store-only is necessary and superior on iPhone, why is it not necessary and superior on Macs?

Because the iPhone started with the App Store, while on the Mac, it came after users were already accustomed to downloading their apps from websites, and Apple never tried to force the issue. And that is part of the reason why so few developers shun the Mac app store, because they don't need to go through it the same way they have to go through the iOS App Store.

As for my willingness, I guess it ultimately depends on whether I think Apple has sufficient leverage (and I don't think they do on the Mac front), and whether consumers are willing to put up with a certain degree of inconvenience in the short run as developers protest. The ideal scenario is that all developers end up moving their apps back into the Mac App Store. The reality is that some might, and some won't.

I guess I don't use that many apps that aren't available in the Mac app store that I could tolerate Apple going ahead with this. I can't speak for everyone else though.

 

[HDFan]

Do you want to pay $20, $18 or $5 for it?

I used to buy books for the Amazon Kindle app since they were often cheaper. No longer do that, partially because I don't like their app but mainly because I don't want to have to figure out where a book I purchased lives. I'll pay the $20 so everything is in Apple Books.

 

[Abazigal]

Agreeing statement.....That is a good point to argue. People don't know what they cost them in the long run

My suspicion is that in the long run, the DMA will flat out discourage tech companies from even setting up shop in the EU.

Right now, the EU probably feels like they have all the leverage in this situation. Companies like Apple and Meta are too heavily entrenched in their countries, and it would simply not be worth it for Apple to do a full withdrawal and not sell their products in the EU. Same for Facebook. Being made to offer non-tracking ads (and not offer a paid monthly plan similar to YouTube premium) will make the EU market a lot less profitable for Meta in the short term, and they will likely still stay because the parent company is so profitable that they can just make up for the shortfall via profits from other regions.

We have also seen iPhone mirroring not come to the EU, and I don't think this is Apple being petty. The feature does rely on tight integration between iOS and macOS (the very integration the DMA is actively trying to discourage), and Apple seems to think it's just not worth it to try and make it DMA-compliant (whatever that entails). Will we see more iOS / macOS / watchOS features not be made available in the EU?

There's even a laundry list of features that Apple is expected to open up to third parties. The way I read it, it sounds more like a list of features Apple will start to disable in their next major software update for the EU region.

Apple and EU Clash Over Digital Markets Act Interoperability Standards

The European Commission has published a preliminary document detailing the steps Apple must take to comply with its interoperability obligations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

www.iclarified.com

At the same time, Meta also announced that their latest AI model will not be released in the EU for the same reasons.

But what about some new up-and-coming tech company who goes on to become the next big thing in a couple of year's time, grows to a size that would make it come under the DMA, but decides that it's not worth their while to make their product offering DMA-compliant (because it would mean either neutering their product or extra resources have to be spent to create a fork specifically for said region), and they have the luxury of being able to skip the EU by virtue of not being available there at the time when the DMA was enacted?

That's the inherent limitations with regulation. You can only regulate what has been built, and what exists within your borders. Nothing more.

 

[P_Watt]

My suspicion is that in the long run, the DMA will flat out discourage tech companies from even setting up shop in the EU.

Right now, the EU probably feels like they have all the leverage in this situation. Companies like Apple and Meta are too heavily entrenched in their countries, and it would simply not be worth it for Apple to do a full withdrawal and not sell their products in the EU. Same for Facebook. Being made to offer non-tracking ads (and not offer a paid monthly plan similar to YouTube premium) will make the EU market a lot less profitable for Meta in the short term, and they will likely still stay because the parent company is so profitable that they can just make up for the shortfall via profits from other regions.

We have also seen iPhone mirroring not come to the EU, and I don't think this is Apple being petty. The feature does rely on tight integration between iOS and macOS (the very integration the DMA is actively trying to discourage), and Apple seems to think it's just not worth it to try and make it DMA-compliant (whatever that entails). Will we see more iOS / macOS / watchOS features not be made available in the EU?

There's even a laundry list of features that Apple is expected to open up to third parties. The way I read it, it sounds more like a list of features Apple will start to disable in their next major software update for the EU region.

Apple and EU Clash Over Digital Markets Act Interoperability Standards

The European Commission has published a preliminary document detailing the steps Apple must take to comply with its interoperability obligations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

www.iclarified.com

At the same time, Meta also announced that their latest AI model will not be released in the EU for the same reasons.

But what about some new up-and-coming tech company who goes on to become the next big thing in a couple of year's time, grows to a size that would make it come under the DMA, but decides that it's not worth their while to make their product offering DMA-compliant (because it would mean either neutering their product or extra resources have to be spent to create a fork specifically for said region), and they have the luxury of being able to skip the EU by virtue of not being available there at the time when the DMA was enacted?

That's the inherent limitations with regulation. You can only regulate what has been built, and what exists within your borders. Nothing more.

Big Tech now has a strong ally in Trump, and the threat of retaliation may force EU to back off from their crusade to castrate big US tech.

 

[surferfb]

This. The hypocrisy of some adamant Apple fans. Just ask in every situation “what if Samsung (or Google) would have done exactly the same? What would your reactions be?” E.g. What if Samsung (and not Apple) would have hold on to Lightning until Eu forced them to use usbc? Would you still defend Samsung and raise your fist against EU’s “over regulation”?

I would. The EU should not be concerning itself with what plugs consumer electronic devices use. They’re not engineers who should be designing products, they’re bureaucrats who thought standardizing on micro-USB was a good idea. They don’t know better, and we’re already running up against USB-C’s limitations with regards to device thinness.

Thin Is In

I see four possible futures regarding phones that are too thin for USB-C ports.

daringfireball.net

Declaring “thou shallt use USB-C” does nothing but restrict innovation. It’d be a bad idea if they said everyone had to use Lightening and it’s a bad idea saying everyone has to use USB-C. It’s not hypocrisy - it’s common sense.

 

[Andy_2341]

-Would any of you willingly accept if the next macOS update deleted all your non- (Mac) App Store apps and Apple only allowed App Store apps to run on your Mac moving forward with no exceptions? If App Store-only is necessary and superior on iPhone, why is it not necessary and superior on Macs?

I would not because the Mac App Store sucks compared to the iOS App store. I do think it's cool that I can download stuff like Whisky and Steam (Windows Version) to be able to play more games. However, if the Mac App Store had more stuff natively, including basic stuff like Google Docs and Slides, I would be okay with just using it for 90% of things. The amount of stuff I need that is missing is what makes it less desirable on Mac

This is also why the App Store-only setup is simpler on iPhone. Unless you need to do very particular things with your phone that require apps that aren't in the app store, then it doesn't really help to be able to download from another source. Most everything I need on a phone is in the app store, including Google Docs. I don't like using Docs on my phone, but it isn't impossible. The mobile platform isn't as efficient as a Mac at doing bigger things where another app source would be more useful. Just my $0.02