[HN Gopher] EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, M...
___________________________________________________________________
EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other
tech firms
Author : marcobambini
Score : 503 points
Date : 2022-07-05 14:09 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| usrn wrote:
| I really hate having the government involved in regulating this
| sort of stuff but Apple has brought so much destruction in bad
| faith it's hard to feel sympathy.
|
| They have nearly single-handedly killed open source chat software
| (people forget that before the iPhone you could actually send
| messages from Goolge talk to AIM thanks to XMPP, this still
| exists but Apple has made it nearly impossible to use comfortably
| on the iPhone.) Fuck them, I hope they go out of business. As for
| the "consumer tech industry" that's practically dead at this
| point anyway, no sense worrying about it.
| kbigdelysh wrote:
| I hope this does not lead to corruption among EU policy makers.
| When regulators start adding regulations in a sector, big corps
| in that sector start spending more money for lobbing; hence more
| corruption among policy makers.
| fleddr wrote:
| Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a
| consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with
| it or not.
|
| That's not really the point. The emphasis of this legislation
| first and foremost is on developers. Whom need/deserve a level
| playing field, instead of having the odds stacked up against
| them.
|
| A return to more open computing should be celebrated, even if it
| remains to be seen what will happen.
|
| And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing
| bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an
| app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist.
| capableweb wrote:
| > And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing,
| nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never
| sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist.
|
| This is the important point. Just like with decentralized VS
| centralized debate, starting out with one of them, decides if
| you can even have the other one.
|
| If you have a decentralized foundation (like HTTP), you can
| always add centralized entities on top, if that's favorable
| (like Twitter). But the other way is not true, you can't build
| decentralized things on a centralized foundation.
|
| If you have open computing on mobile devices, you can always
| opt-in to just stay within one ecosystem without being hurt by
| the openness. But the other way around is not true.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| This is naive and assumes that there aren't bigger, badder
| actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and
| will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse
| for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant
| position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will
| probably make my Mac worse, too.
|
| I still haven't heard a single good reason why people who
| want sideloading can't just use Android. iPhone isn't even
| close to dominant in Europe.
|
| Hands. Off. My. iPhone.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Google and Facebook are subject to legislation as well. If
| Apple worked with lawmakers to set good privacy precedents
| for these companies, then you might have an argument.
| Instead, all we proved is that private corporations feel no
| obligation to play nice with their competitors, so now our
| legislators have to fix it for us.
|
| > Hands. Off. My. iPhone.
|
| You don't own a damn thing. Only Apple (and evidently,
| governments) makes the choices on "your" iPhone.
| capableweb wrote:
| > This is naive and assumes that there aren't bigger,
| badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others
| can and will abuse their position. This will make the
| iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a
| dominant position and developers can stop supporting
| safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too.
|
| That's why we have regulation, which is quickly ("quick" in
| terms of legislation at least) coming now.
|
| If the only reason people use Safari today instead of
| another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari,
| even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up
| in the first place?
|
| How would the openness make your Mac worse?! You think your
| Mac is worse today because you can install any applications
| you want? You think your Mac would become better if Apple
| disabled application installation outside of the App Store?
|
| > I still haven't heard a single good reason why people who
| want sideloading can't just use Android. iPhone isn't even
| close to dominant in Europe.
|
| I have a iPhone, and I'd like to be able to use whatever
| application I want on it. I'd also like to be able to
| develop applications on it, but my desktop is Windows and
| Arch Linux, so today I can't. I love the Apple hardware,
| but I hate the UI and that I'm not able to even open it up
| like a normal USB device to transfer files. The UX of Apple
| stuff is really horrible (even if you buy into the whole
| ecosystem), but the hardware is very nice.
|
| So I'd like to be able to finally own the device I buy from
| Apple.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| What do you think the ratio of developers to users is?
|
| Coexisting with closed computing is buying an Android, not
| forcing open the gates with a battering ram.
|
| It's incredibly naive to think opening the ecosystem won't lead
| to abuse and a worse experience for everyone that doesn't have
| a niche appreciation for browser engines.
| drdaeman wrote:
| It's like a two-party system, when both parties are messed
| up, each in their own unique manner. One might be
| subjectively much better than another (subjectively = for a
| specific individual and their beliefs), but they still suck
| and you wish there would be someone else who'd not just have
| the good bits but also not have that stupid stance on the bad
| ones - again, for subjective "good" and "bad" of a particular
| individual.
|
| This is how it is with Android and iOS. They both suck, just
| differently. And there are people who are much more happy
| with iOS overall - it sucks less for them - they're not going
| to be happy with Android, even though openness is something
| they see as a good thing. So your solution is simply not
| working for them.
|
| I don't know how big this group is. If they're large enough
| to influence and impose a political will to pass this
| legislation - I'd guess, quite a lot of people. So I don't
| think it would be "worse experience for _everyone_ ".
| Especially because everyone who're happy right now won't
| suddenly get a bunch of scummy apps sideloaded and Apple Pay
| and browser replaced.
|
| Also, I don't think they're all developers. One sure doesn't
| have to be a developer to wish for something their phone
| cannot do for purely non-technical reasons.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the
| ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar
| conditions to subscription.
|
| Oh hell yeah. Hopefully this means the applications which
| Microsoft keep shovelling into Windows and disallowing removal of
| become a thing in the past.
|
| eg "Video Editor" was an unfortunate discovery on a system here
| yesterday, introduced with some recent Win10 update. And which
| isn't allowed to be un-installed.
|
| A "Video Editor" shovelware program. Treated as critical to the
| system. Fuckers. :(
| actuator wrote:
| This is so good. At least one regulator seems to be doing its
| job.
| carlycue wrote:
| Music to my ears. Apple is a junkie that's addicted to the App
| Store & services revenue. By opening up their walled garden, it
| forces them to be more proactive to regain some of that lost
| revenue. I guarantee the car, the AR/VR and their other
| underdeveloped products would've progressed so much faster if
| Apple depended on new product categories to grow their revenue.
| Right now, they're feeling too cozy.
| nojito wrote:
| Imagine thinking that punishing success is the way to go.
|
| Europe loves propping up failing companies and industries. Not
| very surprising that they would go after a company with barely
| a 30% share of the market.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Was I dreaming or was there a $700 billion US banking sector
| bailout in 2008?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| That's a poor comparison both since banks always work a bit
| differently and since the US Gov made back their money on
| the bailout.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Indeed. Bailouts were loans, not free money. The US
| government made money on those loans due to interest.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| That's a nice comforting story to believe in. I hope for
| you it's true. Over here the bailouts were a massive
| transfer of public to private wealth that led to a decade
| of "austerity", closed hospitals, collapsed pension
| schemes and general misery for the poorest people in
| society.
| cercatrova wrote:
| > _Early estimates for the bailout 's risk cost were as
| much as $700 billion; however, TARP recovered $441.7
| billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3
| billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6%,
| and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabiliz
| ati...
|
| Where is "over here," Europe?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Belittling someone - especially over a fact that has a
| clear true/false outcome - is silly. At best it makes you
| look like a jerk.
|
| At least google the fact before doubting it.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I'll stick with my own lived experiences and first-hand
| observations thank you.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| So do you not believe in exo-planets since you haven't
| observed them? Macro-economics? Are foreign countries
| you've never visited real? What about subatomic particles
| and radio waves? Do you have germ theory as part of your
| "own lived experiences"?
|
| Wait, am I real under this model? What about the HN
| server?
| kmlx wrote:
| protectionism is not new, but it's definitely in the eu's
| dna. there are huge lobby groups that constantly want more
| protection in europe. and they almost always get what they
| want.
| bildung wrote:
| _> protectionism is not new, but it's definitely in the
| eu's dna._
|
| This is actually the opposite. The EU here is enforcing
| market competition in segments that became entrenched by
| monopolies (remember this is not specifically about Apple).
| toyg wrote:
| Careful with your glass houses. Without restrictions on
| Japanese companies selling chips in the US, Silicon Valley
| would have been very different.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Not very surprising that they would go after a company with
| barely a 30% share of the market.
|
| While macrumors.com is, for obvious reasons, most interested
| in the Apple angle, these rules would obviously apply to
| Google et al as well.
| Bayart wrote:
| Considering corporate << success >> in a capitalist
| environment amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power
| outside of the commons, yes, it's absolutely the way to go.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| "...amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside
| of the commons..." Considering that we're talking about a
| publicly traded company, "the commons" (as you decided to
| label them) have the ability to purchase stocks (the right
| to recieve a certain percentage of in of the aformentioned
| company as well as voting power). The legislation doesn't
| address anything regarding stocks and if anything, it
| requires companies like Apple to share their work with
| their competitors South Korea style.
| waffleiron wrote:
| > "the commons" (as you decided to label them)
|
| This is a defined term and doesn't mean a group/class of
| people (as you seemed to have interpreted it).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
| caramelcustard wrote:
| "...doesn't mean a group/class of people..." I'm well
| aware of that, as well as the definition, however, i've
| come across incorrect usage of the term on SMS as the
| short form for "common man/common people". Considering
| the context of that persons comment, i was under
| assumption that they use that term incorrectly, hence why
| i've put it in quotation. Regardless, my point still
| stands. "The commons is the cultural and natural
| resources accessible to all members of a society,
| including natural materials such as air, water, and a
| habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even
| when owned privately or publicly. Commons can also be
| understood as natural resources that groups of people
| (communities, user groups) manage for individual and
| collective benefit.". Note that the definition provided
| by you acknowledges various form of ownerships (private
| vs public) and that aspect is the core of my response to
| that comment.
| Dobbs wrote:
| I think a trillion dollar company can afford to loose some
| percentage of its income.
|
| Particularly if it opens the door for new innovation. Things
| like subscription services to alternative Siri/Alexa/Google.
| Instead of the current Alexa foisting more advertisements and
| things you don't want onto you, Google's complete invasion of
| privacy/data, and Apple's complete ineptitude. This is
| something that can't happen right now because the hooks
| aren't well designed in iOS or Android. Making it so that you
| don't have the concept of "private APIs" for such things
| levels the playing field.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >Not very surprising that they would go after a company with
| barely a 30% share of the market.
|
| You do know that the DMA and DSA are not Apple-specific laws,
| right?
| Zenst wrote:
| Well it will be a source if fines that they love, which will
| be handy in paying all those subsidies they are giving other
| large companies like Intel to build a fab.
|
| Just wished they were proactive about such things instead of
| letting them fester on in the public eye's for years, but
| then - how would they make all that lovely income from large
| fines and PR.
| oellegaard wrote:
| It's fun how Android users are so excited on behalf of Apple
| users in terms of letting Apple users install custom apps from
| outside the App Store. Being an Apple user for more than 15
| years, I couldn't be more happy with the fact that Apple has
| vetted the applications you find in App Store.
|
| Also, naturally, App Developers are excited. Well, perhaps you
| should think about the users - we don't care about you having to
| pay a cut. However, we really appreciate the experience from the
| App Store. Want to cancel a subscription? Just navigate to the
| one and only place where you can browse everything and cancel
| with a single tap.
|
| I once purchased an Android device so see what it was all about.
| I found most of the apps were completely crap and the once that
| were good, were essentially just a copy of the iOS app. To be
| fair, this was many years ago.
|
| I really hope that somehow someone interacts at a high level and
| gets the part about the App Store removed.
|
| IF the consumers of Apple - for instance me - would like this
| part changed, perhaps we could instead put our money elsewhere,
| rather than rely on politicians to pro-actively deal with this.
| eklavya wrote:
| Exclusively Apple user here, couldn't be more happier for the
| announcement. Keeps my favoured platform alive and innovative.
|
| Btw, you can keep using App Store so I don't understand the
| issue here.
| pchristensen wrote:
| With sideloading, developers with market power will be able
| to force iOS users into worse conditions than the standard
| App Store. You can bet that FB will get everyone onto their
| sideloaded version ASAP, and I doubt it will respect the "Ask
| App Not to Track Me". Then, once everyone has figured out
| sideloading with FB, the bar will be lower for other apps and
| suddenly the consumer protections of the App Store are weaker
| for everyone.
| filoleg wrote:
| >you can keep using app store, so I don't understand the
| issue
|
| Apps with massive following that are into the idea of
| violating privacy rights will leave App Store and its
| restrictions, and will be available only on third party app
| stores where they can do whatever they want.
