It's really easy, if you side load, you can't use any Apple API CALLS from within your App, so if you side load it's gotta be your OWN RAW PURE CODE.
Well, side loading doesn't mean a free-for-all, Apple could still require that all apps need to be signed by Apple before they can run on iOS devices. So, Apple could create a set of "transactional" API's that developers are required to use before any app can be installed regardless of distribution origin. This would allow developers to create their own transaction system either through a third party App Store or directly from their own website. Developers would still be required to register with Apple's Developer program so that apps can be verified and signed. To make up for lost revenue, Apple could create a tiered developer subscription model or just start charging for their developer tools. This allows apps to remain to be tied to developer accounts, so developers of any nefarious apps could have their accounts and apps disabled. This would end up being a worldwide change, not just EU.
However, the point is not that it could be possible, the point is, when and where do hardware vendors no longer have the right to create the devices they want to make? What it comes down to, is crippling a "superior" business model to enable less competent competitors to play on a level field rather than doing their own leg work. It is not Apple's fault that no other company can compete with Google's Android. The problem is, the EU doesn't want more competition, they want less. They want an homogenized market where no one is allowed to innovate unless everyone can join in. (Actually, smaller companies are allowed to innovate, while larger companies are forced to stagnate.)
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
If it is illegal, the EU wouldn't need to create NEW regulations. In reality, it's legal under current regulation and will remain legal for companies that are under the NEW market cap. It's essentially double-talk. They use the term "anticompetitive" but know that forcing ALL companies to follow the regulation would be a gigantic blunder.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
If it is illegal, the EU wouldn't need to create NEW regulations. In reality, it's legal under current regulation and will remain legal for companies that are under the NEW market cap. It's essentially double-talk. They use the term "anticompetitive" but know that forcing ALL companies to follow the regulation would be a gigantic blunder.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
Google has never really been out of the EU crosshairs for one reason or another.
Just like in these current proposals, smaller fish get more leeway. Gatekeeper status changes things.
Rules and regulations aren't set in stone. They come and go. They get revised. This particular proposal has been brewing for a long while and in parallel to industry consultation and investigations.
Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
What Apple should do is to sell EU iPhones and EU iPads. These EU iOS devices would come with a USB C port and a version of iOS that adheres to the EU DMA. And not only would they only be available in the EU, it's the only iPhones and iPads that are available in the EU. The US iPhones will still work in the EU as the EU iPhones will work in the US, but EU citizens would have to purchase the much more secure US version in a non EU country and smuggle them home, if they want to avoid customs and VAT. This way the EU consumers can choose what's best for them.
I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.
Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.
The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.
Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US.
Your post is well-thought and constructive, and may even be how Apple will proceed, but your post is predicated on the idea that Apple will give in to the EU and perhaps should also give in to every other jurisdiction that demands to micromanage small components of iOS. I'm not sure that I agree that Apple should (or will) capitulate. We could end up with a different phone or different OS for every country in the world, if Apple takes this route. For example, the iPhone sold in the EU may come with a version of iMessage that is compatible with Android phones, but iPhones sold in North America may not be similarly compatible. I don't think Apple wants its products fractionalized like this.
Several people have opined that Apple should build a "switch" that lets users enable side-loading. Well, maybe they are right, and that switch could simply be letting users choose between Android and iOS. That's a "switch", right? Instead of switching between "iOS1 and iOS2" it is switching between "iOS and Android." What's the difference? It's a "switch."
But you are certainly right that the EU can't impose its rules on any other jurisdiction. They could end up being big losers in this fight, if Apple decides to fight. But I don't see Tim Cook doing much fighting, to be honest. Steve Jobs was ready to "go nuclear" when it was called for.
A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?
Without that revenue Apple will have to change it's business models. Which means developer tools and interface access will be financed like on other platforms.
Before the App Store, the annual fee for the developer program started at $499 and went up to, I believe, $1,499. Mac OS X upgrades also cost $129. People really believe they’re going to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
Is it that much? I thought it was $99 and $299 for the two different developer programs.
It used to be, before the App Store. There were multiple tiers. I forgot about the $3,499 tier, but a chunk of that was due to the WWDC ticket included.
