avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Point 1:
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
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.
A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?
I would be thrilled if your prediction of an AppStore-Free iPhone for the EU comes to be true. (Although the moniker "Pure" is never going to be used. Especially in Germany. Maybe "True", "Fun", "Absolute", or "Real.")
To answer your question, I think an iPhone without an App Store would still sell well. The original iPhone sure did, and it didn't have any App Store. As far as I can see, all the apps on my iPhone could be deleted because each app also has a web portal where I can get the same functionality using the web instead of an app. For example, my banking app and my network speed test app.
"AppStore-free" doesn't have to mean that the Apple App Store can not be on the EU iPhone. The users just have to side load it in. Of course its the EU iOS Apple App Store. Along with all the other app stores they want or need. The Apple App Store just can't be pre-install on the EU iPhones. We all know how anal the EU gets if gatekeepers promotes their own products or services.
But wait, since gatekeepers are not allowed to promote their own products or services, Safari nor any other browsers can be pre-installed (to level the playing field for all competitors). So the users will have to go on the internet using a computer to find the app for the browser they want to use, download it on to their computer and then using the correct USB cable to connect their iPhone to the computer and side load it into their EU iPhone. Only after then, can the EU iPhone users start visiting all the other app stores website to side load the apps, on their EU iPhone.
Not only that, because allowing free apps attracts users to the Apple App Store, thus giving Apple an unfair competitive edge over other app stores .... no more third party free apps, unless competing app stores host free apps. Since no other app store would want to use up bandwidth to host free apps, users will have to hunt down popular free apps like Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Fortnite, CNN, Google Map, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. Of course apps like iMessage, Photos, Apple Map, Contacts, iTunes, Calculator, etc. will be in the Apple App Store. Even when free. They just can't be pre-installed.
If all the big name game developers leave the Apple App Store to sell their apps in their own app stores, then there's no real incentive for Apple to invest in improving the game performance of EU iPhones. Currently, 70% of Apple App Store revenue are from games. The top 3% of developers, accounts for over 93% of all Apple App Store revenue. 97% of the rest of the developers accounts for 7% of Apple app Store revenue. Without the revenue from the big developers, who are the most likely to have their own app stores to avoid the commission, why should Apple invest in improving EU iPhones performance. EU iPhones could be like the iPhone SE, about a year behind the newest top of the line iPhones.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading. People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Point 1:
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.
You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.
There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading. People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
Some do. Most don't. Don't exaggerate. It makes your position look weak when you exaggerate.
If Apple allowed side-loading by installing a switch, and that switch was to allow users to install Android rather than iOS, would that switch be good enough for you?
Your certificate revocation idea is irrelevant, and probably unworkable. First, Apple won't be allowed to revoke a certificate for a third party app store if the app adheres to the policies of the third party app store, right? Right? So that's a red herring. If a third party app store's guidelines allow, for example, p**nography, and Apple's App Store guidelines prohibit it, then Apple can't revoke the certificate of the app, right? So why do you even mention it? Besides, I expect that third party app stores would have their own signing certificates for the apps on their store because Apple isn't going to be paid to review the compliance of the apps on those app stores.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
The vast majority of apps available are by law abiding developers. It's the less than 1% of apps developed by the hackers, phishers and scammers that we need to worry about. Android malware issues aren't cause by the vast majority (over 99%) of apps from law abiding developers. Or you don't think Android malware issues are part of "reality".
And EU PSD2 have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of apps being safe. Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada PSD2 only pertains to banking software use to make online transactions and not necessary an app. The vast majority of apps have nothing to do with banking.
If hackers, phishers and scammers can con just 1% of iOS users into installing their malicious apps through side loading, that would be over 12M iOS users. You think in "reality", that would not be a problem because the vast majority of apps works just fine?
In "reality", no security and privacy issues should be reduced, for the superficial needs of users living a "digital lifestyle", to side load or the need to increase competition so competitors can make more profit. The EU needs to get their priories straight because the vast majority of users don't care to ever side load, as indicated by real numbers of how many Android users takes advantage of side loading. It's a joke that the EU would even consider sacrificing even the tiniest bit of the security and privacy enjoyed by 90% of iOS users, for the sake of probably no more than 10% of iOS users who's willing to give up some of the security, in order to side load or to level the playing field for competitors that wants to make more profit. And yet here we are trying to figure out why the EU are going through with this and here you are trying to defend such a move by the EU.