|
| Imagine Facebook leaving App Store and becoming available
| only on Meta Store (or whatever they would call it). Oh, and
| they dont have to abide by Apple's privacy rules anymore. Oh,
| and you also got no choice now if you want to continue using
| it.
|
| I personally don't use FB, but it was a solid example, and it
| can apply to any other app. Facebook is almost definitely
| cheering now at this decision, because I remember they had a
| pretty bad earnings call last year after Apple added
| additional privacy restrictions to iOS/App Store. But worry
| no more, FB is back in the game as soon as they can release
| their unrestricted version on a third party app store.
|
| "More choice available", in this scenario refers not to my
| personal choices, but to more ways for companies behind those
| large apps to avoid privacy considerations and restrictions
| of the platform.
|
| Tl;dr: FB has only two options now - abide by the current
| privacy rules of App Store or not have an app for iOS at all.
| With third party app stores being available, FB has a new and
| way juicier option - publish a version in their own app store
| with zero restrictions. Why would they even consider the
| official App Store and follow the restrictions. Consumers
| lose a solid option here.
| corrral wrote:
| The concern is that e.g. Facebook will use their might to
| push a less-privacy-respecting app store, or use the threat
| of that to get Apple to loosen privacy protections. Google
| will almost certainly promote Chrome the same way they have
| everywhere else, and gain a lot of traction _mostly_ from
| users who just did it because Google said to and they clicked
| "OK", not because they actively want Chrome (same as how they
| took over the desktop).
|
| The main argument against the first concern seem to be "there
| aren't any successful alternative app stores on Android
| (seems there are in China, but OK, let's allow that) so it
| doesn't matter", but 1) iOS is a different market--far more
| lucrative per user, far more spending by users so the
| ecosystem is less ad-dependent, and with more restrictions on
| bad behavior by apps than Google imposes and 2) if that's
| true, why is it important to do this in the first place?
|
| The main argument against the latter is... well, I haven't
| seen anything even as good as the above. Just "yeah but I
| hate Safari because I'm a web app developer, so I don't care
| if Google owns the entire web as long as it means I can use
| Bluetooth from the web browser on iOS"
| 8note wrote:
| Isn't fdroid a successful android app store?
| eklavya wrote:
| Replying to myself since it looks like the replies are making
| mostly the same point.
|
| > what if fb wants an exclusive, no privacy App Store for
| itself? What about it? Let them do that. Let the consumers
| decide? I chose Apple only and only for better privacy
| controls in the OS, not in the App Store.
|
| > dominance of chrome Chrome won because Firefox and IE were
| worse. A lot of improvements in Firefox are thanks to
| competition. Safari is still number one browser on MACOS. I
| agree with the point that google might make things
| incompatible for non chrome users. Then they will be hit via
| these same regulations.
| summerlight wrote:
| > It's fun how Android users are so excited on behalf of Apple
| users in terms of letting Apple users install custom apps from
| outside the App Store.
|
| Why do you think it's from Android users? I've been using iOS
| from its beginning and cannot be more excited hearing this
| news.
| ttul wrote:
| > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and
| sideload directly from the internet.
|
| While I love the idea of being able to finally install SNES
| emulators and the like, many malicious actors will now pray on
| unsuspecting iOS users to install spyware, malware, and other
| crap via third-party app stores. Not everyone is as sophisticated
| as the typical Hacker News reader; younger and more naive users
| will be taken in as victims of various types of fraud.
|
| I think that a better path for the European Union would have been
| to force some regulation of the app store process. Leave in place
| the parts of Apple's process that provide reasonable guarantees
| of security and privacy for users, but allow Apple to continue to
| be the gatekeeper, just with some oversight from regulators.
|
| There are plenty of examples of governments regulating things
| that we might wish to be a little freer if only such additional
| freedom didn't come with perilous consequences for consumers. I
| submit the example of cryptocurrencies. Lots of freedom; very
| little regulation; many vulnerable people have lost their
| savings.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > I submit the example of cryptocurrencies. Lots of freedom;
| very little regulation; many vulnerable people have lost their
| savings.
|
| And yet the solution isn't for your bank to white-list what
| you're going to do with your money, is it? This would be the
| equivalent of the app store: your bank would have a
| "transaction store" of companies you're allowed to send and
| receive money from, to protect you from accidentally sending
| money to a scammer.
|
| Do you think that would be a good solution for banking? If not,
| why do you think it is a good solution for software
| distribution?
|
| Instead of course, the right solution is legislate against the
| bad actors, and have law enforcement agencies that take malware
| seriously and pursue those who have created it. Additionally,
| educating the public, at least with mandatory courses in school
| for the new generations, about basic computer safety is another
| part of the fix for this.
| mattnewton wrote:
| > While I love the idea of being able to finally install SNES
| emulators and the like, many malicious actors will now pray on
| unsuspecting iOS users to install spyware, malware, and other
| crap via third-party app stores. Not everyone is as
| sophisticated as the typical Hacker News reader; younger and
| more naive users will be taken in as victims of various types
| of fraud.
|
| Think of the naive users argument has never made sense to me,
| just allow someone to flip a switch in settings that says "do
| not flip or your phone could be taken over by hostile viruses"
| or something to that effect. If someone is going to flip that
| switch and then install what someone tells them over the phone,
| why wouldn't the attacker just ask for them to log into a fake
| bank site at that point? How much is the App Store saving them?
| ttul wrote:
| Let me sketch a scenario for you. Your grandmother receives
| an email from a trustworthy-sounding man who asks her to
| follow these easy steps to get a free app. Granny taps "Allow
| third-party app stores" and then installs whatever garbage
| the fraudster is hoping she will install.
|
| Multiply this by tens of thousands of vulnerable users and
| you have the makings of a significant problem that will cost
| society a lot of money and lead to much misery.
|
| With the locked-down Apple app store, it's very difficult for
| granny to install malware even if the trustworthy-sounding
| man in her inbox is being "helpful". But as soon as you allow
| a switch of any kind, it will be exploited.
| simion314 wrote:
| Let me update your scenario, instead of the innocent granny
| installing an iOS app the evil dude asks her to just give
| her the security code she just revived from a bank, or she
| should open a link and login to her bank.
|
| I think you need a Big Brother for your granny, Apple needs
| to make Safari granny proof and whitelist websites and they
| should also force user to provide a national ID before
| calling to an iOS device, think of all the grannies.
|
| Imagine though an universe where Apple could hire some
| competent people that could create a genius popup that
| would explain granny that she should not enable that, and
| to enable that maybe she needs to use a code that is
| printed on the phone box.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > With the locked-down Apple app store
|
| If people actually cared about this argument, then they
| would jump to the immediate and obvious solution to it.
|
| Simply allow users to choose an option, that allows the
| phone to be locked down. If you want to go hardcore, make
| it require a factory reset to change, if you actually care
| that much.
|
| This way everyone wins. People who want some locked down,
| gimped phone, can choose to do that. And everyone else can
| choose to not turn on "child mode".
| mattnewton wrote:
| Both my grandmothers used to run android phones and windows
| computers where this is possible and neither were ever
| successfully attacked this way. However, one grandmother
| did experience people trying to scam her into giving them
| money through other means. I think simply requiring a "I
| know what I am doing and want to open up the hood" button
| is sufficient.
| robonerd wrote:
| The "malicious actors" argument can be made anywhere people
| have freedom of association. The postal system, the phone
| system, even the mere right to walk out your front door. These
| all allow people to associate with whoever they please, and
| they all expose people to malicious actors.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| This has been true for computers forever and somehow we've
| survived.
| exabrial wrote:
| Instead of more regulation, I wish they'd just break them up. I'd
| prefer to have less regulation and no monopolies, then a bunch of
| regulation and monopolies.
| Aulig wrote:
| This is excellent. As an app developer, I'm looking forward to
| side-loading, other browser engines and not being forced to use
| in-app-purchases.
| synu wrote:
| As a regular user I'm looking forward to all the same!
| cmdli wrote:
| As a regular user, I am dreading the day when I am forced to
| sideload an app with no privacy regulations in order to use
| key services.
| synu wrote:
| Who would be forcing you to do that in theory?
| Aulig wrote:
| Well I the OS will still have the permission system in
| place even for sideloaded apps, so I don't see a huge issue
| here to be honest.
| efields wrote:
| As a regular user, I have no intention of side loading
| anything! Don't feel like I'm missing out on anything!
| Enlighten me.
| synu wrote:
| I travel back and forth between App Store regions
| frequently, and some things are only available in one place
| or the other. I'd also like the ability to actually use a
| different browser, not just reskinned Safari. There would
| probably also be some interesting open source stuff you
| could install.
| corrral wrote:
| It's great for pirating mobile video games. My Android-
| using friends' only use of this feature is to turn their
| phone into a Gameboy Advance.
|
| Which is pretty great, to be fair, but nowhere near enough
| to tempt me back to putting up with Android the entire rest
| of the time I'm using my phone.
| tombert wrote:
| It doesn't have to be piracy. I have plenty of Sega
| Genesis/Mega Drive ROMs that I purchased from Steam years
| ago, and it would be nice to be able to play them on my
| phone on the go.
| mritun wrote:
| I think California should add legislation to check the power of
| the European car makers. Make sure that the German cars
| interoperate with the Ford components and can be serviced by
| other independent car dealerships as well. BMW and Porsche should
| also share their advertising numbers.
| username_my1 wrote:
| With "electrification" Germans shouldn't have unique hardware
| advantages when it comes to the car industry
| checkurprivlege wrote:
| checkurprivlege wrote:
| Global companies don't love us, and neither does
| international capital. But we will take pride on our museums
| and the geography, even if they have nothing to do with our
| own decisions!
| shaman1 wrote:
| While most of the things here are desirable to a user I imagine
| the cost of compliance would be enormous for Apple, not to
| mention that it will take years.
|
| Even if they do comply, I wouldn't imagine them enabling these
| for NON-EU countries. They might do a fork and provide slow
| updates to EU customers or some other way of punishing the users.
|
| On the side of the EU, the legislation is a bit too targeted
| causing a bit of concern to wheather they found the right balance
| between user rights and stifling private companies.
|
| Some of EU legislation has had disastrous side effects like GDPR,
| this might as well bring unexpected consequences.
| efields wrote:
| Let's start the list of UX that could be built if apple followed
| these rules starting tomorrow. What will be available to me that
| I don't have now, and how will it benefit me, Joe P. Consumer?
| Keep in mind, I have no idea what a software developer does all
| day -- I just want my email to work and these internet pop ups to
| be easier to close. What am I missing out on?
| annexrichmond wrote:
| It may allow for some healthy competition and ultimately better
| UX on that front in the long term, but in the short term it
| could also take away dev time for Apple to improve iOS in other
| ways.
| efields wrote:
| That's a good point about Apple's own resource reallocation
| necessary in the short term. iOS feels _pretty good_ these
| days compared to where it was not too long ago, but having to
| "unlock" APIs that were built to be private but now have to
| be public will also expose new bugs (both inherent and new).
