davidw

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is. 

That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.

If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.

The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.

It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue. 

As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found. 

Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled. 

Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?

Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being.....  behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.

Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve? 

Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.

This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements. 

So you don't think the free market should decide how much privacy or security is available to users? You want to dictate to all companies, not just Apple, what feature sets that they must use? Just admit it, you don't believe in market freedom.

If there was a poll and if the vast majority of Apple users liked Apple's current set of features, you would still want to force Apple to follow your dictates? User satisfaction means nothing to you? 

Point 1:

Apple is using a security model that has been around for decades. It's a question of good practices. The entire industry uses basically the same tried and tested model and enhances it as new ideas and technologies appear. The free market should definitely not be involved in determining privacy models. That would be the wild west. Legislation is an absolute must for privacy requirements and consumer protection. Companies can go above and beyond what is required by law but not at the cost of infringing other laws or harming competition.

Point 2: Yes.

They are not 'my' dictates. They are proposals which are the result of years of discussion and consultation. Users are not qualified to even know what is involved. They can provide opinion and feedback but laws are not the fruit of solely public opinion. They are complex. Far too complex for your average user to cook up all by themselves. It has taken years to get this far. Your average user is only concerned with direct implications. 

You said, "Users are not qualified to even know what is involved." Wow. What kind of qualifications do you think are required to become informed about security and privacy? Answer that. Only an elitist would say that average people aren't qualified to learn about something. You literally said that people are too stupid to make their own decisions about product security and privacy and must be forced to buy products that you think are best for them. What exactly are your qualifications? Please explain your qualifications. It sounds to me like you are unqualified yourself. Prove me wrong by telling me your qualifications. But I doubt you will, because you're probably just as unqualified as the average person. That's nothing to be ashamed of in itself, so don't be embarrassed about being average. You can be proud to be an average person.

You said, "Companies go above and beyond what is required by law" for security but you think Apple is so negligent with its policy that you want to take away its right to have its own policy. What is it about Apple that makes you think they are profoundly incompetent? Seriously, answer that. You have problems with Apple's security model but you think that FaceBook, Google and Amazon "have gone above and beyond what is required by law." Wow. That's nearly 180 degrees away from the truth.

There are many security and privacy models. Not just one model. And you don't think Apple should be allowed to choose its own. Why do you think that? Is Apple not "smart enough" to make one that's acceptable to you? Really? They are no more qualified than the people you are trying to protect? Who gives you the right to deny Apple its own choice of security model for its own products? Who gives you the right to take away Apple's freedom to create security policies for its own products?

Users not being qualified means not having the knowledge. As I said, the average user is in no way qualified to do this. Users can provide feedback during the consultation period but even that has to be processed in line with existing legislation.

I didn't say anyone was stupid. I said they didn't have the knowledge. Do you know the name of the security model I was referring to? I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of users only have very limited knowledge of product security and privacy. 

I am an average user. I am not a security or privacy expert. Nor a legislator. I should definitely not be allowed to participate in the technicalities of things like this. My participation would be limited to opinion and feedback on the public consultation process.

Having the capacity to learn doesn't mean I have that knowledge now.

Apple can have its own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations. Who spoke about being negligent? Who spoke about bring profoundly incompetent?

Pretty much the entire industry bases security models on the same decades old model. Revised and adapted over time. 

And those are the users that Apple is trying to and should protect and the EU don't seem to care about. The EU is willing to force iPhones to be less secure for the vast majority of users that have limit knowledge about product security and privacy.  

You don't think Apple tried to reason with the EU about security and privacy protection? Apple knows a lot more about the security and privacy protection of the devices they make and sell, than the vast majority of their users or anyone else for that matter. And did the EU listen. NO. Apple have a model to protect their users security and privacy that don't infringe on current regulations and the EU is going ahead with passing new regulations that will basically deny Apple the right to choose their own security and privacy model for their own devices  because of what? New regulations that only targets Apple, Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft. 

Saying that "Apple can have their own security and privacy policy as long as it doesn't infringe on current regulations" is nothing but Orwellian doublethink. Not when "current regulations" are not set in stone and the EU can change the DMA regulations for gatekeepers, at any time and as often as they want, if they don't think Apple security and privacy policy is the best for completion in the EU.  

https://9to5mac.com/2021/07/02/apple-antitrust-privacy-security/

“” think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone. The important thing here is, of course, that it’s not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload,” she said.

She "thinks". Does that sound like some one with a lot knowledge about security and privacy or some one with very limited knowledge? Or maybe some one that don't really care? Shouldn't she know, because she is in a position to pass regulations that might affect the security and privacy of consumers?  So that EU companies can better compete without having to innovate and investing their own money in RD.  

