EU will force Apple & Google to allow third-party app stores, payment services

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 132
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,798member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 

    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. 
    Total responses = 2,863. Total business responses = 155. Total population of EU = 474,000,000.

    I don't think the word "overwhelming" really applies. A more accurate description would be that a majority of the 2.863 respondents agreed with some very generalized questions about improving online safety, digital services liability, gatekeeper issues, online advertising etc. 

    "In general, most of the issues presented by respondents were perceived to be due to an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and business users, which is considered to hamper competition, foster uncertainty in relation to contractual terms, and also result in lock-in of consumers."

    ^^ This is the primary statement of the gatekeeper section from your link. Notice that they're stating that "bargaining power" for business contracts is the main driver of the gatekeeper issues for respondents. And also note that Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that the lawsuits by Epic and Spotify were about business disputes, not antitrust or anticompetitive activity. Ask yourself this question: how would forced side loading address "bargaining power"? Does it really make any sense to use forced side loading in that manner versus other possible forms of regulation?
    You seem to have ignored 'lock in' and 'hampering competition' as well as 'in general'. 

    The public consultation is just one part of this.

    "The Commission consulted a wide range of stakeholders in preparation of this legislative package. These stakeholders included the private sector, users of digital services, civil society organisations, national authorities, academia, the technical community, international organisations and the general public. An array of complementary consultation steps were also carried out to fully capture stakeholder views on issues related to digital services and platforms"

    The package itself is not limited to the DNA (which is focused more on gatekeepers) but also the DSA (which affects just about anyone with a digital presence)

  • Reply 102 of 132
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 

    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. 
    Total responses = 2,863. Total business responses = 155. Total population of EU = 474,000,000.

    I don't think the word "overwhelming" really applies. A more accurate description would be that a majority of the 2.863 respondents agreed with some very generalized questions about improving online safety, digital services liability, gatekeeper issues, online advertising etc. 

    "In general, most of the issues presented by respondents were perceived to be due to an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and business users, which is considered to hamper competition, foster uncertainty in relation to contractual terms, and also result in lock-in of consumers."

    ^^ This is the primary statement of the gatekeeper section from your link. Notice that they're stating that "bargaining power" for business contracts is the main driver of the gatekeeper issues for respondents. And also note that Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that the lawsuits by Epic and Spotify were about business disputes, not antitrust or anticompetitive activity. Ask yourself this question: how would forced side loading address "bargaining power"? Does it really make any sense to use forced side loading in that manner versus other possible forms of regulation?
    You seem to have ignored 'lock in' and 'hampering competition' as well as 'in general'.
    You're ignoring "perceived to be" and "considered to". I've already pointed out that the EU has never provided any evidence since this survey concluded that app prices, quality, selection, or customer satisfaction are worse on iOS than on operating systems that include side loading. That already answers the "hamper competition" and "lock-in" part: it isn't hampering competition and there is no lock-in if you can't prove that iOS users are stuck with an inferior app experience. All that's left is the business disputes regarding contracts, which is what Apple has been saying this is really about the whole time and NOT anticompetitive activity. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 103 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    davidw said:
    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? 
    People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading.
    People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
    But none of the US lawmakers that wants side loading, have even come close to getting such a bill to pass. The EU is nearly there.

    The advantage that Apple have with the Apple App Store is that scanning apps for malware can take place before it's in the Apple App Store and ready to be installed by the users. Even this don't catch all malware in apps. With side loading, Apple can't scan the app until it's already in the third party app store or after it has already been downloaded from the internet and installed.

    Being able to revoke the certificate of bad apps is done now but it could had infected 10's of 1000's of iPhones by then and stolen the users data. The other thing to remember is that right now iOS is not a big target for hackers, phishers and scammers because just about the only way in is by way of the Apple App Store. Once third party app stores and side loading is allowed, it's going to open season for iOS users. So saying that ..... since Apple can't catch all the malware trying to get installed onto an iPhone by way of the Apple App Store), it's no big deal that more malware might get through by way of side loading ..... doesn't make sense.