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > take away dev time for Apple to improve iOS in other ways
|
| The mobile phone platform has been "complete" for years now.
| There are little niggles to work out here and there, but the
| single most meaningful change that could come is the switch
| to an open platform. Consider the abundance of tools on
| desktop platforms like macOS that hook into the system to
| augment the UX for the better. Imagine having to use macOS
| without some window management tool like Rectangle, or
| without a key rebinder like Carabiner. Personally I would
| find my user experience greatly diminished. But that is the
| status quo on mobile. Opening iOS up to extensions and third-
| party integrations would allow for much faster development of
| the platform's UX, assuming that Apple Sherlocks whatever
| extensions end up popular. I have no confidence that Apple
| will be adding useful interaction paradigms on their own (see
| Stage Manager) so this seems like the inly path forward.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| So much legislation in the EU. No wonder they never get any small
| firms there. What start-up is going to navigate all this bullshit
| while actually developing anything worthwhile?
| zackmorris wrote:
| Maybe fines like this could fund UBI?
|
| Society could vote on a number of measures designed to create a
| sustainable economy. For example, instead of carbon tax credits,
| we could just set a ceiling on carbon emissions and let companies
| pay the fine, then send direct payments to everyone. Or set a
| living wage of $20/hr and make companies directly responsible for
| paying the shortfall that the government makes up in welfare
| payments. Or even create a national debt tax, where any cost
| overruns would fall on the companies who lobbied most. Basically
| make all of the amoral sources of profit no longer profitable, to
| starve the beast of multinational corporations so that they can't
| overtake world governments. Kind of a trickle-up approach to
| economics to immediately put cash in people's pockets and
| incentivize automation instead of the daily grind.
| rglullis wrote:
| I would not want to receive any money that I _know_ to come
| from a dirty source. It makes me complicit in the act.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| That implies that UBI is agreed upon all around the world,
| which it isn't.
|
| "...we could just set a ceiling on carbon emissions..." that
| already exists and those ceilings aren't honoured by
| manufacturing-heavy regions around the world, as there is no
| way to enforce any sort of responsibility. Also consider that
| most tech companies are moving to carbon neutrality.
|
| "...set a living wage of $20/hr ..."...where exactly?
| Worldwide? NA only? Any consideration for inflation? Perhaps
| you got an expalanation for those who are working skilled jobs
| and are currently earning 20 USD per hour on why someone who
| works a less skilled job should suddenly earn the same amount?
| Worlds history says that trying to equalize everyones skills
| leads to skilled workers looking for greener pastures.
|
| "...make companies directly responsible for paying the
| shortfall that the government makes up in welfare
| payments."...so making companies responsible for governments
| decisions in giving away money to recipients that might not
| even be related to the industries the companies are operating
| in?
|
| "...create a national debt tax, where any cost overruns would
| fall on the companies who lobbied most." that's...not how that
| works.
|
| "...to immediately put cash in people's pockets and incentivize
| automation instead of the daily grind." kinda amusing how it
| goes right after "...starve the beast of multinational
| corporations so that they can't overtake world governments."
| considering that many of those boogeyman corporations are the
| ones working on automation and...employing highly skilled
| researchers, engineers and blue collar workers.
| samatman wrote:
| This is a terrible idea.
|
| Do you want people rioting and demanding that companies not
| comply with regulations so they can buy food?
|
| What other outcome could possibly come from this?
| tgv wrote:
| > Maybe fines like this could fund UBI?
|
| What? Are you counting on steady fines to provide basic life
| support?
|
| If that's not bizarre enough: how much do you think UBI (in the
| EU) would cost? There are 450M people in the EU. Giving the
| adults around EUR20k per year would require EUR7200B.
| mikhailt wrote:
| In case someone here knows but how is it even possible that EU
| can fine companies based on the whole world "turnover" (which I
| might incorrectly presume meaning profits) when their power is
| restricted to the EU space.
|
| Re: this:
|
| > The DMA says that gatekeepers who ignore the rules will face
| fines of up to 10 percent of the company's total worldwide annual
| turnover, or 20 percent in the event of repeated infringements,
| as well as periodic penalties of up to 5 percent of the company's
| total worldwide annual turnover.
| waffleiron wrote:
| Same way you can be fined in another country while on holiday
| even though you don't earn any money there. They set the law,
| and if you (or Apple) doesn't like it don't go/have business
| there.
| adventured wrote:
| makeitdouble wrote:
| To add to Noe2097's comment, entities ignoring international
| bounderies is not something special.
|
| For instance US citizens are required to disclose and pay tax
| on their global income, even if they are official resident of
| another country. Makes no sense, but the US is free to decide
| its own rules.
| Noe2097 wrote:
| I see it this way: the EU may choose whatever way it wants to
| compute a fine -- they are making the law, they could have
| written a fixed amount, or an amount based on revenue made in
| the EU (which is probably a pain to define and certainly easy
| to "workaround"), or an amount relative to the average
| temperature in the Sahara over a year.
|
| Whether it's "fair" is an entirely different topic. And I guess
| any company could try to fight that decision in court.
| jollybean wrote:
| Massive announcement.
|
| Basically 'Separation of Platform and Apps', cleaving a wedge
| between layers of the value chain.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Does that mean we can finaly use firefox with gecko and adons?
| [deleted]
| anonymousDan wrote:
| The game is up for the tech monopolies, happy days.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > Make messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services
| interoperable with third-party services upon request.
|
| I hope this means WhatsApp will be somewhat interoperable with
| equivalent messaging platforms. But I suppose this is just
| designed to target iMessage. Or have I misunderstood?
|
| > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable.
|
| Finally I will be able to uninstall Microsoft Edge.
| dado3212 wrote:
| This isn't "I can integrate WhatsApp with Slack" this is "I can
| set my default text app/call app/video app from
| iMessage/Phone/FaceTime to a third-party app". Same with
| setting default browser.
| tech234a wrote:
| It appears to be possible to uninstall Edge using the command
| line [0][1]. Haven't tried it myself though.
|
| [0]: https://www.askvg.com/fix-how-to-uninstall-new-microsoft-
| edg...
|
| [1]: https://www.askvg.com/windows-10-tip-block-or-prevent-
| automa...
| ksec wrote:
| I see a lot of Apple Supporters are already calling for Apple to
| Pull out of the EU.
|
| While this legislation applies to both Apple and Google. It was
| ultimately Tim Cook's Apple that leads to all these changes. Not
| only did they refuse to actively engage with the EU ( or any
| government ), they threaten them by either limiting features,
| services or even outright pulling out of the country. Their
| standard PR responses were how many jobs they created via their
| App ecosystem. I would not be surprised if their next page in
| their PR playbook were to bring Steve Jobs out one way or
| another.
|
| There are quite a few things I dont like in this legislation. But
| I also think Apple deserves it. Governments around the world have
| been waiting, but not until the EU, which represent 25% of
| Apple's revenue made their move before they could follow. Now UK,
| Australia, Japan and South Korea could pick a subset of this
| legislation to use as their own.
| the_duke wrote:
| This regulation is 5+ years overdue, but legislation always lags
| behind market conditions.
|
| If the US/other countries follow suit there will probably be a
| big unintended effect though: the diminishing of open web
| standards and Google getting final say about what will work on
| "the web" and what won't.
|
| With Firefox diminishing, Safari is the last bastion against a
| Chromium-only web.
|
| There are lots of Chromium forks, but they own the project, and I
| doubt even Microsoft would take on any significant divergence
| from the upstream code base, considering the development
| velocity.
|
| I would predict (native) Chrome graining a very sizeable market
| share on iOS within five years, driven in part by web app
| developers being happy to finally just focus on Chrom(ium) and
| add "works best Chrome" banners.
| GlitchMr wrote:
| Apple will probably try to deal with requirement to not require
| developers to use WebKit by allowing alternate web browser
| engines in European Union only - a developer would be required
| to provide WebKit version of an application or else it would be
| only available in European Union. That wouldn't violate Digital
| Markets Act, as Digital Markets Act only applies to European
| Union.
| concinds wrote:
| The "Chrome's only dominant because Google's advertising it on
| their web properties and bundling it with Java's installer!"
| narrative is BS.
|
| Apple is _heavily_ advertising Safari on sites like reddit
| since a few months ago. They 're also abusing macOS
| notifications to promote Safari[0]. There's no Windows XP-style
| "browser choice" screen on Mac or iOS; Safari is bundled (I
| know macOS isn't a monopoly, but bundling is bundling). Apple
| has more money than Google to advertise Safari wherever they
| want, including Google properties that obviously sell ad space.
|
| But ultimately Safari is losing because it's inferior. It keeps
| shipping with critical bugs. IndexDB constantly gets broken,
| partially fixed, then broken again in another update. You
| couldn't play DRM'd videos in Safari and use Apple Music[1] (on
| a completely clean install) for a long time. There was an issue
| in Big Sur's public release where Safari crashed if you moved a
| tab, and lost all your open tabs when it reopened; they took
| weeks to fix that. They kneecaped uBlock Origin while using the
| "privacy excuse", when all it meant was forcing people to
| switch to proprietary adblockers that still had full access to
| all webpage contents (see my other comment). Apple only has
| themselves to blame if Blink becomes the majority on iOS.
|
| [0]: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/153379/how-do-
| you-...
|
| [1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252162447
| depressedpanda wrote:
| What I see, as a web dev, is that finally Apple will have to
| keep Safari/iOS up-to-date with Safari/macOS, and that in turn
| up-to-date with all other browsers. I.e., they will no longer
| be able to artificially hamstring the web in order to prevent
| web apps from competing with their App Store.
|
| They certainly have the money to keep pace with Chrome, and I
| certainly don't want to put up banners saying "works best in
| [anything but Safari]", which has been the case for many years
| now.
| djbebs wrote:
| Terrible news.
| tchocky wrote:
| No, it's good news! No more forced crappy webkit browser engine
| in iOS. The other things can be added in a secure fashion as
| well. Sideloading doesn't need to be wild west. macOS also
| makes it possible with certificates etc. Messanger interop is
| also nice, when done right: basically would need a shared
| standard like the web that is done by a messaging consortium
| like the W3.
| kmlx wrote:
| > No more forced crappy webkit browser engine in iOS.
|
| you know this just means more chrome right?
|
| > Messanger interop is also nice, when done right: basically
| would need a shared standard like the web that is done by a
| messaging consortium like the W3.
|
| we went thru this before. didn't work then, won't work now.
| tchocky wrote:
| I know this means more Chrome. I'm a heavy Chrome user
| because of the dev tools that are great. At least chrome
| has good support for web standards compared to Safari.
|
| Why can't it work again? I mean the W3 works, doesn't need
| to support all the features. Messages and attachments would
| be enough.
| toyg wrote:
| This actually opens a race to be the best mobile browser,
| which might well see new entrants. As people increasingly
| use their mobiles as primary devices, they are more likely
| to move to a new browser on mobile platforms and then adapt
| their desktops to that choice, rather than the other way
| around as they did in the past. Current mobile browsers
| have historical baggage that a new entrant would not need
| to carry.
| cute_boi wrote:
| In theory. Practically, creating browser & its underlying
| engine is an arduous task. Later, it is inevitable that
| Google will use dark patterns like shadow dom to optimize
| their website like YouTube etc. And, website owner will
| force you to use chromium based browser, because of
| course "This browser works best with Google Chrome".
| tester756 wrote:
| Cannot antitrust against Google solve it?
| philliphaydon wrote:
| > This actually opens a race to be the best mobile
| browser, which might well see new entrants.
|
| Hahhahahhahahahaha. We will end up with chrome. And
| developers targeting chrome and safari users being left
| out because "works best in chrome for my text based
| website that doesn't do anything safari can't do".
| toyg wrote:
| That's self-defeatist. You mentioned IE downthread; IE is
| not the dominant browser anymore, and the reason for that
| is not just that MS stagnated, but that it was challenged
| vigorously by competitors that exploited new
| opportunities better. This is one such opportunity.
| Miraste wrote:
| Chrome was better than IE, but it won out not because of
| technical capabilities but through Google's constant and
| ruthless exploitation of its web properties and operating
| systems. That already happens on iOS, and I'm sure a
| Google SVP reading this ruling just started a project to
| intensify it.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sounds like Apple needs to work harder to make Safari
| into a better mobile browser, if you're so sure that
| Chrome would win.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| There's other browsers on android. No one uses them.
|
| Safari is great. It works. No issues. But developers will
| do what they did to ie. develop for chrome and shove a
| banner up blocking safari.
| tester756 wrote:
| I do use FF
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Again, sounds like Apple needs to do a better job
| improving Safari. If developers and consumers choose
| Chrome, it's up to competitors to find a way to disrupt
| their lead, not engage in monopolistic practices to stop
| a monopoly.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| There's nothing to improve.
|
| Developers want push notifications on a web browser for
| mobile? That's not an improvement.
|
| Firefox is a better browser than chrome but you can't
| move people away from chrome.
|
| So regardless of what you think. Adding other browsers to
| iOS will only have a negative long term effect.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
| something.
| joshstrange wrote:
| It's not a shallow dismissal and your comments only prove
| you either don't understand the landscape or are choosing
| to ignore what's staring you in the face.
|
| Try to use any google property on Safari (or non-chrome
| browser on any platform) and see all the times Google
| tries to push you to use Chrome and/or sign into your
| google account. When logged in it puts a banner at the
| bottom of every google search and when you aren't logged
| in it shows a modal that takes 1/3rd of the page.
