AppleZulu

About

Username
AppleZulu
Joined
Visits
236
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
7,685
Badges
2
Posts
2,159
  • 'Verifiably untrustworthy' Epic Games iOS app store plans in EU killed by Apple

    jmaximus said:
    Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store. 

    DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform. 
    Other platforms have prioritized the collection and sale of user data over user privacy and security. Google sells some phone devices, but that's not how they make their money. With an OS that lives on others' hardware, Android's business model continued to be about the collection and sale of user data. 

    Apple sells hardware, and iOS only runs on their hardware. As such, their business model is about driving sales of iPhones. To do so, they can position the iPhone and iOS as a secure, privacy-focused platform. They don't need to collect and sell user data to make money. To facilitate this, iOS was created as a closed system, with the App Store as the exclusive entry point for software developers to create applications for that platform. This assures that Apple can establish and police rules that require third-party developers to maintain high levels of customer security and privacy. 

    The EU requirement for Apple to allow third-party App Stores potentially undermines all that. In response, Apple created a tight set of rules for third-party App Stores to follow, to still maintain a high level of user privacy and security. A third party operation that chooses to meet and exceed those requirements will mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly on security. That would be a good outcome. 

    The problem is that the companies like Epic that pushed for this EU requirement weren't doing it because they wanted to provide customers with a higher level of security. They did it because they want to opt out of Apple's standards so that they are able to collect and sell user data, and to implement exploitative in-app purchase systems that would violate Apple's rules. If the EU forces Apple to allow that, it's not "fair competition," it's companies taking a free ride on Apple's platform in order to exploit their customers. 
    mailmeofferstmaywatto_cobraspock1234danox9secondkox2Bart Yaltrd_siliconwilliamlondonforegoneconclusion
  • 'Verifiably untrustworthy' Epic Games iOS app store plans in EU killed by Apple

    avon b7 said:
    This doesn't look good for Apple on the face of it.

    Apple has the last word on 'trust'?

    I can't see that going down well in the EU. 

    I suppose Epic will accuse Apple of discrimination. 

    We'll see. 

    If the iOS platform is to maintain integrity, yes. Epic has a solid history of bad credit. If the EU's intent is to strip Apple of all control of its own platform and to force them to let thieves and child predators set up shop there, then it may come to a point where Apple would be better off withdrawing from that market, and EU can make its own phones. 
    tmayjas99williamlondon9secondkox2killroyolsmobirdpscooter63spock1234watto_cobra
  • A new call feature on X is on by default, and you should probably turn it off

    Why does this site hate X so much?
    Probably because it used to be a cesspool, but after the Musk buyout it got worse.
    ForumPostkurai_kageVictorMortimerwatto_cobra
  • Apple to pay $14.4M to settle Canadian 'Batterygate' lawsuit

    For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

    The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 
    williamlondonauxiowatto_cobrajony0
  • European Union smacks Apple with $2 billion fine over music streaming

    avon b7 said:
    This is part of what the EU had to say:

    "Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

    Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

    ... "

    Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

    That’s because it’s absurd for the company that holds more than half the market to accuse another company that has a much smaller market share of “anti-competitive behavior” in that market. It becomes doubly absurd when you consider that much of that market wouldn’t even exist without the mobile platform created by Apple and then copied by its competitors. 

    When Spotify launched in 2006, streaming music was limited primarily to stationary, plugged-in computers. There were mp3 players and iPods that made downloaded music portable, but Apple had to invent the iPhone, push phone companies into broadband, and then introduce the App Store for Spotify to become relevant. Samsung, Google and others followed, expanding Spotify’s opportunities for riding the broadband mobile platform wave. 

    Spotify then used that platform to disrupt the purchased digital music market, and Apple supplanted iTunes with Apple Music in response. 

    As with Epic, Spotify just wants a free ride. That’s what this is all about. 

    Honestly, when you add to this the fact that Spotify also notoriously pays artists significantly less for their content than Apple, they come off as pretty parasitic, when you think about it. 
    foregoneconclusionjas99darelrextmayradarthekatsphericJanNLauxioroundaboutnowdarbus69