avon b7 said: That difference would remain, not be eliminated. No one would be forced to sideload but the option of alternative sources for apps could exist.
The EU hasn't mandated anything yet. It's a proposal.
The only way you could claim that customers wouldn't be forced to side load is if the EU mandated app developers provide their apps in both 1st party and 3rd party stores.
You, for example could freely choose not to use anything other than the App Store. You wouldn't be 'required' to sideload anything and if you did decide to sideload something at some point, it would be you (the user) who takes the decision. Not Apple taking it for you.
There are many alternatives to the Play Store. Competition exists. It is a lucrative business. If it weren't, those stores would have a hard time existing.
I have three app stores on my phones and two mobile services platforms.
It very obviously ends the main privacy/security difference between Android and iOS. And your claim that forced side loading would still allow iPhone customers to avoid side loading is false. The EU is not mandating that app developers provide their software on both 3rd party and 1st party stores to give customers a choice between a side loaded and non side loaded version.
No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there?
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
You could still buy a phone with "superior security", you just leave third party app stores and sideloading switched off. Remember you can already sideload right now, and iOS security isn't diminished. Which means your argument that enabling that will reduce security is completely moot.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there?
Is the EU mandating that they keep them there? No.
elijahg said: You could still buy a phone with "superior security", you just leave third party app stores and sideloading switched off. Remember you can already sideload right now, and iOS security isn't diminished. Which means your argument that enabling that will reduce security is completely moot.
This type of comment underlines how ridiculous it is to force side loading in the first place. People that bought iPhones already made the choice not to side load by buying the iPhone. If they wanted to "flip a switch to side load" then they bought an Android. The EU should be focused on requiring Google to actually support an "open" system if that's how they market Android. Google is the one that claimed to customers that they were getting an "open" system and that "open" was better, not Apple. Meanwhile, the "closed" system had better privacy/security + prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for apps that was easily the equal of "open" Android.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there?
Is the EU mandating that they keep them there? No.
How does that translate to they won't be available on the Apple App Store?
elijahg said: You could still buy a phone with "superior security", you just leave third party app stores and sideloading switched off. Remember you can already sideload right now, and iOS security isn't diminished. Which means your argument that enabling that will reduce security is completely moot.
This type of comment underlines how ridiculous it is to force side loading in the first place. People that bought iPhones already made the choice not to side load by buying the iPhone. If they wanted to "flip a switch to side load" then they bought an Android. The EU should be focused on requiring Google to actually support an "open" system if that's how they market Android. Google is the one that claimed to customers that they were getting an "open" system and that "open" was better, not Apple. Meanwhile, the "closed" system had better privacy/security + prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for apps that was easily the equal of "open" Android.
Did they? The choice to prevent sideloading was Apple's, not the customer's. I bought an iPhone because on balance, it's better than an Android phone. Doesn't mean I made a "choice" not to side load, but a compromise. That compromise is becoming more burdensome over time, as Apple blocks features of apps on iOS that are still possible on Android. I don't need a nanny to tell me how to use my own hardware. Anyway, making this about "security" is a strawman argument, sandboxing can isolate apps from the OS, sideloaded or not. It's all about profit; Cook is a beancounter, everything is about profit. The EU sees through this, but apparently you do not.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there?
Is the EU mandating that they keep them there? No.
How does that translate to they won't be available on the Apple App Store?
Is that a serious question? How much Mac software is NOT available through the Mac App Store? There is the stuff that requires more low-level access than is allowed for App Store Apps, but a TON of stuff is simply not there because developers have beef with Apple’s random approval process, unacceptable (to them) rules, changing rules (or enforcement thereof) suddenly killing an app that has been available for years at some minor point update, paid developer account requirement, or simply their 30% cut.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
You have a very confused message of third party stores that have exclusive must-have apps, yet the price/quality/selection/satisfaction is somehow inferior. And since your own opinion is that
As for the other types of competition, they've never actually materialized on Android in 13 years.
why are you so worried about the Apple App Store? Surely you're not suggesting that the Google Play Store is so superior to Apple's App Store to engender such loyalty?
I use many apps, and there's not a one that I would get from a source other than Apple's App Store. And because of competition, even if they were taken onto a third party store, a competitor that tows the Apple line will likely spring up within a few months.