|
| Google reigns supreme on the web from everything from
| search to email and docs/drive/etc. Their reach is
| massive. They have in the past and will continue in the
| future to use that reach to push people to use their
| browser engine. How does Apple/Safari/Webkit compete with
| that? It's not that the browser is better but that the
| sites they visit push them to use a different browser.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Apple can double down on privacy and security and brand
| Safari as the browser that won't steal your data. Own
| that space, spread the marketing, they have enough
| capital to create solutions. You might as well ask how
| iOS can compete with Android. This continuous insistence
| that Apple is helpless is completely anachronistic and
| demeaning to Apple itself.
| cafed00d wrote:
| I hope Apple turns Xcode features into a tiered pricing model to
| counter balance and keep developers in check.
|
| 1. Want to use the swift compiler? Pay $5000 per year per user
| (pretty competitively priced if you compare it to the MATLAB
| Compiler) 2. Want to click any of the "Services" buttons to
| enable "Siri" etc in your app? $100 per user per year 3. Want to
| log and instrument your iOS app in production? $1000 per device
| 4. Want to... (you get my point)
|
| Disclaimer: I work at Apple and use all their products. I worked
| at Mathworks many years ago and saw this thread about the
| Compiler license
| https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/248667-how-m...
|
| Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like
| adversaries; they are vile, nefarious tricksters. They're just as
| "monstrous" as Apple or Google are purported to be. My 3p app
| experiences from the days before 2010s was riddled with shitty
| installer's phantom installing "cnet downloader"; and, fearfully
| installing plethora of antivirus software (which always seemed to
| find viruses according to their scanning progress bar)
| 8note wrote:
| with sideloading, chances are that somebody will enable androud
| tooling and apps on iphones, so that wont work for too long
| Jcowell wrote:
| > Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like
| adversaries; they are vile, nefarious tricksters. They're just
| as "monstrous" as Apple or Google are purported to be.
|
| This is a sentiment that I honestly wished was most discussed
| here. Developers are not.user.friendly. They're money friendly.
| I don't do , ever, expect them to put user rights over monetary
| gain and expect them to 100% sell out user data if there's a
| big enough user incentive. Web developers would rather use
| Chrome backed APIs that allow them to do whatever they want,
| even if damns the web and user privacy.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like
| adversaries
|
| The weird part about your statement here, is that you bring up
| a statement about 3rd party developers doing bad things, and
| yet the solutions you gave do nothing except for take extra
| money from those 3rd parties and gives that money to Apple.
|
| If you actually cared about stopping all these bad actions, why
| didn't you suggest an action that gives Apple zero dollars, and
| prevents these bad things from happening?
|
| I am all for both helping customers, and preventing monopoly
| app stores. How about we solve all of this, by making sure app
| developers do not have to pay Apple anything, while also
| ensuring that app developers follow basic user privacy
| requirements?
| [deleted]
| hyperpape wrote:
| There's several very good provisions in this legislation (3rd
| party payment processors, non-preferential treatment for 1st
| party apps), there are several that have a mix of upsides and
| downsides (sideloading is one--I personally like knowing that
| Facebook can't ask people to sideload some privacy destroying
| crap on iOS).
|
| Then there's:
|
| - Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services
| directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes
| making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services
| interoperable with third-party services upon request.
|
| - Give developers access to any hardware feature, such as "near-
| field communication technology, secure elements and processors,
| authentication mechanisms, and the software used to control those
| technologies."
|
| Apps will use near-field communication technology and other
| mechanisms to track us (consider how many device related APIs
| have restrictions in web browsers for just this reason), and I
| think it's credible that the interoperability requirements are
| going to be used to smash end-to-end encrypted messaging. You can
| have a decentralized end to end encrypted protocol. Can you
| retrofit every existing messaging service to use it in the short-
| term? Probably not.
|
| As an end user, the things that give developers maximum freedom
| are not necessarily the things that let me use my device with
| maximum freedom. I support people who want a FOSS device that is
| in no way locked down. I just don't want that, because I don't
| want to play systems administrator for an always on tracker in my
| pocket.
| rekoil wrote:
| I haven't read the DMA/DSA, so if this is actually written out
| in them then I'll happily be corrected here.
|
| The way I see it, the EU probably doesn't really care if Apple
| keep ALL the restrictions they currently have on their App
| Store in actuality, as long as options exist on the platform.
|
| So the solution to allowing access to NFC hardware will
| probably just be Apple opening up sideloading.
|
| I personally hope that Apple implements sideloading in a way
| that allows those who don't want to use it to keep their device
| secure, and I'm confident they will.
|
| Regarding the messaging platforms, I'm pretty sure the EU are
| not going to push us into a situation where E2E is broken, in
| fact, I was under the impression that the bills specifically
| required that E2E be maintained.
| layer8 wrote:
| Maybe Apple will lift some of the App Store restrictions for
| Europe in order to reduce the need for sideloading. They
| certainly don't want their customers to become used to
| sideloading all the time and stop primarily using the App
| Store.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Nope, they will not get to keep their App Store restrictions.
| From the DMA Q&A page (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressc
| orner/detail/en/QANDA_...):
|
| > Ban on requiring app developers to use certain of the
| gatekeeper's services (such as payment systems or identity
| providers) in order to appear in app stores of the
| gatekeeper;
| devStorms wrote:
| I'm worried that apps that does not honor user's privacy
| would just leave App Store and have users sideload their app.
| Sometimes users have very little choice about whether or not
| to use certain phenomenal IM/social apps since everyone is
| using them and it would be a problem if they can now force
| user to sideload their unrestricted/unaudited version.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Some might try this move, but my guess is that sideloading
| will involve enough friction that user retention will drop
| and developers will be heavily disincentivized from relying
| on it for distribution. In particular I expect that every
| update will require user action to re-install the new
| version of every sideloaded app, which is the reason most
| developers don't go that route on Android today.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Funnily enough that's exactly the reason why Epic sued
| Google - having to confirm every update and install
| through a scary dialog box was too anti-competitive for
| them.
|
| Google responded by... actually, adding entirely new APIs
| in Android for sideloaded app stores to be able to update
| already-approved applications without extra permissions
| or approval. In fact, they even distinguish between
| "sideloaded app" and "installed app from a sideloaded app
| store" for security-sensitive things like custom
| accessibility handlers.
|
| This still doesn't moot all of Epic's case, though. They
| want you to be able to download Epic Games Store _from_
| Google Play - i.e. no scary warnings or anything, just
| Google giving Epic a blanket sign-off on everything
| _they_ sign off on. I 'm not sure how I feel about this -
| it reminds me of the total and utter mess that was and is
| selling SSL certs to competing certificate authorities.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > adding entirely new APIs in Android for sideloaded app
| stores to be able to update already-approved applications
| without extra permissions or approval
|
| Wow, that sounds great! Does F-Droid make use of those
| yet? Having to manually install every app update gets
| tiresome.
| threeseed wrote:
| Epic is such a slimy company. They have no interest in
| users or making the ecosystem better.
|
| They just want to be the gatekeeper so they can endlessly
| profit from their ridiculous Fornite metaverse concept.
| seydor wrote:
| Developers are end users too
| patrickaljord wrote:
| > I just don't want that, because I don't want to play systems
| administrator for an always on tracker in my pocket.
|
| You should stop using smartphones then.
| blfr wrote:
| > I think it's credible that the interoperability requirements
| are going to be used to smash end-to-end encrypted messaging
|
| Why and how?
|
| I already use Signal to handle the plain old, almost completely
| unencrypted text messages. It has no impact on security of
| Signal-to-Signal communication.
| judge2020 wrote:
| My take on this is that they want iOS to integrate RCS
| directly into Messages, given tons of other features are
| already widely supported by the os [0][1][2]. Google Messages
| (runs on top of RCS) currently only provides encryption when
| both sides are using Google Messages, so unless Apple and
| Google create a unified standard it won't be E2EE.
|
| 0: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/callkit
|
| 1: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotification
| su...
|
| 2: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotification
| s/...
| threeseed wrote:
| RCS is such an awful protocol that is seriously going to
| harm users.
|
| It was clearly designed to allow governments to maintain
| their ability to monitor user communications at scale.
| jachee wrote:
| If Signal is forced to interoperate with e.g. WhatsApp, the
| end-to-end encryption of one or both will have to be
| compromised. If the integration is forced, then there's no
| barrier for either app grabbing all the info from the other
| in plain-text.
| concinds wrote:
| > If Signal is forced to interoperate with e.g. WhatsApp,
| the end-to-end encryption of one or both will have to be
| compromised
|
| Wrong https://matrix.org/blog/2022/03/25/interoperability-
| without-...
| dalbasal wrote:
| This is what you call an awful dichotomy. Security Vs
| Autonomy... weaponized.
|
| I agree with you. I also agree with the other side though.
| Allowing these monopolies to squat all the bottlenecks in
| protocols of media and communication channels is also
| intolerable.
|
| It is perfectly reasonable for you as an individual to prefer
| privacy. It's perfectly reasonable for a regulator to strike at
| a problem.
|
| Look... the can't provide the technical solutions. Mandate a
| protocol or whatnot. They might, maybe be able that eventually
| makes adoption of reasonably secure, open protocols happen.
|
| WhatsApp can't be the end state. It appears to be the economic
| Maxima though.
| emn13 wrote:
| It would indeed be bad if the requirement were to scream YOLO
| and allow all apps to always access potentially privacy
| eroding features like NFC. But surely the proposal isn't that
| - is it? If it's merely that the OS be required to be _allow_
| NFC features just as it does for first-party apps, what's the
| risk exactly here?
|
| I think these kind of special permission requests work at
| least sort of reasonably on web-browsers, and less
| brilliantly but acceptably on android. Yes, users will need
| to think before clicking OK, but the way those dialogs often
| work (and surely can work) means that they're no longer
| conveniently able to throw up take-it-or-leave-it modal
| dialogs. It's at least a little better than the nonsense that
| is an EULA.
|
| But the real critical issue here is that we should not let
| ourselves be held hostage by apple. Yes, apple hasn't made it
| _at all_ easy to secure third party access to potentially
| privileged functionality. But... that's their _choice._ They
| choose to make a really high first-party moat, because that's
| convenient for them. But the alternative isn't throwing users
| to the wolves, it's actually thinking about how to limit
| access securely even while delegating access. If we have to
| wait until big tech decides to do that out of the goodness of
| their heart... we'll die waiting.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > As an end user, the things that give developers maximum
| freedom are not necessarily the things that let me use my
| device with maximum freedom.
|
| From the article's list, even the ones that are described with
| "allow users to" are firmly aligned with 3rd party developer's
| best interests, not aligned with the end user's best interest.
| There was once a time when these were roughly the same, but I
| don't think anyone can agree this is true anymore. It's gotten
| so bad that I'd guess that the platform owners' interests are
| more closely aligned with the end user's interests than 3rd
| party developers. It's more of a triangle though with nobody's
| best interests aligned.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >Apps will use near-field communication technology and other
| mechanisms to track us
|
| Ok, well, the EU mandates opening up this tech to apps, some
| apps then violate GDPR in various ways leading to big fines for
| those apps.
|
| Now someone is going to say fines with GDPR have not been big
| enough, but I think they are slowly increasing (because really
| that is typical gov. policy, don't go in with big fines, start
| small, and later when hitting big you can say but we have been
| very reasonable), and also, just maybe the fines for people
| moving into a new field with predatory tracking from the get-go
| will get the big fines and be shut down quick.
| Someone wrote:
| I think (and hope) the platform will still be allowed to pop up
| a "do you want to give this app permission to do Foo?" dialog,
| as long as it does so the same for all apps, independent of
| developer or app store it was downloaded from.
|
| I also would hope the platform can still restrict browsers in
| what they can do, as long as that's applied uniformly across
| all browsers, but I'm less certain about that.
| grishka wrote:
| So, exactly how Android does?
| cycomanic wrote:
| Can we stop pretending that Apple has the users best interest
| in mind? They just want to be the gatekeeper for lucrative
| applications/functions so they can charge for it. That they
| somehow convinced apple users that it's somehow in their
| interest just shows how good their marketing is.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| "They just want to be the gatekeeper for lucrative
| applications/functions so they can charge for it."...on the
| platforms that they have developed, invested in and are
| maintaining, which also don't hold a market majority around
| the world.
|
| "...they somehow convinced apple users..."...by making a
| product that fits Apple users' needs in a market that always
| had lots of competition, meaning that those who for whatever
| reason didn't want to use Apple products could always pick
| anything else.
| Closi wrote:
| You don't have to be the market majority for your actions
| to be anti-competitive.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| That's not the point. "Anti-competitive practices are
| business or government practices that prevent or reduce
| competition in a market.". The point of me mentioning
| that Apple is not the market majority was to emphasize
| that even with their current positions, Apple isn't
| capable of effectively reducing competition in the market
| of electronic devices, as is already proven not by
| legislative bodies but the market.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Just because there is someone with more market share than
| you does not mean that your actions can't squeeze smaller
| players than you (or, more commonly for apple, squeeze
| players in adjacent markets. See: Spotify vs Apple
| Music).
| caramelcustard wrote:
| True that. "See: Spotify vs Apple Music". Considering
| that Google has their own streaming services and takes
| same 30% cut, i truly wonder why Spotify didn't address
| their "anticompetitive practices".
