Apple files legal challenge over Europe's demand for third-party app stores

Posted:
in iOS

Apple has filed its anticipated legal case against the European Commission's Digital Markets Act, and is believed to specifically protest being forced into supporting rivals to its App Store.




The Digital Markets Act was created specifically to target Big Tech firms including Apple, and while certain implementation details are still being worked on, it became applicable from May 2023. It says that companies it defines as "gatekeepers" are now required to make their services interoperable with those of rivals.

Apple has recently been reported to be preparing an appeal specifically against the ruling that it be required to allow rival app stores on its iPhone and other devices.

According to Reuters, that appeal was filed in time for the EU General Court's deadline of November 16, 2023. No details of the filing have been made public as yet.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has tweeted that it has received the filing, however. It subsequently says that "further information will be published in due course" on the Court's website.

@Apple (Cases T-1079/23 & T-1080/23), #Bytedance (#TikTok) (T-1077/23) and #Meta (T-1078/23) have filed cases contesting decisions taken by the @EU_Commission under the #DigitalMarketsAct #DMA #Competition.

-- EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress)



As noted in the tweet, Apple is not alone in contesting the implementation of the Digital Markets Act. Facebook parent Meta has also complained, as has TikTok, and its owner Bytedance.

Reuters reports that TikTok has said the "gatekeeper" designation risks helping Big Tech firms against growing rivals. "Far from being a gatekeeper," said TikTok's filing, "our platform, which as been operating in Europe for just over five years, is arguably the most capable challenged to more entrenched platform businesses."

Apple has not commented publicly on its filing.





Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    Any other time most here would be suspicious of any company falling in line with Facebook and Bytedance. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 2 of 19
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    AppleZuluwilliamlondonAnilu_777watto_cobraJaiOh81FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 3 of 19
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,943member
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.
    edited November 2023 12StrangerswilliamlondonAnilu_777watto_cobraJaiOh81FileMakerFellerdanox
  • Reply 4 of 19
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.

    IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935

    That eventually became illegal of course.


    edited November 2023 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 5 of 19
    chelinchelin Posts: 105member
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    This isn’t the same. Imagine if you had the deed to the land. And then you wanted to have a chevron station next to the circle k. You own the device (deed) because you purchased it. You should be allowed to use it in whatever way you see fit. That means if you’re ok with potential risks you can install a third party App Store. It doesn’t impact any liability on apples side. It doesn’t even increase any cost on their side. It would impact their revenue however 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 19
    chelinchelin Posts: 105member
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.
    No this is not accurate, no one is asking Apple to even host the third party stores. Physical space isn’t the same as digital footprint. One is limited by geographical dimensions whereas the other is for all practical purposes infinite. If Apple would allow side loading of apps, there would be zero cost to Apple. In fact it would likely reduce cost on Apple from having to maintain code that attempts to block these capabilities for the owners of their devices. 
    Lastly and probably something you ought to consider. This works on MacOS because consumers would not accept these rights to be removed. Imagine how utterly useless your MacBook would feel like if all you were left with was the App Store applications. Does anyoje use the same arguments for MacOs?? No, this is an excellently executed propaganda by Apple to have you think that your phone and tablet is somehow different in this regard!!!!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 19
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,239member
    gatorguy said:
    Any other time most here would be suspicious of any company falling in line with Facebook and Bytedance. 
    Apple’s case is likely to be very different from the other two, we’ll see. Meta and Bytedance may be challenging other aspects of the law, such as their “gatekeeper” designations compared to rivals, or having to open up their messaging systems to rivals, etc.

    This is a big and complex law, and there are a number of different aspects to it that companies may or may not have a legitimate beef with.
    watto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 8 of 19
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    chelin said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    This isn’t the same. Imagine if you had the deed to the land. And then you wanted to have a chevron station next to the circle k. You own the device (deed) because you purchased it. You should be allowed to use it in whatever way you see fit. That means if you’re ok with potential risks you can install a third party App Store. It doesn’t impact any liability on apples side. It doesn’t even increase any cost on their side. It would impact their revenue however 

    Not even close.