I see several comments like “Apple should pull their store from country X or Y”.
Think that through for a bit. Imagine being a Dutch bank and losing the ability for your customers to login and pay. Imagine being a small business owner, e.g a gym, using an app to manage subscribers and gym lessons. Imagine being a researcher, a game developer, ANYONE with dependencies on the App Store, who are suddenly completely cut off from their business without any support from Apple, and without any realistic alternative? These businesses would be totally screwed over.
And guess what happens?
They’ll be the first ones being VERY vocal about the fact Apple is indeed using their monopoly/duopoly status to control the market, and they’ll sue them accordingly (and rightfully so). Apple will lose that battle very, very quickly.
And guess what - again? This is what you get when you only have two private gatekeepers of mobile content (Google and Apple, with Apple being the most restrictive). Gatekeepers of a device that is always with you, always there.
Would you like being able to rent an apartment from only one of the two real estate conglomerate’s “appartement stores”, who control the rent price and arbitrarily might force you to always wear a pink dress, and when you order in food, ask for 30% of your French fries, because they can? Or force a deep-cleaning crew in your house every day? Nope. You’d NOT want to choose their service and pick something else. But you can’t. There isn’t one.
Also, AppleInsider should reinforce in their headline that it’s a Dutch consumer group action, not a Dutch government action. As always, AppleInsider is using clickbait headlines to spark polarizing, binary discussions, rather than striving for nuance, which is a shame.
It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments. Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
You’re wrong.
We’re not defending Apple because we’re fans of Apple. We’re fans of Apple and defending Apple because Apple delivers the choices we want — one stop shop, higher security, proven trustworthiness, exceptional customer support, etc. — and WE CHOOSE those choices over the alternatives.
We come to Apple’s defense because if Apple is FORCED by changed laws to remove functionality that we want to stay… to remove the choice we have and we make when we choose to buy Apple products, by forcing Apple products to be less like Apple and more like Android, then we lose.
We are not blindly defending Apple and Apple can certainly do plenty wrong, and have done so. We are vehemently defending the choices we have that Apple provides us, that these lawsuits and attempted regulations, if won, will take away from us.
Avon, Crowley, Elijah, and others… we’ve been over this apps thing with all of you before and you just refuse to listen to anything while you keep spouting your points without any sensible response to the counter points. The argument hasn’t changed…
This whole thing about users can choose not to buy from other stores has a honking huge hole in it that you just keep dismissing.
Take Facebook. Facebook doesn’t care about the 30% because facebook’s business model is ad driven. But Facebook hates that Apple is enforcing that iOS apps give users the choice to not be tracked.
So when Apple is forced to allow third party app stores, how quickly do you think Facebook will no longer be available on the Apple App Store? I’d give it seconds. Ok. Maybe days.
After that, I then have a new choice to make - and unlike the current situation, both choices suck. By your arguments, If I want Facebook I have to switch off the security settings that I get by only using the Apple App Store so I can use Facebook (now without the option to stop them tracking me). Or, I can keep my security preferences and I just have to forego Facebook. That’s the choice you’re suggesting I be ok with.
Personally I hate Facebook but there are some businesses I deal with that require I use it for certain interactions. I will not have the choice to just ignore Facebook and certain other apps without a not insignificant hit to my business. So I will be required to reduce the security of my device. At that point I have had choice taken away from me.
And that is just one example. There are plenty of devs who will jump at the opportunity to be free of the restrictions Apple puts in place to protect me, the customer. Plenty of devs who will relish the ability to deceive me and exploit me and I will be forced to choose between those apps with all the risks or forego those apps. Sure many of them may have safe Apple App Store alternatives, but many of them won’t. Case in point Facebook.
Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook? And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?
All of you, we’ve been through this but you have never expressed a solution to these points that doesn’t simply ignore them, or some fundamental part of them. Yet you still insist that Apple should be forced to take away one of the primary reasons I choose Apple.
Elijah you’re saying the choice to block sideloading is Apple’s not yours, but you bought Apple devices anyway. THAT is your choice. Your insistence that Apple be forced to allow third party app stores makes as much sense as me trying to insist I want a Volvo convertible but it has to be rear wheel drive. Volvo doesn’t make one. How dare they (Volvo) deny me that choice!!!