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Looks like Google has been offering concessions:
|
| https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-
| billing...
|
| And previously Spotify and Netflix had a loophole on the
| Play Store:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-
| enforce-30percent-...
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I thought Apple was the more profitable platform however,
| also to develop for, which would imply that anti-
| competitive practices could deform the market because
| developers would be forced to bow to Apple since that is
| where the largest part of their profits would be coming
| from?
| caramelcustard wrote:
| Considering that the definition of "anti competitive
| practices" is beyond stretched at this point, it's safe
| to say that those very practices are one of the reasons
| iOS is profitable for developers: they don't need to
| worry about piracy as much as they do on Android, because
| Apple learned the key lessons of phone manufacturers of
| the past.
| justinclift wrote:
| > ... one of the reasons iOS is profitable for
| developers.
|
| Is it profitable for many developers?
|
| Was under the impression that making decent money was
| possible years ago, but in recent years it's not real
| profitable for the vast majority of devs.
| Retric wrote:
| Apple makes peanuts from the App Store relative to phone
| sales. After they upped the cut for developers to between 70%
| and 85% and CC companies still get their cut, add customer
| service and app reviews and it simply isn't that profitable.
|
| What they benefit from is selling 1,000$ phones at a 30+%
| profit margin, because for the average consumer they simply
| work better. Which actually aligns incentives between
| customers and Apple quite well.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Apple's App store revenue is very substantial and likely
| has very low overall costs and microscopic per-unit costs
| relative to a hardware business like iPhone or Mac. Apple
| paid out $45 billion to developers in 2020 with $64 billion
| gross, which means they had as high as $19 billion in
| revenue from the app store commission alone.[1]
|
| Unfortunately Apple doesn't break out profit per category
| but we know that their net income for 2020 was $58 billion
| [2]. As far as I'm aware we don't know operating costs for
| the App store, but I think its fair to say that the portion
| of the ~$19 billion that is profit is far from being
| "peanuts".
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-
| gross-s...
|
| [2]
| https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-
| inc...
| MBCook wrote:
| Apple makes peanuts from app sales.
|
| It's those stupid game ISPs they make all the money off.
| Smurfberries and pseudo-gambling and such.
|
| Ruined the App Store and iOS gaming, but it's so insanely
| profitable it will never go away.
| Retric wrote:
| Apple annual gross profit for 2021 was $152 billion.
|
| That ~19B in 2020 is before CC fees on 64B or internal
| expenses. App stores have a lot of customer service and
| charge backs on relatively tiny purchases. Actually
| reviewing apps isn't cheap either, and all the relevant
| IT adds even more expense.
|
| Further they upped the developers cut to between 70% and
| 85% from the flat 70% in 2020. So sure they might make
| 3-5 billion from the App Store in 2021, but that's like
| 2% of total profits.
| savingsPossible wrote:
| at 5%, cc fees would result 2.9 billion. So more like 16B
| in profit
| emn13 wrote:
| It strikes me as hard to be believe it's that much -
| surely Apple does not pay 5% in CC fees. They _must_ have
| managed a better deal than that...
| Retric wrote:
| > at 5%, cc fees would result 2.9 billion. So more like
| 16B in profit
|
| So you assume they can do all the stuff I just mentioned
| for 0$ and changing their fee structure had no long term
| impacts on profits.
|
| Also your math doesn't work out if 5% of 64B = 3.2B,
| though 25% or 64B is 16B. Not that actual CC fees are 5%,
| or that their old revenue model is relevant any longer.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Net income is, imo, a better number to use given the
| sheer amount of R&D that goes into developing Apple
| hardware that is necessary but unaccounted for in gross
| profit. further, if we are looking at 2021 their App
| Store gross revenue went to $85 billion.
|
| > That ~19B in 2020 is before CC fees on 64B or internal
| expenses. App stores have a lot of customer service and
| charge backs on relatively tiny purchases. Actually
| reviewing apps isn't cheap either, and all the relevant
| IT adds even more expense.
|
| I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't think its
| anywhere near 2/3 of revenue after developer split. I
| don't have any evidence for that because Apple is very
| secretive about those numbers, but I think level with
| which they protect that information is evidence on its
| own. if Apple were making a piddly 3-5 billion on $65
| billion in gross revenue they would be screaming it from
| the rooftops to (rightfully) justify their 30% cut as
| being reasonable.
|
| > Further they upped the developers cut to between 70%
| and 85% from the flat 70% in 2020.
|
| the app store is extremely top heavy with top devs being
| responsible for a huge amount of the revenue. The policy
| is great for small devs but the aggregate split is
| probably still much closer to 30% than it is to 15%.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| A quick Google suggests Apple made 64 billion from the App
| Store in 2021 of the 378 billion in total revenue.
|
| Some fairly large peanuts!
|
| And that revenue is basically pure profit as it doesn't
| require the creation of any actual physical hardware
| either.
| theplumber wrote:
| The profit is more important than revenue.
| baxtr wrote:
| Is this pre 30% or after? Also: how much does it cost to
| run the App Store globally? Do have the numbers?
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| Edit: Yep, I misread this
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| stale2002 wrote:
| > how much does it cost to run the App Store globally? Do
| have the numbers?
|
| I think that anyone who thought about this for even a
| second would come to the conclusion of "It almost
| certainly doesn't cost anywhere near the amount of
| revenue that comes from it".
|
| So the answer is, probably not a lot, compared to
| revenue.
| jachee wrote:
| I dunno... I figure just the _bandwidth_ costs, not to
| mention data center /cloud costs, for the _constant_
| stream of apps being deployed /updated is pretty
| significant.
|
| I could expect them to be moving multiple terabytes of
| data per hour.
| 6510 wrote:
| Its nothing compared to the piratebay.
| Retric wrote:
| Hosting torrents takes minimal bandwidth. Apple can't
| offload bandwidth peer to peer to phones when people are
| on limited cellular plans.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Ya, maybe they meant this article[0]? If so, then it's
| 60B going to developers, and some quick math there
| indicates Apple only made 15B from their cut.
|
| > Apple said Monday that it paid developers $60 billion
| in 2021, a figure that suggests that App Store sales
| continue to grow at a rapid clip.
|
| 0: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-
| generated-r...
| Retric wrote:
| 15ish billion isn't profit. They still need to pay credit
| card fees, do customer service on low value transactions,
| actually review apps, run data centers etc.
| 6510 wrote:
| If not stopped it might eventually get tempting or even
| logical to phase out making things and focus on rent
| seeking alone.
| jorvi wrote:
| A big case in point is Apple Music.
|
| Apple turning the Music Player app in Apple Music allowed
| them to catch a huge part of the market that had never
| interacted with music streaming before. Extremely anti-
| competitive. IMO when they did that they should have
| immediately been forced by the EU to instead show a pop-up
| that also gave the option for Spotify, Deezer, Tidal etc.
| rekoil wrote:
| And immediately cancel any revenue they take from
| competitors.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| That's not what people are saying though. Whether or not
| apple cares about its users is completely irrelevant. The
| question is whether apples incentives align with its users
| better than other tech companies. The answer pretty clearly
| seems to be yes, apple makes most of its money by selling
| hardware, their incentive is to make a product people enjoy.
| Competitors make most of their money selling ads, their
| incentive is to lock users in while maximizing the number and
| effectiveness of ads served.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| > their incentive is to lock users
|
| All good apart from this. Apple does this magnificently, ie
| closed hardware protocols. For example there are
| significantly better earphones than airpads pro (and some
| cost +-same), but good luck getting same level of
| integration over apple's proprietary protocols.
|
| While rest of whole universe at least tries to adhere to
| open things so we users have freedom in how we design &
| evolve our electronic setup, they have basic support for
| stuff like bluetooth and superb for their proprietary
| protocol. If some random chinese company can make seamless
| aptx hd integration with their buds, so can apple. But it
| won't.
|
| Thunderbolt vs USB. Again whole world vs Apple. It
| required... who else than our sluggish EU to come up with
| way to end this cable madness that would otherwise continue
| forever. Seen enough 40 euro frayed cables for one
| lifetime. For me this was a one of few breaking points
| between Iphone 13 pro max and Samsung S22 ultra. I am
| currently very happy user of the latter. That's hardware
| lock-in like hell.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Thunderbolt vs USB. Again whole world vs Apple.
|
| WAT.
|
| Maybe you mean Lightning vs. USB? Well, it turns out that
| while a whole committee was designing 15 different and
| confusing standards over the past 20 years, Apple
| designed two, and they work.
|
| Now it's suddenly "Apple vs. the world" because the USB
| committee managed to spit out a semi-functional spec that
| ... Apple was the first to actually go full in with their
| desktop offerings, pissing so many people off.
| ksec wrote:
| >Can we stop pretending that Apple has the users best
| interest in mind?
|
| Well they _did_ , at least during Steve Jobs's era.
| robonerd wrote:
| Steve Jobs was an asshole who always put money first. But
| even if you disagree with that, he's been dead for more
| than a decade. It's time to move on.
| astrange wrote:
| Disney buying Pixar made Jobs more money than anything he
| ever did with computers.
| ksec wrote:
| And if anybody on HN actually read Apple's Annual report
| every single year before the iPod even came out, they
| would ( or should ) have know how Apple's money or
| profits works very differently from Steve to Tim Cook's
| era.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Jobs didn't want apps on the iPhone _at all_ and later
| insisted on having the App Store being the only way to
| distribute apps.
|
| The only reason why we attribute today's Apple as "greedy"
| and not Jobs-era Apple as such is because you have fonder
| memories of him. Also, Jobs was a master of the reality
| distortion field and could explain things easier than
| today's Apple could. But none of that changes whether or
| not locked down devices are anticompetitive or not, just
| whether or not Apple's own fans are complaining about it.
|
| Furthermore, there _are_ pro-consumer justifications for
| Apple 's uncompetitive behavior. In fact, that's Apple's
| whole defense against the antitrust inquiries it faces: the
| digital warlord's walled garden is for the protection of
| its serfs, and if the serfs don't like it they can
| surrender all their property and swear fealty to another
| digital warlord.
| ksec wrote:
| People seems to equate everything that Apple are doing
| today originate from Jobs. And therefore every single sin
| ( if you call it so ) means it was also Jobs idea.
|
| What people dont realise it _was_ the best model at the
| time. While Jobs approved the iPhone 6 design ( or a
| "bigger screen" iPhone ), he died during the iPhone 4
| era. When Apple was about to repeat the same mistakes as
| it did in the 80s /90s.
|
| As if Steve made iPod to only buy or listen music on
| iTunes. He got rid of Music DRM, single handedly.
| squarefoot wrote:
| You probably meant Wozniak, not Jobs.
| microtherion wrote:
| It's not that Wozniak wished users ill, but, for all his
| technical skill, there's little evidence that he had a
| particularly good understanding of what users wanted or
| needed -- his post-Apple career is basically marked by
| flop after flop.
|
| Now, of course, it's all different, and his blockchain
| surely is going to revolutionize the world: efforce.io /s
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| As a byproduct it does give a measure of privacy so what's it
| to you if apple users just don't care about your idea of
| freedom? I hope this European legislation at least lets apple
| customers opt-IN to these new features or choose the old way
| of doing business. I would prefer to keep access footprints
| to a minimum to stuff like NFC, contacts, hardware APIs,
| apple pay, etc on my phone.
