Dear Thierry, can I have a BMW engine in my Mercedes, please? And I should be able to put any headlights in my car well well, thank you. And while you’re at it, I want to control my Bosch appliance with the Samsung app, buy competitors’ products in my supermarket of choice and run iOS on Android phones. No biggie for you, I suppose. Cheers.
Perfect analogies. People have come to see phones as a service sort of like electricity. But their entitled attitudes blind them to the obvious that there are already competitors and choice, and insisting Apple or whoever open up their product is like telling Mercedes to do the work to develop a mechanism which allow customers to put a BMW engine in their car.
If someone wants to offer a payment service or easier app access, they should develop their own phones to do that.
Now I completely understand why England left the EU.
The con by Nigel Farage and his buddies? In the UK today Brexit is widely considered to be a failure. Even Nigel has said that.
If Brexit is a failure it’s not because it is a failure, it would be because people who didn’t want it made it a failure. If the country had just embraced it and gone along with it, whether they wanted it or not, it would have been quite a success and the UK would be reaping the benefits already and the EU would be less powerful. But the stupid games of globalist politicians and their manipulation of the public has made it a lot worse.
Still workable though, but the public can’t keep rejecting it.
The government should never be involved in how a private sector business is run.
If no current laws were being broken, just enjoy your tax payments and shut the hell up.
“Oh gee. These folks over here are actually successful. They’re doing great and their customers are very happy…. Here’s a great idea. Let’s penalize them for that, destroy their differentiators, and let’s make it so their competitors get the successful companies customers without having to put the work in. Yeah that sounds fair.”
Insane.
Consumers choose Apple for a reason. And it’s precisely because they AREN'T their competitors.
Speaking out of both sides of his mouth. EU policy doesn’t promote innovation. Just ask Apple. They innovated and created a vibrant ecosystem and now the EU has said they have to share it with competitors who can’t innovate themselves.
The EU, is forcing Apple to be the same as its competitors, Why? The Apple system is safe, because they pay more attention to the Needs of its customers… we don’t need mediocrity
If Tim had the balls then he should threaten to leave the EU. Less profit for Apple but with less competition Apple EU would loose money anyway.
F.ck the EU!
"EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on security and privacy“
What a f****** joke
He really has no fkn clue of what he’s talking about. 🃏
Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc. I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?" Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site. But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store. That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.
Yes and no. Let’s say you want to buy Resident Evil Village and the price is £50 on the official App Store, or £35 on another side loaded App Store. Identical game, different price.
You personally might decide to give Apple £15 extra, but most won’t.
It’s the same with gaming on a Mac (yes, I know, “gaming on a Mac” haha, etc) I doubt hardly anyone buys the game through the App Store should it be available. Why pay the crazy prices of the App Store when you can usually buy it for a lot less on Steam or GOG? Most don’t, for obvious reasons.
Apple has been actively dissuading developers from releasing apps on a pay once use for life system and have been pushing developers to adopt monthly payments. This is a system I personally abhor because rather than paying £5-30 for the average decent app they now want you to pay £5-30 a year, if not more, to account for the number of people that refuse to subscribe or whom cancel after a month. Who knows, perhaps some competing store will allow sensible options like upgrades, something which Apple refuses to do.
As I've been saying for many years, Apple could comply with the EU's unendingly growing requirements by simply allowing the users to choose to install either iOS or AndroidOS at time of setting up the phone. If users choose to opt for Apple's closed ecosystem, they weren't really forced into it. Right? They were given the choice of a completely open OS supported by Google (Apple could pay Google an annual fee to get Google to support AndroidOS on iPhones) or a standard Apple closed ecosystem. I wonder which OS would be the most popular one. I really don't know, but it would put Apple in control of its own OS again.
I don't know that Apple needs to go so far as to install and pay for Android. All they need is to give the users a choice. Have an area behind a firewall - a serious hardware firewall that has some memory of its own - for side-loaded apps and another - maybe name it the Walled Garden - for everything else. They could even charge for this and only sell the higher priced model in the EU.
Now I completely understand why England left the EU.
No, Britain left the EU because rich crooks wanted the freedom to keep hiding their money in offshore tax havens after it was clear that the EU would eventually crack down on them.
Stop lying. The reality is, only 2 other countries in the EU are pulling their weight. Germany and France, and if either leaves the EU is finished. Furthermore, you are not a sovereign country if you can't control your own currency.
This is one bigmouthed commissioner who is voicing his own idiotic view, not the entire EU, EC, or any other body. While he's not without influence, Thierry's word isn't law.
The Fanbois are out in force for this one. It people want to install other app stores, browser engines, wallets, etc., show them a security warning, and they can be treated like adults who can make their own decisions. Macs allow these things but you iSheep don’t demand that these options be disallowed there. If Apple announced that they’d allowed choice in these realms without any governmental influence, you’d all be singing their praise. Stop drinking the iKool-Aid.
Simple solution: Adding or side loading unapproved software violates the Apple warranty and any type of damage to the phone is not covered by Apple Care.You do it at your own risk. Further, Apple will not repair side loaded phones after the warranty has expired.
"EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on security and privacy“
What a f****** joke
He really has no fkn clue of what he’s talking about. 🃏
Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc. I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?" Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site. But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store. That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.
Yes and no. Let’s say you want to buy Resident Evil Village and the price is £50 on the official App Store, or £35 on another side loaded App Store. Identical game, different price.
You personally might decide to give Apple £15 extra, but most won’t.
It’s the same with gaming on a Mac (yes, I know, “gaming on a Mac” haha, etc) I doubt hardly anyone buys the game through the App Store should it be available. Why pay the crazy prices of the App Store when you can usually buy it for a lot less on Steam or GOG? Most don’t, for obvious reasons.
Apple has been actively dissuading developers from releasing apps on a pay once use for life system and have been pushing developers to adopt monthly payments. This is a system I personally abhor because rather than paying £5-30 for the average decent app they now want you to pay £5-30 a year, if not more, to account for the number of people that refuse to subscribe or whom cancel after a month. Who knows, perhaps some competing store will allow sensible options like upgrades, something which Apple refuses to do.
You don't have clue as to how the Apple App Store works. Apple do not set the price of the app. Apple do not get the extra £15 . The developers set the price of their apps and pays Apple a 15/30% commission, depending on if they make less than or over $1M a year with the App Store. You are not paying Apple the extra £15, you are paying the developer the extra £15. On a £35 app purchase Apple will get £10.5 (based on a 30% Commission). On a £50 app purchase, Apple gets £15 (based on the same 30% commission). So Apple will only gets an extra £4.5 on that extra £15 that the developer charged.
If sideloading (and third party stores) are so much more profitable for developers, then why did Epic Games put Fortnite in the Google Play Store? Why aren't the most profitable apps (for the developers) on Android being sideloaded or in a third party app store? Why aren't developers that develop for both Android and iOS making a ton more profit on Android, where they can have their apps sideloaded or in a third party app store?
Fortnite was first available for sideloading before Epic made it available in the Google Play Store. And by all account, Epic made a ton more money from having their Fortnite app in the Google Play Store. This even after having to pay Google their commission on IAP. The fact is that over 90% of Android users do not and will not sideload an app or get their apps from anywhere else other than the Google Play Store. Because of this, Epic CEO Sweeney is still suing Google for having a monopoly with their app store, even though Android allows third party app stores and sideloading.
If developers want access to those customers that will not get their apps from anywhere else other that the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store), they will have to pay for for having that access. Which would a developer rather have? Sell 1M copies at £35 by way of sideloading or maybe sell 5M copies at £35 in the Apple App Store. And don't forget, it will still cost developers to support sideloading or to be in a thrid party app store, not to mention processing payments.
BTW- Steam charges the same 30% commission (and maybe more on some games) that Apple and Google charges. So why would a developer price their games more on the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store)? Unless you actually clueless as to how it works. So instead of give us a made up scenario where a developer will charge £35 for their game in a third party app store and £50 in the Apple App Store (where Apple gets the extra mark up), give us a real example on Android (with Google getting the extra markup). Android has always been allowed sideloading and third party app stores.
You think some government dotards are going to do BETTER? What an absolutely brain-dead assertion.
I agree that the U.S. government needs to take a stand here, as well as Apple. Apple's behavior toward developers in regard to its app store is often disgraceful, and yes Apple lies about App Store search. But it's their platform and it's not a monopoly. There is no excuse for this trade interference, and the USA should threaten countermeasures if it's perpetrated.
Comments
If someone wants to offer a payment service or easier app access, they should develop their own phones to do that.
Still workable though, but the public can’t keep rejecting it.
None of the regulations coming into play will have any bearing on companies outside the EU.
The regulations exist and are updated for a simple reason. Legislation almost always aims to legislate what already exists.
Apple is not forced to do business in the EU. If it does, it's for a reason. It makes business sense.
If the app store gets competition. Great. If Apple Wallet gets competition. Great. If consumers get choice. Great. If NFC gets opened. Great.
There are often no perfect solutions to all problems but no one is forcing anyone not to use Apple Wallet, Apple Pay or the App Store.
With all that said, though, some of the proposed changes may well end up being promoted by the US administration too.
You personally might decide to give Apple £15 extra, but most won’t.
It’s the same with gaming on a Mac (yes, I know, “gaming on a Mac” haha, etc) I doubt hardly anyone buys the game through the App Store should it be available. Why pay the crazy prices of the App Store when you can usually buy it for a lot less on Steam or GOG? Most don’t, for obvious reasons.
Apple has been actively dissuading developers from releasing apps on a pay once use for life system and have been pushing developers to adopt monthly payments. This is a system I personally abhor because rather than paying £5-30 for the average decent app they now want you to pay £5-30 a year, if not more, to account for the number of people that refuse to subscribe or whom cancel after a month. Who knows, perhaps some competing store will allow sensible options like upgrades, something which Apple refuses to do.
I agree that the U.S. government needs to take a stand here, as well as Apple. Apple's behavior toward developers in regard to its app store is often disgraceful, and yes Apple lies about App Store search. But it's their platform and it's not a monopoly. There is no excuse for this trade interference, and the USA should threaten countermeasures if it's perpetrated.