Apple facing new $5.5 billion App Store antitrust lawsuit in the Netherlands

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 96
    avon b7 said: There is no hole anywhere. 

    The DSA and DNA have both been through a detailed review and consultation process. 

    The proposal is well founded. 

    Users will have choice. It won't be Apple choosing for them. The market will determine who is successful and under universal EU legal frameworks. 

    Apple will surely need to market its strengths and convince users that the Apple App Store is where they should be getting their apps. 

    As for Facebook/Meta, what happened with plain old web access? 
    Hole = no market based evidence of anticompetitive activity. Yes, new laws can be made regardless, but if you don't have any market based evidence then it's highly unlikely that you'll be doing anything of benefit to consumers. That may be the closest to the reality: the EU isn't doing this for consumers, but rather for the billion/trillion dollar companies that have lobbied the EU. 
    maximara
  • Reply 82 of 96
    crowley said: I never said I wanted to force iOS to change.  I am largely apathetic towards it.
    You're not apathetic. You keep posting rebuttals. 
  • Reply 83 of 96
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said: I never said I wanted to force iOS to change.  I am largely apathetic towards it.
    You're not apathetic. You keep posting rebuttals. 
    I comment where I please.  I see few good arguments for why Apple need to lock down app installations.  I don't see many for why Apple should be forced to allow third party app installations either, but that's not the way the debate is leaning.
    elijahg
  • Reply 84 of 96
    crowley said: I comment where I please.  I see few good arguments for why Apple need to lock down app installations.  I don't see many for why Apple should be forced to allow third party app installations either, but that's not the way the debate is leaning.
    How about a comment on why Android hasn't already delivered better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for apps in 13 years?
  • Reply 85 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    avon b7 said: There is no hole anywhere. 

    The DSA and DNA have both been through a detailed review and consultation process. 

    The proposal is well founded. 

    Users will have choice. It won't be Apple choosing for them. The market will determine who is successful and under universal EU legal frameworks. 

    Apple will surely need to market its strengths and convince users that the Apple App Store is where they should be getting their apps. 

    As for Facebook/Meta, what happened with plain old web access? 
    Hole = no market based evidence of anticompetitive activity. Yes, new laws can be made regardless, but if you don't have any market based evidence then it's highly unlikely that you'll be doing anything of benefit to consumers. That may be the closest to the reality: the EU isn't doing this for consumers, but rather for the billion/trillion dollar companies that have lobbied the EU. 
    The DMA/DSA may be far from perfect but the market realities have been looked at. 

    You can argue against the criteria used for CPS/Gatekeeper determination but the proposals are also preventative measures so 'market based evidence' is not actually needed although it does exist and was explained from the very beginning of the process.

    There had been numerous investigations and fines for so called gatekeepers which were abusing dominant positions and hampering competition. 

    Instead of initiating investigation after investigation and not having a real impact on the root problems, the EU set about laying the foundation of new regulations. That is what we are seeing here. 
  • Reply 86 of 96
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said: I comment where I please.  I see few good arguments for why Apple need to lock down app installations.  I don't see many for why Apple should be forced to allow third party app installations either, but that's not the way the debate is leaning.
    How about a comment on why Android hasn't already delivered better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for apps in 13 years?
    I have no idea if that's true, or if it is what the reasons might be; I don't use Android.
  • Reply 87 of 96
    Detnator said:
    Avon, Crowley, Elijah, and others… we’ve been over this apps thing with all of you before and you just refuse to listen to anything while you keep spouting your points without any sensible response to the counter points.  The argument hasn’t changed…

    This whole thing about users can choose not to buy from other stores has a honking huge hole in it that you just keep dismissing. 

    Take Facebook.  Facebook doesn’t care about the 30% because facebook’s business model is ad driven.  But Facebook hates that Apple is enforcing that iOS apps give users the choice to not be tracked. 

    So when Apple is forced to allow third party app stores, how quickly do you think Facebook will no longer be available on the Apple App Store?  I’d give it seconds. Ok. Maybe days.  