| sircastor wrote:
| In theory you already have the choice of opting-in by
| choosing not to install apps that utilize NFC, hardware
| APIs, other payment processors, etc.
|
| But that's if nothing changed. My concern is that if
| companies are given the opportunity to have their own
| stores, and their own payment processors, we're going to
| end up with de-facto-forced-install of a store and
| acceptance of terms, and it favors companies that already
| have a strong presence in the marketplace. I might want to
| use WhatsApp, but now I need to install Meta's store, and
| I'm required to give it access to a blanket set of
| permissions.
|
| And guess who doesn't have the power/influence to get you
| to install a custom store: The small devs, the new
| entrants, the challenger apps.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| In the EU privacy is assured by actual legislation in the
| form of the GDPR, and I expect Apple can get away with
| demanding compliance with that set of laws before putting
| something in the appstore if they really worry about
| privacy.
| Bud wrote:
| If you're going to level this accusation about what Apple
| supposedly "wants", you should at least have the common
| courtesy to support it. In any way. At all.
|
| Or just admit it: you're making it up, especially the part
| about what Apple "wants". And the part about what Apple will
| supposedly charge for.
| hyperpape wrote:
| Apple is a company, and it's interested in making profits.
| Right now, its methods of making profits are slightly more
| aligned with what privacy conscious users desire than some
| other companies', and that's good.
|
| Apple absolutely needs to be checked in other ways---the fact
| that it's selling advertising while setting policies that
| hurt other advertisers stinks to high heaven. Let antitrust
| rake them over the coals for that.
| samatman wrote:
| I don't agree with the second paragraph at all.
|
| Apple sets a restrictive and privacy-centric set of rules
| for advertisers, which it then follows. The fact that this
| is a problem for other advertising companies is an
| indictment of those companies and their bleak surveillance-
| enabling business model.
|
| Contrast this with the "use WebKit or go home" rule, which,
| like it or not, is favoring Apple's product over others.
| It's not like these advertising policies are "be
| headquartered in Cupertino", it's "if you want to track our
| users you must ask them first".
| judge2020 wrote:
| Exactly. This is the popup for app store personalized
| ads[0], which is a full-screen popup that forces you to
| choose one or the other before you can access the app.
| It's super transparent and easy to decline the
| personalization.
|
| 0: https://videoweek.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/09/Apple-permi...
| efaref wrote:
| What's the one for third-party apps? How different is the
| wording?
| majewsky wrote:
| I wonder how many people actually register that there are
| two buttons at the bottom? It's very obvious to power-
| users like us since we're used to [
| Accept ] Cancel
|
| at this point, but I can only imagine the borderless
| design for the secondary button originating from a dark
| pattern.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Apple have repeatedly refused to confirm that their ad
| system is compliant with the ATT rules.
| shuckles wrote:
| Which ad system? Their programmatic ad inventory does not
| support tracking, as anyone who has access to developer
| ads can confirm.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Forgive my ignorance, but how do we know that Apple
| doesn't track more data than they provide to developers?
| robonerd wrote:
| It's easy to play by the rules when you're the one
| writing them.
| shuckles wrote:
| This is only a criticism if you enumerate the
| deficiencies with the rules you believe are only
| justified by self-interest.
| emn13 wrote:
| The linked article lists a bunch of those. Most of that
| bullet-point list of required or conversely prohibited
| behaviors apply to Apple. And all of those are justified
| only by self-interest.
|
| Incidentally, that doesn't mean the alternative has to be
| the wild west - that's a false dichotomy. Controlling
| access is fine; it's simply not fine that it's the
| platform that holds exclusive sway, especially if the
| answer is "only if we're the ones providing that app."
| DavideNL wrote:
| > Apps will use near-field communication technology and other
| mechanisms to track us
|
| So, then do not allow any apps the NFC permission... problem
| solved.
|
| The point is, Apple should not be the one dictating what users
| can and can not use;
|
| Example: on macOS you can disable SIP. 99% of the people i know
| do not even know what SIP is, nor that this possibility exists.
| However, if we/Developers/researchers/etc. want it, they can
| choose to do as they like. Which is really useful.
|
| Researchers should not be limited in finding (security) flaws,
| neither should users be limited by Apple to use their hardware
| as they wish.
| threeseed wrote:
| > So, then do not allow any apps the NFC permission...
| problem solved.
|
| So the world of malware, viruses, data exfiltration, phishing
| etc is "solved ?
| martimarkov wrote:
| The main problem is that users can be tricked to do it. Used
| to happen to my parents all the time on Android. They'd
| install random apps and the website will "guide" them how to
| install this app by going to settings and enabling "untrusted
| developers".
|
| This is my issue with all these devs screaming at apple. Your
| customers chose a product for whatever reason. Don't like it?
| I don't care - respect their choices. It speaks volumes to me
| how much they will respect me and my privacy when they want
| to optimise for their own profits instead of my XP and
| privacy.
| DavideNL wrote:
| > " _The main problem is that users can be tricked to do
| it._ "
|
| That's because the GUI is badly implemented;
|
| On macOS, your parents would never disable SIP (system
| integrity protection), because it's quite cumbersome to
| disable and there are enough warnings and hurdles.
|
| This is already has been reality for years: it is simply
| not an issue.
| dingleberry420 wrote:
| What happened to personal agency? Let people make mistakes,
| you don't need to infantilize them.
| aljungberg wrote:
| So many people in this thread seem to be arguing I should
| not be allowed to choose Apple's model as it is today,
| "for my own good". The article is about explicitly
| outlawing parts of their model.
|
| How's that for personal agency and not infantilising me?
| bun_at_work wrote:
| People are easy to manipulate at scale. The idea that
| people are rational agents who can make educated
| decisions as consumers is deeply flawed. Yes, people
| _can_ make educated decisions, but more often than not,
| they don't have the requisite knowledge to make an
| informed decision. Letting those consumers get scammed
| because they aren't technical enough isn't a good
| solution to complicated problems.
| dingleberry420 wrote:
| Maybe it would be best if we just locked everyone in a
| little room. To keep them safe from being manipulated.
| [deleted]
| gernb wrote:
| > Facebook can't ask people to sideload some privacy destroying
| crap on iOS
|
| That is arguably the responsibility of the OS and the user.
| Lots of ways to do that. Examples: Network, no network access
| unless use gives permission. App manifest lists up to 10
| domains or "all". If "all", user is prompted "App would like to
| access entire network Y/N"?
|
| What else is there? Camera access? Camera can be multiple
| permissions (a) User gives app full access (b) User gives app
| access only when app is active (c) User doesn't give access.
| Note: iOS already does a good job at this. I don't give the
| Messenger app access to my camera, nor do I give it direct
| access to photos, only selected ones.
|
| Same with NFC etc. I'm guessing Apple will come up with clever
| ways to allow the user to limit access.
|
| Bluetooth, no idea what they do here and I don't know bluetooth
| but I'd just guess devices have ids and the OS could require an
| app to list a limited id filter so an app can only talk to
| devices built for that app unless the user gives blanket
| permission
|
| I suppose FB can put an app on another store that doesn't run
| without full access. If user says "no" then app says "can't
| run". That's fine. I won't run it. Individual stores are still
| allowed to enforce their own rules. I can't imagine Apple's
| store to not be the dominate store and therefore apps from it
| will be safer. (Unless someone steps up to make an even safer
| store ;)
| krzyk wrote:
| All that already exists on Android and the negatives didn't
| happen (with modern android versions), on the contrary. My
| phone supports multiple payment vendors using nfc. I can have
| Tasker do magic with my phone etc.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| And that's great! but why force apple to do it when it
| doesn't have a monopoly status in the phone market?
| pavlov wrote:
| Because it will be a benefit to consumers?
|
| The EU has the authority to create new regulations, it's
| not limited to antitrust.
| oaiey wrote:
| There is nothing in this article which would prohibit the
| gatekeepers to extensively warn the user when accessing these
| features. Apple had tons of trust from its users. They can just
| say that this third party usage is dangerous one the first time
| and re - reporting bad usage later.
| takeda wrote:
| > I personally like knowing that Facebook can't ask people to
| sideload some privacy destroying crap on iOS).
|
| No company like Facebook requires app side loading on Android.
| The side-loading is used for other apps that one way or another
| couldn't be on Play Store. For example other stores (F-Droid is
| the most popular with open source applications) or other apps
| that one way or another are not allowed in the store.
|
| Another example is GPSLogger[1], Play Store makes it very
| difficult to support older versions or Android. Author got
| frustrated and just moved to alternative store.
|
| [1] https://github.com/mendhak/gpslogger/issues/849
| erk__ wrote:
| The near-field communication have a clear reason. Apple was
| only allowing access to their own banking app as a payment
| provider in shops. As I understand there was not even a way to
| get access with any kind of forms or such if you had a
| competing plastic card firm. That is pretty much the only
| reason that clause is the legislation.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| _> there was not even a way to get access with any kind of
| forms or such if you had a competing plastic card firm_
|
| What does this mean? Apple is not a payment processor. The
| banks sign deals with Apple put make their cards available
| through Apple Pay, but the payment still goes through the
| payment networks (visa, mastercard, amex) and the banks.
| erk__ wrote:
| A example from Denmark would be MobilePay [0] which is the
| most use payment solution for mobiles in Denmark. They
| would like to make it possible to use NFC to transfer
| information about a transaction in shops, but cannot do
| that on Apple Phones. Instead they rely on QR codes and
| short number codes for payment.
|
| They cannot in any way get NFC access on Apple devices as
| it is now.
|
| Another and probably more relevant concrete example of the
| above is the Danish Dankort [1] which is a national
| equivalent of visa/mastercard/amex. Again they cannot use
| NFC for their app. Some banks have signed contracts that
| allows their users to use Dankort with Apple pay, but it is
| not all of them yet. I don't know if there is any fee or
| similar to Apple pay tbh, but if there is then NFC acces
| should not be monopolized by Apple.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobilePay
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankort
| martin_a wrote:
| Don't you think that's actually a problem?
|
| Apple can dictacte all the conditions and if they don't
| like anything, $PaymentNetwork will just not work with
| Apple devices at all with no option to change that by
| installing another app?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| They aren't a payment processor, they are a payment
| _provider_. You are correct that most banks have deals with
| Apple and thus cards are available, but Paypal, Venmo,
| Cashapp, Google Pay, etc. can 't be used as a default
| payment provider for purchases on the iPhone.
|
| Apple reportedly makes about 0.15% of each purchase through
| Apple Pay[1].
|
| [1] http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-
| details/
| jahewson wrote:
| Of course they can't, because they're not credit/debit
| cards. What's the PoS going to do with a PayPal NFC?
| Nothing. It's like complaining they don't support bitcoin
| - neither do the stores!
| cycomanic wrote:
| There are lots of payment services that are not
| credit/debit cards and are widely used (swish in Sweden
| is another one). All these cannot use NFC on IOS.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| This is incorrect. Paypal DOES issue virtual cards that
| can do NFC through your phone, the same as Google Pay.
| dingleberry420 wrote:
| You can fearmonger all you want, but this is a good thing:
| People should actually own their devices.
| saurik wrote:
| > Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services
| directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes
| making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services
| interoperable with third-party services upon request.
|
| I would think this requirement is satisfied merely by providing
| a public API / protocol documentation for your protocol, to
| _allow_ for third-party access and integration, not some weird
| backend integration that everyone has to support. This would
| have effects on business models of running chat services for
| free and it would have an effect on how they handle spam and
| abuse, but I honestly think both of these changes are likely to
| be _for the better_...
|
| Now, I (importantly) have NOT read the actual law text yet, but
| given the high-level summaries I feel like a lot of people have
| been worried about this over nothing: having the ability to
| write a third-party iMessage client would ALLOW someone to
| build a server-mediated client for it, but I think that SHOULD
| be _allowed_ , I don't think that in any way destroys the
| ability to create or use end-to-end clients and services, it
| would also allow people to build alternative e2e clients and
| even integrations (imagine a Samsung Android device shipping
| with iMessage support in their local client) without hurting
| the existence of end-to-end encryption.
| judge2020 wrote:
| They already do this to an extent[0], but maybe they're
| trying to make iMessage interop with RCS by force.
