avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Just because the US version was announced this month, doesn't mean that Apple just started to work on the US version this month. Most likely, Apple been working on releasing the US version and all the other countries versions, months ago and may have been working on it for over half a year. But with limited manpower, priority is first given to the US version. This doesn't mean that Apple is not already working on the versions for the other countries. It's just going to take longer until manpower is freed up after the US release. You actually think Apple is going to announce a product with a timeline, without some idea that it can be done in time? And that Apple has not already been working on the other countries version, in some capacity, even with limited manpower?
But unless the EU has already outlined to Apple exactly what is expected of Apple, (to be in compliance with the DMA), there would be no reason what-so-ever for Apple to even start working on an EU version and waste manpower on a version that might never be to release in the EU because of what the EU will require of them to be in compliance with the DMA. Apple have learned their lesson. Apple is not going to work on an EU version and later be told that it's not in compliance with the DMA. And then have the EU fine them. Apple is only going to start working on an EU version, only after the EU spells out exactly what being in compliance with the DMA entails. And even then, Apple gets to decide if they want to release an EU version. Apple shouldn't have to work on an EU version and then later be told its not in compliance and then be told by the EU what needs to be changed in order to be in compliance.
Right now, because the EU have not spelled out exactly what being in compliance means, Apple already knows that the EU version will be more delayed that all the other countries whose versions are most likely already being worked on. Even if the EU were to spell out to Apple today, on what being in compliance entails, Apple agrees to it and start working on the EU version tomorrow.
It's all on the EU for being last in line to get the EU version, if Apple decides to release an EU version at all.
Only in the EU might a company be fined for being anti-competitive, for deciding not to compete. It's a wonder that the EU have not yet fined Apple for being anti-competitive because they chose not to develop a search engine, to compete with Google. And Microsoft and Facebook might have dodged a bullet by deciding to no longer compete in the mobile phone market, before there was a DMA. But it would had been OK for Nokia to decide not to keep competing with their Symbian mobile OS at any time, because Nokia is an EU company and not a gatekeeper under the DMA.
First paragraph. The facts remain the same. It isn't coming to the EU anytime soon.
Second paragraph. The facts remain the same. The DMA has gone live. Apple must work to comply with the text. It is free to consult.
Third paragraph. Nothing is 'on the EU'. Apple just has to comply - not make a meal out of things.
What speculative fine are you referring to? What makes you think Vestager wants to fine Apple for not bringing something to market?
I’m at a loss to understand the EU position on any of its complaints. Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range. All tech companies offer different things in different regions. No tech company has every application or product available in all regions at the same time and sometimes there are years apart, if at all. Apple is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. MS Office, particularly Word is pretty much ubiquitous. I’d much rather not use it but have to because every other business does. There never seems to be any complaint about that.
When it comes to its product range, Apple has an absolute monopoly.
This has to be the dumbest sentence I’ve read in a long time and I read comments on Reddit.
Every company has “a monopoly” on its own products.
A little tongue in cheek but I was replying to this:
"Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range".
Intentionally omitting features as retaliation? Yeah, Apple is gonna LOVE the multi-billion fine for this little stunt.
The EU is done playing. Apple will behave, or they will PAY.
Or, shocker, Apple will leave the EU altogether. Companies are “for profit” entities and publicly traded ones like Apple have an obligation to the their shareholders to act in their interests. Loss of the EU market will hurt but paying out more in fines than you earn in profit makes no sense.
The EU wants smartphones to be like PCs where there is little differentiation between vendors and profit is mainly derived from directed advertising and sale of consumer data. As an American, I am perfectly content to let Europe live in that world but I definitely hope they don’t drag me into it.
A American company named Walmart is no longer in the EU they left.......
Intentionally omitting features as retaliation? Yeah, Apple is gonna LOVE the multi-billion fine for this little stunt.
The EU is done playing. Apple will behave, or they will PAY.
Or, shocker, Apple will leave the EU altogether. Companies are “for profit” entities and publicly traded ones like Apple have an obligation to the their shareholders to act in their interests. Loss of the EU market will hurt but paying out more in fines than you earn in profit makes no sense.