    It's more like if you have the deed to the land next to a Circle K and you wanted to build a gas station on it , BUT need to hook up and use Circle K electricity, gas and water and don't want to pay for it. You want to be able to advertise your business to the Circle K customers inside their store, for free. And you demand that Circle K pays for the products you need to stock your mini mart. And on top of that, you cry like a baby to the government to force Circle K to build a road through their parking lot, so tanker trucks could have easy access to refill your gas storage tanks.

    How convenient that you forgot to include that owning an iPhone doesn't mean you own iOS. iOS is Apple IP and it's the reason why you could build anything in your iPhone. Otherwise you are free to develop your own OS, for that iPhone that you purchased.  Would you also claim that because you purchased  the CD, you also own the songs that are on it? You want to use the songs on the CD that you purchased, to profit from, you need to pay the artist. You want to use iOS to profit from, Apple deserved to be paid. In reality, iOS is the "deed" and you don't ever own that. No matter how much you paid for the iPhone. Without iOS, you can't build anything in an iPhone. 
    edited November 2023 nrg2watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerdanox
  • Reply 9 of 19
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.

    IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935

    That eventually became illegal of course.



    The US never made "company towns" illegal. Most of them had to close down because the industry that they were built for were no longer viable. And a lot of them close down because of workers revolt, not because the government made them illegal. Even from your link .....

    >However, government observers maintained that Pullman’s principles were accurate, in that he provided his employees with a quality of life otherwise unattainable to them, but recognized that his excessive paternalism was inappropriate for a large-scale corporate economy and thus caused the town’s downfall.  In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town.<

    The SCOTUS only force Pullman to dissolve ownership of town properties, that weren't related to Pullman's industry. The SCOTUS did not rule "company towns" illegal and force all of them to shut down.

    Here some some historical facts of some other "company towns" that existed well after the SCOTUS forced Pullman to dissolve their town.


    Oh, here's one that you might be interested in.


    But the latest is that Google will not go ahead as plan because of the economy. Not because "company towns" are illegal. So long as Google wasn't planning to pay employees in "Google Bucks", that could only be used to pay for rent or to shop in ...... "GoogleTown".


    And about the worker being force to shop at the "company town" store, that was not the main compliant by the "company towns" workers. Their main complaint was that they were being paid in "scrips", that could only be use to buy stuff in the "company town" stores. Workers wanted to be paid in cash, so they can choose to spend their pay elsewhere, besides the "company town" stores. Eventually, being paid in "scrips" in place of being paid in legal tender for work performed, was made illegal.










    watto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 10 of 19
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.

    IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935

    That eventually became illegal of course.



    The US never made "company towns" illegal. Most of them had to close down because the industry that they were built for were no longer viable. And a lot of them close down because of workers revolt, not because the government made them illegal. Even from your link .....

    >However, government observers maintained that Pullman’s principles were accurate, in that he provided his employees with a quality of life otherwise unattainable to them, but recognized that his excessive paternalism was inappropriate for a large-scale corporate economy and thus caused the town’s downfall.  In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town.<

    The SCOTUS only force Pullman to dissolve ownership of town properties, that weren't related to Pullman's industry. The SCOTUS did not rule "company towns" illegal and force all of them to shut down.

    Here some some historical facts of some other "company towns" that existed well after the SCOTUS forced Pullman to dissolve their town.


    Oh, here's one that you might be interested in.


    But the latest is that Google will not go ahead as plan because of the economy. Not because "company towns" are illegal. So long as Google wasn't planning to pay employees in "Google Bucks", that could only be used to pay for rent or to shop in ...... "GoogleTown".


    And about the worker being force to shop at the "company town" store, that was not the main compliant by the "company towns" workers. Their main complaint was that they were being paid in "scrips", that could only be use to buy stuff in the "company town" stores. Workers wanted to be paid in cash, so they can choose to spend their pay elsewhere, besides the "company town" stores. Eventually, being paid in "scrips" in place of being paid in legal tender for work performed, was made illegal.