Or I could just buy a BMW or Mercedes instead.
You say you prefer Apple’s balance. Ok let’s get specific. What is so great about iOS that Android doesn’t have that you’ll buy an iOS device despite how opposed you are to arguably its most fundamental principle?
You can’t have it both ways. Apple’s stuff works the way it works because of a number of their design philosophies, one of which is how tightly locked down and protected it is. If they are forced allow public sideloading it will destroy that. How can you not see that iOS is the most secure and privacy protecting OS on the planet unlike Windows, Android, and yes even macOS? It’s no coincidence that the most locked down OS is also the most secure and privacy protecting one. It’s just plain facts in front of your eyes and explained to you countless ways by others here but all of you are in denial about it. — just conveniently ignoring the evidence and consistently sidestepping.
There are two models: 1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc.
2. Open, free for all, much more flexible, much less secure and private.
Some people prefer and choose option 1. Some people prefer and choose option 2. And that’s good. We have choice.
You want the lawmakers to force option 1 out of existence and then we only have option 2. If you succeed then you’ve taken away the choice of option 1 from the people who prefer that option.
Again all of this has been explained by multiple people here over and over again.
Same with the “it’s my hardware” argument. Yep, but it’s not your OS. That point has been made countless times here and every time, the “it’s my hardware” commenter just slinks off with no response until they have another opportunity to spring up and spout it somewhere else. One of you is guilty of that in this thread. I challenge you to come back with a sensible response.
For the love of all things sacred give us an argument or two that addresses the points we’re actually making instead of constantly sidestepping them.
Otherwise, are you just here to blindly bash Apple without reason..? Why??
Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook? And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?
I'm pretty sure Facebook has an adequate website. That's your replacement. Or you could use the app from another App Store, I care not. My comment was that companies will fill the void of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple Store for apps that I use. If Apple opening up to third party app stores means that Facebook loses users then that's another reason in its favour.
An employer can insist an employee uses an app outside of the App Store anyway, in the Apple Developer Enterprise Program, or they can mandate use of an Android device. No protection is offered by Apple's App Store.
A dictatorial government can dictate that citizens use an Android device. No protection is offered by Apple's App Store.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
Why would apps not be available on the Apple App Store if they are currently available there?
Is the EU mandating that they keep them there? No.
How does that translate to they won't be available on the Apple App Store?
Is that a serious question? How much Mac software is NOT available through the Mac App Store? There is the stuff that requires more low-level access than is allowed for App Store Apps, but a TON of stuff is simply not there because developers have beef with Apple’s random approval process, unacceptable (to them) rules, changing rules (or enforcement thereof) suddenly killing an app that has been available for years at some minor point update, paid developer account requirement, or simply their 30% cut.
What makes you think iOS would be any different?
Totally serious.
My question wasn't answered directly.
It was answered with a question that was irrelevant to the overall situation.
The EU will not mandate that apps support one platform or another. Market forces will handle that side because this whole thing is about competition and market forces: competition.
Competition that is not allowed by Apple.
If developers (the motor of iPhone sales at the end of the day) decide to pull away from the Apple App Store, they will have good reasons for doing so and I agree with you that Apple has made a rod for its own back here
According to many here though, any such move would be met with pushback from their own users because they fully understand why the current situation exists and will only buy from the Apple Store.
If that truly is the case, developers will have no option but to use the Apple App Store or face lost revenue.
Of course, I dispute the notion that all users are aware of the current situation and willingly buy into it.
I believe the opposite is true. That the vast majority have little to no understanding of the business or the security side of things.
If a developer can turn a profit on a paid app and do so by not making it available through the Apple App Store then it is up to Apple to 'compete' for that app.
That situation should apply to the Mac App Store too but that particularl cash cow isn't really a revenue driver for Apple and never has been.
Right from the outset, OSX cut off developers from direct access to hardware. Everything had to run through dynamically loaded kernel extensions which were supposed to be the cure to many ills of OS9 and earlier.
Problems didn't disappear but overall stability did. If low level access is required then it should be provided safely and again, I see competition as a way to eventually achieve it.
