Now, the waiting game to see if the EU thinks it really complies.
Personally, I don't think it does. We'll see.
So you actually think Apple is going to spend all of those man hours while in direct communication with the EU throughout the entire process, to result in something that doesn't comply? Of course it complies. And, there is no waiting game. No one is investigating anything.
Note that they didn't say actually touch on what the EU thought about its 'compliance'.
That begs the question: why not?
Man hours. APIs. Studying the DMA.
Why didn't they just say 'we ran the whole thing through the EU side and they say we complied'.
Not a peep about that because it is very likely that the EU knew about the technicalities of the solution but little about the terms that would govern them.
If the EU has given the OK it is weird that Apple did not mention it in the statement.
If you read what they wrote you'd understand that they're not saying that the EU has given its OK yet. They're saying that they were extremely meticulous in their process of engaging with the EU to completely understand the requirements, and then were highly focused on meeting those requirements to the letter of the law while doing everything possible to still maintain the most reliable, safest and most secure platform for their EU customers. What they're saying is that they did not leave any room for the EU to reject their response based on the law. If the EU rejects it, it will be a political action, not a legal one.
I know what they wrote but if you read the comment I was replying to, what was the implied line of thought?
I'm not seeng where they even get close to saying they did not leave any room for the EU to reject their response. If anything they are explicitly skirting saying that. After all, if they thought the EU was all in on the proposal after so much communication, then why not come out and say so clearly?
Apple explicitly stated that they have been in consistent communication with the EU and developed a staggering amount of tech specifically to address those conversations. That's pretty much saying what you are in denial about. The. EU knew what Apple was building and was fine with it. Waiting to see if the public offers any backlash that could prompt fines or retaliation is indicative that the EU's bullying is political and has nothing to do with ethics or fairness. They've basically admitted as much by stating. they are. holding conversations with developers to see if they are happy or not, allowing the goal posts to be moved arbitrarily rather than providing something concrete and living with with results. That's called bad/insecure leadership.
Now, the waiting game to see if the EU thinks it really complies.
Personally, I don't think it does. We'll see.
So you actually think Apple is going to spend all of those man hours while in direct communication with the EU throughout the entire process, to result in something that doesn't comply? Of course it complies. And, there is no waiting game. No one is investigating anything.
Note that they didn't say actually touch on what the EU thought about its 'compliance'.
That begs the question: why not?
Man hours. APIs. Studying the DMA.
Why didn't they just say 'we ran the whole thing through the EU side and they say we complied'.
Not a peep about that because it is very likely that the EU knew about the technicalities of the solution but little about the terms that would govern them.
If the EU has given the OK it is weird that Apple did not mention it in the statement.
If you read what they wrote you'd understand that they're not saying that the EU has given its OK yet. They're saying that they were extremely meticulous in their process of engaging with the EU to completely understand the requirements, and then were highly focused on meeting those requirements to the letter of the law while doing everything possible to still maintain the most reliable, safest and most secure platform for their EU customers. What they're saying is that they did not leave any room for the EU to reject their response based on the law. If the EU rejects it, it will be a political action, not a legal one.
I know what they wrote but if you read the comment I was replying to, what was the implied line of thought?
I'm not seeng where they even get close to saying they did not leave any room for the EU to reject their response. If anything they are explicitly skirting saying that. After all, if they thought the EU was all in on the proposal after so much communication, then why not come out and say so clearly?
Apple explicitly stated that they have been in consistent communication with the EU and developed a staggering amount of tech specifically to address those conversations. That's pretty much saying what you are in denial about. The. EU knew what Apple was building and was fine with it. Waiting to see if the public offers any backlash that could prompt fines or retaliation is indicative that the EU's bullying is political and has nothing to do with ethics or fairness. They've basically admitted as much by stating. they are. holding conversations with developers to see if they are happy or not, allowing the goal posts to be moved arbitrarily rather than providing something concrete and living with with results. That's called bad/insecure leadership.
It's not a staggering amount of work and, once again, I will repeat that Apple seems to have deliberately avoided saying the EU is happy with the result.
'pretty much saying' is my whole point. After working so closely with the EU you shouldn't need to 'pretty much say' anything. It should be signed and sealed.
To me, it reads like the technology side could be in order but the terms and conditions side isn't.
Make no mistake about what Apple is saying here. The bottom line on this from a user’s perspective is simple:
Developers would LOVE to make more money collecting lots of extra data about users and selling that data to entities like Google and data brokers.
Apple’s App Store rules make that difficult-to-impossible, and puts some control of this in the USER’S hands. For example, the pop-up on new apps that asks you if it’s okay for this app to track you, and (unless you’re an idiot) you say NO.
You WILL NOT SEE that warning/option in apps you get from other App Stores, because that’s the ONLY way they can attract developers. And they’ll primarily attract skeevy developers running frauds, scams, crypto schemes and other shady ventures, including gambling and porn apps. And Epic, because they are also skeevy.
I’m not a fan of Apple’s monolithic App Store, and would have preferred if the EU had mandated alternative App Stores that complied 100 percent with Apple’s own self-imposed security/privacy rules, but that was unrealistic.
But users don’t have be suckers. Use EXTREME caution if and when you download anything from alternative app stores, because there’s probably a reason the app is in there instead of the “real” App Store, and that will ALWAYS have to do with either data gathering/selling, and/or apps that push scams/frauds, or at BEST legit gambling/porn apps.
Being an app developer living in the EU, it must say that your comment is far from the truth. First of all, I do not love to collect data, selling it to data brokers. Such a practice is illegal in the EU, there is something called GDPR that imposes heavy fines if I would collect and sell data.
Any app that distributed in the EU must comply with the GDPR rules: it must inform the user that user data is collected and it must offer an opt-out option. Bear in mind that some of the Apple security and privacy rules were adapted to be aligned with the GDPR, when the GDPR came into force. (Apple did apply these modifications globally)
Any alternative app store in the EU can only distribute apps that comply to the GDPR rules.
The real benefit of an alternative app store is that the app developer is no longer bound the some restrictive app store rules, that have nothing to do witjh security or privacy.
The app developer will be allowed to offer discounts, to do cross seliing opportunities, to have one single secure cross platform payment server (huge improvement in operational costs), and to have a fixed pricing in Euro which does not change when the "Apple" USD / EUR exchange rate changes
Personally I don’t care if Apple charges developers 1% or 99% but I am surprised at how many developers are willing to work under the current terms.
They are willing to work because they are making money and know the costs up front. Should one not go into business because they’re going to have to pay rent, income taxes, insurance, wages, payroll taxes, etc. is 30% is the cost of doing business and like other overhead items, you factor it into the price.
Comments
'pretty much saying' is my whole point. After working so closely with the EU you shouldn't need to 'pretty much say' anything. It should be signed and sealed.
To me, it reads like the technology side could be in order but the terms and conditions side isn't.