Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks.
The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted.
The risks exist for everyone, though.
Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not.
It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that?
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content.
Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks.
The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition.
At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security.
The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs).
What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that.
People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc.
What you propose is a misnomer.
Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice.
Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride.
Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.
companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc.
what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride.
That’s theft at gunpoint.
You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package.
I suggest you do.
"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."
You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle.
Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted.
The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so.
The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now.
It had a good ride. Google too! And the others.
It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers.
The complaints never asked for that.
Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers.
If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone.
Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.
Which way do you think things will go there?
People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way.
Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed.
I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings.
I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue.
The EU wants to give that choice back to users.
Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.
But we will see.
You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension.
I have been following this since it was just a rumor.
It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers.
Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices.
The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies.
There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have.
The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was.
Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind.
This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc.
if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards.
when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc.
payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc.
everybody wins.
What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles.
Here, let’s put it in common man logic:
sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running?
No.
They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work.
Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter.
This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.
Hence the DMA/DSA package.
Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead.
You might be swimming against the current.
No one is shafting anyone here.
Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization.
Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case.
Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing.
And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true.
So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead?
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks.
The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted.
The risks exist for everyone, though.
Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not.
It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that?
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content.
Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks.
The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition.
At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security.
The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs).
What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that.
People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc.
What you propose is a misnomer.
Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice.
Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride.
Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.
companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc.
what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride.
That’s theft at gunpoint.
You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package.
I suggest you do.
"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."
You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle.
Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted.
The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so.
The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now.
It had a good ride. Google too! And the others.
It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers.
The complaints never asked for that.
Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers.
If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone.
Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.
Which way do you think things will go there?
People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way.
Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed.
I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings.
I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue.
The EU wants to give that choice back to users.
Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.
But we will see.
You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension.
I have been following this since it was just a rumor.
It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers.
Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices.
The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies.
There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have.
The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was.
Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind.
This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc.
if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards.
when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc.
payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc.
everybody wins.
What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles.
Here, let’s put it in common man logic:
sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running?
No.
They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work.
Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter.
This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.
Hence the DMA/DSA package.
Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead.
You might be swimming against the current.
No one is shafting anyone here.
Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization.
Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case.
Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing.
And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true.
So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead?
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
Stay on the subject.
There will always be more lawsuits designed to take down successful operations.
We are talking about the official ruling from the eu (and related threat to come down hard on apple if they do t like the fact that apple still makes a profit off its platform).
Focus man.
Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks.
The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted.
The risks exist for everyone, though.
Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not.
It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that?
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content.
Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks.
The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition.
At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security.
The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs).
What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that.
People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc.
What you propose is a misnomer.
Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice.
Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride.
Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.
companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc.
what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride.
That’s theft at gunpoint.
You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package.
I suggest you do.
"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."
You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle.
Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted.
The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so.
The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now.
It had a good ride. Google too! And the others.
It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers.
The complaints never asked for that.
Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers.
If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone.
Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.
Which way do you think things will go there?
People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way.
Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed.
I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings.
I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue.
The EU wants to give that choice back to users.
Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.
But we will see.
You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension.
I have been following this since it was just a rumor.
It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers.
Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices.
The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies.
There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have.
The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was.
Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind.
This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc.
if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards.
when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc.
payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc.
everybody wins.
What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles.
Here, let’s put it in common man logic:
sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running?
No.
They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work.
Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter.
This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.
Hence the DMA/DSA package.
Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead.
You might be swimming against the current.
No one is shafting anyone here.
Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization.
Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case.
Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing.
And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true.
So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead?
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
Stay on the subject.
There will always be more lawsuits designed to take down successful operations.
We are talking about the official ruling from the eu (and related threat to come down hard on apple if they do t like the fact that apple still makes a profit off its platform).
Focus man.
I'm not straying. Far from it.
I'm saying that the same claims (or close variants on them) are playing out in other markets. Many markets. The US included. And surely with more to follow.
If your claim of 'that is not how business is done' were relevant, surely the same legal issues wouldn't be getting fired at Apple from all sides.
Clearly there is more to this than EU 'strong action' and that action has nothing to do with why the DMA/DSA was created but for potential non-compliance with it.
Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks.
The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted.
The risks exist for everyone, though.
Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not.
It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that?
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content.
Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks.
The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition.
At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security.
The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs).
What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that.
People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc.
What you propose is a misnomer.
Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice.
Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride.
Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.
companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc.
what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride.
That’s theft at gunpoint.
You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package.
I suggest you do.
"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."
You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle.
Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted.
The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so.
The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now.
It had a good ride. Google too! And the others.
It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers.
The complaints never asked for that.
Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers.
If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone.
Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.
Which way do you think things will go there?
People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way.
Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed.
I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings.
I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue.
The EU wants to give that choice back to users.
Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.
But we will see.
You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension.
I have been following this since it was just a rumor.
It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers.
Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices.
The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies.
There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have.
The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was.
Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind.
This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc.
if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards.
when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc.
payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc.
everybody wins.
What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles.
Here, let’s put it in common man logic:
sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running?
No.
They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work.
Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter.
This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.
Hence the DMA/DSA package.
Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead.
You might be swimming against the current.
No one is shafting anyone here.
Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization.
Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case.
Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing.
And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true.
So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead?
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
Stay on the subject.
There will always be more lawsuits designed to take down successful operations.
We are talking about the official ruling from the eu (and related threat to come down hard on apple if they do t like the fact that apple still makes a profit off its platform).
Focus man.
I'm not straying. Far from it.
I'm saying that the same claims (or close variants on them) are playing out in other markets. Many markets. The US included. And surely with more to follow.
If your claim of 'that is not how business is done' were relevant, surely the same legal issues wouldn't be getting fired at Apple from all sides.
Clearly there is more to this than EU 'strong action' and that action has nothing to do with why the DMA/DSA was created but for potential non-compliance with it.
It’s not a variant. It’s a separate thing. Seriously bro.
You’re trying to build your case by saying “oh look. Over here they’re after apple too.”
of course they are. Everyone wants a piece.
Especially if they smell blood.
But they’re not related.
My claim is accurate. That’s not how business is done. You can look literally anywhere. Even in the eu to see the hypocrisy. The way they invented to get away with it is to manufacture the title of “gatekeeper” for successful companies in order to unfairly harm them.
It’s f course the eh isn’t America where our laws have historically been far more fair and conducive to healthy business and ethics.
The rules has chosen a tact where they will actively harm a successful company and steal from them in order to “help” a less successful company by forcing the successful company to give them a platform for free - actually not free. At apples expense.
The way apple has rectified this is masterful. If the eu tries to thwart that as well, that’s when the USA should step in with sanctions, ridiculous tariffs and trade lockdowns. That’s way out of line. If the eu wants to do that, it furthers the idea that the only reason for this is to force apple and companies that are successful like them to lose money and standing.
Apple was bullied into this. They were forced to comply. The only other option is to leave the run beteft of their offerings. Something that would not only be undesirable for apple, but would make life miserable for those living under the draconian eu leadership.
He's right to a certain degree. Users are stupid, and will blame everyone and anyone else before pointing the finger at themselves.
It's going to happen. Someone is going to side-load a seemingly innocent app, only for that app to hijack their data, possibility gain access to their financial details, etc... User (and the media) will blame Apple for allowing this to happen.
When the iPhone was still a few years into its introduction, every news organization and faux-"news" sites like Gizmodo and Cnet, etc... they were all on the bandwagon about a user that had their phones hijacked and information stolen. "How dare Apple allow this?!"... The main headline was all about how "insecure" the iPhone is, blah.. blah...
I clearly remember one article I read. At the very end of the article, in the most smallest of font starting with an asterisk, it was disclosed that the iPhone was jailbroken and the app came from Cydia.
Yeah... I don't give a f**k if a user wants to go out of the App Store to get their sketchy apps. What I have an issue with is these morons turning-around and blaming Apple for having Android-like security - meaning "none".
As someone that ping ponged between iPhone and Androids since 2007 (currently with iPhone for a few phone models now and 15PM), let the consumer do what they want BUT add a disclaimer. If they install a 3rd party app outside of the App store and their phone goes all wonky on the software side, Apple will NOT fix it and the consumer has to accept responsibility . I have rooted all of my Android phones and jailbroke my old iPhones in the past, knowing full well that my actions could have consequences and I could install something that I probably should not. I dig the walled garden approach Apple has but honestly, I do miss the freedom I had with Android devices sometimes and if my devices ever went nuts, I simply restored from a backup and lesson learned.