    Google been working on making side loading as safe as possible for over 10 years now and side loading is still a big security issue on Android. Google have an Advance Protection Plan tailored to meet the needs of Android users that requires the most protection. And one of the first thing the plan does is to disable side loading for the users enrolled.

    https://www.xda-developers.com/google-advanced-protection-play-protect-sideloaded-apps/

    >For starters, Play Protect will now be enabled by default for anyone registered in the Advanced Protection program. For those unaware, Play Protect is Google’s built-in malware protection for Android. It scans billions of apps every day with Google’s machine learning algorithms to keep devices safe. Play Protect is already enabled on most devices, but this ensures it is for those requesting extra protection.

    Next, Google will be blocking the majority of sideloaded apps for those enrolled in the Advanced Protection program. It’s much harder for Google to ensure the safety of users if they are installing apps from untrusted sources.<

    This after Play Protect is enabled by default. Why? If side loading shouldn't be that big of a deal because malware are already getting through the Google Play Store and Google Play Protect, anyway. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 104 of 132
    avon b7 said:
    Dead_Pool said:
    Apple and Google should both shut down their European app stores. They are not obligated to do business in that market. Let the Europeans develop their own phones, operating systems, and app stores. 
    You think we Europeans like this DMA thing? Well, we don’t. And that’s why I’m also voting for Apple and Google to simply leave the EU market. Someone needs to put real pressure on our stupid fellow citizens here.

    We tried making our own smart phones back in the olden days. But none of those brands survived when Apple entered the market. Now it’s just  envious old farts and bad losers that support this DMA, and Margrethe Vestager is one of them. I’m ashamed of having her representing EU’s antitrust politics.
    Europeans have nothing to like or dislike at the moment because this is a proposal. 

    However, this is what came back from consultation on the specific issue of gatekeepers to digital platforms. 

    "the vast majority (90%), including among platforms (73%), agrees that there is a need to consider dedicated regulatory rules to address negative societal and economic effects of gatekeeper power of large platforms. Among businesses and business users who replied to the relevant question (155 in total), 88% encountered unfair trading conditions on large platforms. Examples of unfair practices by large gatekeeper platforms listed by respondents cover exclusionary conducts, exploitative conducts and transparency-related problems".

    Those points seem reasonable to me and tie in well with what ongoing formal investigations into anti-competitive behavior and abuse of dominant position. 
    90% of these businesses don’t even know the meaning of those questions, nor the consequences of their answers. They just reply in the way they think the public or the consultants expect them to.

    If you want to find out what the public wants, then don’t ask the public.
  • Reply 105 of 132
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    davidw said:

    China is a Communist country.

    China is NOT in any way a communist country.

    China is a fascist country.

    They have all the features, including a massive wealth gap between rich and poor, a cult of personality dictator, and hatred of ethnic minorities complete with concentration camps.  They do not have universal healthcare, they do not have free public education, they do not have any real social safety net at all.  The workers do not control the means of production, the oligarchs do.

    Every country in the EU has more socialist traits than China, and no country in the EU is communist either.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 106 of 132
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,798member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 

    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. 
    Total responses = 2,863. Total business responses = 155. Total population of EU = 474,000,000.

    I don't think the word "overwhelming" really applies. A more accurate description would be that a majority of the 2.863 respondents agreed with some very generalized questions about improving online safety, digital services liability, gatekeeper issues, online advertising etc. 

    "In general, most of the issues presented by respondents were perceived to be due to an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and business users, which is considered to hamper competition, foster uncertainty in relation to contractual terms, and also result in lock-in of consumers."

    ^^ This is the primary statement of the gatekeeper section from your link. Notice that they're stating that "bargaining power" for business contracts is the main driver of the gatekeeper issues for respondents. And also note that Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that the lawsuits by Epic and Spotify were about business disputes, not antitrust or anticompetitive activity. Ask yourself this question: how would forced side loading address "bargaining power"? Does it really make any sense to use forced side loading in that manner versus other possible forms of regulation?
    You seem to have ignored 'lock in' and 'hampering competition' as well as 'in general'.
    You're ignoring "perceived to be" and "considered to". I've already pointed out that the EU has never provided any evidence since this survey concluded that app prices, quality, selection, or customer satisfaction are worse on iOS than on operating systems that include side loading. That already answers the "hamper competition" and "lock-in" part: it isn't hampering competition and there is no lock-in if you can't prove that iOS users are stuck with an inferior app experience. All that's left is the business disputes regarding contracts, which is what Apple has been saying this is really about the whole time and NOT anticompetitive activity. 
    All surveys have an element of interpretation. 