Actually, since Apple made the switch to NeXTSTEP/OS X, I believe the developer tools (Xcode) have always been available for free. Initially, one may have needed a free developer account that really gave you nothing but access to Xcode, but I don't think there was ever a time when one couldn't get Xcode for free. (I think there was also a brief period when it wasn't yet called Xcode but may have still used the old names, but I can't clearly recall the chronology of that, whether that was only with the OS X developer releases, or also after.)
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
If it is illegal, the EU wouldn't need to create NEW regulations. In reality, it's legal under current regulation and will remain legal for companies that are under the NEW market cap. It's essentially double-talk. They use the term "anticompetitive" but know that forcing ALL companies to follow the regulation would be a gigantic blunder.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
Google has never really been out of the EU crosshairs for one reason or another.
Just like in these current proposals, smaller fish get more leeway. Gatekeeper status changes things.
Rules and regulations aren't set in stone. They come and go. They get revised. This particular proposal has been brewing for a long while and in parallel to industry consultation and investigations.
Industry consultation = conjecture from billion/trillion dollar software developers.
Investigations = they didn't come up with anything legally notable but they're going to proceed anyway.
Notice that the EU hasn't specified what benefits they expect to see as a result of forced side loading. Like I pointed out earlier, the EU has never proven that software price, quality, quantity or customer satisfaction with iOS is worse than other operating systems with 3rd party stores. They can't claim those things will improve because they're already just as good as other operating systems. And Apple has pointed out that the EU has willfully ignored that privacy/security are, in fact, competitive features. In other words, they're claiming to be focused on improving competition while also deliberately knee-capping Apple's competitive ability.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
So do you think a developer simply raising their price in the Apple App store to make up for the commission and then selling that same app in their own store (or another third party app store) at the same price it was selling for in the Apple App Store before they raised the price, is some how good for the consumers because they now have a "choice" to pay the same price in another app store? What the Hell difference does it make whether the consumers only had the choice to pay $X for an app in the Apple App Store and having a "choice" to pay $X+$ in the Apple App Store and paying $X in another app store? All this did was to shift more money into the pockets of big developers that can afford to operate their own app stores and take it away from the pockets of the company that invested in the RD to create, improve and the cost to maintain the platform the third party app stores are profiting from. Will third party app stores be forced to host free apps? Over 90% of apps in the Apple app Store are free.
Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store) when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?
You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.
And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.
It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie. It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.
And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".
With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source.
Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
"What the hell difference does it make?"
LOL. It makes a hell of a difference!
It doesn't matter how many apps are 'free' on the Spp Store. It's still a multi billion dollar revenue stream.
I am under no misconceptions and neither are the people behind the DMA.
No one is talking about rent free IP either.
Apple chose a model that depends on commerce with the 'outside' world. There are external rules and regulations in that world.
Apple could make everything first party and see how things go. It could pull out of the EU. It could comply with the proposals. There are choices.
Yes choice and competition are good for consumers. But you have the misconception that this is about consumer "choice" and that there will be more "competition" that will be good for the consumers.
More choices and more competition are generally not good for the developers. They are the ones that have to deal with more competition, by lowering their prices or making their products better than their competitors thus making less profits off the consumers. So why are there so many big developers that makes their profit selling to consumers, favoring this DMA?
Take this ..
Suppose there's only Walmart from which the maker of a popular product can sell to consumers. Along comes Target, so that product maker switches from Walmart to Target and still charges the same price. Where is the consumer's choice? Where is the competition? The consumers still only have one choice from where they can purchase the product and at the same price. What happened to the choice of the consumers that wants buy that product from Walmart? All that happened was that the profit from selling the product shifted from Walmart to Target. But government can not and should not, pass laws that forces product makers to sell to both stores. Even if it results in more choices for the consumers.
Suppose there are Walmart's and Target's and the product maker sold the product at both stores at the same price. All else being equal, is the choice of where to buy the product from at the same price, of any benefit for the consumers? Maybe you detest Walmart for making so much money, so for you, having the choice to buy that same product from a less profitable Target, at the same price, was good for you. But government shouldn't be pasting laws to punish Walmart, to please people like you. You might not be the average consumer or the consumer that matters.
Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker opens their own store that only sells their own products. The products are not available in any other stores. From a consumer point of view, how is that any different that when the same products at the same price, were only available at Walmart? Would you consider that the store has a "monopoly" on their own products? Should the government step in and force the product maker to sell their products at other stores, so that consumers have more choices from which to buy the products at the same price?