To paraphrase Spock .... the needs of the many that wants security, outweighs the need of the few that wants to side load.
Politicians are simply incompetent people with a hunger for power. They can’t figure out the result of their own decisions before it’s too late. If they should do anything in this case it should be looking into the severe dominance of Microsoft in state/municipal runned operations. They should also ban Meta/Facebook completely. It’s one of the single most harmful companies in so many aspects.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Point 1:
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.
You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.
There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.
I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy.
I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.
Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that knowledge now.
Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?
Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time.
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.
A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?
I would be thrilled if your prediction of an AppStore-Free iPhone for the EU comes to be true. (Although the moniker "Pure" is never going to be used. Especially in Germany. Maybe "True", "Fun", "Absolute", or "Real.")
To answer your question, I think an iPhone without an App Store would still sell well. The original iPhone sure did, and it didn't have any App Store. As far as I can see, all the apps on my iPhone could be deleted because each app also has a web portal where I can get the same functionality using the web instead of an app. For example, my banking app and my network speed test app.
"AppStore-free" doesn't have to mean that the Apple App Store can not be on the EU iPhone. The users just have to side load it in. Of course its the EU iOS Apple App Store. Along with all the other app stores they want or need. The Apple App Store just can't be pre-install on the EU iPhones. We all know how anal the EU gets if gatekeepers promotes their own products or services.
But wait, since gatekeepers are not allowed to promote their own products or services, Safari nor any other browsers can be pre-installed (to level the playing field for all competitors). So the users will have to go on the internet using a computer to find the app for the browser they want to use, download it on to their computer and then using the correct USB cable to connect their iPhone to the computer and side load it into their EU iPhone. Only after then, can the EU iPhone users start visiting all the other app stores website to side load the apps, on their EU iPhone.
Not only that, because allowing free apps attracts users to the Apple App Store, thus giving Apple an unfair competitive edge over other app stores .... no more third party free apps, unless competing app stores host free apps. Since no other app store would want to use up bandwidth to host free apps, users will have to hunt down popular free apps like Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Fortnite, CNN, Google Map, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. Of course apps like iMessage, Photos, Apple Map, Contacts, iTunes, Calculator, etc. will be in the Apple App Store. Even when free. They just can't be pre-installed.
If all the big name game developers leave the Apple App Store to sell their apps in their own app stores, then there's no real incentive for Apple to invest in improving the game performance of EU iPhones. Currently, 70% of Apple App Store revenue are from games. The top 3% of developers, accounts for over 93% of all Apple App Store revenue. 97% of the rest of the developers accounts for 7% of Apple app Store revenue. Without the revenue from the big developers, who are the most likely to have their own app stores to avoid the commission, why should Apple invest in improving EU iPhones performance. EU iPhones could be like the iPhone SE, about a year behind the newest top of the line iPhones.
The EU is about to trigger a very dystopian future as regards smartphones. Well thought out.
People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading. People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
Some do. Most don't. Don't exaggerate. It makes your position look weak when you exaggerate.
If Apple allowed side-loading by installing a switch, and that switch was to allow users to install Android rather than iOS, would that switch be good enough for you?
Your certificate revocation idea is irrelevant, and probably unworkable. First, Apple won't be allowed to revoke a certificate for a third party app store if the app adheres to the policies of the third party app store, right? Right? So that's a red herring. If a third party app store's guidelines allow, for example, p**nography, and Apple's App Store guidelines prohibit it, then Apple can't revoke the certificate of the app, right? So why do you even mention it? Besides, I expect that third party app stores would have their own signing certificates for the apps on their store because Apple isn't going to be paid to review the compliance of the apps on those app stores.
Third Party App Stores do not mean that Apple's security model (sandboxing, certificates etc.) are no longer be used. Certificates will be there and if a certificate is revoked by Apple or by another App Store is quite meaningless.
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.
The problem is if it’s possible to turn it on, it will be abused. Not to throw my parents under the bus, but the moment an app says “security update needed…. Go click this switch (to allow side loading) to download the latest version of Flash Player” I’ll loose 5 hours of my life and a lot of patience getting rid of malware ridden apps.
Apple can mitigate this by requiring a password to flick the switch, and accompanying it with a warning to be wary of any message that says you should do this, and only confident users should proceed.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Point 1:
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.
You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.
There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.
I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy.
I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.
Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that capacity now.
Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?
Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time.
I've often noted your authoritarianism, and your love of all things China, and you stating that explicitly, seals the deal for me. I'm now 100% behind this impending disaster!
The schadenfreude alone of the unintended consequences to follow makes all of the popcorn that I'll have to pop entirely worth it.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?
Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being..... behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.
Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve?
Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.
This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements.
So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.
If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you?
Point 1:
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.
You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.
There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.
I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy.
I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.
Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that capacity now.
Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?
Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time.
I've often noted your authoritarianism, and your love of all things China, and you stating that explicitly, seals the deal for me. I'm now 100% behind this impending disaster!
The schadenfreude alone of the unintended consequences to follow makes all of the popcorn that I'll have to pop entirely worth it.
I hope you realise that what I am saying is exactly what happens rightnow both in the EU and the US.
Although you might see smiley politicians signing documents, they are drawn up and scrutinised by experts in different fields.
This proposal has been through all the formulative processes, including public consultation, and will follow the exact same path as every other EU directive if it succeeds and is passed into law.
Joe Public will play no role in the drafting and procedure beyond consultation.
Apple and Google should both shut down their European app stores. They are not obligated to do business in that market. Let the Europeans develop their own phones, operating systems, and app stores.
You think we Europeans like this DMA thing? Well, we don’t. And that’s why I’m also voting for Apple and Google to simply leave the EU market. Someone needs to put real pressure on our stupid fellow citizens here.
We tried making our own smart phones back in the olden days. But none of those brands survived when Apple entered the market. Now it’s just envious old farts and bad losers that support this DMA, and Margrethe Vestager is one of them. I’m ashamed of having her representing EU’s antitrust politics.
For all those criticizing the EU: be careful. US Congress is also looking into regulating Big Tech, and I'm sure they are salivating at the prospect of introducing similar legislation in the US.
Apple and Google should both shut down their European app stores. They are not obligated to do business in that market. Let the Europeans develop their own phones, operating systems, and app stores.
You think we Europeans like this DMA thing? Well, we don’t. And that’s why I’m also voting for Apple and Google to simply leave the EU market. Someone needs to put real pressure on our stupid fellow citizens here.
We tried making our own smart phones back in the olden days. But none of those brands survived when Apple entered the market. Now it’s just envious old farts and bad losers that support this DMA, and Margrethe Vestager is one of them. I’m ashamed of having her representing EU’s antitrust politics.
Europeans have nothing to like or dislike at the moment because this is a proposal.
However, this is what came back from consultation on the specific issue of gatekeepers to digital platforms.
"the vast majority (90%), including among platforms (73%), agrees that there is a need to consider dedicated regulatory rules to address negative societal and economic effects of gatekeeper power of large platforms. Among businesses and business users who replied to the relevant question (155 in total), 88% encountered unfair trading conditions on large platforms. Examples of unfair practices by large gatekeeper platforms listed by respondents cover exclusionary conducts, exploitative conducts and transparency-related problems".
Those points seem reasonable to me and tie in well with what ongoing formal investigations into anti-competitive behavior and abuse of dominant position.
The biggest (and largely unspoken in this debate) problem with sideloading is that it's a portal for mass, casual piracy of third-party apps, especially mom-and-pop apps that don't depend on host servers. (That's why Epic Games is fine with this; their best products are server-dependent, hence already piracy-proof.) Then, small-time app developers — the very ones the legislation is allegedly crafted to protect — see 80-90% of their revenue disappear. That's what happens on Android, now it will happen on iPhone/iPad too?
And fines pegged on global revenue, not revenue in the EU? So even if Apple scaled back its business in the EU, it wouldn't make any difference?
And would Apple really be able to contain these changes to the EU, with no impact on its non-EU business worldwide (malware; devs pretending to be EU, etc.)?
Please, please, Apple, have the guts to just say no, and withdraw from the EU. Yes, that will suck, and a lot of people will hate you for it (if they don't already), but if the alternative is to let clueless lawmakers irreversibly gut your best products, forcing you offer just another, me-too, Android POS, then maybe it's finally time to take a stand. Exit their market, refuse to pay the giga-fines they lob at you on the way out, and let the people of the EU take some time deciding if their competition police are really helping them or not.
avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is.
That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.
If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.
The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.
It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue.
As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found.
Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled.
