The issue appears to be that Apple has a commercial monopoly in the App Store and the EU considers this unfair. Yet Apple wishes to protect the integrity and security of the user experience by being the gatekeeper. Firstly, you don't have to buy apps from Apple's App Store, I have many downloaded directly, with all the usual health warnings. Secondly, Apple is currently providing a service in protecting users from malware.
This is the Wild West of internet times and there is no global authority to perform the same purpose. Does the EU really want to take on the job of scrutinising every app submitted for sale? No. A compromise, for the time being, would be for Apple to reduce its top-slicing fees to better represent its actual costs or even set up the Apple App Store as a separate not-for-profit organisation. That should satisfy the EU.
In the long run, an international authority should be established to be responsible for certifying apps as safe, across all platforms, with a fee paid one way or another by the seller.
How about Apple says OK we will allow apps to be side loaded but only if the EU warrants to compensate all damage done by side loaded viruses, all data breeches caused by being forced to open the eco system - Apple should push this hard - the EU may have good intentions (and GPDR is a good thing in the main) but they are way off line with this particular issue. IMHO
But what about the accumlative damage done to EU consumers through not allowing competition? Will Apple compensate for that?
I wonder if Apple could force sideloaded apps to exist in a sandbox, locked and isolated from everything else.
Granted the user may grant access to Contact, photos, etc, but maybe it would contain nefarious apps.
Have no idea how this works.
All apps run in a sandbox even now. Apple could also copy Google's Play protect which periodically scans the phone for malware and viruses so even third party installs are secure.
Some time ago I tried to side load a pirated movie app on Android and Play Protect warned me that the app had malicious code.
Are you kidding? What about those reports about how there are way more pieces of malware on Android than iOS…periodic scanning didn’t make it secure
You'd think those reports would be out every day, given the supposed mess that Android is and that users would be rushing to iOS.
The fact that that is far from the case should tell you all you need to know.
regarding the 30% — what Apple created was a vibrant economy for software developers that didn’t exist at that scale or low cost before. You need to understand that software used to cost much more to distribute before the App Store.
Software distribution + resellers often get less than 10% combined. App Store made things a lot more expensive for developers. No wonder a lot of Mac apps aren't available in App Store + Apple took jobs from distribution and resellers.
And so what about Apple being an enabler? I don't pay Mercedes 30% of my salary for being able to drive to work. You might disagree with the EU Parliament and the actions taken by those elected. So what? Realpolitik doesn't care about that.
Absolutely false. Tell me you’ve never sold a SKU in retrial without telling me…. Distributor and retailer added MUCH more than 10% to the final price. Look up keystone pricing. Distributing software in retail channels used to be much more expensive.
Different times but irrelevant.
The core of this case is competition.
In the past, software would last far longer than on mobile where server side restrictions (also through Apple) were less of a problem. Prices were higher as software (and this is still true today) was far more complete in what it could do.
Even essential things like file local management took years to be implemented and even that is a mess when compared to desktop apps.
In the long run, an international authority should be established to be responsible for certifying apps as safe, across all platforms, with a fee paid one way or another by the seller.
We would never accept Sony or LG being able to block TV shows in the US they didn't find appropriate. Or let Heidelberg stop books from being printed unless approved in Germany. Why accept that a company from California decide on the apps we can use - in Utah or abroad? I prefer to elect those that protect core values like free speech rather than having any company - foreign or domestic - decide.
I personally think if Steve Jobs was still alive, he would pull out of the EU
The single largest trading bloc outside the USA? Really?
Steve Jobs was nothing if not a man of principle - whether it hurt or helped him - or provided financial rewards or deficits. He had a very clear and simple. Yet profound vision - make the best stuff in the world. Period. He wouldn’t let some unAmerican government crap all over apple and its customers. I could totally hear him saying “and this is why you can’t have nice things,” chiding the EU publicly, finding a way to turn the tables - and failing that, leave that market to fry, forever at the mercy of crapware such as android. The entire EU marketplace and the associated governments with their fees and taxes would be begging Apple to come back. There would be a grassroots import movement by the populace. Steve was strong like that. While cook seems to be a better businessman, he lacks that principled backbone and so we see apple’s stances being chipped away at.
Steve Jobs took Apple into China. Give me a break from all this mythologising, he was as pragmatic as any other business leader.
How about Apple says OK we will allow apps to be side loaded but only if the EU warrants to compensate all damage done by side loaded viruses, all data breeches caused by being forced to open the eco system - Apple should push this hard - the EU may have good intentions (and GPDR is a good thing in the main) but they are way off line with this particular issue. IMHO
But what about the accumlative damage done to EU consumers through not allowing competition? Will Apple compensate for that?
Zero damage has been done to EU consumers. That's why the EU never presented any type of software pricing comparisons between the various "open" and "closed" platforms. The EU's idea of the perfect competitive system is Windows/Mac which has significantly higher prices for both hardware and software AND a far more lopsided market share for its duopoly of operating systems.