    After that, I then have a new choice to make - and unlike the current situation, both choices suck. By your arguments, If I want Facebook I have to switch off the security settings that I get by only using  the Apple App Store so I can use Facebook (now without the option to stop them tracking me). Or, I can keep my security preferences and I just have to forego Facebook. That’s the choice you’re suggesting I be ok with.  

    Personally I hate Facebook but there are some businesses I deal with that require I use it for certain interactions.  I will not have the choice to just ignore Facebook and certain other apps without a not insignificant hit to my business. So I will be required to reduce the security of my device. At that point I have had choice taken away from me. 

    And that is just one example.  There are plenty of devs who will jump at the opportunity to be free of the restrictions Apple puts in place to protect me, the customer. Plenty of devs who will relish the ability to deceive me and exploit me and I will be forced to choose between those apps with all the risks or forego those apps.  Sure many of them may have safe Apple App Store alternatives, but many of them won’t. Case in point Facebook. 

    Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook?  And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?

    All of you, we’ve been through this but you have never expressed a solution to these points that doesn’t simply ignore them, or some fundamental part of them. Yet you still insist that Apple should be forced to take away one of the primary reasons I choose Apple.  

    Elijah you’re saying the choice to block sideloading is Apple’s not yours, but you bought Apple devices anyway.  THAT is your choice. Your insistence that Apple be forced to allow third party app stores makes as much sense as me trying to insist I want a Volvo convertible but it has to be rear wheel drive.  Volvo doesn’t make one.  How dare they (Volvo) deny me that choice!!!

    Or I could just buy a BMW or Mercedes instead.  

    You say you prefer Apple’s balance.  Ok let’s get specific. What is so great about iOS that Android doesn’t have that you’ll buy an iOS device despite how opposed you are to arguably its most fundamental principle?

    You can’t have it both ways. Apple’s stuff works the way it works because of a number of their design philosophies, one of which is how tightly locked down and protected it is. If they are forced allow public sideloading it will destroy that.  How can you not see that iOS is the most secure and privacy protecting OS on the planet unlike Windows, Android, and yes even macOS? It’s no coincidence that the most locked down OS is also the most secure and privacy protecting one. It’s just plain facts in front of your eyes and explained to you countless ways by others here but all of you are in denial about it. — just conveniently ignoring the evidence and consistently sidestepping. 

    There are two models:  
    1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc. 
    2. Open, free for all, much more flexible, much less secure and private. 

    Some people prefer and choose option 1. Some people prefer and choose option 2.  And that’s good. We have choice.  

    You want the lawmakers to force option 1 out of existence and then we only have option 2. If you succeed then you’ve taken away the choice of option 1 from the people who prefer that option.  

    Again all of this has been explained by multiple people here over and over again. 

    Same with the “it’s my hardware” argument.  Yep, but it’s not your OS.  That point has been made countless times here and every time, the “it’s my hardware” commenter just slinks off with no response until they have another opportunity to spring up and spout it somewhere else.  One of you is guilty of that in this thread.  I challenge you to come back with a sensible response. 

    For the love of all things sacred give us an argument or two that addresses the points we’re actually making instead of constantly sidestepping them. 

    Otherwise, are you just here to blindly bash Apple without reason..? Why??


    Hold on. The fundamental question asked by you in your long winded post was addressed many times in this forum by me, GatorGuy and few others in the past. Apparently, you have not read them.

    Even in this thread, Avon has answered that question, not as a direct reply to your post but to another post. I will put those lines here:
    According to many here though, any such move would be met with pushback from their own users because they fully understand why the current situation exists and will only buy from the Apple StoreIf that truly is the case, developers will have no option but to use the Apple App Store or face lost revenue.

    Myself and GatorGuy have pointed out this - Why Epic had NOT pulled their games from Google Play store and make it available only through their own store for Android devices even though side-loading is allowed in Android devices from the beginning? If you think for a moment and answer that question, you would have answered your questions on your own and would not have wasted time in writing that long post.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 88 of 96
    avon b7 said: The DMA/DSA may be far from perfect but the market realities have been looked at. 

    You can argue against the criteria used for CPS/Gatekeeper determination but the proposals are also preventative measures so 'market based evidence' is not actually needed although it does exist and was explained from the very beginning of the process.