I've seen too many blog posts by developers complaining that perfectly good software had to be changed and/or features removed just because Apple decided it wouldn't be allowed.
I dare say sine developers would gladly take a financial hit just to poke Apple in the eye over past practices but I'm also hopeful that all parties would react to their own needs and the consumer will be the overall winner just by being able to choose.
Even if they ultimately choose never to step into a third party store.
Avon, Crowley, Elijah, and others… we’ve been over this apps thing with all of you before and you just refuse to listen to anything while you keep spouting your points without any sensible response to the counter points. The argument hasn’t changed…
This whole thing about users can choose not to buy from other stores has a honking huge hole in it that you just keep dismissing.
Take Facebook. Facebook doesn’t care about the 30% because facebook’s business model is ad driven. But Facebook hates that Apple is enforcing that iOS apps give users the choice to not be tracked.
So when Apple is forced to allow third party app stores, how quickly do you think Facebook will no longer be available on the Apple App Store? I’d give it seconds. Ok. Maybe days.
After that, I then have a new choice to make - and unlike the current situation, both choices suck. By your arguments, If I want Facebook I have to switch off the security settings that I get by only using the Apple App Store so I can use Facebook (now without the option to stop them tracking me). Or, I can keep my security preferences and I just have to forego Facebook. That’s the choice you’re suggesting I be ok with.
Personally I hate Facebook but there are some businesses I deal with that require I use it for certain interactions. I will not have the choice to just ignore Facebook and certain other apps without a not insignificant hit to my business. So I will be required to reduce the security of my device. At that point I have had choice taken away from me.
And that is just one example. There are plenty of devs who will jump at the opportunity to be free of the restrictions Apple puts in place to protect me, the customer. Plenty of devs who will relish the ability to deceive me and exploit me and I will be forced to choose between those apps with all the risks or forego those apps. Sure many of them may have safe Apple App Store alternatives, but many of them won’t. Case in point Facebook.
Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook? And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?
All of you, we’ve been through this but you have never expressed a solution to these points that doesn’t simply ignore them, or some fundamental part of them. Yet you still insist that Apple should be forced to take away one of the primary reasons I choose Apple.
Elijah you’re saying the choice to block sideloading is Apple’s not yours, but you bought Apple devices anyway. THAT is your choice. Your insistence that Apple be forced to allow third party app stores makes as much sense as me trying to insist I want a Volvo convertible but it has to be rear wheel drive. Volvo doesn’t make one. How dare they (Volvo) deny me that choice!!!
Or I could just buy a BMW or Mercedes instead.
You say you prefer Apple’s balance. Ok let’s get specific. What is so great about iOS that Android doesn’t have that you’ll buy an iOS device despite how opposed you are to arguably its most fundamental principle?
You can’t have it both ways. Apple’s stuff works the way it works because of a number of their design philosophies, one of which is how tightly locked down and protected it is. If they are forced allow public sideloading it will destroy that. How can you not see that iOS is the most secure and privacy protecting OS on the planet unlike Windows, Android, and yes even macOS? It’s no coincidence that the most locked down OS is also the most secure and privacy protecting one. It’s just plain facts in front of your eyes and explained to you countless ways by others here but all of you are in denial about it. — just conveniently ignoring the evidence and consistently sidestepping.
There are two models: 1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc.
2. Open, free for all, much more flexible, much less secure and private.
Some people prefer and choose option 1. Some people prefer and choose option 2. And that’s good. We have choice.
You want the lawmakers to force option 1 out of existence and then we only have option 2. If you succeed then you’ve taken away the choice of option 1 from the people who prefer that option.
Again all of this has been explained by multiple people here over and over again.
Same with the “it’s my hardware” argument. Yep, but it’s not your OS. That point has been made countless times here and every time, the “it’s my hardware” commenter just slinks off with no response until they have another opportunity to spring up and spout it somewhere else. One of you is guilty of that in this thread. I challenge you to come back with a sensible response.
For the love of all things sacred give us an argument or two that addresses the points we’re actually making instead of constantly sidestepping them.
Otherwise, are you just here to blindly bash Apple without reason..? Why??
There is no hole anywhere.
