Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
What Apple should do is to sell EU iPhones and EU iPads. These EU iOS devices would come with a USB C port and a version of iOS that adheres to the EU DMA. And not only would they only be available in the EU, it's the only iPhones and iPads that are available in the EU. The US iPhones will still work in the EU as the EU iPhones will work in the US, but EU citizens would have to purchase the much more secure US version in a non EU country and smuggle them home, if they want to avoid customs and VAT. This way the EU consumers can choose what's best for them.
I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.
Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.
The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.
Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US.
Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user.
Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.
After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.
Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.
Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.
What Apple should do is to sell EU iPhones and EU iPads. These EU iOS devices would come with a USB C port and a version of iOS that adheres to the EU DMA. And not only would they only be available in the EU, it's the only iPhones and iPads that are available in the EU. The US iPhones will still work in the EU as the EU iPhones will work in the US, but EU citizens would have to purchase the much more secure US version in a non EU country and smuggle them home, if they want to avoid customs and VAT. This way the EU consumers can choose what's best for them.
I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.
Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.
The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.
Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US.
Your post is well-thought and constructive, and may even be how Apple will proceed, but your post is predicated on the idea that Apple will give in to the EU and perhaps should also give in to every other jurisdiction that demands to micromanage small components of iOS. I'm not sure that I agree that Apple should (or will) capitulate. We could end up with a different phone or different OS for every country in the world, if Apple takes this route. For example, the iPhone sold in the EU may come with a version of iMessage that is compatible with Android phones, but iPhones sold in North America may not be similarly compatible. I don't think Apple wants its products fractionalized like this.
Several people have opined that Apple should build a "switch" that lets users enable side-loading. Well, maybe they are right, and that switch could simply be letting users choose between Android and iOS. That's a "switch", right? Instead of switching between "iOS1 and iOS2" it is switching between "iOS and Android." What's the difference? It's a "switch."
But you are certainly right that the EU can't impose its rules on any other jurisdiction. They could end up being big losers in this fight, if Apple decides to fight. But I don't see Tim Cook doing much fighting, to be honest. Steve Jobs was ready to "go nuclear" when it was called for.
EU imposed its rules on Microsoft with windows media player just like china imposes rules on apple to sell in china, I think iCloud has to be hosted in China for Chinese phones Just like France had that headphone (or was it charger) rule with iPhones I think it should be a switch to allow side loading, if you turn it on, you get a message that your warranty will be voided, If a sideloaded app somehow damages your phone, why should apple be financially liable ?
Apple could easily say any customer who pays for the iOS software can do whatever they want. It costs $499 initially and $99 updates.
You seem to think iPhone is an essential gadget with no alternatives. If you think people will still buy an iPhone if it starts such shenanigans, nobody will buy it.
It's really easy, if you side load, you can't use any Apple API CALLS from within your App, so if you side load it's gotta be your OWN RAW PURE CODE.
Or you pay a 30% commission on worldwide sales for their use. Let everyone see exactly what Apple has been providing all along. They’ll change their tune quick.
It's really easy, if you side load, you can't use any Apple API CALLS from within your App, so if you side load it's gotta be your OWN RAW PURE CODE.
Of you pay a 30% commission on worldwide sales for their use. Let everyone see exactly what Apple has been providing all along. They’ll change their tune quick.
You always have good points, but I think 30% is excessive. A more reasonable number would be 15-20%.
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.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
There's every reason: Money. If a developer thinks they can make an extra 20-25% on their app a lot will go for it. MS and other big companies already have the store fronts set up and running. It would cost them nothing. It would just be a matter of putting the iOS versions of their software out next to the Windows, and Mac versions to increase their profits. Small developers are mostly hanging on by their fingernails. If they think they can squeeze a bit more out by jumping from AppStore to iOSAppsDotCom they will. Raising prices is often not an option. People who would think nothing of dropping $6 on a cup of fancy coffee, will hesitate and often say no if an app is $1.99 vs $.99.
That would not change anything. Hiking prices on the App Store would not change anything for the developers. The 'money' (margins) would be the same (or more).
The main difference is that they would probably see less traffic through the App Store but some people here have persistently claimed that users are well aware of the benefits of the App Store, its conditions and commissions and would be willing to pay for those benefits.
That's on the purely financial side.
Of course, not having to allow Apple to 'approve' an app would be a huge advantage to both developers and consumers.
Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default. If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.
In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore. The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading.
Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.
No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them.
So do you think a developer simply raising their price in the Apple App store to make up for the commission and then selling that same app in their own store (or another third party app store) at the same price it was selling for in the Apple App Store before they raised the price, is some how good for the consumers because they now have a "choice" to pay the same price in another app store? What the Hell difference does it make whether the consumers only had the choice to pay $X for an app in the Apple App Store and having a "choice" to pay $X+$ in the Apple App Store and paying $X in another app store? All this did was to shift more money into the pockets of big developers that can afford to operate their own app stores and take it away from the pockets of the company that invested in the RD to create, improve and the cost to maintain the platform the third party app stores are profiting from. Will third party app stores be forced to host free apps? Over 90% of apps in the Apple app Store are free.
Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store) when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?
You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.
And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.
It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie. It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.
And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".
With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source.
Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
"What the hell difference does it make?"
LOL. It makes a hell of a difference!
It doesn't matter how many apps are 'free' on the Spp Store. It's still a multi billion dollar revenue stream.
I am under no misconceptions and neither are the people behind the DMA.
No one is talking about rent free IP either.
Apple chose a model that depends on commerce with the 'outside' world. There are external rules and regulations in that world.
Apple could make everything first party and see how things go. It could pull out of the EU. It could comply with the proposals. There are choices.
What is Vestager's definition of a "fair marketplace"? Is it "fair" if there is equal opportunity to enter the market and compete? Or, is she wanting "fair" in terms of outcome? Because from where I have been sitting for the last 30 years I have been in IT, the marketplace is already pretty fair. Good, quality products and software tend to do well and poor quality products and software tend to go away. I have not read the Act yet, but if I go from what appears to be her rationale and thinking, then I should be able to go to my Audi dealer here in Germany and demand that I be allowed to have a VW Infotainment system installed.
While I have just relocated from the US to Europe and would hate to see Apple leave, there are times when I want to agree with those who call for US tech firms to leave the EU. It sometimes feels to me that the EU sees US tech companies as a piggy bank to subsidize the EU. Where I am in Germany, internet access is worse than in some third-world countries that I have been in. I was slightly surprised to learn that Deutsche Telekom continues to install copper rather than fiber cable. Given the rising cost of copper and the economic and future benefits of fiber, I have not been able to come up with a business case where this makes sense in the long run.
I hope there are some technology-savvy people working in Vestager's team and not a bunch of dinosaurs whose experience with tech is limited to knowing how to use Outlook and a web browser. Unfortunately, from what I have seen come out of her office the past three years I would bet on the dinosaurs.
It's really easy, if you side load, you can't use any Apple API CALLS from within your App, so if you side load it's gotta be your OWN RAW PURE CODE.
Of you pay a 30% commission on worldwide sales for their use. Let everyone see exactly what Apple has been providing all along. They’ll change their tune quick.
You always have good points, but I think 30% is excessive. A more reasonable number would be 15-20%.
Agreed. A number that covers Apple’s costs and makes it worthwhile to provide all that Apple provides.
What is Vestager's definition of a "fair marketplace"? Is it "fair" if there is equal opportunity to enter the market and compete? Or, is she wanting "fair" in terms of outcome? Because from where I have been sitting for the last 30 years I have been in IT, the marketplace is already pretty fair. Good, quality products and software tend to do well and poor quality products and software tend to go away. I have not read the Act yet, but if I go from what appears to be her rationale and thinking, then I should be able to go to my Audi dealer here in Germany and demand that I be allowed to have a VW Infotainment system installed.
While I have just relocated from the US to Europe and would hate to see Apple leave, there are times when I want to agree with those who call for US tech firms to leave the EU. It sometimes feels to me that the EU sees US tech companies as a piggy bank to subsidize the EU. Where I am in Germany, internet access is worse than in some third-world countries that I have been in. I was slightly surprised to learn that Deutsche Telekom continues to install copper rather than fiber cable. Given the rising cost of copper and the economic and future benefits of fiber, I have not been able to come up with a business case where this makes sense in the long run.
I hope there are some technology-savvy people working in Vestager's team and not a bunch of dinosaurs whose experience with tech is limited to knowing how to use Outlook and a web browser. Unfortunately, from what I have seen come out of her office the past three years I would bet on the dinosaurs.
Germany isn't a great gauge for fibre installation. It is a bit of a misnomer but the 'last mile copper' approach in many suburban and rural places is going to change as Covid has radically changed perspectives.
That said though, it is very unlikely that Germany, on the whole, has poorer internet access than any third world country. It's more likely that the place where you live simply isn't well served.
Where I am in Spain (in a town in the sticks of less than 25,000 inhabitants) I have gigabit symmetrical fibre right into the flat and Huawei last month launched a FTTR solution to cable fibre to each room of the house.
I can see Class action suits be people who have been harmed by this overreach. It’s taking us all back to the days of windows CE. Security was crap, search everywhere to find an app, mass piracy, easy for anyone to make a fake App Store website and load it with pirated material and viruses/malware. I guess they value cyber security like their NATO spending, not living up to obligations
Try to sue the government? Even in the US that is insanely hard and expensive.
Without that revenue Apple will have to change it's business models. Which means developer tools and interface access will be financed like on other platforms.
Before the App Store, the annual fee for the developer program started at $499 and went up to, I believe, $1,499. Mac OS X upgrades also cost $129. People really believe they’re going to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
The developers that wanted a "free" ride will hurt all of us with their greedy stupidity.
