Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
All without compensation? That's what they are trying to do to Apple.
This is looking at an issue with a microscope and only focusing on one bit.
First, allow other App Stores, and then let Apple *compete* for developers to use their store at a fair price instead of forcing developers to use the App Store and paying what Apple demands, while shutting out all other competition and options.
"Compensation" is the developers fee they pay for the ability to create iOS apps. Apple getting 30% of the cost of some coins or jewels in a game they have nothing at all to do with is unreasonable, since all Apple does is process a payment.
All without compensation? That's what they are trying to do to Apple.
I think they can still get compensation. But why, I thought they sell phones. Why shouldn’t the OWNER of the phone have a choice where he licenses his software??
The EU DMA and any similar bills, couldn't care less about any perceive rights of a mobile phone OWNER, to have a choice of where they license their software. These bills are not about the consumers. The DMA is NOT a consumer rights bill. Consumer protection is NOT one of its main goal. Any benefit to consumers is purely a side affect and is not a requirement when the commission go fishing for violations based on made up BS criteria that has never been proven to be the threshold limit for anti-competitiveness.
The DMA is billed as a "fair" competition bill. It's goal to see the the 5 largest US tech companies competes on a level playing field by limiting their abilities to profit from their IP and by forcing them to give away their innovations to competitors, so they can better compete against the big 5 US tech companies. There is no requirement for companies that competes with the big 5 US tech companies, to invest in R&D, in order to better compete. Their R&D consist of being able to leach off the big 5 US tech companies by crying loud enough to the government about how "unfair" it is for the big 5 US tech companies to have the money and resources to innovate and then not share those innovations for free, with its competitors. WAH WAH cry the CEO of Spotify and Epic Games.
As a consumer and the OWNER of a mobile phone, your choice of where you want to license software is limited by where the developers offer their software for licensing. Not on any consumer rights you might think you have in choosing where you want to license software. If a developer only develops for Android, an IPhone owner has no inherent rights to force the developer or Apple, to make that app available on iOS. If developers only wants to have their apps available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, the phone OWNERS has no choice to demand that the developers make their apps available for sideloading, because sideloading is how they want to license software.
The phone OWNERs rights to choose where to license their software takes third place behind the developers rights to choose where to offer their software for licensing, which is behind the rights of the IP owners of the phone OS, to control and profit from their IP. The EU DMA goal is to erode the IP owners rights to control and profit from their IP, in order to benefit the developers perceived rights to profit from using others IP for free, on some not need to be proven and not required, premise that the phone OWNERS might also benefit.
All without compensation? That's what they are trying to do to Apple.
I think they can still get compensation. But why, I thought they sell phones. Why shouldn’t the OWNER of the phone have a choice where he licenses his software??
The EU DMA and any similar bills, couldn't care less about any perceive rights of a mobile phone OWNER, to have a choice of where they license their software. These bills are not about the consumers. The DMA is NOT a consumer rights bill. Consumer protection is NOT one of its main goal. Any benefit to consumers is purely a side affect and is not a requirement when the commission go fishing for violations based on made up BS criteria that has never been proven to be the threshold limit for anti-competitiveness.
The DMA is billed as a "fair" competition bill. It's goal to see the the 5 largest US tech companies competes on a level playing field by limiting their abilities to profit from their IP and by forcing them to give away their innovations to competitors, so they can better compete against the big 5 US tech companies. There is no requirement for companies that competes with the big 5 US tech companies, to invest in R&D, in order to better compete. Their R&D consist of being able to leach off the big 5 US tech companies by crying loud enough to the government about how "unfair" it is for the big 5 US tech companies to have the money and resources to innovate and then not share those innovations for free, with its competitors. WAH WAH cry the CEO of Spotify and Epic Games.
As a consumer and the OWNER of a mobile phone, your choice of where you want to license software is limited by where the developers offer their software for licensing. Not on any consumer rights you might think you have in choosing where you want to license software. If a developer only develops for Android, an IPhone owner has no inherent rights to force the developer or Apple, to make that app available on iOS. If developers only wants to have their apps available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, the phone OWNERS has no choice to demand that the developers make their apps available for sideloading, because sideloading is how they want to license software.
The phone OWNERs rights to choose where to license their software takes third place behind the developers rights to choose where to offer their software for licensing, which is behind the rights of the IP owners of the phone OS, to control and profit from their IP. The EU DMA goal is to erode the IP owners rights to control and profit from their IP, in order to benefit the developers perceived rights to profit from using others IP for free, on some not need to be proven and not required, premise that the phone OWNERS might also benefit.
"These bills are not about the consumers"
They are very much about consumers. They are very much about consumer protection. 'Consumers' are one of the most important reasons these directives are drawn up. Consumer surveys play a key role in forming the direction these directives take.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.
It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.
It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.
Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.
It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.
That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.
I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost.
Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions.
Do users not have a right to know what's going on?
Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.
It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.
It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.
Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.
It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.
That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.
I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost.
Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions.
Do users not have a right to know what's going on?
Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them.
If your search for users who are aware of “restrictions” consists of asking people if they’re aware they can’t side-load 3rd party apps, for most who respond they aren’t aware, it’s because the thought never occurred to them. If your follow-up question is “do you like that restriction,” most will probably say “no,” particularly if you don’t mention the security, privacy and and stability that comes from it.
The important thing that you’re misinterpreting is thinking that they actually care about these particular limitations. In the abstract, people don’t like to be told they can’t do something. If, in reality, they never wanted to do the thing they ‘can’t do’ in the first place, then their passion about the “restriction” is nonexistent.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.
