anonymouse

nubus said:

anonymouse said:

Clearly, the best and only really viable option is for Apple to sell dumbed down iPhones in the EU, devices that don't receive the latest technology and even have some features removed.

Mediocre by design
How US car manufacturers and Apple won the EU through subpar products

Could I get a signed copy?

Well, you know, it's like, you don't wear your best watch into a slum, because some low life might steal it from you.

Clearly, the best and only really viable option is for Apple to sell dumbed down iPhones in the EU, devices that don't receive the latest technology and even have some features removed. But they should make it absolutely clear that they are being forced to adopt this course by the actions of the EU. Obviously, some of the posters in this thread either work for the EU or have drunk so much EU koolaid that they aren't able to be objective about this but simply defend everything the EU does. But, I imagine the majority of EU citizens would rather have the latest Apple technology and privacy protections a lot more than they want random apps to have access to all of their personal data, or to be able to surreptitiously transfer files between devices. So, maybe they'll eventually wake up as they fall behind in what's available to them and what's protected for them and start demanding change.

But, the main thing is for Apple to continue to make it entirely clear that it is the EU government that is standing in the way of progress for EU citizens, and that it's up to EU citizens to change that.

More legalized piracy from the EU. More meaningless verbiage from its apologists.

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Xed said:

SiTime said:

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

I hadn't picked up on that. Naming it iOS 26 in the year 2025 does seem like a misstep if Apple goes that route.

The problem Apple faces, the same problem as car manufacturers, is that the name iOS 25 is great for three months, then suddenly it sounds old and outdated for nine months until iOS 26 arrives.

It is better to be ahead for a couple of months than behind for nine. Also, iOS 26 won't be out until about a week before October, which is the beginning of the FY26. It works.

The way this works for cars (although, there may have lately been some few exceptions) is that the model year is determined by the first January in which the car is sold. This makes perfect sense for any "versioning" system that is based on annual releases.

It also makes a lot of sense for Apple's OSs to align their version numbers. There is a lot of functionality that depends on various Apple devices being on the same release level, and year based versioning makes it simple to know whether that is the case or not.

avon b7 said:

"Apple's "good faith efforts to engage" with the European Commission."

I think this takes the biscuit.

It's fine for Apple to disagree with the EU but to 'comply' with a requirement that expressly goes against anti-steering tactics by imposing a seperate system that effectively imposes the same financial burden on developers under a different name is not engaging in good faith efforts.

Apple is really earning itself a bad name here. 

It does "take the biscuit" considering that EC hasn't made any good faith efforts to actually define compliance. I guess they realized a shortfall in revenue, so they need to conduct a new shakedown to keep the doors open in Brussels. The EU is engaged in lawless acts of piracy.