    There had been numerous investigations and fines for so called gatekeepers which were abusing dominant positions and hampering competition. 

    Instead of initiating investigation after investigation and not having a real impact on the root problems, the EU set about laying the foundation of new regulations. That is what we are seeing here. 
    You can say that about some of the proposals, but certainly not for forced side loading. The EU (and the U.S. Congress) is tilting at windmills with that one. They can't claim lack of 3rd party stores on iOS is an abuse or hampering competition if they can't provide any evidence that prices or quality or selection or customer satisfaction is worse on iOS than systems like Android or Windows/macOS. Those types of comparisons should be easy to make between an abusive single store and a supposed consumer paradise of 3rd party stores, but they aren't making them...because there isn't any evidence it's abusive.
  • Reply 89 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    crowley said: I comment where I please.  I see few good arguments for why Apple need to lock down app installations.  I don't see many for why Apple should be forced to allow third party app installations either, but that's not the way the debate is leaning.
    How about a comment on why Android hasn't already delivered better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for apps in 13 years?
    The 'thirteen years' is a bit of a misnomer. The only reason these companies have been able to largely fall under the radar so far is that society hadn't really moved into a digital age. That has been happening for a far shorter period. Less than five years. For example, 'digital legacies' are still a very new thing. 

    However, it can be argued that having third party app stores has in fact already brought benefits to users and, as new app stores and mobile services come online, more benefits will appear. Especially if the term 'lock in' can be eradicated or brought under stricter control. Convergence and interoperability are key here. Moving platforms should ideally be a very simple checkbox process. 

    For example, the vast majority of apps on my phone come from two possible repositories. 

    They are Play Store running GMS and App Gallery running HMS, each with their own mobile services tentacles. If I need an older app or an app that is no longer available from either of those stores, I can use an alternative app store and download it from there.

    Which app store I use depends on my choice because I have a choice. Yes, there may be risks involved but those same risks exist within the Apple App Store. Either way, the decision is mine to take. I normally choose AppGallery/HMS simply in an effort to balance out the weight that Google has accumulated. Choice allows me to do that. 

    I contribute to both Google Maps and Petal Maps. I use both Google Search and Petal Search. I use both Gmail and Petal Mail etc. 

    'Third party' implies risks. All you can do is mitigate those risks and Apple is not alone in doing that. It may be that stores like App Gallery actually have more protective measures in place than the Apple App Store. 

    Most of the time the underlying code which does the damage is simply modified code which targets a different platform. All providers and researchers etc are on the lookout for the different signatures. Then there is phishing and all the other social media mechanisms that get used. Apple users aren't immune to that. 
    cgWerks
  • Reply 90 of 96
    muthuk_vanalingam said: Myself and GatorGuy have pointed out this - Why Epic had NOT pulled their games from Google Play store and make it available only through their own store for Android devices even though side-loading is allowed in Android devices from the beginning? If you think for a moment and answer that question, you would have answered your questions on your own and would not have wasted time in writing that long post.
    The answer to the question you're asking doesn't actually support forced side loading. You're basically admitting that side loading on mobile is useless to most consumers. 
  • Reply 91 of 96
    muthuk_vanalingam said: Myself and GatorGuy have pointed out this - Why Epic had NOT pulled their games from Google Play store and make it available only through their own store for Android devices even though side-loading is allowed in Android devices from the beginning? If you think for a moment and answer that question, you would have answered your questions on your own and would not have wasted time in writing that long post.
    The answer to the question you're asking doesn't actually support forced side loading. You're basically admitting that side loading on mobile is useless to most consumers. 
    Exactly. And that is why I (and few others) keep saying that Apple would literally lose nothing over this forced side loading thing. The "defend Apple at ALL costs" group is completely wrong on this particular topic, that they would lose their ability make a choice to install Apps only from a secure platform. They would not lose their choice, because that is what is ALREADY happening in the Android world with Google play store despite having the ability to side-load from the beginning. They are a majority in iOS platform and only a foolish developer (like Epic) would pull their App from App store. When that happens, that developer would be proven to be foolish (i.e. lose revenue significantly by not making it available in App/Play stores).
    crowleyelijahg
  • Reply 92 of 96
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    avon b7 said: The DMA/DSA may be far from perfect but the market realities have been looked at. 