It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.
It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.
Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.
It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.
That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.
I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost.
Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions.
Do users not have a right to know what's going on?
Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them.
If your search for users who are aware of “restrictions” consists of asking people if they’re aware they can’t side-load 3rd party apps, for most who respond they aren’t aware, it’s because the thought never occurred to them. If your follow-up question is “do you like that restriction,” most will probably say “no,” particularly if you don’t mention the security, privacy and and stability that comes from it.
The important thing that you’re misinterpreting is thinking that they actually care about these particular limitations. In the abstract, people don’t like to be told they can’t do something. If, in reality, they never wanted to do the thing they ‘can’t do’ in the first place, then their passion about the “restriction” is nonexistent.
That doesn't change anything with regards to my point.
If being transparent, up front and making sure users are aware of the restrictions prior to purchase is enough to get Apple off the anti-trust hook (and it one hell of a hook), why not just let users know? What's to lose?
The reason, is that many would think twice about moving forward with the purchase and Apple definitely knows this.
This isn't about 'abstract' situations, it's about the bottom line and when you ask someone to sign off on these types of restrictions (once things are clearly spelt out to them) they won't like it. Marketing would have a terrible time turning such a situation around. "You want it this way. It's why you chose iPhone. It's in your best interest". Good luck with that.
My whole point is that people don't buy iPhones because of the restrictions, which is what many people here would like us to believe.
Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more.
Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices.
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones.
You haven't addressed my point.
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.
It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.
It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.
Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.
It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.
That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.
I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost.
Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions.
Do users not have a right to know what's going on?
Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them.
If your search for users who are aware of “restrictions” consists of asking people if they’re aware they can’t side-load 3rd party apps, for most who respond they aren’t aware, it’s because the thought never occurred to them. If your follow-up question is “do you like that restriction,” most will probably say “no,” particularly if you don’t mention the security, privacy and and stability that comes from it.
The important thing that you’re misinterpreting is thinking that they actually care about these particular limitations. In the abstract, people don’t like to be told they can’t do something. If, in reality, they never wanted to do the thing they ‘can’t do’ in the first place, then their passion about the “restriction” is nonexistent.
That doesn't change anything with regards to my point.
If being transparent, up front and making sure users are aware of the restrictions prior to purchase is enough to get Apple off the anti-trust hook (and it one hell of a hook), why not just let users know? What's to lose?
The reason, is that many would think twice about moving forward with the purchase and Apple definitely knows this.
This isn't about 'abstract' situations, it's about the bottom line and when you ask someone to sign off on these types of restrictions (once things are clearly spelt out to them) they won't like it. Marketing would have a terrible time turning such a situation around. "You want it this way. It's why you chose iPhone. It's in your best interest". Good luck with that.
My whole point is that people don't buy iPhones because of the restrictions, which is what many people here would like us to believe.
I get your point, and your point is wrong. If people care about the so-called restrictions, they know about them before making their purchase. It’s not a secret, your anecdotal observations notwithstanding.
Most people couldn’t care less about being able to buy apps outside the App Store. What they do care about is privacy, security and reliability. These are all things that Apple markets for iPhone.
Apple continues to have the highest levels of customer satisfaction as well as customer loyalty. Either they’re finding out at some point that they can’t side-load apps and are unbothered by it, or it is so inconsequential a concern that they’ve never given it a thought. There is no other way to square their customer satisfaction ratings with the existence of the fact that you have to get your iPhone apps through the App Store. They keep buying iPhones because they deliver privacy, security, and reliability. You can keep repeating yourself, but it won’t change this truth.
This isn’t about politics. Remember jailbreaks? Without jailbreaks we wouldn’t have many inventions that Apple copied and have been a huge part of the iPhone for quite some time. Take control center or music starting automatically when connected to Bluetooth. I had these using an iPhone 3GS. Plus I could run my phone 📞 n TMobile which was not available at the time and was less then half the amount of ATT.
Repeat after me “every function that was available by jailbreaking used APIs that Apple had not exposed as yet”
Comments
I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).
If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations.
I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems.
What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring?
First, allow other App Stores, and then let Apple *compete* for developers to use their store at a fair price instead of forcing developers to use the App Store and paying what Apple demands, while shutting out all other competition and options.
"Compensation" is the developers fee they pay for the ability to create iOS apps. Apple getting 30% of the cost of some coins or jewels in a game they have nothing at all to do with is unreasonable, since all Apple does is process a payment.
They are very much about consumers. They are very much about consumer protection. 'Consumers' are one of the most important reasons these directives are drawn up. Consumer surveys play a key role in forming the direction these directives take.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act/europe-fit-digital-age-new-online-rules-users_en
What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?
The answer is zero.
The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.
That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.
The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)
That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.
Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.
On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection.
It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.
It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.
Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.
It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.
That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.
I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost.
Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions.
Do users not have a right to know what's going on?
Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them.
If being transparent, up front and making sure users are aware of the restrictions prior to purchase is enough to get Apple off the anti-trust hook (and it one hell of a hook), why not just let users know? What's to lose?
The reason, is that many would think twice about moving forward with the purchase and Apple definitely knows this.
This isn't about 'abstract' situations, it's about the bottom line and when you ask someone to sign off on these types of restrictions (once things are clearly spelt out to them) they won't like it. Marketing would have a terrible time turning such a situation around. "You want it this way. It's why you chose iPhone. It's in your best interest". Good luck with that.
My whole point is that people don't buy iPhones because of the restrictions, which is what many people here would like us to believe.
how can Apple copy their own work?