    OMG. Please read more carefully. Your replies to things not said are becoming too regular, and i suspect it may be due to you not taking the time to understand what I write.
    Company towns were not illegal and I did not imply, much less claim they were. Restricting commerce to only the official company stores and lock-in of workers was. 
    Honkers
  • Reply 11 of 19
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.

    IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935

    That eventually became illegal of course.



    The US never made "company towns" illegal. Most of them had to close down because the industry that they were built for were no longer viable. And a lot of them close down because of workers revolt, not because the government made them illegal. Even from your link .....

    >However, government observers maintained that Pullman’s principles were accurate, in that he provided his employees with a quality of life otherwise unattainable to them, but recognized that his excessive paternalism was inappropriate for a large-scale corporate economy and thus caused the town’s downfall.  In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town.<

    The SCOTUS only force Pullman to dissolve ownership of town properties, that weren't related to Pullman's industry. The SCOTUS did not rule "company towns" illegal and force all of them to shut down.

    Here some some historical facts of some other "company towns" that existed well after the SCOTUS forced Pullman to dissolve their town.


    Oh, here's one that you might be interested in.


    But the latest is that Google will not go ahead as plan because of the economy. Not because "company towns" are illegal. So long as Google wasn't planning to pay employees in "Google Bucks", that could only be used to pay for rent or to shop in ...... "GoogleTown".


    And about the worker being force to shop at the "company town" store, that was not the main compliant by the "company towns" workers. Their main complaint was that they were being paid in "scrips", that could only be use to buy stuff in the "company town" stores. Workers wanted to be paid in cash, so they can choose to spend their pay elsewhere, besides the "company town" stores. Eventually, being paid in "scrips" in place of being paid in legal tender for work performed, was made illegal.










    OMG. Please read more carefully. Your replies to things not said are becoming too regular, and i suspect it may be due to you not taking the time to understand what I write.
    Company towns were not illegal and I did not imply, much less claim they were. Restricting commerce to only the official company stores and lock-in of workers was. 

    Please understand what you posted. No where in it supports your assertion that having only one store in the "company town" was illegal. What the government made illegal was the companies paying their workers in currency (scrips) that could only be spent in the "company town" stores. Thus forcing "company town" workers to shop only at the "company town" stores. You trying to equate the worst of "company towns" policies from over a century ago, to that of the Apple Store being the only app store on iOS, is just what we all here expect from you. 

    It's no difference than you stating on another post..... "Any other time most here would be suspicious of any company falling in line with Facebook and Bytedance."

    Even if you don't see your negativism toward Apple, most here do.

    Why isn't it .......... Any other time most here would be suspicious of Facebook and Bytedance falling in line with Apple ....... ? Why would the any "suspicion" be falling on Apple? Would you had made the same comment if Google were to come out in support of Apple and we should be suspicious of Apple because Google agrees with them? You are plainly trying to paint a picture where Apple must be doing something wrong, if companies like Facebook and Bytedance were on their side. Even if you don't realize it and just doing it out of habit.  :)


    watto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 12 of 19
    I have generally been on Apple's side on most issues, apart from their weak human rights stance, but if Apple caves on this and makes the change worldwide instead of just restricted to the EU, I will be furious with Apple, and will consider Android phones for my next purchase.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    In the past, I have been against third-party app stores. but in the age of censorship and cancel culture, I think it's a good thing, so long as proper safeguards are put in place to protect Apple from being responsible for other folks' coding issues and poor service (and protecting customers from data harvesting, viruses, and other malicious practices). That way if Apple cancels someone that they don't like, but their customers do, that person or business is not frozen out and customers can continue on their merry day. 

