Maybe we will be lucky enough to elect new leaders to Congress this Fall who will threaten EU tariffs if this is implemented
All the “gatekeepers” will be American
Since Apple doesn't make a search engine or social media platform, most core elements of its business model will likely remain unchanged under the DSA rules. However, the DSA is much more likely to impact companies such as Meta and Google significantly.
As a non-American, it often strikes me that some thinks the world ends at your front door.
The world is much bigger than one country.
The EU is a democratic society made of many different countries representing hundreds of millions of people.
And some EU citizens seems to thinks the World begins at their doorsteps. Just like in the 14th Century when Europe sent out "explorers" to claim the "New World" as their own. Thus exterminating hundreds of millions of Native Americans that were already settled there. Must still be in European countries DNA.
And no, the EU do not truly represent hundreds of millions of people. Those hundred of millions of people do not get to vote on any laws or regulations passed by the EU. Even the EU might claim that the laws and regulations are for their own good. The EU represent the government of those hundreds of millions of people. The citizens of the countries in the EU are represented by the government they elected to run their own country. But the EU gets to dictate how their members run their government, based on the will of the larger and wealthier countries in the EU.
Empires weren't the greatest things for indigenous peoples. Things have mostly changed for the good, don't you think? The US government basically approved the extermination of native Americans. Let's not forget. The only good indians are dead. That was the thinking not too long ago (especially if you are going back as far as the Spanish Empire).
In terms of legislation, the EU has done a very good job IMO. While no legislation can be perfect, I see no one complaining about most of what gets passed. Of course you can't please everyone but EU laws have largely been in the interest of EU citizens.
The EU 'dictates' in line with the treaties which the member states signed.
There are also EU elections which take place every five years and are the world's second largest democratic elections. I have voted at least four times.
Forcing Apple to allow side-loading on iPhone through alternate app stores will reduce choice for iPhone users, because they lose the option of the secure, 'walled garden' model. Competitors like Google, Meta and Spotify will quickly make sure that their wares are only available via 'alternate' stores that don't do things like restrict their ability to mine user data without informed consent. Many app developers who now submit to QC and security review to get on iPhone will simply stop, and iPhone users will be forced to either accept the inferior, less secure versions of those and other apps or lose the option to use them entirely. This won't increase quality and competition, it will do the opposite.
Perhaps iPhone users in the EU should file a class-action suit over this loss of choice and seek an injunction against implementing this mess before it starts.
You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does.
Its Apple's way or the highway.
If Google takes its services apps out of the App Store then Apple will have to live with that or provide system wide alternatives.
Huawei is doing that right now. Huawei Mobile Services, Petal Mail, Petal Search, Petal Maps. Apple could do the same but if they did, would it be good for Google?
Definitely not. Google does not want competition because it wants to have its cake and eat it too!
Through sanctions it has had no option but to watch as Huawei built up its own replacement services to GMS for over 530 million active users. Every time I use Petal Search, it is one less search (revenue) for Google.
Do you think it would sit idly and let Apple do the same? I think it would prefer not to.
The best way to prevent that?
Keep its apps on the App Store.
Options are good. This legislation will give consumers choice.
Time to leave? According to the EU change everything you do that makes you unique, that allows you sell tech devices that you make? Maybe a separate iPhone, iPad, and AppleWatch just for the EU, these devices will only have Apple software and nothing else like a game console maybe the only way forward. The other 75% of the world gets the best of the Apple ecosystems the EU just gets pure Apple base software and nothing else.
In short take the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch private software wise in the EU sell them to the European public with no pretense of anything beyond Apple software …..
No Whatsapp on an iPhone would mean no sale in the EU.
The EU is a huge market for Apple. Too big to miss out on. It will comply because that is what it always says. They comply with all the laws and regulations where they operate.
I live in the EU but hate EU bureaucrats.
When is the US government going to step up? Sooner or later rhe EU is going to mandate the form factor of devices.
But this is a farce. But scammer, criminals will be very happy! Are consumer who sideload malware and the device get compromised going to call the EU for help?
No, Apple an other companies get the blame and their reputation will for sure sink.
Let the EU develop, market and support their own phone.
No, you don't live in the EU, you live in a sovereign country. The EU is taking too much power away from the country you live in. Did you have any voice in voting for anyone in charge of the EU? Probably not.
There are elections to the European Parliament every five years. Over 400 million citizens are eligible to vote.
I live in Spain. Part of the EU and still a sovereign country but one that decided to sign up to the EU and voted (via referendum) to accept the EU constitution and the single currency.
EU directives are transposed into national Spanish law.
Maybe we will be lucky enough to elect new leaders to Congress this Fall who will threaten EU tariffs if this is implemented
All the “gatekeepers” will be American
There's not that much that comes out of the EU that's worth buying so adding tariffs to subpar products isn't going to hurt the EU. The only thing that might hurt is to put major tariffs on everything coming from VW Corporation. We don't need any wines from any country in the EU, CA, WA and NY satisfy the majority of American wine drinkers.
I recently read a paper on 'strategic dependencies' between the EU and the US.
The US has far more strategic dependency on the EU than the other way around.
The US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
Apple’s foray into sleazy advertising in the App Store has greatly reduced my trust in their stewardship, so I’m ambivalent about this.
As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well. It’s true that iOS is more secure than the Mac, and some people will be hurt by this change, but some will also benefit. This also seems like the kind of thing that apple could comply with in the EU but not elsewhere.
Is America going after any European companies for anything? Why are we letting them do this to us?
and we are fighting their Ukraine war for them which is causing our inflation to stay sky high
Why is our current government not helping out companies against these wack jobs?