    No 'evidence' is required. These are proposals for a new set of rules to better adapt current regulations to digital reality and the reality of complaints and subsequent investigations. 

    I suggest you re-read the summary remarks. 

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_2042

    Instead of having to look at individual (and sometimes repetitive) infringements, a new legal framework will level the playing field for everyone. Companies will have to comply and the level of specific investigation should go down.  Non-compliance will be far easier to deal with. 
  • Reply 107 of 132
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,041member
    darkvader said:
    davidw said:

    China is a Communist country.

    China is NOT in any way a communist country.

    China is a fascist country.

    They have all the features, including a massive wealth gap between rich and poor, a cult of personality dictator, and hatred of ethnic minorities complete with concentration camps.  They do not have universal healthcare, they do not have free public education, they do not have any real social safety net at all.  The workers do not control the means of production, the oligarchs do.

    Every country in the EU has more socialist traits than China, and no country in the EU is communist either.

    China is Chinese, whatever western label used wouldn’t fit, four thousand years of Chinese culture sits over the top of whatever government definition you would use, just get over it. The same applies to Japan and Korea. That also applies to the cockeyed system that Russia is using or not using. All these countries are coming out of left field some good some bad.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 108 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    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? 
    Point 1:

    Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.

    Point 2: Yes.

    They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications. 


    You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.

    You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.

    There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
    Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.

    I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy. 

    I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.

    Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that knowledge now.

    Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?

    Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time. 
    And those are the users that Apple is trying to and should protect and the EU don't seem to care about. The EU is willing to force iPhones to be less secure for the vast majority of users that have limit knowledge about product security and privacy.  

    You don't think Apple tried to reason with the EU about security and privacy protection? Apple knows a lot more about the security and privacy protection of the devices they make and sell, than the vast majority of their users or anyone else for that matter. And did the EU listen. NO. Apple have a model to protect their users security and privacy that don't infringe on current regulations and the EU is going ahead with passing new regulations that will basically deny Apple the right to choose their own security and privacy model for their own devices  because of what? New regulations that only targets Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft. 

    Saying that "Apple can have their own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations" is nothing but Orwellian doublethink. Not when "current regulations" are not set in stone and the EU can change the DMA regulations for gatekeepers, at any time and as often as they want, if they don't think Apple security and privacy policy is the best for completion in the EU.  

    https://9to5mac.com/2021/07/02/apple-antitrust-privacy-security/

    “” think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone. The important thing here is, of course, that it’s not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload,” she said.

    She "thinks". Does that sound like some one with a lot knowledge about security and privacy or some one with very limited knowledge? Or maybe some one that don't really care? Shouldn't she know, because she is in a position to pass regulations that might affect the security and privacy of consumers?  So that EU companies can better compete without having to innovate and investing their own money in RD.  

    DMA regulations are a bunch of BS. The DMA regulations only applies to the big 5 US techs, by design. It does not apply to Samsung. Samsung could sell mobile phones with an OS that don't allow side loading or third party stores and the EU is fine with that. Why? Because the EU have not cursed Samsung as a "gatekeeper". And the criteria to be a gatekeeper is only meant to include the big 5 US tech and to filter out all EU companies.

    Samsung global marketshare of smartphones is about the same as  Apple. (25% to 28%, depending on quarterly sales. With install base, i would think Samsung is clearly the global market leader.). Xiaomi is now the market leader in Europe, with Samsung second and Apple third. But like Samsung, Xiaomi is not bound by the DMA regulations. Only the company (Apple) with the 3rd highest marketshare at 20% in Europe must abide by DMA regulations. 

    https://cepa.org/europe-should-listen-to-us-concerns-about-its-big-tech-crackdown/

    https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/european-union-renews-its-offensive-against-us-technology-firms

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/3/22607248/xiaomi-overtakes-samsung-europe-smartphone-sales-apple

    If you think this DMA is about protecting consumers, then you have the same limited knowledge as the vast majority about product security and privacy.  The DMA is about punishing the big 5 US tech for being too successful, under current anti-trust laws. So new ones have to be pass that only applies to them. All the other companies that are not cursed with being a gatekeeper, can still go about their business under current regulations as the DMA will not apply them. 
    edited March 2022 foregoneconclusiontmayFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 109 of 132
    gnuloki said:
    They should just offer to sign third parties kernels for a price. No access to any Apple services and give the same level of support they give to the Linux community. So anyone wants their own App Store, write an OS for it. 
    Well, it might so happen that Apple might have to pay developers to list their apps in the Appstore going forward as all the other alternative appstores might be offering incentives to list the apps. Don't be so sure Apple/Appstore will still drive the app availability. 
  • Reply 110 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member

    davidw said:

    China is a Communist country.