The EU wants smartphones to be like PCs where there is little differentiation between vendors and profit is mainly derived from directed advertising and sale of consumer data. As an American, I am perfectly content to let Europe live in that world but I definitely hope they don’t drag me into it.
A American company named Walmart is no longer in the EU they left…….
Yeah, they had rather crude ideas on employee privacy and rather illegal views on how employees should conduct their personal lives.
Even after they managed to fix their HR to align with basic human rights, European customers had already told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off, and off they indeed did fuck.
Intentionally omitting features as retaliation? Yeah, Apple is gonna LOVE the multi-billion fine for this little stunt.
The EU is done playing. Apple will behave, or they will PAY.
Or, shocker, Apple will leave the EU altogether. Companies are “for profit” entities and publicly traded ones like Apple have an obligation to the their shareholders to act in their interests. Loss of the EU market will hurt but paying out more in fines than you earn in profit makes no sense.
The EU wants smartphones to be like PCs where there is little differentiation between vendors and profit is mainly derived from directed advertising and sale of consumer data. As an American, I am perfectly content to let Europe live in that world but I definitely hope they don’t drag me into it.
A American company named Walmart is no longer in the EU they left…….
Yeah, they had rather crude ideas on employee privacy and rather illegal views on how employees should conduct their personal lives.
Even after they managed to fix their HR to align with basic human rights, European customers had already told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off, and off they indeed did fuck.
I'm not sure if it was intended, but Walmart's questionable ethos should not play into danox's example as they are also publicly traded and therefore have an obligation to their shareholders. While Walmart backing out of the EU doesn't move EU citizens to see just how caustic the their whimsically partisan attempts to siphon money from certain companies, Apple pulling out could open some eyes and cause the EU to start playing fair.
Intentionally omitting features as retaliation? Yeah, Apple is gonna LOVE the multi-billion fine for this little stunt.
The EU is done playing. Apple will behave, or they will PAY.
Or, shocker, Apple will leave the EU altogether. Companies are “for profit” entities and publicly traded ones like Apple have an obligation to the their shareholders to act in their interests. Loss of the EU market will hurt but paying out more in fines than you earn in profit makes no sense.
The EU wants smartphones to be like PCs where there is little differentiation between vendors and profit is mainly derived from directed advertising and sale of consumer data. As an American, I am perfectly content to let Europe live in that world but I definitely hope they don’t drag me into it.
A American company named Walmart is no longer in the EU they left…….
Yeah, they had rather crude ideas on employee privacy and rather illegal views on how employees should conduct their personal lives.
Even after they managed to fix their HR to align with basic human rights, European customers had already told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off, and off they indeed did fuck.
I'm not sure if it was intended, but Walmart's questionable ethos should not play into danox's example as they are also publicly traded and therefore have an obligation to their shareholders. While Walmart backing out of the EU doesn't move EU citizens to see just how caustic the their whimsically partisan attempts to siphon money from certain companies, Apple pulling out could open some eyes and cause the EU to start playing fair.
Wal-Mart were losing money hand-over-fist by the time they gave up. Nobody was invested in them, so nobody cared when they left.
Yes, Apple is different in that regard, and people would be very upset, should Apple up and leave. But most of them would be mad at Apple, because, fuck you, just follow the goddamn law.
Sure, we have people who consider Vestager too heavy-handed and are hoping for a more "diplomatic" successor, but this stupid stunt by Apple really didn't help their public standing.
A **professional** would have said simply that the EU maintains its communications with Apple and will be discussing any changes with them, at least until both entities have, in fact, had a chance to get together and discuss recent announcements and what Apple’s concerns are regarding the EU’s rules.
Vestager seems to be the main problem here. Maybe replace her with someone more diplomatic and less dictatorial.
Look at Vestager professionalism here. Doesn’t look like she is European Commissioner for Competetion, she is just childish.
Vestager was sanguine, saying she had no need for a more intrusive or embedded AI service.
"I was personally quite relieved that I would not get an AI-updated service on my iPhone," she said. "It would be a 'thank you but no thank you' for me."
EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone. All nonsensical hogwash
The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.
The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps.
European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.
That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.
The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.
The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.
First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.
Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.
Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.
Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.