What you have to consider here with app stores is that the developers have a monopoly with their apps and they set the price. There is no true competition for their apps, that benefit the consumers. True competition would only occur with the wholesale business model, where the app stores buys the apps from the developers at wholesale and then they set the price of the apps, to compete with other app stores for customers. So long as the developers can determine where their apps are sold and set the price of their apps, from the consumers point of view, choice and competition is only an illusion. Apps stores competing with other app stores by lowering their commission does not mean the developers will pass on that savings to the consumers. They don't have to because they have a monopoly with their apps. And app stores can not lower the price of the apps that they are allow to sell.
Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker own store and down the road in the shadier part of town, there's a store that is selling an almost exact copy of the product for half the price. Is that competition? Is having that choice of buying almost the same product at half off, good for the consumers? Walmart can't do anything about it, it's not their product. And Walmart won't do anything about it, if the product maker wasn't selling that product at Walmart. They are not ones losing any sales.
The Apple App Store is not a consumer product. iOS is not a consumer product. Apple do not sell iOS to other mobile device venders and force them to only include the Apple App Store. The iOS devices are consumer products and consumers have dozens of choices with other mobile phones and tablets. The EU concern should be that the consumers choosing to buy iDevices, can only install apps from the Apple App Store. But only if the iDevice is a monopoly under anti-trust definition. The EU should not be concern with ..... 25% of consumers choosing to use iOS, can only get apps from the Apple App Store. When a consumer chooses to buy an iDevice, there is no other choice but to use iOS.
So should the EU force Apple to offer iOS to other mobile device makers so that consumers have more choices of devices, if they want to use iOS? Or so that consumers will benefit from Apple having more competition in the "iOS market"? After all, choices and competition is good for the consumers. Right?
No, this is about developers, specially large ones, having the choice to make more profit by eliminating any cost they face, when they sell their apps to iOS users. Apps that they have a monopoly on and they set the price, no matter which app store they are sold in. There is no guarantee what so ever that the consumers will benefit from this, with more choices or competition.
Are consumers that uses the much less secure Android, that don't care about having more app stores and have no need to side load, any better off than current iOS users, just because there are more choices in app stores and side loading on Android? Are apps any cheaper on Android, than the same or similar apps, on iOS? More choices might come at a cost that most iOS users might not want to pay. But developers don't care, it's not a cost that will affect their bottom line. The choice that benefit consumers is the choice to use Android devices and iDevices, because of their differences. Would eliminating or reducing Apple ability to compete with Android devices by offering a more secure mobile device, good for consumers? Would eliminating the differences between Android and iOS good for the consumers? It sure as Hell will be for the large developers, hackers and scammers.
EU imposed its rules on Microsoft with windows media player just like china imposes rules on apple to sell in china, I think iCloud has to be hosted in China for Chinese phones Just like France had that headphone (or was it charger) rule with iPhones I think it should be a switch to allow side loading, if you turn it on, you get a message that your warranty will be voided, If a sideloaded app somehow damages your phone, why should apple be financially liable ?
Microsoft Windows is a true monopoly under any country's current anti-trust laws. There is no need to come up with new "anti-trust" laws, in order to impose regulations on Microsoft in regards to Windows.
China is a Communist country.
The headphone rule or charger rule in France do not involve any force changes to any of Apple's IP.
In the EU, warranties are regulated. I think it was Italy that enforces a two year minimum warranty on certain electronic items and Apple had to comply. There's is no way that the EU will allow Apple to void their warranty, because the consumer did something that the EU forced Apple to allow.
avon b7 said: Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
Nobody is debating the value of choice or competition. What is being debated is the EU's claims of anticompetitive behavior that would require something as draconian as forced side loading. Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior.
Has the EU established that iOS has higher prices than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower quality software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS offers less choice in software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower customer satisfaction than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No.
If all of those questions are 'No', then why does the EU think there is a problem that is significant enough to require forced side loading? The level of competition for pricing, quality, choice and customer satisfaction seems to be normal.
"Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior."
'being' the only store isn't anti-competitive.
Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
Under what current law?
Now don't make a fool of yourself by saying iOS is a "monopoly" and falls under current anti-trust laws. Not even the EU thinks that. Or the US Federal Judge that ruled against Epic, when they claimed the same.