    Debatable, although I can't see any evidence that they actually are.
    The fact that the People Republic of Chine is solely ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), AKA  Communist Party of China (CPC), aught to be your first clue. 
    edited March 2022 tmay
  • Reply 111 of 132
    avon b7 said: All surveys have an element of interpretation. 

    No 'evidence' is required. These are proposals for a new set of rules to better adapt current regulations to digital reality and the reality of complaints and subsequent investigations. 

    I suggest you re-read the summary remarks. 

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_2042

    Instead of having to look at individual (and sometimes repetitive) infringements, a new legal framework will level the playing field for everyone. Companies will have to comply and the level of specific investigation should go down.  Non-compliance will be far easier to deal with. 
    You're admitting that the EU doesn't have evidence that allowing 3rd party stores or allowing side loading improves competition. That's the problem with the EU using the term 'anticompetitive'. They have no real reason to do so, which in turn means that forcing side loading is arbitrary and has no benefit. 
  • Reply 112 of 132
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,612member
    Hmmm. Maybe the rumoured/upcoming "iPhone leasing agreement" will be how Apple avoids the rumoured/upcoming EU requirements for "side loading" and "right to repair." If the only way to get an iPhone in Europe is to lease it, then the phone is no longer "owned" by the individual. That's another valid solution for Apple. It would solve both the third-party App Store issue and the Right to Repair issue with a single blow. Tim Cook, perhaps I underestimated you.
    dope_ahmineFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 113 of 132
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,798member
    avon b7 said: All surveys have an element of interpretation. 

    No 'evidence' is required. These are proposals for a new set of rules to better adapt current regulations to digital reality and the reality of complaints and subsequent investigations. 

    I suggest you re-read the summary remarks. 

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_2042

    Instead of having to look at individual (and sometimes repetitive) infringements, a new legal framework will level the playing field for everyone. Companies will have to comply and the level of specific investigation should go down.  Non-compliance will be far easier to deal with. 
    You're admitting that the EU doesn't have evidence that allowing 3rd party stores or allowing side loading improves competition. That's the problem with the EU using the term 'anticompetitive'. They have no real reason to do so, which in turn means that forcing side loading is arbitrary and has no benefit. 
    There doesn't need to be 'evidence'. 

    That said, competition has been a flagpole element of EU trade for as long as I can remember. Right from the dismantling of nationalised industries (in a way, the old school 'gatekeepers').

    Since then, competition laws have been refined. Covering abuse of dominant position, price fixing, consumer protection...

    Obviously though, not allowing competition (Apple's App Store on iOS devices) means zero competition.

    I'd say there's a good case for that argument even though (and as I've said many times) I can see a way for Apple to preserve the status quo. 

  • Reply 114 of 132
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,612member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said: All surveys have an element of interpretation. 

    No 'evidence' is required. These are proposals for a new set of rules to better adapt current regulations to digital reality and the reality of complaints and subsequent investigations. 

    I suggest you re-read the summary remarks. 

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_2042

    Instead of having to look at individual (and sometimes repetitive) infringements, a new legal framework will level the playing field for everyone. Companies will have to comply and the level of specific investigation should go down.  Non-compliance will be far easier to deal with. 
    You're admitting that the EU doesn't have evidence that allowing 3rd party stores or allowing side loading improves competition. That's the problem with the EU using the term 'anticompetitive'. They have no real reason to do so, which in turn means that forcing side loading is arbitrary and has no benefit. 
    Obviously though, not allowing competition (Apple's App Store on iOS devices) means zero competition.
    My Honda doesn't let me replace my infotainment system with another company's, but I don't see you calling Honda a monopoly. Why is that?
  • Reply 115 of 132
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading.
    People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
    Some do. Most don't. Don't exaggerate. It makes your position look weak when you exaggerate. 