Great points.
No one goes to target or wal mart to find information about what else is available from a handbag maker - or if there are any vendor-specific sales better than what’s at that brick and mortar store.
They use the internet, advertising in tv, radio, direct mail, etc.
when you go to a Mercedes dealership, they don’t have to post up signs telling you that a certain bmw can be had cheaper for similar horsepower, etc.
in the smartphone, you have the whole internet at your disposal. People know what search engines and websites are. Sheesh. It’s not kindergarten where you don’t know something unless it’s in front of you at all times.
It’s really quite embarrassing that the eu is forcing a tech company to divert customers to vendors own separate stores -inside their own store.
It’s a solution looking for a problem and has indeed become the problem.
Brick and mortar stores have digital storefronts/apps. To be fair, that’s a digital market and would need to force them to have a sign next to the Kilauea bananas item in the apps that directed them to Klause’s stall down the street where he sells cheaper because of less overhead. It’s the height of stupidity.
In the EU, apart from the youngest children, almost 100 percent of citizens use a smartphone. No more than 30 percent of EU citizens use games consoles.
Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.
Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.
A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.
Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.
The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.
The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.
You are living in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Android has always allowed third party app stores and side loading. So where are all the app stores in Android that Android mobile phone users are flocking to, to buy their apps from? Why do over 80% of Android users only use the Google Play Store to get their apps? Why is Google Play Store still a monopoly on Android? Why don't the likes of Starbucks, Spotify, Netflix, banks, retailers, CC, stock traders, Whatsapp, Facebook, online stores, etc., open their own app stores to distribute their free apps on Android or have their customers side load or have it available in other app stores? So all Android customers can choose where or how to install their apps? Why haven't Google been forced to lower their commission due to competition from other apps stores and sideloading? You think it's going to be different with iOS?
The bottom line is that over 90% of apps on both platforms app stores are free. There is no way that any other app store can afford to offer as many free apps. But free apps is what draws the "foot traffic" to the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. So why should any of the developers that sells apps, want to offer them in other apps stores that won't even have nearly the "foot traffic" as the Apple App Store and Google Play Store? And why should any of the developers of free apps, want to offer their free apps in any other app stores that few Android users will visit 9much less trust) or have their customer sideload it?
This isn't about giving the consumers more choice. With Android, consumers already have those choices and have already chosen that they want to get their apps from the Google Play Store, whenever possible and only get it from elsewhere when forced to. This is about giving developers more choice because they want to avoid paying any commission for the commercial use of IP that they don't own or their apps do not pass the policies of the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Policies that are put in place to protect the users that installs the app on to their devices.
Can EU iOS users look forward to having more choices of app stores and being able to choose what ever app they want to install on their iDevice in the next few years, like from these app stores?
This isn't about making the EU forcing both Android and Apple to obey the rules. This is about forcing Apple to be more like Android and thus removing the choice for EU consumers to use a mobile OS that is safer, more secure and with better privacy protection.
When including all OS's, Windows is the most malware infected. Android is a close second. OSX (MacOS) is a distance third or fifth. With iOS having multiple times less malware that even OSX. And guess which of these are on devices that are the least like a desktop computer, that you think smartphones should be like?
If the EU was concern about the consumers, they would force Android to be more like iOS, not the other way around. But alas, the EU is more concern about the developers. Funny how the EU enforces one of the strictest (the probably the best) consumer data privacy protection regulations in the World and yet willing to look the other way when it comes to a mobile OS that has proven over time to be more private and secure than the mobile OS they are forcing it to be like.
BTW- and the majority of citizens in the EU that wants to be free to decide
from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have
already paid for, can do this by buying an Android phone. And the fact that more than 75% of the EU citizens are using an Android phone proves that Apple in not forcing anyone to use iPhones. And if the majority of EU iPhone users also wants this, why don't they switch to an Android phone? Why did they buy an iPhone to begin with, if that's what they wanted? iOS have been the same for over 10 years. What apps are on an iPhone, that can't be found (or least similar ones) on an Android phone?
EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone. All nonsensical hogwash
The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.
The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps.
European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.
That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.
The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.
The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.
First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.
Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.
Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.
Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.
Great points.