    Perhaps then Apple will actually get serious about gaming as well, since Apple Arcade will not hold up against Epic, Steam, GamePass, etc. 
    edited November 2023
  • Reply 14 of 19
    chelin said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    This isn’t the same. Imagine if you had the deed to the land. And then you wanted to have a chevron station next to the circle k. You own the device (deed) because you purchased it. You should be allowed to use it in whatever way you see fit. That means if you’re ok with potential risks you can install a third party App Store. It doesn’t impact any liability on apples side. It doesn’t even increase any cost on their side. It would impact their revenue however 
    We all know the “limitations” that come from owning an iPhone. If you want a phone that you can have multiple app stores on, buy a different phone. There are tons of manufacturers that make smart phones that allow you to side load from anywhere on the internet. I don’t understand what’s so hard about that? It’s like buying a house with an HOA and then complaining the HOA won’t let you do something you know you wouldn’t be allowed to do before you bought the house  
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 15 of 19
    Forcing third party app stores isn’t the same as forcing Apple to allow third party in-app purchases on the Apple App Store like Epic is demanding. Apple won’t be hosting or advertising the content. But it still would allow developers to circumvent paying Apple as long as they could live with the inconvenience of getting users to use the alternative store.

    A bigger question is how does this impact the Apple eco system. Some say that developers will charge less is they don’t have to pay Apple’s commission. I suspect that most developers will pocket the bulk of the savings.

    Large content publishers and distributors like Epic and Spotify will come out ahead while consumers will get a little more freedom and savings. Not sure who else wins. Apple might start charging for major iOS updates or increase developer fees as a way to recoup some of the lost revenue. 
    FileMakerFellerdanox
  • Reply 16 of 19
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.

    IMO it's more like the old west mining towns, or coal-mining Kentuckians back in the 1890's and 1930's. Because someone lived or worked in the company-built town, all their purchases of food and supplies could only come from the company store. Any proprietor's stores that dared open might be burned down and the owners run out of town. Workers were kept behind gates or fences with the excuse that they were “protecting” laborers from unscrupulous traveling salesmen.

    https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/housing/company-towns-1890s-to-1935

    That eventually became illegal of course.



    The US never made "company towns" illegal. Most of them had to close down because the industry that they were built for were no longer viable. And a lot of them close down because of workers revolt, not because the government made them illegal. Even from your link .....

    >However, government observers maintained that Pullman’s principles were accurate, in that he provided his employees with a quality of life otherwise unattainable to them, but recognized that his excessive paternalism was inappropriate for a large-scale corporate economy and thus caused the town’s downfall.  In 1898, the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town.<

    The SCOTUS only force Pullman to dissolve ownership of town properties, that weren't related to Pullman's industry. The SCOTUS did not rule "company towns" illegal and force all of them to shut down.

    Here some some historical facts of some other "company towns" that existed well after the SCOTUS forced Pullman to dissolve their town.


    Oh, here's one that you might be interested in.


    But the latest is that Google will not go ahead as plan because of the economy. Not because "company towns" are illegal. So long as Google wasn't planning to pay employees in "Google Bucks", that could only be used to pay for rent or to shop in ...... "GoogleTown".


    And about the worker being force to shop at the "company town" store, that was not the main compliant by the "company towns" workers. Their main complaint was that they were being paid in "scrips", that could only be use to buy stuff in the "company town" stores. Workers wanted to be paid in cash, so they can choose to spend their pay elsewhere, besides the "company town" stores. Eventually, being paid in "scrips" in place of being paid in legal tender for work performed, was made illegal.

    Jfc, what is this community notes bullshit.  Have a conversation, don't just look for opportunities to deal out a lecture.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 17 of 19
    croprcropr Posts: 1,117member
    JaiOh81 said:
    chelin said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    This isn’t the same. Imagine if you had the deed to the land. And then you wanted to have a chevron station next to the circle k. You own the device (deed) because you purchased it. You should be allowed to use it in whatever way you see fit. That means if you’re ok with potential risks you can install a third party App Store. It doesn’t impact any liability on apples side. It doesn’t even increase any cost on their side. It would impact their revenue however 
    We all know the “limitations” that come from owning an iPhone. If you want a phone that you can have multiple app stores on, buy a different phone. There are tons of manufacturers that make smart phones that allow you to side load from anywhere on the internet. I don’t understand what’s so hard about that? It’s like buying a house with an HOA and then complaining the HOA won’t let you do something you know you wouldn’t be allowed to do before you bought the house  
    I am an app developer having 1 profitable app, that I am selling to non profit organisations.  These non profit organisations demand that the app nust be available to all of their members, so it must be cross platform. So I am having an iOS, an Android and a Web version.