    You can argue against the criteria used for CPS/Gatekeeper determination but the proposals are also preventative measures so 'market based evidence' is not actually needed although it does exist and was explained from the very beginning of the process.

    There had been numerous investigations and fines for so called gatekeepers which were abusing dominant positions and hampering competition. 

    Instead of initiating investigation after investigation and not having a real impact on the root problems, the EU set about laying the foundation of new regulations. That is what we are seeing here. 
    You can say that about some of the proposals, but certainly not for forced side loading. The EU (and the U.S. Congress) is tilting at windmills with that one. They can't claim lack of 3rd party stores on iOS is an abuse or hampering competition if they can't provide any evidence that prices or quality or selection or customer satisfaction is worse on iOS than systems like Android or Windows/macOS. Those types of comparisons should be easy to make between an abusive single store and a supposed consumer paradise of 3rd party stores, but they aren't making them...because there isn't any evidence it's abusive.
    It would not be hard to prove that the macOS App Store or Windows App Store are poor competition to Steam, or the Epic Games Store for games.

    It would not be hard to prove that if the Mac App Store were the exclusive provider of Mac apps that innovative packages like the pay-what-you-like humble bundle would not exist.
    elijahg
  • Reply 93 of 96
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
    Isn't this a bit like, 'there are only 5 flies in my soup, not 100'? Then, there are apps you can't get on the App Store because Apple decides to play politics, like Gab.
    No, it's like "we want better app store competition in a market where privacy/security is the most significant competitive difference between app stores, so let's eliminate competitive privacy/security". 
    The competitiveness being wanted seems to be more on the developer side, not the consumer side (even if that is the stated reasoning). My point was that the privacy/security aspect, while maybe different between stores/platforms, isn't necessarily good enough to claim it to be the reason not to allow competition. If I'm counting on a Store for security/privacy, then Apple's Store (even if way better) is just providing a false sense of security/privacy. That might make matters worse.

    avon b7 said: It wouldn't end anything. 

    You, for example could freely choose not to use anything other than the App Store. You wouldn't be 'required' to sideload anything and if you did decide to sideload something at some point, it would be you (the user) who takes the decision. Not Apple taking it for you. 

    There are many alternatives to the Play Store. Competition exists. It is a lucrative business. If it weren't, those stores would have a hard time existing. 

    I have three app stores on my phones and two mobile services platforms. 

    It very obviously ends the main privacy/security difference between Android and iOS. And your claim that forced side loading would still allow iPhone customers to avoid side loading is false. The EU is not mandating that app developers provide their software on both 3rd party and 1st party stores to give customers a choice between a side loaded and non side loaded version.
    It would impact the situation negatively, I agree. BUT, the problem is with the argument that the current status is providing safety in the first place. If Apple did a reasonable job, one could forgive something missed here or there (nothing is 100%), but that isn't the case.

    I prefer (for iOS at least) a somewhat 'moderated' platform over the wild-west, but I'm just saying the security/privacy argument ends up being a bit hypocritical on Apple's part.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 94 of 96
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    CheeseFreeze said:
    Think that through for a bit. Imagine being a Dutch bank and losing the ability for your customers to login and pay. Imagine being a small business owner, e.g a gym, using an app to manage subscribers and gym lessons. Imagine being a researcher, a game developer, ANYONE with dependencies on the App Store, who are suddenly completely cut off from their business without any support from Apple, and without any realistic alternative? These businesses would be totally screwed over.
    Cancel culture isn't exactly logical, thought-through, or even grown-up. And, unfortunately, Apple has been playing in that play-pen for years already.
    Usually, their business sense overrides the idiocy, but keep in mind, Apple is woke-infected, right to the top. That isn't without consequences.