|
| 0: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/callkit
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| Let's be real, within the EU the main communication
| platform is WhatsApp. This is very much aimed there, as
| that is most definitely not a public API.
| threeseed wrote:
| This one I can definitely see backfiring for the EU.
|
| Apple will just release a MessagesKit (maybe even an
| Android version) which will allow third party apps to
| read/write messages to the network.
|
| Which will simply grow its footprint and promote
| inoperability.
| shapefrog wrote:
| I am struggling to see how that is a backfire for the EU?
| PedroCandeias wrote:
| I'm personally happy to stay inside Apple's ecosystem, but
| believe that everyone should have the option to choose. This
| looks like good news, a step in the direction of being more in
| control of the devices we buy.
| ratww wrote:
| _> I 'm personally happy to stay inside Apple's ecosystem_
|
| I used to believe that I'd stay inside the Apple ecosystem if
| this ever happened, but the ecosystem has become a total
| dumpster fire in the last few years IMO.
|
| The App Store itself is riddled with 99% crap apps, there's a
| lot of advertisement that really puts me off, the macOS Store
| results are mostly copycat apps or very suspicious stuff
| (although most of the time the real Apps aren't even there),
| their own apps (Music, TV, AppStore itself) are buggy as heck
| for me, there's an incredible amount of notification spam from
| otherwise useful apps (bank app, Uber, delivery app, etc).
| They've lost control.
|
| Opening up is more necessary than ever, for multiple reasons.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I detest the App Store ads. They can't even be making that
| much money, but they completely undermine the reliability of
| the App Store.
| ksec wrote:
| >They can't even be making that much money
|
| Apple's Search Ad made $2B a year in 2020. And estimated to
| be $2.5 to $3B in 2021.
| ericmay wrote:
| You do have the option to choose. You can buy any number of
| Android phones, or you can jailbreak an iPhone with custom
| software.
|
| Ultimately this will be bad for regular people, and good for
| crypto scammers, ad agencies, and companies that rely on
| hovering up personal data.
| izacus wrote:
| And now you'll be able to choose WHILE still keep using iOS
| which is much better for you as a consumer.
|
| This being bad for "regular people" is typical monopolistic
| corporate scaremongering. Apple has proven that they're more
| than capable of providing secure devices that provide choice
| with their MacBook series.
| ericmay wrote:
| Kind of. So the primary issue is that Apple collectively
| bargains on behalf of customers against developers. So if
| you take something like privacy rights, Apple can say "hey,
| we've got all of these users and if you want to participate
| in the ecosystem you have to not track their data" - as an
| example.
|
| Now what happens is that companies like Facebook and others
| who really want to get your data without that pesky Apple
| interfering is they launch legal attacks and marketing
| campaigns to convince people that Apple is a big bad
| monopoly and their "locking down" is bad for customers,
| etc. (so ya know, typical monopolistic corporate
| scaremongering) and then Apple goes and gets regulated.
|
| With Apple finally being forced to allow a third-party app
| store on iOS, it makes financial sense for, well, Facebook
| and others to start such stores that don't respect privacy
| rights - Apple can't make them and then Facebook creates a
| neutered version of its products on Apple's App Store and
| creates the best version on their own (or one they support)
| app store. It didn't make a lot of sense to do this with
| just Android because you're maintaining a lot of software
| and it's not worth the money + you don't want to show your
| hand. Now with this new legislation these companies will
| basically eliminate a lot of customer protections that we
| have.
|
| Many day-to-day people will just say "oh I need the X store
| for Facebook and TikTok and YouTube" and they'll sign away
| privacy rights to get those apps because they don't have an
| immediate feedback loop. They just get more and more
| invasive applications and then that's that.
|
| With Apple maintaining control of the App Store ecosystem,
| customers could have their cake and eat it too. They got
| privacy rights because Apple could collectively bargain for
| them, but they _also_ got their apps because so much money
| stands to be made anyway that companies would comply with
| these rules.
|
| It absolutely _blows my mind_ that people are rallying the
| pitchforks around Apple for "monopolistic corporate
| scaremongering" all the while missing that its all of these
| other "monopolistic corporate scaremongering" corporations
| like Facebook, Google, TikTok, Uber, and others who they're
| out in the streets for. I mean, you do know that Facebook
| is a giant corporation, right? (Not picking on Facebook
| here).
|
| For me personally as a user, it means companies leave the
| App Store ecosystem, and devalues the iPhone and other
| devices.
| izacus wrote:
| Apple has completely forgotten their privacy bargains in
| China when their profits were threatened. They've also
| special-cased their own Ad data collection (a business
| that's growing in revenue) to be opt-out. So your trust
| in Apple collectively bargaining in your interest is
| misplaced because they ALREADY haven't proven themselves
| to be trustworthy (and they repeatedly lied and misled in
| their marketing and court hearings when it trusted them).
| They're an unaccountable and unelected corporation, not a
| government.
|
| I prefer to put my trust in "collectively bargained" and
| voted for GDPR (and similar) legislation which affects
| all apps, all corporations. This gives us both choice
| (critical for freedom), market competition (critical for
| healthy economy and society - growing up in socialist
| single-choice markets wasn't fun) AND privacy across the
| board.
|
| I honestly don't understand your penchant to cross your
| fingers and hope a for-profit corporation will protect
| you over actually ensuring they do via privacy
| legislation.
| ericmay wrote:
| > Apple has completely forgotten their privacy bargains
| in China when their profits were threatened.
|
| Couple of things here. First, I live in America so I
| don't really care and apparently the Chinese people for
| whatever reason want to live in that privacy hellscape.
| Second, Apple unfortunately (like many corporations) is
| not in a position to dictate privacy regulations to the
| Chinese government. The interactions here, frankly, are
| complicated so I'm not really buying this as a valid
| criticism w.r.t the App Store. If you really want to try
| and take a moral high ground here, well, let me know when
| the EU stops supporting genocide in Xinjiang. I'll wait.
|
| (but it's complicated, so let's not sling mud here
| alright?)
|
| > They've also special-cased their own Ad data collection
| (a business that's growing in revenue) to be opt-out.
|
| Yes, and I don't like this. It's something I agree with
| criticizing Apple for.
|
| Similarly: "They're an unaccountable and unelected
| corporation, not a government"
|
| Yes. And? They're _ahead_ of government regulation here
| (in many instances and in many countries). You 're
| framing this as if my choices are an unelected
| corporation and a government, but we're just switching
| between one unelected corporation (Apple) and others
| (Facebook, et al).
|
| > I honestly don't understand your penchant to cross your
| fingers and hope a for-profit corporation will protect
| you over actually ensuring they do via privacy
| legislation.
|
| We are not talking about GDPR or "socialism" or whatever.
| We're talking about regulating Apple so that other mega
| corporations can create their own app stores on iOS and
| then do whatever they want. You're just wrestling control
| away from one mega corporation that ostensibly has some
| sort of values that align with the interest of the public
| and giving it to other mega corporations that, as far as
| I can tell, don't.
| ginko wrote:
| >We are not talking about GDPR or "socialism" or
| whatever. We're talking about regulating Apple so that
| other mega corporations can create their own app stores
| on iOS and then do whatever they want.
|
| So don't use those. Personally I'll mostly stick to
| Apple's app store along with some Free Software one where
| I download Firefox and some other open source apps.
| ericmay wrote:
| > So don't use those.
|
| The problem is that it lessens Apple's collective
| bargaining power. They can't _make_ Facebook (again just
| as an example) comply with privacy rules on the iOS App
| Store because Facebook can and will offer its product
| exclusively on its own store or on a third-party store
| where they don 't have to use these rules.
|
| The feedback loop for privacy rights is such that people
| will say screw the privacy rights and go download
| Facebook anyway - so now customers that previously had
| the best of both worlds (privacy rules _and_ Facebook)
| will be forced to choose, and they 'll definitely choose
| Facebook.
|
| So what was gained? Well, it's good for mega corporations
| like Facebook. Bad for single megacorporation Apple, and
| bad for me as a customer. It's good for payday loan type
| crypto companies or other scam artists, and bad for my
| grandma. Etc.
|
| That's the problem here. Saying "don't use those" doesn't
| make sense. But if you wanted to say that then I just say
| don't use the iPhone if you want third-party app stores.
| kuratkull wrote:
| I think it's more likely that this would technically mean
| suicide for Facebook (or whoever would try this). And if
| users actually follow then the bet paid off and the users
| deserve what's coming to them. I don't see this happening
| in the real world though.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It also makes assumptions that consumers are dying for
| Facebook, when engagement in the product has been mixed,
| especially with the reputation of the company dropping
| precipitously over the past six years.
|
| Heck, even Instagram is beginning to show signs of
| trouble:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/technology/instagram-
| teen...
| j-pb wrote:
| Except that we didn't get our apps.
|
| I'm still waiting to be able to use my iPad to write
| code.
|
| To be able to use the iPad as a platform for tools that
| contain their own WASM ecosystem of user purchase-able
| plugins.
|
| To use a browser on iPhone and iPad that is actually
| secure.
|
| iPhone and iPad are little addiction machines, with
| little value for productive work that goes beyond email
| and powerpoint. These legislations give us a fighting
| chance of regaining the quality of 00s personal
| computers, with advanced 20s technology.
| dijit wrote:
| To be perfectly fair here, you're responding as if
| "productivity" means "Code" and that's not exactly true.
|
| For the overwhelming majority of people: coding is not
| productivity.
|
| What is? Checking email, jotting down notes, recording
| meetings and transcribing/dictating them, joining
| meetings and having reliable video/audio.
|
| Being able to respond to an email with a little drawing
| is _absolutely_ a killer feature for productivity, having
| a little 10" portable device which can perch on a desk
| and allow you the full gammut of features for a _good_
| meeting is also pretty damn awesome.
|
| One could argue that these have some moderate competence
| at artistic creation machines (photos, videos, drawing,
| some combination), but I'm not creative so I'm not sure
| how competent these devices realistically are.
|
| I wont comment much on the statement you can't actually
| code on an iPad, technically you can; gitpods, code-
| server, coder.com, (and if you work at google CitC) means
| you already have everything you need. These work with
| safari; because those features Chrome demands we have are
| not actually needed for such tasks.
| j-pb wrote:
| > means you already have everything you need.
|
| Your lack imagination of how much better software
| development could be given the right interfaces, and
| interaction modes, is somewhat representative of how the
| stagnation of iPad OS has crippled our optimism and taste
| for futurism, constantly improving user experiences and
| new models of computation.
|
| The iPad has amazing input capabilities, from the pen to
| laser scanning that could all be used to further improve
| developer experiences. Be it by augmenting your scrum
| board, to sharing code annotations with your coworkers,
| or foregoing coding completely and turning flow-charts to
| code directly.
|
| But sure, let's all be middle management, and write
| emails all day.
| concinds wrote:
| This misses the problem.
|
| Countless, countless, countless iOS devs, even extremely
| high-profile ones like Marco Arment, can talk all day
| long about problems they've had with App Review and the
| capriciousness of the App Store. Tons of high-profile,
| reputable devs can talk about specific apps they were
| making or wanted to make, never saw the light of day, not
| because the apps violate App Store policy, but because
| App Review is such a minefield that they didn't want to
| bother.
|
| Apple literally publicly said that devs criticising the
| App Store, or App Review practices, could expect
| retaliation.
|
| It's insane that devs are expected to only provide apps
| through a single storefront, that operates at such a huge
| scale that moderation is necessarily arbitrary, mostly
| algorithmic, and inconsistent. The App Store monopoly is
| indefensible.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > I wont comment much on the statement you can't actually
| code on an iPad, technically you can
|
| That's not coding on an iPad, since the code is not being
| interpreted/compiled on-device. You're right that an iPad
| can remote into a build server for "development", but so
| can a $6 Raspberry Pi.
| seti0Cha wrote:
| I don't know why I should give a rat's ass what CPU is
| doing the work as long as the work can be done. Your
| point seems kind of pedantic in a world where a vast
| amount of code executes in the cloud or is intricately
| tied up with networked services so that a freestanding
| computer is of little value.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Hey, if that's your attitude then who am I to stop you?
