avon b7 said: If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper.
Apple will still be viewed as a "gatekeeper" by the EU even if side loading is forced within iOS, so side loading itself is irrelevant to the market both in terms of how the EU views Apple and how pricing/quality/selection/satisfaction works. That's what is so bizarre about the EU wanting to force side loading...entirely arbitrary with no benefit.
Surely having an alternative source for software can have potential benefits in terms of pricing, security and what is available.
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
avon b7 said: Surely having an alternative source for software can have potential benefits in terms of pricing, security and what is available.
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
Those kinds of advantages should have already materialized on Android in the past. I know a lot of people thought that they would, but they didn't. You already have 13 years of evidence that availability of 3rd party stores and side loading didn't deliver anything better than what a single store on iOS did. However, those same 13 years DO provide evidence that iOS had better security/privacy as a result of the single store. But that appears to be what the EU wants to eliminate: the thing that's actually better for consumers.
To go even further, Windows and macOS don't have better pricing for software than iOS or better privacy/security than iOS and they've been around even longer than Android. In reality, there is no operating system on planet Earth that has lower overall prices or better overall security for apps than iOS.
Bunch of ducking idiots I blocked are really pissed and hope Apple somehow loses, while trying to justify the EU position with the flimsiest of arguments.
Soap-on-a-rope is going be be massively disappointed when Apple prevails. Just like they did in the Irish tax case, and that had a better shot at succeeding than this obviously discriminatory bill.
Bunch of ducking idiots I blocked are really pissed and hope Apple somehow loses, while trying to justify the EU position with the flimsiest of arguments.
Soap-on-a-rope is going be be massively disappointed when Apple prevails. Just like they did in the Irish tax case, and that had a better shot at succeeding than this obviously discriminatory bill.
The Irish tax dodge is not finally ruled, as the decision will be appealed to the European Court of Justice.
Apple could easily say any customer who pays for the iOS software can do whatever they want. It costs $499 initially and $99 updates.
The iPhoneOS updates for iPod Touch used to initially cost money every time you upgraded to a new major release. Apple said it was a regulatory issue. Even much more than a decade later, I haven’t heard the exact details on why. I think it was related to the firmware.
Apple should definitely charge a significant amount to enable sideloading, to cover the support costs for customers coming into Apple Stores with problems related to non-approved 3rd-party apps, such as slow crash-prone phones with short battery life, malware infections, etc. For the business model to work for Apple, every new device bought, would need to be ”pay-to-unlock” enabled. I do not know what kind of price tag is reasonable for them, but I’m rather thinking a one-time $349 registration fee per device you own. Also, flipping that switch for sideloading invalidates AppleCare+. Messages will popup and alert the user that ”your paid-for AppleCare+ deal will be immediately canceled due to clauses in section X.1 concerning unverified installation of applications”
Bunch of ducking idiots I blocked are really pissed and hope Apple somehow loses, while trying to justify the EU position with the flimsiest of arguments.
Soap-on-a-rope is going be be massively disappointed when Apple prevails. Just like they did in the Irish tax case, and that had a better shot at succeeding than this obviously discriminatory bill.
Loses?
Loses what exactly?
This isn't an investigation ruling that Apple can appeal.
It is a proposal for a legal framework to tackle industry issues. If approved, Apple would have to comply. If it decides not to, then it knows what will happen.
avon b7 said: If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper.
Apple will still be viewed as a "gatekeeper" by the EU even if side loading is forced within iOS, so side loading itself is irrelevant to the market both in terms of how the EU views Apple and how pricing/quality/selection/satisfaction works. That's what is so bizarre about the EU wanting to force side loading...entirely arbitrary with no benefit.
Surely having an alternative source for software can have potential benefits in terms of pricing, security and what is available.
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
The end users don’t even have a clue of what’s best for them. End users alone only make choices based on their own individual short-term advantages.
They don’t understand anything on a system level or long-term consequences. Therefore their choices nearly always result in suboptimization. And even when the negative consequences are a fact they fail to see the connections.
End users are paying to get served good products. Not to design them themselves. They have other important things to do in their lives.
This is why we need to have business managements and governments; to lay out long-term holistic strategies. In this case, the strategy of the EU Commission is sadly enough to acquire business power from American successful companies …even if it costs its own citizens both security and service quality.
avon b7 said: If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper.
Apple will still be viewed as a "gatekeeper" by the EU even if side loading is forced within iOS, so side loading itself is irrelevant to the market both in terms of how the EU views Apple and how pricing/quality/selection/satisfaction works. That's what is so bizarre about the EU wanting to force side loading...entirely arbitrary with no benefit.
Surely having an alternative source for software can have potential benefits in terms of pricing, security and what is available.
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
The end users don’t even have a clue of what’s best for them. End users alone only make choices based on their own individual short-term advantages.