DMA regulations are a bunch of BS. The DMA regulations only applies to the big 5 US techs, by design. It does not apply to Samsung. Samsung could sell mobile phones with an OS that don't allow side loading or third party stores and the EU is fine with that. Why? Because the EU have not cursed Samsung as a "gatekeeper". And the criteria to be a gatekeeper is only meant to include the big 5 US tech and to filter out all EU companies.

Samsung global marketshare of smartphones is about the same as  Apple. (25% to 28%, depending on quarterly sales. With install base, i would think Samsung is clearly the global market leader.). Xiaomi is now the market leader in Europe, with Samsung second and Apple third. But like Samsung, Xiaomi is not bound by the DMA regulations. Only the company (Apple) with the 3rd highest marketshare at 20% in Europe must abide by DMA regulations. 

https://cepa.org/europe-should-listen-to-us-concerns-about-its-big-tech-crackdown/

https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/european-union-renews-its-offensive-against-us-technology-firms

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/3/22607248/xiaomi-overtakes-samsung-europe-smartphone-sales-apple

If you think this DMA is about protecting consumers, then you have the same limited knowledge as the vast majority about product security and privacy.  The DMA is about punishing the big 5 US tech for being too successful, under current anti-trust laws. So new ones have to be pass that only applies to them. All the other companies that are not cursed with being a gatekeeper, can still go about their business under current regulations as the DMA will not apply them. 

xyzzy-xxx said:

davidw said:

Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve? 

People complaining about the EU forget that the U.S. lawmakers also want sideloading.
People complaining about security forget that there was malware distributed through the App Store and one advantage of iOS could also be used for sideloaded apps: Apps can be required to be signed by a certificate that can be revoked remotely any time.

But none of the US lawmakers that wants side loading, have even come close to getting such a bill to pass. The EU is nearly there.

The advantage that Apple have with the Apple App Store is that scanning apps for malware can take place before it's in the Apple App Store and ready to be installed by the users. Even this don't catch all malware in apps. With side loading, Apple can't scan the app until it's already in the third party app store or after it has already been downloaded from the internet and installed.

Being able to revoke the certificate of bad apps is done now but it could had infected 10's of 1000's of iPhones by then and stolen the users data. The other thing to remember is that right now iOS is not a big target for hackers, phishers and scammers because just about the only way in is by way of the Apple App Store. Once third party app stores and side loading is allowed, it's going to open season for iOS users. So saying that ..... since Apple can't catch all the malware trying to get installed onto an iPhone by way of the Apple App Store), it's no big deal that more malware might get through by way of side loading ..... doesn't make sense.

Google been working on making side loading as safe as possible for over 10 years now and side loading is still a big security issue on Android. Google have an Advance Protection Plan tailored to meet the needs of Android users that requires the most protection. And one of the first thing the plan does is to disable side loading for the users enrolled.

https://www.xda-developers.com/google-advanced-protection-play-protect-sideloaded-apps/

>For starters, Play Protect will now be enabled by default for anyone registered in the Advanced Protection program. For those unaware, Play Protect is Google’s built-in malware protection for Android. It scans billions of apps every day with Google’s machine learning algorithms to keep devices safe. Play Protect is already enabled on most devices, but this ensures it is for those requesting extra protection.
Next, Google will be blocking the majority of sideloaded apps for those enrolled in the Advanced Protection program. It’s much harder for Google to ensure the safety of users if they are installing apps from untrusted sources.<

This after Play Protect is enabled by default. Why? If side loading shouldn't be that big of a deal because malware are already getting through the Google Play Store and Google Play Protect, anyway. 

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Not allowing other stores to exist, is. 

That's obviously not true from a standard legal perspective. The EU wouldn't be resorting to the use of market cap otherwise. They know that trying to apply this new regulation across the board would be a disaster.

If it isn't legal Apple would have no issues challenging that aspect.

The market cap is relevant to gatekeeper status.

It could easily be argued that what allowed Apple and others to get this far unchallenged was precisely that, in the beginning, it wasn't such an issue. 

As more and more people switch to a more 'digital' lifestyle, the more important these situations have become and solutions for them found. 

Legislation is always behind the curve in the technology race. Data protection is a prime example but eventually, things get tackled. 

Gee, wouldn't you think that if this were true and there's really no doubt that it is, that the EU should be more concern about more important issues like security and privacy on the devices we're all using more of in our "digital lifestyle". Rather than to concentrate on forcing Apple into allowing the installation of apps for iOS users, going against Apple claim that such features would comprise security and privacy on their iDevices?

Wouldn't you say that the EU focusing on allowing third party app stores and side loading, without considering security and privacy issues, as being.....  behind the curve in the technology race? Don't you think that the "data protection" aspect of allowing third party stores and side loading, should be tackled first, instead of .... will eventually get tackled, after our data have already been stolen or held for ransomware by being scammed into installing a malicious app. Google haven't even completely tackled the problem yet and they been working over 10 years at it. Not everyone that are living a "digital lifestyle", are tech savvy.