    Detnator said:
    By your arguments, If I want Facebook I have to switch off the security settings that I get by only using  the Apple App Store so I can use Facebook (now without the option to stop them tracking me). Or, I can keep my security preferences and I just have to forego Facebook. That’s the choice you’re suggesting I be ok with.  
    Just keep in mind that Facebook has been tracking you, even if you don't have a Facebook account, or have the Facebook app installed, for many years. Apple only VERY recently started impacting that. I'm not even sure if Apple has effectively blocked that these days yet. (If an app embeds the Facebook single-sign-on or other stuff, does Apple currently block that?)

    Detnator said:
    And that is just one example.  There are plenty of devs who will jump at the opportunity to be free of the restrictions Apple puts in place to protect me, the customer. Plenty of devs who will relish the ability to deceive me and exploit me and I will be forced to choose between those apps with all the risks or forego those apps.  Sure many of them may have safe Apple App Store alternatives, but many of them won’t. Case in point Facebook. 
    I guess my question, is how effectively is Apple stopping that? Maybe better than wild-west, but there seems to be a lot of deception and exploitation remaining. Back to one of my earlier points... does that make people safer, or more in danger with a false-sense of security?

    Detnator said:
    There are two models:  
    1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc. 
    2. Open, free for all, much more flexible, much less secure and private. 

    Some people prefer and choose option 1. Some people prefer and choose option 2.  And that’s good. We have choice.  
    My beef, I guess, is that these aren't pure options. I'll still take 1, for iOS (and I'm hoping to keep closer to 2 on my Mac... the current mix is kinda OK, but I fear it will go further). Apple is using 1 as their defense, while not putting in the work to actually maintain/enforce it. As I said earlier, nothing is 100%. But, there's enough bad stuff in the App Store, that they can't be trying too hard.

    avon b7 said:
    As for Facebook/Meta, what happened with plain old web access? 
    That's the only way I'll use FB. In a separate browser identity (I use Ghost Browser, which is a great under-known app, btw).

    The problem is that tons of apps have built-in FB/Google code, so you end up tracked even if you don't use either.
    elijahg
  • Reply 95 of 96
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    crowley said:
    It would not be hard to prove that if the Mac App Store were the exclusive provider of Mac apps that innovative packages like the pay-what-you-like humble bundle would not exist.
    Or, MakeMKV, or Gab, etc. Unfortunately, Apple's policies aren't just about keeping their users safe or protecting their privacy (and, they fail at those as well).
    On iOS, I'm fairly happy with the current situation (aside from Apple's political bias). But, I'm just pointing out the problems/inconsistencies. (And, that the battle has already been lost. When push comes to shove, freedom-loving people are going to have to work around big-tech. That's why we have Bitcoin and decentralized Web projects, etc.)
  • Reply 96 of 96
    CheeseFreezeCheeseFreeze Posts: 1,297member
    Detnator said:
    It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
    And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments.
    Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
    You’re wrong. 

    We’re not defending Apple because we’re fans of Apple.  We’re fans of Apple and defending Apple because Apple delivers the choices we want — one stop shop, higher security, proven trustworthiness, exceptional customer support, etc. — and WE CHOOSE those choices over the alternatives. 

    We come to Apple’s defense because if Apple is FORCED by changed laws to remove functionality that we want to stay… to remove the choice we have and we make when we choose to buy Apple products, by forcing Apple products to be less like Apple and more like Android, then we lose. 

    We are not blindly defending Apple and Apple can certainly do plenty wrong, and have done so.  We are vehemently defending the choices we have that Apple provides us, that these lawsuits and attempted regulations, if won, will take away from us.  

    Grow up. 
    I find it ironic that you are angry because laws might "remove the choice we have", and at the same time this discussion is about giving developers and businesses exactly that: choice, which Apple is not giving them. You can't look at this from one dimension. You have to take all the stakeholders in account, you have to look at the market at its whole.

    You can say "grow up" to me because you don't agree with my points, but throwing out that line is dismissive and childish. The App Store can still exist. It can still be that walled garden. But if end-users and businesses want to bypass that, why not? iOS runs applications in a secure container within the OS, and if people choose to download from a source that doesn't do a thorough review, security issues are restricted to data privacy issues for example, but not the app 'installing a virus' for example, because the app cannot move out of the 'container'.
    elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.