Completely tongue in cheek, but can I have a 3rd party payment option for artists inside of Spotify? After all Spotify are the largest Music subscription service and offer "Car Thing", a piece of hardware where I can only use Spotify and thus have no other way of using this hardware without paying a tax to Spotify. It's my hardware, I should be able to do anything with it - even if it never offered such functionality and making it work this way fundamentally breaks an important part of the user experience.
avon b7 said: Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
Nobody is debating the value of choice or competition. What is being debated is the EU's claims of anticompetitive behavior that would require something as draconian as forced side loading. Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior.
Has the EU established that iOS has higher prices than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower quality software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS offers less choice in software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower customer satisfaction than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No.
If all of those questions are 'No', then why does the EU think there is a problem that is significant enough to require forced side loading? The level of competition for pricing, quality, choice and customer satisfaction seems to be normal.
avon b7 said: Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
Nobody is debating the value of choice or competition. What is being debated is the EU's claims of anticompetitive behavior that would require something as draconian as forced side loading. Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior.
Has the EU established that iOS has higher prices than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower quality software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS offers less choice in software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower customer satisfaction than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No.
If all of those questions are 'No', then why does the EU think there is a problem that is significant enough to require forced side loading? The level of competition for pricing, quality, choice and customer satisfaction seems to be normal.
"Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior."
Comments
I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.
Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.
The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.
Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US.
Several people have opined that Apple should build a "switch" that lets users enable side-loading. Well, maybe they are right, and that switch could simply be letting users choose between Android and iOS. That's a "switch", right? Instead of switching between "iOS1 and iOS2" it is switching between "iOS and Android." What's the difference? It's a "switch."
But you are certainly right that the EU can't impose its rules on any other jurisdiction. They could end up being big losers in this fight, if Apple decides to fight. But I don't see Tim Cook doing much fighting, to be honest. Steve Jobs was ready to "go nuclear" when it was called for.
just like china imposes rules on apple to sell in china, I think iCloud has to be hosted in China for Chinese phones
Just like France had that headphone (or was it charger) rule with iPhones
I think it should be a switch to allow side loading, if you turn it on, you get a message that your warranty will be voided,
If a sideloaded app somehow damages your phone, why should apple be financially liable ?
The main difference is that they would probably see less traffic through the App Store but some people here have persistently claimed that users are well aware of the benefits of the App Store, its conditions and commissions and would be willing to pay for those benefits.
That's on the purely financial side.
Of course, not having to allow Apple to 'approve' an app would be a huge advantage to both developers and consumers.
Yes. Competition is good for consumers.
"What the hell difference does it make?"
LOL. It makes a hell of a difference!
It doesn't matter how many apps are 'free' on the Spp Store. It's still a multi billion dollar revenue stream.
I am under no misconceptions and neither are the people behind the DMA.
No one is talking about rent free IP either.
Apple chose a model that depends on commerce with the 'outside' world. There are external rules and regulations in that world.
Apple could make everything first party and see how things go. It could pull out of the EU. It could comply with the proposals. There are choices.
Is it "fair" if there is equal opportunity to enter the market and compete? Or, is she wanting "fair" in terms of outcome? Because from where I have been sitting for the last 30 years I have been in IT, the marketplace is already pretty fair. Good, quality products and software tend to do well and poor quality products and software tend to go away. I have not read the Act yet, but if I go from what appears to be her rationale and thinking, then I should be able to go to my Audi dealer here in Germany and demand that I be allowed to have a VW Infotainment system installed.
While I have just relocated from the US to Europe and would hate to see Apple leave, there are times when I want to agree with those who call for US tech firms to leave the EU. It sometimes feels to me that the EU sees US tech companies as a piggy bank to subsidize the EU. Where I am in Germany, internet access is worse than in some third-world countries that I have been in. I was slightly surprised to learn that Deutsche Telekom continues to install copper rather than fiber cable. Given the rising cost of copper and the economic and future benefits of fiber, I have not been able to come up with a business case where this makes sense in the long run.
I hope there are some technology-savvy people working in Vestager's team and not a bunch of dinosaurs whose experience with tech is limited to knowing how to use Outlook and a web browser. Unfortunately, from what I have seen come out of her office the past three years I would bet on the dinosaurs.
That said though, it is very unlikely that Germany, on the whole, has poorer internet access than any third world country. It's more likely that the place where you live simply isn't well served.
Where I am in Spain (in a town in the sticks of less than 25,000 inhabitants) I have gigabit symmetrical fibre right into the flat and Huawei last month launched a FTTR solution to cable fibre to each room of the house.
https://telecoms.com/intelligence/huawei-launches-fttr-solution-in-mwc-2022-redefining-digital-home-and-sme-experience/
The overall EU market is ready for such products.
Has the EU established that iOS has higher prices than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower quality software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS offers less choice in software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower customer satisfaction than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No.
If all of those questions are 'No', then why does the EU think there is a problem that is significant enough to require forced side loading? The level of competition for pricing, quality, choice and customer satisfaction seems to be normal.
'being' the only store isn't anti-competitive.
Not allowing other stores to exist, is.