Apple developed iOS from the ground up, with security, privacy and data protection in mind. So now Apple should be punished by the EU for being ahead of the tech curve? 

Take a look at reality. Most apps are not iOS apps. Security works just fine for the vast majority of users. Thanks in large part to EU directives which are already in force, like PSD2.

This new proposal actually covers a lot of bases and user online security and privacy are major elements. 

The vast majority of apps available are by law abiding developers. It's the less than 1% of apps developed by the hackers, phishers and scammers that we need to worry about. Android malware issues aren't cause by the vast majority (over 99%) of apps from law abiding developers. Or you don't think Android malware issues are part of "reality".

And EU PSD2 have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of apps being safe. Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada   PSD2 only pertains to banking software use to make online  transactions and not necessary an app. The vast majority of apps have nothing to do with banking. 

If hackers, phishers and scammers can con just 1% of iOS users into installing their malicious apps through side loading, that would be over 12M iOS users.  You think in "reality", that would not be a problem because the vast majority of apps works just fine? 

In "reality", no security and privacy issues should be reduced, for the superficial needs of users living a "digital lifestyle", to side load or the need to increase competition so competitors can make more profit. The EU needs to get their priories straight because the vast majority of users don't care to ever side load, as indicated by real numbers of how many Android users takes advantage of side loading. It's a joke that the EU would even consider sacrificing even the tiniest bit of the security and privacy enjoyed by 90% of iOS users, for the sake of probably no more than 10% of iOS users who's willing to give up some of the security, in order to side load or to level the playing field for competitors that wants to make more profit. And yet here we are trying to figure out why the EU are going through with this and here you are trying to defend such a move by the EU. 

To paraphrase Spock .... the needs of the many that wants security, outweighs the need of the few that wants to side load. 

22july2013 said:

danox said:

22july2013 said:

davidw said:

mjtomlin said:

Has the EU proven that people are somehow forced to buy iOS devices? That a vast majority of those users don’t choose iOS because of how it currently works? Until you’ve proven both, you cannot claim that enforcing all these rules is for the benefit of the user. 

Well the bottom line is that the EU is going to enforce so many changes to iOS, it might as well be Android at that point. Apple’s business model is all about tight integration; hardware, software, and services. If they can’t continue that, I seriously doubt Apple is interested in making that type of device. Apple’s best option will eventually be to just stop selling iOS devices in the EU. Especially if the fines are going to be so damned huge.

After Apple allows side loading and has to let others use their own payment system on the App Store and has to let others have their own app stores… where’s the incentive for Apple to even bother with an App Store in that market? Where’s the incentive to support that hardware any longer than they have to in those markets? So Apple would drop the App Store off those devices, raise the price for them, and start charging for OS updates.

Or only offer a completely closed device, like the original iPhone. No App Store, no side loading. Only Apple’s software and services. Anything else, access it on the web.

Sorry, but as a hardware vendor, you should have the right to choose what features your device comes with. The consumer can then choose a device based on the features offered. If the user doesn’t like it return it or move on to something else when you go to upgrade.

What Apple should do is to sell EU iPhones and EU iPads. These EU iOS devices would come with a USB C port and a version of iOS that adheres to the EU DMA. And not only would they only be available in the EU, it's the only iPhones and iPads that are available in the EU. The US iPhones will still work in the EU as the EU iPhones will work in the US, but EU citizens would have to purchase the much more secure US version in a non EU country and smuggle them home, if they want to avoid customs and VAT. This way the EU consumers can choose what's best for them. 

I imagine a very small percentage of US iPhone consumers would try to purchase an EU iPhone for the side loading and third party app stores but a much larger percentage of EU iPhone consumers would try to get their hands on the US iPhones. So long as the US iPhones are not sold in the EU, I don't think the EU commission can do anything about it.

Not only that, apps developed for the US iPhones will not work in the EU iPhones and must be re-coded for the EU version of iOS and vice-versa. And not all versions of iPhones might be available in the EU, when they are first announced or even at all.

The fact that the EU is trying to force Apple to make iPhones and iPads with USB C charging port in the EU, will force Apple to make two hardware versions of their iDevices anyways. Just as easy to install an EU version of iOS on those. Apple don't seem to have a problem changing iOS to appease China.  

Do the tech ignorant EU Commission think they can dictate what US tech companies must do and can't do, all over the World? What? EU Commission still think they have World empires? We don't need no stinking EU Commission telling US techs what they must do and can't do in the US. Here in the US, we have our own tech ignorant politicians to tell our own US tech companies, what they must do and can't do in the US. 