If it is illegal, the EU wouldn't need to create NEW regulations. In reality, it's legal under current regulation and will remain legal for companies that are under the NEW market cap. It's essentially double-talk. They use the term "anticompetitive" but know that forcing ALL companies to follow the regulation would be a gigantic blunder.
As for the "beginnings" of the smartphone era, Apple's 30/70 cut for their digital store was considered to be a highly positive change from the status quo 70/30 cut in brick/mortar stores. It was never viewed as an anticompetitive abuse. And when Android was launched in 2009, Google viewed their "open" approach as a competitive ADVANTAGE versus iOS, not disadvantage. And so did the majority of the tech press. Fast forward to 2022 and despite the App Store having price/quality/quantity/satisfaction for the App Store that is easily just as good as "open" Android AND with Android having higher market share, both the EU and U.S. Congress seem to be hell bent on treating Apple like they're anticompetive...for no real legal reason. Apple has won in court, so legislators have to resort to market cap.
Google has never really been out of the EU crosshairs for one reason or another.
Just like in these current proposals, smaller fish get more leeway. Gatekeeper status changes things.
Rules and regulations aren't set in stone. They come and go. They get revised. This particular proposal has been brewing for a long while and in parallel to industry consultation and investigations.
Industry consultation = conjecture from billion/trillion dollar software developers.
Investigations = they didn't come up with anything legally notable but they're going to proceed anyway.
Notice that the EU hasn't specified what benefits they expect to see as a result of forced side loading. Like I pointed out earlier, the EU has never proven that software price, quality, quantity or customer satisfaction with iOS is worse than other operating systems with 3rd party stores. They can't claim those things will improve because they're already just as good as other operating systems. And Apple has pointed out that the EU has willfully ignored that privacy/security are, in fact, competitive features. In other words, they're claiming to be focused on improving competition while also deliberately knee-capping Apple's competitive ability.
All the affected parties had the option to participate in discussions almost two years ago. It was not limited in any way to EU businesses or citizens.
There was overwhelming support for tackling the gatekeeper issue.
Many investigations are ongoing.
Total responses = 2,863. Total business responses = 155. Total population of EU = 474,000,000.
I don't think the word "overwhelming" really applies. A more accurate description would be that a majority of the 2.863 respondents agreed with some very generalized questions about improving online safety, digital services liability, gatekeeper issues, online advertising etc.
"In general, most of the issues presented by respondents were perceived to be due to an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and business users, which is considered to hamper competition, foster uncertainty in relation to contractual terms, and also result in lock-in of consumers."
^^ This is the primary statement of the gatekeeper section from your link. Notice that they're stating that "bargaining power" for business contracts is the main driver of the gatekeeper issues for respondents. And also note that Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that the lawsuits by Epic and Spotify were about business disputes, not antitrust or anticompetitive activity. Ask yourself this question: how would forced side loading address "bargaining power"? Does it really make any sense to use forced side loading in that manner versus other possible forms of regulation?
Comments
Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.
Point 2: Yes.
They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications.
"AppStore-free" doesn't have to mean that the Apple App Store can not be on the EU iPhone. The users just have to side load it in. Of course its the EU iOS Apple App Store. Along with all the other app stores they want or need. The Apple App Store just can't be pre-install on the EU iPhones. We all know how anal the EU gets if gatekeepers promotes their own products or services.
But wait, since gatekeepers are not allowed to promote their own products or services, Safari nor any other browsers can be pre-installed (to level the playing field for all competitors). So the users will have to go on the internet using a computer to find the app for the browser they want to use, download it on to their computer and then using the correct USB cable to connect their iPhone to the computer and side load it into their EU iPhone. Only after then, can the EU iPhone users start visiting all the other app stores website to side load the apps, on their EU iPhone.
Not only that, because allowing free apps attracts users to the Apple App Store, thus giving Apple an unfair competitive edge over other app stores .... no more third party free apps, unless competing app stores host free apps. Since no other app store would want to use up bandwidth to host free apps, users will have to hunt down popular free apps like Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Fortnite, CNN, Google Map, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. Of course apps like iMessage, Photos, Apple Map, Contacts, iTunes, Calculator, etc. will be in the Apple App Store. Even when free. They just can't be pre-installed.