Still though I think this is a scare tactic, as installing things from outside of the official app store, will cut into Apples profits.
Except this generation has been taught that nothing is their fault and there’s always someone else to blame.
OK Boomer. It sounds like you're denying all the issues the older generations caused that the younger generations are constantly fighting to resolve. Climate change, housing market, Roe v Wade, social security, immigration, Citizens United v. FEC, and on and on and on.
It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place. Many of those conditions are the crux of the matter as regulators try to eradicate the protections that Apple worked so hard to put in place.
Whether these protections were put in place for our benefit or for Apple’s benefit is really the root cause of everything that the EU is trying to dismantle.
One could argue that the iPhone/iOS should follow the same model that is in place for the Mac/macOS. The problem I have with that argument is that macOS (OS/X) were created, like Windows, in an era when security and privacy concerns were secondary concerns for software developers. I was in the thick of it then and the primary focus was on getting stuff to work and work effectively and efficiently in a primarily solitary or minimally connected environment.
When mainstream personal computing transformed from being a solitary productivity tool to being fully connected to the world, the simplified and cocooned approach taken by software developers during the unconnected era came back to haunt them when those same applications became exposed to the world, a world that included both friends and enemies.
Systems like macOS and Windows have undergone decades of patches and updates to backfill and plug as many of the security and privacy gaps as their creators, users, and researchers can find. But you can be fully assured that there are still many holes still in there that are yet to be found.
The iPhone and iOS were conceived and delivered at a point in time when security and privacy were primary concerns, front and center, because the iPhone has no reason to exist as a solitary, unconnected platform. The iPhone is connected at its core and was designed with privacy and security gates at every point in the development and testing cycle. I’d imagine Apple hoped they would not spend the next two decades of the iPhone’s life trying to hunt down issues born from a lack of consideration for all things privacy and security related. They weren’t perfect but they also weren’t driven by an edict to “just make it work.”
The real question for some of us is “why should I care?” because I’m never going to bypass the safeguards that Apple has put in place. That’s a very relevant question. The answer comes down to whether anything that Apple does to remove the safety mechanisms from iOS to placate the EU compromises the integrity of iOS itself. If the answer is no, there’s nothing in the EU version of iOS that puts those of us outside of the EU at risk then I don’t care. You can’t stop stupid people from doing stupid things. As long as they do it in the privacy of their own country, region, or economic zone, have at it. Just make sure they keep it contained and isolated from the rest of us who don’t have the time, energy, or money to deal with preventable disasters.
He's right to a certain degree. Users are stupid, and will blame everyone and anyone else before pointing the finger at themselves.
It's going to happen. Someone is going to side-load a seemingly innocent app, only for that app to hijack their data, possibility gain access to their financial details, etc... User (and the media) will blame Apple for allowing this to happen.
When the iPhone was still a few years into its introduction, every news organization and faux-"news" sites like Gizmodo and Cnet, etc... they were all on the bandwagon about a user that had their phones hijacked and information stolen. "How dare Apple allow this?!"... The main headline was all about how "insecure" the iPhone is, blah.. blah...
I clearly remember one article I read. At the very end of the article, in the most smallest of font starting with an asterisk, it was disclosed that the iPhone was jailbroken and the app came from Cydia.
Yeah... I don't give a f**k if a user wants to go out of the App Store to get their sketchy apps. What I have an issue with is these morons turning-around and blaming Apple for having Android-like security - meaning "none".
That’s the risk. Everything used to be the Wild West days like that. Apple solved the problem and here is the eu getting all nostalgic for the craziness all over again. Wouldn’t be surprised if the eu wanted this in order to spy on the users. Similar to apple being forced to store user data on Chinese government servers in that country., but more deceptive. And that’s not even talking about the malicious developers you mentioned. What a mess.
Whether or not it’s a risk is irrelevant. People should be given the choice, and let them pick what they want. If they end up picking a less secure option, and something bad happens as a result, that’s on them.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
Would you oppose Apple listing them to purchasers prior to purchase and making them sign off on them?