They don’t understand anything on a system level or long-term consequences. Therefore their choices nearly always result in suboptimization. And even when the negative consequences are a fact they fail to see the connections.
End users are paying to get served good products. Not to design them themselves. They have other important things to do in their lives.
This is why we need to have business managements and governments; to lay out long-term holistic strategies. In this case, the strategy of the EU Commission is sadly enough to acquire business power from American successful companies …even if it costs its own citizens both security and service quality.
So, if given the option of two or more stores, how would users react?
Don't forget that what most people are talking about here is just a small part of what is being proposed. The DSA (part of the package of proposals) will have far reaching consequences for 'digital' activity. It isn't only about the DMA.
Debatable, although I can't see any evidence that they actually are.
The fact that the People Republic of Chine is solely ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), AKA Communist Party of China (CPC), aught to be your first clue.
Oh, you think those have anything to do with Communism because they have the word 'communist' in them? How quaint.
Apple could easily say any customer who pays for the iOS software can do whatever they want. It costs $499 initially and $99 updates.
The iPhoneOS updates for iPod Touch used to initially cost money every time you upgraded to a new major release. Apple said it was a regulatory issue. Even much more than a decade later, I haven’t heard the exact details on why. I think it was related to the firmware.
It's been well known for a long, long time that this had to do with federal tax regs. They were only able to not charge for OS updates on all platforms after these were changed.
avon b7 said: If there were no 'market based' aspect involved, Apple wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper.
Apple will still be viewed as a "gatekeeper" by the EU even if side loading is forced within iOS, so side loading itself is irrelevant to the market both in terms of how the EU views Apple and how pricing/quality/selection/satisfaction works. That's what is so bizarre about the EU wanting to force side loading...entirely arbitrary with no benefit.
Surely having an alternative source for software can have potential benefits in terms of pricing, security and what is available.
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
Surely being homeless can have potential benefits.
Why not burn your house down before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how you cope with your new options.
The problem with the EU forcing side loading is that they never established a credible and market based reason for doing so. Did the EU provide substantial evidence to support the idea that lack of side loading was anti-competitive? No, they didn't. For example, the EU never provided any type of pricing comparison between the App Store and other digital stores. That should be one of the most basic ways to show "lack of competition", yet they failed to do it. And I'm sure it's easy to guess WHY they failed to do it: they knew it wouldn't support their claims.
They simply feel they don't have to provide any justification and can do whatever they want to do. I think it's time for some extremely high import tariffs on all EU products. I don't remember the last time I looked specifically for an EU product to purchase. I did buy a four-pack of wines from Costco for under $30 (all 90+ rated), which shows the current value of European wines.
It sounds you want for US consumers to pay more for staff they need from Europe (or buy more expensive US staff)? What do you have against American people?
Comments
Why write things off before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how iOS users see any new options.
To go even further, Windows and macOS don't have better pricing for software than iOS or better privacy/security than iOS and they've been around even longer than Android. In reality, there is no operating system on planet Earth that has lower overall prices or better overall security for apps than iOS.
Bunch of ducking idiots I blocked are really pissed and hope Apple somehow loses, while trying to justify the EU position with the flimsiest of arguments.
Soap-on-a-rope is going be be massively disappointed when Apple prevails. Just like they did in the Irish tax case, and that had a better shot at succeeding than this obviously discriminatory bill.
Apple should definitely charge a significant amount to enable sideloading, to cover the support costs for customers coming into Apple Stores with problems related to non-approved 3rd-party apps, such as slow crash-prone phones with short battery life, malware infections, etc. For the business model to work for Apple, every new device bought, would need to be ”pay-to-unlock” enabled. I do not know what kind of price tag is reasonable for them, but I’m rather thinking a one-time $349 registration fee per device you own. Also, flipping that switch for sideloading invalidates AppleCare+. Messages will popup and alert the user that ”your paid-for AppleCare+ deal will be immediately canceled due to clauses in section X.1 concerning unverified installation of applications”
Loses what exactly?
This isn't an investigation ruling that Apple can appeal.
It is a proposal for a legal framework to tackle industry issues. If approved, Apple would have to comply. If it decides not to, then it knows what will happen.
They don’t understand anything on a system level or long-term consequences. Therefore their choices nearly always result in suboptimization. And even when the negative consequences are a fact they fail to see the connections.
End users are paying to get served good products. Not to design them themselves. They have other important things to do in their lives.
This is why we need to have business managements and governments; to lay out long-term holistic strategies. In this case, the strategy of the EU Commission is sadly enough to acquire business power from American successful companies …even if it costs its own citizens both security and service quality.
Don't forget that what most people are talking about here is just a small part of what is being proposed. The DSA (part of the package of proposals) will have far reaching consequences for 'digital' activity. It isn't only about the DMA.
Surely being homeless can have potential benefits.
Why not burn your house down before seeing how things go?
It would be interesting to see how you cope with your new options.