If all the big name game developers leave the Apple App Store to sell their apps in their own app stores, then there's no real incentive for Apple to invest in improving the game performance of EU iPhones. Currently, 70% of Apple App Store revenue are from games. The top 3% of developers, accounts for over 93% of all Apple App Store revenue. 97% of the rest of the developers accounts for 7% of Apple app Store revenue. Without the revenue from the big developers, who are the most likely to have their own app stores to avoid the commission, why should Apple invest in improving EU iPhones performance. EU iPhones could be like the iPhone SE, about a year behind the newest top of the line iPhones.
People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.
You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.
There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?
If Apple allowed side-loading by installing a switch, and that switch was to allow users to install Android rather than iOS, would that switch be good enough for you?
Your certificate revocation idea is irrelevant, and probably unworkable. First, Apple won't be allowed to revoke a certificate for a third party app store if the app adheres to the policies of the third party app store, right? Right? So that's a red herring. If a third party app store's guidelines allow, for example, p**nography, and Apple's App Store guidelines prohibit it, then Apple can't revoke the certificate of the app, right? So why do you even mention it? Besides, I expect that third party app stores would have their own signing certificates for the apps on their store because Apple isn't going to be paid to review the compliance of the apps on those app stores.
And EU PSD2 have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of apps being safe. Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada PSD2 only pertains to banking software use to make online transactions and not necessary an app. The vast majority of apps have nothing to do with banking.
If hackers, phishers and scammers can con just 1% of iOS users into installing their malicious apps through side loading, that would be over 12M iOS users. You think in "reality", that would not be a problem because the vast majority of apps works just fine?
In "reality", no security and privacy issues should be reduced, for the superficial needs of users living a "digital lifestyle", to side load or the need to increase competition so competitors can make more profit. The EU needs to get their priories straight because the vast majority of users don't care to ever side load, as indicated by real numbers of how many Android users takes advantage of side loading. It's a joke that the EU would even consider sacrificing even the tiniest bit of the security and privacy enjoyed by 90% of iOS users, for the sake of probably no more than 10% of iOS users who's willing to give up some of the security, in order to side load or to level the playing field for competitors that wants to make more profit. And yet here we are trying to figure out why the EU are going through with this and here you are trying to defend such a move by the EU.
To paraphrase Spock .... the needs of the many that wants security, outweighs the need of the few that wants to side load.
What could go wrong?
Will there be a clause for indemnification by the EU when breaches occur as a result?
I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy.
I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.
Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that knowledge now.
Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?
Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time.
The schadenfreude alone of the unintended consequences to follow makes all of the popcorn that I'll have to pop entirely worth it.
Although you might see smiley politicians signing documents, they are drawn up and scrutinised by experts in different fields.
This proposal has been through all the formulative processes, including public consultation, and will follow the exact same path as every other EU directive if it succeeds and is passed into law.
Joe Public will play no role in the drafting and procedure beyond consultation.
We tried making our own smart phones back in the olden days. But none of those brands survived when Apple entered the market. Now it’s just envious old farts and bad losers that support this DMA, and Margrethe Vestager is one of them. I’m ashamed of having her representing EU’s antitrust politics.
However, this is what came back from consultation on the specific issue of gatekeepers to digital platforms.
"the vast majority (90%), including among platforms (73%), agrees that there is a need to consider dedicated regulatory rules to address negative societal and economic effects of gatekeeper power of large platforms. Among businesses and business users who replied to the relevant question (155 in total), 88% encountered unfair trading conditions on large platforms. Examples of unfair practices by large gatekeeper platforms listed by respondents cover exclusionary conducts, exploitative conducts and transparency-related problems".
Those points seem reasonable to me and tie in well with what ongoing formal investigations into anti-competitive behavior and abuse of dominant position.
I don't think the word "overwhelming" really applies. A more accurate description would be that a majority of the 2.863 respondents agreed with some very generalized questions about improving online safety, digital services liability, gatekeeper issues, online advertising etc.
"In general, most of the issues presented by respondents were perceived to be due to an imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and business users, which is considered to hamper competition, foster uncertainty in relation to contractual terms, and also result in lock-in of consumers."
^^ This is the primary statement of the gatekeeper section from your link. Notice that they're stating that "bargaining power" for business contracts is the main driver of the gatekeeper issues for respondents. And also note that Apple themselves have repeatedly stated that the lawsuits by Epic and Spotify were about business disputes, not antitrust or anticompetitive activity. Ask yourself this question: how would forced side loading address "bargaining power"? Does it really make any sense to use forced side loading in that manner versus other possible forms of regulation?