    If Apple allowed side-loading by installing a switch, and that switch was to allow users to install Android rather than iOS, would that switch be good enough for you?

    Your certificate revocation idea is irrelevant, and probably unworkable. First, Apple won't be allowed to revoke a certificate for a third party app store if the app adheres to the policies of the third party app store, right? Right? So that's a red herring. If a third party app store's guidelines allow, for example, p**nography, and Apple's App Store guidelines prohibit it, then Apple can't revoke the certificate of the app, right? So why do you even mention it? Besides, I expect that third party app stores would have their own signing certificates for the apps on their store because Apple isn't going to be paid to review the compliance of the apps on those app stores.
    Third Party App Stores do not mean that Apple's security model (sandboxing, certificates etc.) are no longer be used. Certificates will be there and if a certificate is revoked by Apple or by another App Store is quite meaningless.
    Once side loading and third party app stores are allowed in iOS, it's going to be open season. Hackers, phishers and scammers are already lined up to get their licenses. The thing is that Apple current model of security (sandboxing, certificates, etc..) is based on apps only getting install by way of the Apple App Store. Therefore, there are a lot fewer "hunters" invading iOS. Unlike there are with Android.

    Having apps first getting into the Apple App Store, is the first and effective line of defense. But once there are more ways to get apps on to iOS, other than by way of the Apple App Store, more hackers, phishers and scammers will ply their trade with iOS. Google have trouble making side loading secure because there are just to many malware and attempts to install, to deal with. I doubt that Apple current model of defense, will be sufficient or good enough to deal with the add amount of attempts to install malware from side loading and third party app stores. Like what Google have to deal with.     
    tmay
  • Reply 116 of 132
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,798member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    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? 
    Point 1:

    Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.

    Point 2: Yes.

    They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications. 


    You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.

    You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.

    There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
    Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.

    I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy. 

    I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.

    Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that knowledge now.

    Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?

    Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time. 
    And those are the users that Apple is trying to and should protect and the EU don't seem to care about. The EU is willing to force iPhones to be less secure for the vast majority of users that have limit knowledge about product security and privacy.  

    You don't think Apple tried to reason with the EU about security and privacy protection? Apple knows a lot more about the security and privacy protection of the devices they make and sell, than the vast majority of their users or anyone else for that matter. And did the EU listen. NO. Apple have a model to protect their users security and privacy that don't infringe on current regulations and the EU force ahead with passing new regulations that will basically deny Apple the right to choose their own security and privacy model for their own devices  because of what? New regulations that only targets Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft. 

    Saying that "Apple can have their own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations" is nothing but Orwellian doublethink. Not when "current regulations" are not set in stone and the EU can change the DMA regulations for gatekeepers, at any time and as often as they want, if they don't think Apple security and privacy policy is the best for completion in the EU.  

    https://9to5mac.com/2021/07/02/apple-antitrust-privacy-security/

    “” think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone. The important thing here is, of course, that it’s not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload,” she said.

    She "thinks". Does that sound like some one with a lot knowledge about security and privacy or some one with very limited knowledge? Or maybe some one that don't really care? Shouldn't she know, because she is in a position to pass regulations that might affect the security and privacy of consumers?  So that EU companies can better compete without having to innovate and investing their own money in RD.  

    DMA regulations are a bunch of BS. The DMA regulations only applies to the big 5 US techs, by design. It does not apply to Samsung. Samsung could sell mobile phones with an OS that don't allow side loading or third party stores and the EU is fine with that. Why? Because the EU have not cursed Samsung as a "gatekeeper". And the criteria to be a gatekeeper is only meant to include the big 5 US tech and to filter out all EU companies.

    Samsung global marketshare of smartphones is about the same as  Apple. (25% to 28%, depending on quarterly sales. With install base, i would think Samsung is clearly the global market leader.). Xiaomi is now the market leader in Europe, with Samsung second and Apple third. But like Samsung, Xiaomi is not bound by the DMA regulations. Only the company (Apple) with the 3rd highest marketshare at 20% in Europe must abide by DMA regulations. 

    https://cepa.org/europe-should-listen-to-us-concerns-about-its-big-tech-crackdown/

    https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/european-union-renews-its-offensive-against-us-technology-firms

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/3/22607248/xiaomi-overtakes-samsung-europe-smartphone-sales-apple

    If you think this DMA is about protecting consumers, then you have the same limited knowledge as the vast majority about product security and privacy.  The DMA is about punishing the big 5 US tech for being too successful, under current anti-trust laws. So new ones have to be pass that only applies to them. All the other companies that are not cursed with being a gatekeeper, can still go about their business under current regulations as the DMA will not apply them. 
    That's your opinion and you are supporting that with the opinions of policy groups based in the US which have had, or have, close connections and/or funding with organizations like the US State Department, Google, Microsoft, Facebook...