After all, if they are specifically choosing iPhones because they want to be walled in?
What's to lose?
I'd wager most of Apple's regulatory issues would fade away if that were the case.
Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks.
The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted.
The risks exist for everyone, though.
Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not.
It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that?
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content.
Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks.
The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition.
At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security.
The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs).
What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that.
People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc.
What you propose is a misnomer.
Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice.
Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride.
Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.
companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc.
what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride.
That’s theft at gunpoint.
You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package.
I suggest you do.
"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."
You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle.
Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted.
The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so.
The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now.
It had a good ride. Google too! And the others.
It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers.
The complaints never asked for that.
Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers.
If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone.
Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.
Which way do you think things will go there?
People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way.
Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed.
I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings.
I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue.
The EU wants to give that choice back to users.
Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.
But we will see.
You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension.
I have been following this since it was just a rumor.
It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers.
Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices.
The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies.
There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have.
The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was.
Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind.
This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc.
if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards.
when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc.
payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc.
everybody wins.
What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles.
Here, let’s put it in common man logic:
sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running?
No.
They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work.
Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter.
This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.
Hence the DMA/DSA package.
Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead.
You might be swimming against the current.
No one is shafting anyone here.
Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization.
Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case.
Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing.
And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true.
So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead?
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
Stay on the subject.
There will always be more lawsuits designed to take down successful operations.
We are talking about the official ruling from the eu (and related threat to come down hard on apple if they do t like the fact that apple still makes a profit off its platform).
Focus man.
I'm not straying. Far from it.
I'm saying that the same claims (or close variants on them) are playing out in other markets. Many markets. The US included. And surely with more to follow.
If your claim of 'that is not how business is done' were relevant, surely the same legal issues wouldn't be getting fired at Apple from all sides.
Clearly there is more to this than EU 'strong action' and that action has nothing to do with why the DMA/DSA was created but for potential non-compliance with it.
It’s not a variant. It’s a separate thing. Seriously bro.
You’re trying to build your case by saying “oh look. Over here they’re after apple too.”
of course they are. Everyone wants a piece.
Especially if they smell blood.
But they’re not related.
My claim is accurate. That’s not how business is done. You can look literally anywhere. Even in the eu to see the hypocrisy. The way they invented to get away with it is to manufacture the title of “gatekeeper” for successful companies in order to unfairly harm them.
It’s f course the eh isn’t America where our laws have historically been far more fair and conducive to healthy business and ethics.
The rules has chosen a tact where they will actively harm a successful company and steal from them in order to “help” a less successful company by forcing the successful company to give them a platform for free - actually not free. At apples expense.
The way apple has rectified this is masterful. If the eu tries to thwart that as well, that’s when the USA should step in with sanctions, ridiculous tariffs and trade lockdowns. That’s way out of line. If the eu wants to do that, it furthers the idea that the only reason for this is to force apple and companies that are successful like them to lose money and standing.
Apple was bullied into this. They were forced to comply. The only other option is to leave the run beteft of their offerings. Something that would not only be undesirable for apple, but would make life miserable for those living under the draconian eu leadership.
"But they're not related"
I'd say that if almost every single instance relates to the fact that there is only one app store and Apple has sole control over it, then they are very much related.
Moreso if they end up forcing Apple to allow third party stores.
How different regulators go about achieving the goal is irrelevant if the goal ends up being the same.
Funny thing is that where I live, the government is actively urging people to only get apps from the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. There has been a tremendous amount of financial fraud through malicious APKs on Android. Most of the victims are housewives, retirees and other less tech savvy users. The banking apps have mandatory functionality added on Android to check for presence of malware and the banking app fails to launch if it detects questionable 3rd party installed applications (some of them are actually not malicious). These 3rd party side-loaded apps (installation is done through a web link which the user accepts) are then able to run the banking app in the background (login and password recorded by screen/keyboard intercept) and intercept 2nd factor authorisation and sms and in-app notifications. The fraud is completely done in the background but to the bank appears as a valid transaction by the account holder.
I wish the EU good luck with managing malware and financial fraud at a large scale.
It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place.