The DSA and DNA have both been through a detailed review and consultation process.
The proposal is well founded.
Users will have choice. It won't be Apple choosing for them. The market will determine who is successful and under universal EU legal frameworks.
Apple will surely need to market its strengths and convince users that the Apple App Store is where they should be getting their apps.
As for Facebook/Meta, what happened with plain old web access?
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
You have a very confused message of third party stores that have exclusive must-have apps, yet the price/quality/selection/satisfaction is somehow inferior. And since your own opinion is that
As for the other types of competition, they've never actually materialized on Android in 13 years.
why are you so worried about the Apple App Store? Surely you're not suggesting that the Google Play Store is so superior to Apple's App Store to engender such loyalty?
LOL...my message isn't confused at all. Android is the system that's supposed to be "open", correct? And the "open" system that allows side loading and 3rd party stores is supposed to be more competitive, correct? And more competition is supposed to provide better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for consumers, correct?
So why aren't prices/quality/selection/satisfaction better on Android already? Why hasn't that materialized in the 13 years that Android has been available? You're saying "why so worried about the App Store" when YOU are the one who wants a forced change on iOS. Why would you even care about that if the "open" system that made everything better for consumers was already available? You already have the choice and don't seem to want it. You want to force iOS to be changed instead.
As for apps leaving the App Store, it's most likely to be the billion/trillion dollar companies. They're the ones that have lobbied the government and filed lawsuits to try and force changes. They aren't doing it to lower their prices or provide better quality/satisfaction to customers.
crowley said: No users will be forced to side load anything. They can choose to if they want. The Apple App Store will likely continue to the be the main portal for most or all apps of significance.
You will be forced to side load if apps you use on a regular basis are only available in 3rd party app stores + you will lose the choice of buying a phone with superior privacy/security + you won't be getting better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction in 3rd party stores.
You have a very confused message of third party stores that have exclusive must-have apps, yet the price/quality/selection/satisfaction is somehow inferior. And since your own opinion is that
As for the other types of competition, they've never actually materialized on Android in 13 years.
why are you so worried about the Apple App Store? Surely you're not suggesting that the Google Play Store is so superior to Apple's App Store to engender such loyalty?
LOL...my message isn't confused at all. Android is the system that's supposed to be "open", correct? And the "open" system that allows side loading and 3rd party stores is supposed to be more competitive, correct? And more competition is supposed to provide better prices/quality/selection/satisfaction for consumers, correct?
So why aren't prices/quality/selection/satisfaction better on Android already? Why hasn't that materialized in the 13 years that Android has been available? You're saying "why so worried about the App Store" when YOU are the one who wants a forced change on iOS. Why would you even care about that if the "open" system that made everything better for consumers was already available? You already have the choice and don't seem to want it. You want to force iOS to be changed instead.
As for apps leaving the App Store, it's most likely to be the billion/trillion dollar companies. They're the ones that have lobbied the government and filed lawsuits to try and force changes. They aren't doing it to lower their prices or provide better quality/satisfaction to customers.
I never said I wanted to force iOS to change. I am largely apathetic towards it.
Comments
I use many apps, and there's not a one that I would get from a source other than Apple's App Store. And because of competition, even if they were taken onto a third party store, a competitor that tows the Apple line will likely spring up within a few months.
A whole lot of hullabaloo for nothing.
Think that through for a bit. Imagine being a Dutch bank and losing the ability for your customers to login and pay. Imagine being a small business owner, e.g a gym, using an app to manage subscribers and gym lessons. Imagine being a researcher, a game developer, ANYONE with dependencies on the App Store, who are suddenly completely cut off from their business without any support from Apple, and without any realistic alternative? These businesses would be totally screwed over.
They’ll be the first ones being VERY vocal about the fact Apple is indeed using their monopoly/duopoly status to control the market, and they’ll sue them accordingly (and rightfully so). Apple will lose that battle very, very quickly.
And guess what - again? This is what you get when you only have two private gatekeepers of mobile content (Google and Apple, with Apple being the most restrictive). Gatekeepers of a device that is always with you, always there.
Nope. You’d NOT want to choose their service and pick something else. But you can’t. There isn’t one.