How about Apple says OK we will allow apps to be side loaded but only if the EU warrants to compensate all damage done by side loaded viruses, all data breeches caused by being forced to open the eco system - Apple should push this hard - the EU may have good intentions (and GPDR is a good thing in the main) but they are way off line with this particular issue. IMHO
But what about the accumlative damage done to EU consumers through not allowing competition? Will Apple compensate for that?
Zero damage has been done to EU consumers. That's why the EU never presented any type of software pricing comparisons between the various "open" and "closed" platforms. The EU's idea of the perfect competitive system is Windows/Mac which has significantly higher prices for both hardware and software AND a far more lopsided market share for its duopoly of operating systems.
Pricing isn't everything. My wife can't use her phone to access any NFC system for transport because Apple (and only Apple - there's the harm in that case) hasn't authorised the app for it.
Harm, is Apple’s commissions. Harm, is Apple’s reluctance to allow NFC use. Harm, is Apple's refusal to allow alternative wallet systems. Harm, is one App Store. Harm, is only allowing WebKit. Harm, is not allowing users to install the kind of apps they want. Harm, is not clearly informing users of any of the above.
The pic of them shaking hands is really bad. The artifacts are obvious and not of high quality. It even looks photoshopped. I cannot believe she posted that crap.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
No the EU is not America nor is it Japan which is an even bigger market for Apple than the EU, also note so is China. The EU is Android country for the rank and file.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Pixel ain't no iPhone. It's barely known anywhere. iPhones are, - and have been for years now, - very popular around the world, including in places where Apple have no official presence. If anything, a ban would add to the whole 'exclusivity' hype. Besides, who wouldn't want to give them bureaucrats the finger?
Exclusivity has always been Apple's selling point but they have never operated that philosophy in a closed market. When the government bans a product, it harms a consumer's trust in it. Many Americans used Kaspersky before it was banned, nobody will use it now even if it is given for free, whether they know anything about cybersecurity or not.
Also, people like to show off their iPhones, however, people can be hesitant in showing off a product after it is banned in their country. Apple services such as App store may also be blocked so what they are left with is a shiny block of steel that has an Apple logo.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
a) it's not "foreign" where I'm sitting. The internet is a global thing. So is Apple, by the way.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
The reason the damage is limited is because downloaded software has no hooks into the system, and cannot do anything outside its default sandbox without explicitly asking for access from the user.
This will not change with support for multiple app stores.
I DO share your concern, and I actually agree with you that this may be an overall net negative for the platform, when Pops taps on something interesting, which prompts him to install a shady store app to get the app, which actually does something completely different than advertised.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
a) it's not "foreign" where I'm sitting. The internet is a global thing. So is Apple, by the way.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
The reason the damage is limited is because downloaded software has no hooks into the system, and cannot do anything outside its default sandbox without explicitly asking for access from the user.
This will not change with support for multiple app stores.
I DO share your concern, and I actually agree with you that this may be an overall net negative for the platform, when Pops taps on something interesting, which prompts him to install a shady store app to get the app, which actually does something completely different than advertised.
I worry about this, too.
Good points. What I'm worried about isn't some occasional rogue download, though. Android has a switch to restrict app installs to Play Market, and it works as intended. Rather, what bothers me is that some developers may intentionally pull out of Apple's app store, thus forcing their customers to use theirs.
Of course they will. OTOH, we will get apps that we haven't had until now because offering them through the App Store wasn't feasible.
I've mentioned elsewhere that this absolutely needs to happen on iPad, if Apple are going to establish it as a "serious" production platform. Just offering Logic and Final Cut is a good start, but I don't think we're going to see the major-player plugins unless they can port their own store and distribution frameworks.
Comments
This is the Wild West of internet times and there is no global authority to perform the same purpose. Does the EU really want to take on the job of scrutinising every app submitted for sale? No. A compromise, for the time being, would be for Apple to reduce its top-slicing fees to better represent its actual costs or even set up the Apple App Store as a separate not-for-profit organisation. That should satisfy the EU.
In the long run, an international authority should be established to be responsible for certifying apps as safe, across all platforms, with a fee paid one way or another by the seller.
The fact that that is far from the case should tell you all you need to know.
The core of this case is competition.
In the past, software would last far longer than on mobile where server side restrictions (also through Apple) were less of a problem. Prices were higher as software (and this is still true today) was far more complete in what it could do.
Even essential things like file local management took years to be implemented and even that is a mess when compared to desktop apps.
Harm, is Apple’s commissions.
Harm, is Apple’s reluctance to allow NFC use.
Harm, is Apple's refusal to allow alternative wallet systems.
Harm, is one App Store.
Harm, is only allowing WebKit.
Harm, is not allowing users to install the kind of apps they want.
Harm, is not clearly informing users of any of the above.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Also, people like to show off their iPhones, however, people can be hesitant in showing off a product after it is banned in their country. Apple services such as App store may also be blocked so what they are left with is a shiny block of steel that has an Apple logo.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
I've mentioned elsewhere that this absolutely needs to happen on iPad, if Apple are going to establish it as a "serious" production platform. Just offering Logic and Final Cut is a good start, but I don't think we're going to see the major-player plugins unless they can port their own store and distribution frameworks.