The App Store and 3rd-party app were always intended. That's why the UI was designed the way it was with multiple pages and room for additional apps on the home screen. The reason why it didn't launch with the App Store is because it took time to build right. Remember that Jobs announced it in October 2007, a little over 3 months after the Phone went on sale and during their Fall event right before the Christmas season. This wasn't some hobbled together solution where they never considered the need for 3rd-party apps.
Whether or not it’s a risk is irrelevant. People should be given the choice, and let them pick what they want. If they end up picking a less secure option, and something bad happens as a result, that’s on them.
They have had the choice to pick what they want for the past 15 years. There was no issue.
Anyone that uses a 3rd party App Store is an idiot in my opinion. Why bother, why risk it. No protection to know what is being installed on your phone.
As someone who temporarily switched to Android I am perfectly happy with Apples walled garden. I got scammed with a free app that, in the small print stated it would charge after 30 days. I only noticed when I saw several small transactions on my bank statement that I didn’t recognise. Prior to switching to android I never got any spam emails, this is not the case now. In addition I have never had any problems with apps not working in the AppStore, not the same experience on Android.
As someone that ping ponged between iPhone and Androids since 2007 (currently with iPhone for a few phone models now and 15PM), let the consumer do what they want BUT add a disclaimer. If they install a 3rd party app outside of the App store and their phone goes all wonky on the software side, Apple will NOT fix it and the consumer has to accept responsibility . I have rooted all of my Android phones and jailbroke my old iPhones in the past, knowing full well that my actions could have consequences and I could install something that I probably should not. I dig the walled garden approach Apple has but honestly, I do miss the freedom I had with Android devices sometimes and if my devices ever went nuts, I simply restored from a backup and lesson learned.
Still though I think this is a scare tactic, as installing things from outside of the official app store, will cut into Apples profits.
Except this generation has been taught that nothing is their fault and there’s always someone else to blame.
OK Boomer. It sounds like you're denying all the issues the older generations caused that the younger generations are constantly fighting to resolve. Climate change, housing market, Roe v Wade, social security, immigration, Citizens United v. FEC, and on and on and on.
Short term you'll see some lower prices by 3rd party stores as a PR gimmick linked to the EU changes. Long term you're going to see prices the same or higher than the App Store. One of the biggest myths out there is that corporations want to pass savings on to consumers. In reality, they want to put the savings in their own pockets.
And the other reality is that mobile apps were already the lowest priced apps in computing. There's not much to lower unless you are intentionally taking a loss.
Comments
No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers.
You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another.
I'm saying that the same claims (or close variants on them) are playing out in other markets. Many markets. The US included. And surely with more to follow.
If your claim of 'that is not how business is done' were relevant, surely the same legal issues wouldn't be getting fired at Apple from all sides.
Clearly there is more to this than EU 'strong action' and that action has nothing to do with why the DMA/DSA was created but for potential non-compliance with it.
of course they are. Everyone wants a piece.
The real question for some of us is “why should I care?” because I’m never going to bypass the safeguards that Apple has put in place. That’s a very relevant question. The answer comes down to whether anything that Apple does to remove the safety mechanisms from iOS to placate the EU compromises the integrity of iOS itself. If the answer is no, there’s nothing in the EU version of iOS that puts those of us outside of the EU at risk then I don’t care. You can’t stop stupid people from doing stupid things. As long as they do it in the privacy of their own country, region, or economic zone, have at it. Just make sure they keep it contained and isolated from the rest of us who don’t have the time, energy, or money to deal with preventable disasters.
Would you oppose Apple listing them to purchasers prior to purchase and making them sign off on them?
After all, if they are specifically choosing iPhones because they want to be walled in?
What's to lose?
I'd wager most of Apple's regulatory issues would fade away if that were the case.
Would they actually be willing to do that though?
I have my answer. What's yours?
I'd say that if almost every single instance relates to the fact that there is only one app store and Apple has sole control over it, then they are very much related.
Moreso if they end up forcing Apple to allow third party stores.
How different regulators go about achieving the goal is irrelevant if the goal ends up being the same.
Isn't that what we are talking about here?
The goal.
Apple being forced to allow third party options.
I wish the EU good luck with managing malware and financial fraud at a large scale.
And the other reality is that mobile apps were already the lowest priced apps in computing. There's not much to lower unless you are intentionally taking a loss.