I didn’t vote for Trump but what he is saying about these current idiot people in charge being Ukraine, Europe first and America last rings pretty true….
The US administration is stopping many EU companies from doing business with China.
Hundreds of millions in lost revenues.
Those companies are not happy.
They are seeking to reduce US dependencies as a result.
But then again, the same measures are impacting US companies too, and for much higher values.
Maybe due to security concerns Apple should ensure all Apple Services do not work once an app is downloaded from a 3rd party app store. Trying to install such an app should warn the user before install of course.
Let people use a different browser, mail client, photos app, music app etc if they want to use an app from an insecure app store.
They're calling them "gatekeepers" if they're above a certain size and market cap. Per Apple, that designation is largely meaningless from a "competition" standpoint since the EU never demonstrated that the apps in the App Store weren't competitive for price versus other platforms that had third party stores or apps that installed via internet download. If you can't demonstrate a problem with prices, what are you doing it for? Answer: to levy fines and allow billion/trillion dollar companies to charge commissions on iOS.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Sure, but the EU's DMA regulations have nothing to do with "competition" when it comes to Apple. That's just the front for the fines and handing out access to commissions for the billion/trillion dollar companies that lobbied the EU. As for Apple's policies, the idea that the vast majority of iPhone/iPad consumers are unaware in 2022 that they have to download apps through the App Store only is laughable. Android's original marketing campaigns back in 2009/2010 constantly emphasized the differences between the platforms. Google viewed Apple's approach to be a liability when it came to competition not a strength.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Sure, but the EU's DMA regulations have nothing to do with "competition" when it comes to Apple. That's just the front for the fines and handing out access to commissions for the billion/trillion dollar companies that lobbied the EU. As for Apple's policies, the idea that the vast majority of iPhone/iPad consumers are unaware in 2022 that they have to download apps through the App Store only is laughable. Android's original marketing campaigns back in 2009/2010 constantly emphasized the differences between the platforms. Google viewed Apple's approach to be a liability when it came to competition not a strength.
There is a competition angle in that Apple’s store is the only one allowed.
Consumers know that there is one store but the vast majority know very little more about what goes on behind the scenes: commissions, policies, favouring its own, apps etc.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
Yeah, if Apple has to allow third-party app stores etc, then I don't see how it makes any sense at all not to require the same thing of game console makers.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
Yeah, if Apple has to allow third-party app stores etc, then I don't see how it makes any sense at all not to require the same thing of game console makers.
There is a difference between Apple devices and consoles from a customer POV. You can purchase games from different retailers, while iOS devices are forced to use the App Store.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
These laws aren’t meant to protect consumers! These laws are meant to protect EU developers and to punish American big tech for winning? No point in getting wordy.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
*This law will basically take IP from American companies and give it away for free to the benefit of none except EU bureaucrats.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
These laws aren’t meant to protect consumers! These laws are meant to protect EU developers and to punish American big tech for winning? No point in getting wordy.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
*This law will basically take IP from American companies and give it away for free to the benefit of none except EU bureaucrats.
*It will destroy encrypted communication
Apple has 3 poor alternatives:
Comply completely
Create separate EU products and fight in court
Leave the EU
The law is well explained, it applies to any companies that meet the criteria. It isn't a case of EU vs US and yes, it is to protect consumers (among other things).
Comments
Where did you get that from?
Empires weren't the greatest things for indigenous peoples. Things have mostly changed for the good, don't you think? The US government basically approved the extermination of native Americans. Let's not forget. The only good indians are dead. That was the thinking not too long ago (especially if you are going back as far as the Spanish Empire).
In terms of legislation, the EU has done a very good job IMO. While no legislation can be perfect, I see no one complaining about most of what gets passed. Of course you can't please everyone but EU laws have largely been in the interest of EU citizens.
The EU 'dictates' in line with the treaties which the member states signed.
There are also EU elections which take place every five years and are the world's second largest democratic elections. I have voted at least four times.
Its Apple's way or the highway.
If Google takes its services apps out of the App Store then Apple will have to live with that or provide system wide alternatives.
Huawei is doing that right now. Huawei Mobile Services, Petal Mail, Petal Search, Petal Maps. Apple could do the same but if they did, would it be good for Google?
Definitely not. Google does not want competition because it wants to have its cake and eat it too!
Through sanctions it has had no option but to watch as Huawei built up its own replacement services to GMS for over 530 million active users. Every time I use Petal Search, it is one less search (revenue) for Google.
Do you think it would sit idly and let Apple do the same? I think it would prefer not to.
The best way to prevent that?
Keep its apps on the App Store.
Options are good. This legislation will give consumers choice.
The EU is a huge market for Apple. Too big to miss out on. It will comply because that is what it always says. They comply with all the laws and regulations where they operate.
I live in Spain. Part of the EU and still a sovereign country but one that decided to sign up to the EU and voted (via referendum) to accept the EU constitution and the single currency.
EU directives are transposed into national Spanish law.
The US has far more strategic dependency on the EU than the other way around.
The US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well. It’s true that iOS is more secure than the Mac, and some people will be hurt by this change, but some will also benefit. This also seems like the kind of thing that apple could comply with in the EU but not elsewhere.
Hundreds of millions in lost revenues.
Those companies are not happy.
They are seeking to reduce US dependencies as a result.
But then again, the same measures are impacting US companies too, and for much higher values.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Consumers know that there is one store but the vast majority know very little more about what goes on behind the scenes: commissions, policies, favouring its own, apps etc.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
Apple has 3 poor alternatives:
Comply completely
Create separate EU products and fight in court
Leave the EU