Your post is well-thought and constructive, and may even be how Apple will proceed, but your post is predicated on the idea that Apple will give in to the EU and perhaps should also give in to every other jurisdiction that demands to micromanage small components of iOS. I'm not sure that I agree that Apple should (or will) capitulate. We could end up with a different phone or different OS for every country in the world, if Apple takes this route. For example, the iPhone sold in the EU may come with a version of iMessage that is compatible with Android phones, but iPhones sold in North America may not be similarly compatible. I don't think Apple wants its products fractionalized like this.

Several people have opined that Apple should build a "switch" that lets users enable side-loading. Well, maybe they are right, and that switch could simply be letting users choose between Android and iOS. That's a "switch", right? Instead of switching between "iOS1 and iOS2" it is switching between "iOS and Android." What's the difference? It's a "switch."

But you are certainly right that the EU can't impose its rules on any other jurisdiction. They could end up being big losers in this fight, if Apple decides to fight. But I don't see Tim Cook doing much fighting, to be honest. Steve Jobs was ready to "go nuclear" when it was called for.

A EU only iPhone is coming, called Pure iPhone you get the base functionality and that is all. Would you buy a iPhone that just has the phone, email, music, video, CarPlay, Maps, and all the other base level Apple programs ie similar to the way a game console is set up. Note the only programs beyond base programs are just limited function web apps sound familiar?

I would be thrilled if your prediction of an AppStore-Free iPhone for the EU comes to be true. (Although the moniker "Pure" is never going to be used. Especially in Germany. Maybe "True", "Fun", "Absolute", or "Real.")

To answer your question, I think an iPhone without an App Store would still sell well. The original iPhone sure did, and it didn't have any App Store. As far as I can see, all the apps on my iPhone could be deleted because each app also has a web portal where I can get the same functionality using the web instead of an app. For example, my banking app and my network speed test app.

"AppStore-free" doesn't have to mean that the Apple App Store can not be on the EU iPhone. The users just have to side load it in. Of course its the EU iOS Apple App Store. Along with all the other app stores they want or need. The Apple App Store just can't be pre-install on the EU iPhones. We all know how anal the EU gets if gatekeepers promotes their own products or services.

But wait, since gatekeepers are not allowed to promote their own products or services, Safari nor any other browsers can be pre-installed (to level the playing field for all competitors). So the users will have to go on the internet using a computer to find the app for the browser they want to use, download it on to their computer and then using the correct USB cable to connect their iPhone to the computer and side load it into their EU iPhone. Only after then, can the EU iPhone users start visiting all the other app stores website to side load the apps, on their EU iPhone. 

Not only that, because allowing free apps attracts users to the Apple App Store, thus giving Apple an unfair competitive edge over other app stores .... no more third party free apps, unless competing app stores host free apps. Since no other app store would want to use up bandwidth to host free apps, users will have to hunt down popular free apps like Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Fortnite, CNN, Google Map, Facebook, Twitter, etc.. Of course apps like iMessage, Photos, Apple Map, Contacts, iTunes, Calculator, etc. will be in the Apple App Store. Even when free.  They just can't be pre-installed. 

If all the big name game developers leave the Apple App Store to sell their apps in their own app stores, then there's no real incentive for Apple to invest in improving the game performance of EU iPhones. Currently, 70% of Apple App Store revenue are from games. The top 3% of developers, accounts for over 93% of all Apple App Store revenue. 97% of the rest of the developers accounts for 7% of Apple app Store revenue. Without the revenue from the big developers, who are the most likely to have their own app stores to avoid the commission, why should Apple invest in improving EU iPhones performance. EU iPhones could be like the iPhone SE, about a year behind the newest top of the line iPhones. 

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Yes. Choice is good for consumers. Yes. Competition is good for consumers. 

Nobody is debating the value of choice or competition. What is being debated is the EU's claims of anticompetitive behavior that would require something as draconian as forced side loading. Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior.

Has the EU established that iOS has higher prices than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower quality software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS offers less choice in software than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No. Has the EU established that iOS has lower customer satisfaction than operating systems that allow 3rd party stores? No.

If all of those questions are 'No', then why does the EU think there is a problem that is significant enough to require forced side loading? The level of competition for pricing, quality, choice and customer satisfaction seems to be normal. 

"Just saying "the App Store is the only store on iOS" is not proof of anticompetitive behavior."

'being' the only store isn't anti-competitive. 

Not allowing other stores to exist, is. 

Under what current law? 

Now don't make a fool of yourself by saying iOS is a "monopoly" and falls under current anti-trust laws. Not even the EU thinks that. Or the US Federal Judge that ruled against Epic, when they claimed the same.

What you mean to say is  ......... Not allowing other stores to exist , will be. ..... But only if this DMA passes as written.