What you mean to say is ......... Not allowing other stores to exist , will be. ..... But only if this DMA passes as written.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would compromise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
I like this EU move very much. You are afraid of sideloading? You will be able to stick to the App Store for almost all software! Small developers will continue to stay in the App Store and may sell in 3rd Party stores in addition. Some big players may leave the App Store – but if you did trust their software you should not have any problem with their stores. I would guess that all software will need to be signed by developer certificate to be obtained from Apple, so malware can we wiped remotely by Apple (what was also done with malware that made it into the App Store).
Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
What Apple should do is to sell EU iPhones and EU iPads. These EU iOS devices would come with a USB C port and a version of iOS that adheres to the EU DMA. And not only would they only be available in the EU, it's the only iPhones and iPads that are available in the EU. The US iPhones will still work in the EU as the EU iPhones will work in the US, but EU citizens would have to purchase the much more secure US version in a non EU country and smuggle them home, if they want to avoid customs and VAT. This way the EU consumers can choose what's best for them.
I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.
Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.
The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.
Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US.
Your post is well-thought and constructive, and may even be how Apple will proceed, but your post is predicated on the idea that Apple will give in to the EU and perhaps should also give in to every other jurisdiction that demands to micromanage small components of iOS. I'm not sure that I agree that Apple should (or will) capitulate. We could end up with a different phone or different OS for every country in the world, if Apple takes this route. For example, the iPhone sold in the EU may come with a version of iMessage that is compatible with Android phones, but iPhones sold in North America may not be similarly compatible. I don't think Apple wants its products fractionalized like this.
Several people have opined that Apple should build a "switch" that lets users enable side-loading. Well, maybe they are right, and that switch could simply be letting users choose between Android and iOS. That's a "switch", right? Instead of switching between "iOS1 and iOS2" it is switching between "iOS and Android." What's the difference? It's a "switch."
But you are certainly right that the EU can't impose its rules on any other jurisdiction. They could end up being big losers in this fight, if Apple decides to fight. But I don't see Tim Cook doing much fighting, to be honest. Steve Jobs was ready to "go nuclear" when it was called for.
A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?
I would be thrilled if your prediction of an AppStore-Free iPhone for the EU comes to be true. (Although the moniker "Pure" is never going to be used. Especially in Germany. Maybe "True", "Fun", "Absolute", or "Real.")
To answer your question, I think an iPhone without an App Store would still sell well. The original iPhone sure did, and it didn't have any App Store. As far as I can see, all the apps on my iPhone could be deleted because each app also has a web portal where I can get the same functionality using the web instead of an app. For example, my banking app and my network speed test app.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
If it is illegal, the EU wouldn't need to create NEW regulations. In reality, it's legal under current regulation and will remain legal for companies that are under the NEW market cap. It's essentially double-talk. They use the term "anticompetitive" but know that forcing ALL companies to follow the regulation would be a gigantic blunder.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
Google has never really been out of the EU crosshairs for one reason or another.
Just like in these current proposals, smaller fish get more leeway. Gatekeeper status changes things.
Rules and regulations aren't set in stone. They come and go. They get revised. This particular proposal has been brewing for a long while and in parallel to industry consultation and investigations.
Industry consultation = conjecture from billion/trillion dollar software developers.
Investigations = they didn't come up with anything legally notable but they're going to proceed anyway.
Notice that the EU hasn't specified what benefits they expect to see as a result of forced side loading. Like I pointed out earlier, the EU has never proven that software price, quality, quantity or customer satisfaction with iOS is worse than other operating systems with 3rd party stores. They can't claim those things will improve because they're already just as good as other operating systems. And Apple has pointed out that the EU has willfully ignored that privacy/security are, in fact, competitive features. In other words, they're claiming to be focused on improving competition while also deliberately knee-capping Apple's competitive ability.
All the affected parties had the option to participate in discussions almost two years ago. It was not limited in any way to EU businesses or citizens.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
The problem is if it’s possible to turn it on, it will be abused. Not to throw my parents under the bus, but the moment an app says “security update needed…. Go click this switch (to allow side loading) to download the latest version of Flash Player” I’ll loose 5 hours of my life and a lot of patience getting rid of malware ridden apps.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
The market cap is only relevant to gatekeeper status because it ensures that only the big 5 US tech (Meta, Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft) can ever qualify to be a gatekeeper.