    Allow me to frown on those links although I won't go as far as to call 'BS' on them (like you do with the EU and DMA). 

    I'd wager that moves within the US are actually far more worrying for the companies you mention than anything likely to come out of the EU. 

    Your mind is already made up. That is fine but you're basing your wild speculation (that is only what it can be called) on proposals that still have to be approved. 

    Samsung is not a gatekeeper. 

  • Reply 117 of 132
    avon b7 said: There doesn't need to be 'evidence'. 

    That said, competition has been a flagpole element of EU trade for as long as I can remember. Right from the dismantling of nationalised industries (in a way, the old school 'gatekeepers').

    Since then, competition laws have been refined. Covering abuse of dominant position, price fixing, consumer protection...

    Obviously though, not allowing competition (Apple's App Store on iOS devices) means zero competition.

    I'd say there's a good case for that argument even though (and as I've said many times) I can see a way for Apple to preserve the status quo. 

    Right. You're admitting that the EU has no market based reason to force side loading. If there was a market based reason, then there would also be evidence from the market. Instead, this is what the market competition looks like BEFORE the EU makes any regulation changes:

    A. No app pricing advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    B. No app quality advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    C. No app selection advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    D. No customer satisfaction advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    E. Privacy/security advantage for operating system that doesn't allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    So despite your claim that iOS has zero competition, iOS is just as good for pricing, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps versus the operating systems that supposedly offer "better competition". And it appears that the EU wants to eliminate privacy/security from competitive comparison since iOS does a better job at it than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores and side loading.

    edited March 2022 tmay
  • Reply 118 of 132
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,798member
    avon b7 said: There doesn't need to be 'evidence'. 

    That said, competition has been a flagpole element of EU trade for as long as I can remember. Right from the dismantling of nationalised industries (in a way, the old school 'gatekeepers').

    Since then, competition laws have been refined. Covering abuse of dominant position, price fixing, consumer protection...

    Obviously though, not allowing competition (Apple's App Store on iOS devices) means zero competition.

    I'd say there's a good case for that argument even though (and as I've said many times) I can see a way for Apple to preserve the status quo. 

    Right. You're admitting that the EU has no market based reason to force side loading. If there was a market based reason, then there would also be evidence from the market. Instead, this is what the market competition looks like BEFORE the EU makes any regulation changes:

    A. No app pricing advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    B. No app quality advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    C. No app selection advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    D. No customer satisfaction advantage for operating systems that allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    E. Privacy/security advantage for operating system that doesn't allow 3rd party stores or side loading.

    So despite your claim that iOS has zero competition, iOS is just as good for pricing, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps versus the operating systems that supposedly offer "better competition". And it appears that the EU wants to eliminate privacy/security from competitive comparison since iOS does a better job at it than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores and side loading.

    If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper. 

  • Reply 119 of 132
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:

    davidw said:

    China is a Communist country.

    Debatable, although I can't see any evidence that they actually are.
    The fact that the People Republic of Chine is solely ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), AKA  Communist Party of China (CPC), aught to be your first clue. 
    Oh well that settles it then.  I'll just pop off to vote in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Hell, I'll jump into a time machine and have a jolly good time in the German Democratic Republic while I'm at it.

    Don't believe what people tell you they are, believe what they show you they are.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 120 of 132
    avon b7 said: If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper. 
    Apple will still be viewed as a "gatekeeper" by the EU even if side loading is forced within iOS, so side loading itself is irrelevant to the market both in terms of how the EU views Apple and how pricing/quality/selection/satisfaction works. That's what is so bizarre about the EU wanting to force side loading...entirely arbitrary with no benefit.
    edited March 2022 radarthekatFileMakerFeller
Sign In or Register to comment.