No one goes to target or wal mart to find information about what else is available from a handbag maker - or if there are any vendor-specific sales better than what’s at that brick and mortar store.
They use the internet, advertising in tv, radio, direct mail, etc.
when you go to a Mercedes dealership, they don’t have to post up signs telling you that a certain bmw can be had cheaper for similar horsepower, etc.
in the smartphone, you have the whole internet at your disposal. People know what search engines and websites are. Sheesh. It’s not kindergarten where you don’t know something unless it’s in front of you at all times.
It’s really quite embarrassing that the eu is forcing a tech company to divert customers to vendors own separate stores -inside their own store.
It’s a solution looking for a problem and has indeed become the problem.
Brick and mortar stores have digital storefronts/apps. To be fair, that’s a digital market and would need to force them to have a sign next to the Kilauea bananas item in the apps that directed them to Klause’s stall down the street where he sells cheaper because of less overhead. It’s the height of stupidity.
In the EU, apart from the youngest children, almost 100 percent of citizens use a smartphone. No more than 30 percent of EU citizens use games consoles.
Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.
Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.
A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.
Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.
The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.
The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.
This isn't about making the EU forcing both Android and Apple to obey the rules. This is about forcing Apple to be more like Android and thus removing the choice for EU consumers to use a mobile OS that is safer, more secure and with better privacy protection.
When including all OS's, Windows is the most malware infected. Android is a close second. OSX (MacOS) is a distance third or fifth. With iOS having multiple times less malware that even OSX. And guess which of these are on devices that are the least like a desktop computer, that you think smartphones should be like?
David, the vast majority of "Android malware" is in China, where they don't use Google Android. In the West, Google-licensed Android is nearly, and perhaps is, on par with iOS. If you're uncertain I'm correct, just do the same careful research (!) you did for your comments. BTW, keep in mind as you research that "target" is not the same as "hit".
Both mobile platforms are far more secure than consumer OSes on the desktop. Neither platform has a single virus AFAIK, which no desktop OS can claim.
Now on your second point of sideloading, what minor percentage of malware infection there is comes primarily from certain specific third party stores in countries where freedom to source software from other regions (Google Play) is restricted, for example a country like Iran or Russia. The more well-known side-loading alternative app sources for Google Android, stores like Aptoide, APKPure, F-Droid, Samsung App Store, and Amazon AppStore, are very safe and secure.
Just because Apple may have to accept side-loading does not mean it cannot be done safely and securely without Apple control. But you are quite right about one thing. Few users on either platform will elect to get their apps from anywhere but the official app stores.
Comments
Well done!
Second paragraph. The facts remain the same. The DMA has gone live. Apple must work to comply with the text. It is free to consult.
Third paragraph. Nothing is 'on the EU'. Apple just has to comply - not make a meal out of things.
What speculative fine are you referring to? What makes you think Vestager wants to fine Apple for not bringing something to market?
"Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range".
Even after they managed to fix their HR to align with basic human rights, European customers had already told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off, and off they indeed did fuck.
Nobody was invested in them, so nobody cared when they left.
Yes, Apple is different in that regard, and people would be very upset, should Apple up and leave.
But most of them would be mad at Apple, because, fuck you, just follow the goddamn law.
Sure, we have people who consider Vestager too heavy-handed and are hoping for a more "diplomatic" successor, but this stupid stunt by Apple really didn't help their public standing.
Incidentally, a good summary of the Wal-Mart problem in Germany:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-not-a-Walmart-in-Europe
Both mobile platforms are far more secure than consumer OSes on the desktop. Neither platform has a single virus AFAIK, which no desktop OS can claim.
Now on your second point of sideloading, what minor percentage of malware infection there is comes primarily from certain specific third party stores in countries where freedom to source software from other regions (Google Play) is restricted, for example a country like Iran or Russia. The more well-known side-loading alternative app sources for Google Android, stores like Aptoide, APKPure, F-Droid, Samsung App Store, and Amazon AppStore, are very safe and secure.
Just because Apple may have to accept side-loading does not mean it cannot be done safely and securely without Apple control. But you are quite right about one thing. Few users on either platform will elect to get their apps from anywhere but the official app stores.