Don't think for a second that the EU first came up with all the criteria needed to be a gatekeeper and then just by accident, only the 5 biggest US tech companies ended up being gatekeepers. The EU first determined who they wanted to be gatekeepers and then came up with the criteria needed to be a gatekeeper, to ensure that no other companies (specially one in the EU) can ever be a gatekeeper. Gatekeepers only being the 5 US biggest techs was by design, not by accident.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Comments
Well, side loading doesn't mean a free-for-all, Apple could still require that all apps need to be signed by Apple before they can run on iOS devices. So, Apple could create a set of "transactional" API's that developers are required to use before any app can be installed regardless of distribution origin. This would allow developers to create their own transaction system either through a third party App Store or directly from their own website. Developers would still be required to register with Apple's Developer program so that apps can be verified and signed. To make up for lost revenue, Apple could create a tiered developer subscription model or just start charging for their developer tools. This allows apps to remain to be tied to developer accounts, so developers of any nefarious apps could have their accounts and apps disabled. This would end up being a worldwide change, not just EU.
However, the point is not that it could be possible, the point is, when and where do hardware vendors no longer have the right to create the devices they want to make? What it comes down to, is crippling a "superior" business model to enable less competent competitors to play on a level field rather than doing their own leg work. It is not Apple's fault that no other company can compete with Google's Android. The problem is, the EU doesn't want more competition, they want less. They want an homogenized market where no one is allowed to innovate unless everyone can join in. (Actually, smaller companies are allowed to innovate, while larger companies are forced to stagnate.)
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
Just like in these current proposals, smaller fish get more leeway. Gatekeeper status changes things.
Rules and regulations aren't set in stone. They come and go. They get revised. This particular proposal has been brewing for a long while and in parallel to industry consultation and investigations.
A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?
Investigations = they didn't come up with anything legally notable but they're going to proceed anyway.
Notice that the EU hasn't specified what benefits they expect to see as a result of forced side loading. Like I pointed out earlier, the EU has never proven that software price, quality, quantity or customer satisfaction with iOS is worse than other operating systems with 3rd party stores. They can't claim those things will improve because they're already just as good as other operating systems. And Apple has pointed out that the EU has willfully ignored that privacy/security are, in fact, competitive features. In other words, they're claiming to be focused on improving competition while also deliberately knee-capping Apple's competitive ability.
More choices and more competition are generally not good for the developers. They are the ones that have to deal with more competition, by lowering their prices or making their products better than their competitors thus making less profits off the consumers. So why are there so many big developers that makes their profit selling to consumers, favoring this DMA?
Take this ..
Suppose there's only Walmart from which the maker of a popular product can sell to consumers. Along comes Target, so that product maker switches from Walmart to Target and still charges the same price. Where is the consumer's choice? Where is the competition? The consumers still only have one choice from where they can purchase the product and at the same price. What happened to the choice of the consumers that wants buy that product from Walmart? All that happened was that the profit from selling the product shifted from Walmart to Target. But government can not and should not, pass laws that forces product makers to sell to both stores. Even if it results in more choices for the consumers.
Suppose there are Walmart's and Target's and the product maker sold the product at both stores at the same price. All else being equal, is the choice of where to buy the product from at the same price, of any benefit for the consumers? Maybe you detest Walmart for making so much money, so for you, having the choice to buy that same product from a less profitable Target, at the same price, was good for you. But government shouldn't be pasting laws to punish Walmart, to please people like you. You might not be the average consumer or the consumer that matters.
Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker opens their own store that only sells their own products. The products are not available in any other stores. From a consumer point of view, how is that any different that when the same products at the same price, were only available at Walmart? Would you consider that the store has a "monopoly" on their own products? Should the government step in and force the product maker to sell their products at other stores, so that consumers have more choices from which to buy the products at the same price?
What you have to consider here with app stores is that the developers have a monopoly with their apps and they set the price. There is no true competition for their apps, that benefit the consumers. True competition would only occur with the wholesale business model, where the app stores buys the apps from the developers at wholesale and then they set the price of the apps, to compete with other app stores for customers. So long as the developers can determine where their apps are sold and set the price of their apps, from the consumers point of view, choice and competition is only an illusion. Apps stores competing with other app stores by lowering their commission does not mean the developers will pass on that savings to the consumers. They don't have to because they have a monopoly with their apps. And app stores can not lower the price of the apps that they are allow to sell.
Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker own store and down the road in the shadier part of town, there's a store that is selling an almost exact copy of the product for half the price. Is that competition? Is having that choice of buying almost the same product at half off, good for the consumers? Walmart can't do anything about it, it's not their product. And Walmart won't do anything about it, if the product maker wasn't selling that product at Walmart. They are not ones losing any sales.
The Apple App Store is not a consumer product. iOS is not a consumer product. Apple do not sell iOS to other mobile device venders and force them to only include the Apple App Store. The iOS devices are consumer products and consumers have dozens of choices with other mobile phones and tablets. The EU concern should be that the consumers choosing to buy iDevices, can only install apps from the Apple App Store. But only if the iDevice is a monopoly under anti-trust definition. The EU should not be concern with ..... 25% of consumers choosing to use iOS, can only get apps from the Apple App Store. When a consumer chooses to buy an iDevice, there is no other choice but to use iOS.
So should the EU force Apple to offer iOS to other mobile device makers so that consumers have more choices of devices, if they want to use iOS? Or so that consumers will benefit from Apple having more competition in the "iOS market"? After all, choices and competition is good for the consumers. Right?
No, this is about developers, specially large ones, having the choice to make more profit by eliminating any cost they face, when they sell their apps to iOS users. Apps that they have a monopoly on and they set the price, no matter which app store they are sold in. There is no guarantee what so ever that the consumers will benefit from this, with more choices or competition.
Are consumers that uses the much less secure Android, that don't care about having more app stores and have no need to side load, any better off than current iOS users, just because there are more choices in app stores and side loading on Android? Are apps any cheaper on Android, than the same or similar apps, on iOS? More choices might come at a cost that most iOS users might not want to pay. But developers don't care, it's not a cost that will affect their bottom line. The choice that benefit consumers is the choice to use Android devices and iDevices, because of their differences. Would eliminating or reducing Apple ability to compete with Android devices by offering a more secure mobile device, good for consumers? Would eliminating the differences between Android and iOS good for the consumers? It sure as Hell will be for the large developers, hackers and scammers.
China is a Communist country.
The headphone rule or charger rule in France do not involve any force changes to any of Apple's IP.
In the EU, warranties are regulated. I think it was Italy that enforces a two year minimum warranty on certain electronic items and Apple had to comply. There's is no way that the EU will allow Apple to void their warranty, because the consumer did something that the EU forced Apple to allow.
Under what current law?
Now don't make a fool of yourself by saying iOS is a "monopoly" and falls under current anti-trust laws. Not even the EU thinks that. Or the US Federal Judge that ruled against Epic, when they claimed the same.
What you mean to say is ......... Not allowing other stores to exist , will be. ..... But only if this DMA passes as written.
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
You are afraid of sideloading? You will be able to stick to the App Store for almost all software!
Small developers will continue to stay in the App Store and may sell in 3rd Party stores in addition.
Some big players may leave the App Store – but if you did trust their software you should not have any problem with their stores.
I would guess that all software will need to be signed by developer certificate to be obtained from Apple, so malware can we wiped remotely by Apple (what was also done with malware that made it into the App Store).
To answer your question, I think an iPhone without an App Store would still sell well. The original iPhone sure did, and it didn't have any App Store. As far as I can see, all the apps on my iPhone could be deleted because each app also has a web portal where I can get the same functionality using the web instead of an app. For example, my banking app and my network speed test app.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/summary-report-open-public-consultation-digital-services-act-package
There was overwhelming support for tackling the gatekeeper issue.
Many investigations are ongoing.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
Don't think for a second that the EU first came up with all the criteria needed to be a gatekeeper and then just by accident, only the 5 biggest US tech companies ended up being gatekeepers. The EU first determined who they wanted to be gatekeepers and then came up with the criteria needed to be a gatekeeper, to ensure that no other companies (specially one in the EU) can ever be a gatekeeper. Gatekeepers only being the 5 US biggest techs was by design, not by accident.
https://www.ft.com/content/49f3d7f2-30d5-4336-87ad-eea0ee0ecc7b
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?