Also, AppleInsider should reinforce in their headline that it’s a Dutch consumer group action, not a Dutch government action. As always, AppleInsider is using clickbait headlines to spark polarizing, binary discussions, rather than striving for nuance, which is a shame.
This whole thing about users can choose not to buy from other stores has a honking huge hole in it that you just keep dismissing.
Take Facebook. Facebook doesn’t care about the 30% because facebook’s business model is ad driven. But Facebook hates that Apple is enforcing that iOS apps give users the choice to not be tracked.
Crowley your comment that some other company will fill the void in the case of apps by devs that choose to leave the Apple App Store is just ridiculous. Who is going to replace Facebook? And what about Apps an employer might insist their employees use? Or a dictatorial government of their citizens?
Or I could just buy a BMW or Mercedes instead.
You can’t have it both ways. Apple’s stuff works the way it works because of a number of their design philosophies, one of which is how tightly locked down and protected it is. If they are forced allow public sideloading it will destroy that. How can you not see that iOS is the most secure and privacy protecting OS on the planet unlike Windows, Android, and yes even macOS? It’s no coincidence that the most locked down OS is also the most secure and privacy protecting one. It’s just plain facts in front of your eyes and explained to you countless ways by others here but all of you are in denial about it. — just conveniently ignoring the evidence and consistently sidestepping.
There are two models:
1. locked down, secure, limited, protected, etc.
An employer can insist an employee uses an app outside of the App Store anyway, in the Apple Developer Enterprise Program, or they can mandate use of an Android device. No protection is offered by Apple's App Store.
A dictatorial government can dictate that citizens use an Android device. No protection is offered by Apple's App Store.
My question wasn't answered directly.
It was answered with a question that was irrelevant to the overall situation.
The EU will not mandate that apps support one platform or another. Market forces will handle that side because this whole thing is about competition and market forces: competition.
Competition that is not allowed by Apple.
If developers (the motor of iPhone sales at the end of the day) decide to pull away from the Apple App Store, they will have good reasons for doing so and I agree with you that Apple has made a rod for its own back here
According to many here though, any such move would be met with pushback from their own users because they fully understand why the current situation exists and will only buy from the Apple Store.
If that truly is the case, developers will have no option but to use the Apple App Store or face lost revenue.
Of course, I dispute the notion that all users are aware of the current situation and willingly buy into it.
I believe the opposite is true. That the vast majority have little to no understanding of the business or the security side of things.
If a developer can turn a profit on a paid app and do so by not making it available through the Apple App Store then it is up to Apple to 'compete' for that app.
That situation should apply to the Mac App Store too but that particularl cash cow isn't really a revenue driver for Apple and never has been.
Right from the outset, OSX cut off developers from direct access to hardware. Everything had to run through dynamically loaded kernel extensions which were supposed to be the cure to many ills of OS9 and earlier.
Problems didn't disappear but overall stability did. If low level access is required then it should be provided safely and again, I see competition as a way to eventually achieve it.
I've seen too many blog posts by developers complaining that perfectly good software had to be changed and/or features removed just because Apple decided it wouldn't be allowed.
I dare say sine developers would gladly take a financial hit just to poke Apple in the eye over past practices but I'm also hopeful that all parties would react to their own needs and the consumer will be the overall winner just by being able to choose.
Even if they ultimately choose never to step into a third party store.
The DSA and DNA have both been through a detailed review and consultation process.
The proposal is well founded.
Users will have choice. It won't be Apple choosing for them. The market will determine who is successful and under universal EU legal frameworks.
Apple will surely need to market its strengths and convince users that the Apple App Store is where they should be getting their apps.
As for Facebook/Meta, what happened with plain old web access?
So why aren't prices/quality/selection/satisfaction better on Android already? Why hasn't that materialized in the 13 years that Android has been available? You're saying "why so worried about the App Store" when YOU are the one who wants a forced change on iOS. Why would you even care about that if the "open" system that made everything better for consumers was already available? You already have the choice and don't seem to want it. You want to force iOS to be changed instead.
As for apps leaving the App Store, it's most likely to be the billion/trillion dollar companies. They're the ones that have lobbied the government and filed lawsuits to try and force changes. They aren't doing it to lower their prices or provide better quality/satisfaction to customers.