    For me the Apple App store has a monopoly for the disttribution of the iOS version of my app, imposing the App Store guidellines to me.   I have no issiue complying with all technical and security requirements.  But the restrictions on the business level are really bothering me:  that I cannot give a discount to big customers with a lot of members, that I cannot use my secure 3rd party payment gateway I am using for the Web version,  that if the Euro USD exchange rate changes my customers are seeing price increases I cannot explain, that it can take more than 10 days to update a new version of the iOS app (it takes 15 seconds for the web version), ...

    This is what the EU decision is about.

    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 18 of 19
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,711member
    chelin said:
    AppleZulu said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    The third-party app store requirements have a deeper twist for your analogy to be accurate. They would be like requiring Circle K to give others free floor space to stock their own tems which they will sell directly so as not to give Circle K a cut, and to prevent Circle K from imposing any review or requirements on the third-party items to prevent them from interfering with Circle K's operations or even to prevent them from burning down the Circle K store entirely.
    No this is not accurate, no one is asking Apple to even host the third party stores. Physical space isn’t the same as digital footprint. One is limited by geographical dimensions whereas the other is for all practical purposes infinite. If Apple would allow side loading of apps, there would be zero cost to Apple. In fact it would likely reduce cost on Apple from having to maintain code that attempts to block these capabilities for the owners of their devices. 
    Lastly and probably something you ought to consider. This works on MacOS because consumers would not accept these rights to be removed. Imagine how utterly useless your MacBook would feel like if all you were left with was the App Store applications. Does anyoje use the same arguments for MacOs?? No, this is an excellently executed propaganda by Apple to have you think that your phone and tablet is somehow different in this regard!!!!
    If it has no cost, then there should be no problem with other people/businesses doing their own thing, but there’s a problem it does have cost, Digital space isn’t free. It just seems that way someone is paying to keep the lights on and someone did pay to design and engineer, the infrastructure.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,711member
    davidw said:
    chelin said:
    aldanno said:
    Just imagine if Circle K was forced to carry every brand candy, soda and beer. Also imagine they weren't free to mark-up their product prices as they saw fit! No one is asking the Apple Retail Stores to stock every iPhone charger, or competing smart phones? Why is the digital store different? Especially in Europe, they also won't let you sell car parts that haven't been 'certified' to not compromise their safety or environmental standards. Are they planning on setting up an international body to 'certify' apps as not harmful to the operating system or other apps?

    I don't get it.
    This isn’t the same. Imagine if you had the deed to the land. And then you wanted to have a chevron station next to the circle k. You own the device (deed) because you purchased it. You should be allowed to use it in whatever way you see fit. That means if you’re ok with potential risks you can install a third party App Store. It doesn’t impact any liability on apples side. It doesn’t even increase any cost on their side. It would impact their revenue however 

    Not even close.

    It's more like if you have the deed to the land next to a Circle K and you wanted to build a gas station on it , BUT need to hook up and use Circle K electricity, gas and water and don't want to pay for it. You want to be able to advertise your business to the Circle K customers inside their store, for free. And you demand that Circle K pays for the products you need to stock your mini mart. And on top of that, you cry like a baby to the government to force Circle K to build a road through their parking lot, so tanker trucks could have easy access to refill your gas storage tanks.

    How convenient that you forgot to include that owning an iPhone doesn't mean you own iOS. iOS is Apple IP and it's the reason why you could build anything in your iPhone. Otherwise you are free to develop your own OS, for that iPhone that you purchased.  Would you also claim that because you purchased  the CD, you also own the songs that are on it? You want to use the songs on the CD that you purchased, to profit from, you need to pay the artist. You want to use iOS to profit from, Apple deserved to be paid. In reality, iOS is the "deed" and you don't ever own that. No matter how much you paid for the iPhone. Without iOS, you can't build anything in an iPhone. 

    In short, actual infrastructure building isn’t free, it cost money….
Sign In or Register to comment.