| By your definition, the iPad is also a great device for
| Windows since it can RDP into Windows machines without
| problems. Of course, as I outlined above, that's not a
| very _impressive_ superpower, but who cares! In the
| future, you 'll own nothing and be happy: including your
| own hardware/software.
|
| For me, though, having an internet connection as a
| prerequisite for running my software is borderline
| insanity. My software should compile and run locally, I
| shouldn't need to trust a random third-party or connect
| to the internet to check how my HTML renders or test a
| few changes to my software. But I guess that doesn't make
| a difference on iPad, because even if you did have a
| proper text editor/compiler it would phone home with OSCP
| anyways.
| orangecat wrote:
| _It absolutely blows my mind that people are rallying the
| pitchforks around Apple for "monopolistic corporate
| scaremongering"_
|
| Meanwhile it blows my mind that on a site called Hacker
| News, people are not only enthusiastically handing
| control of their computing environments to a
| megacorporation, but insisting that everyone else should
| do the same.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Where do you think you are?
|
| This site started is effectively a Y-Combinator
| watercooler. Just because it has the term "Hacker"
| doesn't mean what you think it means.
| Jcowell wrote:
| > people are not only enthusiastically handing control of
| their computing environments to a megacorporation, but
| insisting that everyone else should do the same.
|
| Who here is advocating that Everyone else should get
| iPhones or that Android should be as locked down as
| iPhones? (These are the only two interpretations I can
| imagine from this sentence)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > Facebook and others to start such stores that don't
| respect privacy rights
|
| This is trotted out every time, but these doomsaying
| scenarios always miss out that this is far harder to
| achieve than it seems, from a product and business
| perspective. They can build it, but consumers are
| unlikely to come.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
| ericmay wrote:
| If consumers are unlikely to come and major corporations
| aren't going to open their own app stores or migrate to
| third-party app stores, then what kind of companies are
| going to need to have a third-party app store that's
| uncontrolled by Apple? Do you think these companies have
| spent this much money on marketing and bankrolling
| lobbyists in the US and EU for no reason?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > major corporations aren't going to open their own app
| stores or migrate to third-party app stores
|
| The major corporations will try, but consumers are just
| _burnt out_ by managing all of the user accounts and
| dealing with different ecosystems. Not to mention even
| casual users are vaguely aware that these companies are
| out to take their data and sell them ads now.
|
| I foresee that any attempt to put their apps
| _exclusively_ on competing scammy low-privacy third party
| app stores will end in tears and mea culpas, leading them
| to put those apps back on the Apple App Store. As I 've
| said before, creating a compelling alternative app
| ecosystem is hard, and if you think a Facebook App Store
| is going to be so scary, just look at the current state
| of the Amazon Appstore on Android, or the Samsung Galaxy
| Store. These are _real world_ case studies, not
| hypothetical doomsday scenarios, and they do not show
| consumers flocking to these alternatives.
|
| Finally, it's possible that antitrust logic can apply to
| these companies just as they apply to Apple. If Google
| tries to make Gmail, YouTube, G-Suite, etc. apps
| available only on a Google iOS Play Store, the courts
| aren't going to be happy about that.
|
| > then what kind of companies are going to need to have a
| third-party app store that's uncontrolled by Apple?
|
| Epic, mostly, with their games store. Piracy (for game
| emulators, ROMs, etc.), Porn and other adult content, and
| open-source Purists a la F-Droid. Also, potentially
| governments such as China or Russia.
|
| > Do you think these companies have spent this much money
| on marketing and bankrolling lobbyists in the US and EU
| for no reason?
|
| It's perfectly possible for companies to waste a lot of
| money on boondoggles that won't actually help their
| bottom line, yes.
| Vespasian wrote:
| And we mustn't forget that Big Tech companies neither pay
| many taxes in Europe nor do they employ a lot of people
| either. Most of their development and production happens
| elsewhere.
|
| (Relative to their size).
|
| They have therefore little political pull on European
| legislator's (beside flat out bribing them which, despite
| everything, isn't helping them).
|
| The cherry on top is that all those regulations can be
| used in negotiations with the US in the future (e.g. to
| provide EU law enforcement with equal access to the data
| of American citizens)
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Apple advances this argument all the time. Meanwhile most
| European use Android which allows side-loading and the
| predicted apocalypse didn't actually happen. I know it's
| annoying: this pesky reality showing to everyone that your
| argument is actually specious.
| drcongo wrote:
| Didn't it? Every Android user I know is a data leak
| firehose.
| root_axis wrote:
| Based on what? How would you even know?
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Same here for iOS users in the US.
|
| Add some details and maybe we can compare better.
| cmdli wrote:
| Here's a detail: iOS stopped apps from tracking you, and
| it worked so well that Facebook (an ad company) fought it
| tooth and nail and lost quite a bit of money because of
| it. Do you have any such details of similar things
| happening in Android?
| tchocky wrote:
| Don't know if it will be bad. Apple still can make this
| securely. It doesn't mean that the system needs to be
| completely open, just that apps need to be able to access
| hardware features. NFC for example can be asked upon like GPS
| on the OS level. Doesn't mean that the apps need to access
| NFC on the direct hardware level. And I don't want to have
| Android, but I would like for Apple to open up things like
| the forced browser engine stuff. With this Apple is blocking
| so much innovation for the web because they are not
| implementing so many things.
| Jcowell wrote:
| One thing I hope for is that API access comes with the
| following agreement:
|
| 1) Use of APIs means an App must be listed on the App Store
| or be used the regular way. You want location data? Sure
| but in exchange, I want to see an App Store listing along
| with the Data Privacy Report. You want access to NFC but
| you're a bank? Sure but your cards must also be available
| to be added directly without an app. You're free to create
| another version of your app and list that on another App
| Store , but I want a version that adheres to the App Store
| rules.
| anonymousab wrote:
| > or you can jailbreak an iPhone
|
| That's often not an option due to Apple's choices, but if
| Apple offered an official way to break out of the garden with
| your own iPhone then I think things wouldn't have gotten this
| far.
| nuker wrote:
| I hope they'll fight it off. I don't want to lose all privacy and
| security I have now on iOS.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Interoperability is not mutually exclusive with security. You
| are welcome to continue using the App Store.
| niek_pas wrote:
| > You are welcome to continue using the App Store.
|
| As long as apps remain available on the App Store. I wouldn't
| be surprised to see, e.g., Facebook making their messaging
| app available via sideloading only in order to circumvent
| Apple's privacy rules.
| joshstrange wrote:
| This will 100% happen and anyone thinking otherwise is just
| being willfully ignorant. We saw what FB did when it was
| able to operate in the shadows with it's enterprise cert
| for it's "VPN". As for why it hasn't happened on Android I
| think the reasons are simple. First there is way more money
| to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to
| strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just
| half. It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2
| features only available in "Facebook
| Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading
| but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things
| into their app.
|
| Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try
| to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime
| you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now
| even with them using webkit for their "browser").
|
| This is the logical end for at least these two companies. I
| agree with some or parts of the things the EU is calling
| for here but some are just absolutely ridiculous and/or
| make no sense.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > First there is way more money to be made on iOS users
| and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can
| knock down all the pins, not just half.
|
| iOS users do spend more money on App Store purchases than
| Android. But if Meta's whole intention to build a 3rd
| party App Store is to mine them for data, why didn't they
| try that on Android- shouldn't the data of Android users
| be just as good, especially when they have a
| significantly _larger_ user pool to do that with? Why
| would iOS users ' data be more lucrative? Spending money
| on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable
| data to sell.
|
| > It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2
| features only available in "Facebook
| Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app
| store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and
| more sinister things into their app.
|
| Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario
| might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was
| younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less
| jaded. If they were to do that today, they would
| immediately face friction from users who do not care for
| more fragmentation of services, and aren't even as
| engaged with the product as they used to. Maybe they
| could try to segment off a more popular product, say
| Instagram, but that would also cause blowback.
|
| > Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to
| try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps
| anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad
| enough now even with them using webkit for their
| "browser").
|
| And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws
| against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only
| used against Apple, when legislators/regulators are
| miffed at all the large tech companies?
|
| I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app
| stores fascinating, because any examination into the
| landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody
| difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone
| Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just
| Amazon and Samsung with their third party _Android_ app
| stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on
| their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices.
|
| The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third
| party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just
| a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the
| face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day,
| those companies' continued difficulties in creating new
| compelling products to woo consumers, _and_ all of the
| failed app stores of the past. (As Ballmer said, it 's
| all about the developers.) They would have to be cleverer
| about it. So far, I've yet to see any comprehensive
| hypotheticals that really deal with past and present
| realities about the difficulties in setting up such rival
| ecosystems.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending
| money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more
| desirable data to sell.
|
| This just isn't true. The data of people who have more
| money to spend is more attractive than that of those who
| do not. Also having more money to spend means that data
| can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what
| people with money are interested in and where to focus
| efforts.
|
| > Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario
| might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was
| younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less
| jaded.
|
| I mean, if you are still on FB and use it regularly there
| really isn't much hope for you at this point. I don't get
| the impression that there is a large number of people on
| FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more time I'm
| leaving", at this point it's people who just don't care.
| To some degree the same is true for IG even though it's
| users like to think it's different. It doesn't even have
| to be new features, it could just be something like
| groups (which I think failed) or messenger that they take
| away features or apps and only release them on their own
| store. They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This
| lets us get fixes and features out to you faster and lets
| you easily opt into our beta channel".
|
| > And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws
| against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only
| used against Apple now, when legislators/regulators are
| miffed at all the large tech companies?
|
| Why haven't they indeed? Their bad behavior is clearly
| visible, I'm completely unclear as to what the EU doesn't
| seem to care. They seem to be laser focused on mobile to
| the determinant of desktop and consoles.
|
| > I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app
| stores fascinating, because any examination into the
| landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody
| difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone
| Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just
| Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app
| stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on
| their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices.
|
| MS had devices/OS that no one wanted, RIM was late to the
| game and had their lunch eaten by that point. As for
| Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by making
| themselves the default but more importantly, all of these
| examples are platform providers, not app developers (at
| their root). Meaning, they make their money by taking a
| cut, not by selling apps themselves or even through ads
| in apps (maybe ads in their store). The calculus changes
| for someone like FB, EA, EPIC, etc, especially for less
| savory app creators who don't care about privacy. I'm not
| saying that FB will create a store and become the number
| 1 app store, but that they will release their apps via
| their own store (with it's own rules, or lack thereof)
| and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized into using
| it.
|
| > The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third
| party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just
| a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the
| face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, and
| all of the failed app stores of the past.
|
| Flock to? Probably not and that's not even what I'm
| afraid of/worried about. It's being forced into using
| third-party stores. Either by the company removing their
| app from the Apple App Store or by gating features to the
| app only if it was installed via their store.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > This just isn't true. The data of people who have more
| money to spend is more attractive than that of those who
| do not. Also having more money to spend means that data
| can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what
| people with money are interested in and where to focus
| efforts.
|
| Still, Android has a far larger user base than iOS, and
| if this third party app store data funnel scheme was such
| a great idea, you'd think they would have tried it out
| there at least.
|
| To date, Facebook's only attempts to branch off on mobile
| have been the Facebook Home Android UI/lock screen, and
| maybe the HTC First. Both don't really inspire confidence
| in future efforts, but sure, it's been a decade. Would
| you put money on modern FB being better at launching new
| successful products that consumers want, compared to FB
| ten years ago?
|
| > I don't get the impression that there is a large number
| of people on FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more
| time I'm leaving", at this point it's people who just
| don't care.
|
| It's more like, "If they ask me to sign up and manage yet
| another user account with payment methods and privacy
| settings and more notifications to worry about, I'm not
| going to bother and I'll use the mobile website." Or, "I
| don't even use Facebook much anymore, I'll just use it on
| desktop or not at all."
|
| > They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This lets us
| get fixes and features out to you faster and lets you
| easily opt into our beta channel".
|
| And users, even those who don't know or care about
| privacy, would be annoyed because this is another hoop
| they have to jump through, in the modern era where there
| are multitudes of social media networks, streaming
| platforms, and so forth to worry about. Many won't bother
| to sign up for yet another app store, and that will
| undercut Facebook's own user base.
|
| You really need to get past this core problem of user
| burnout. Everything is fragmented across services these
| days. Perhaps there might even be a startup idea in it
| for easy account management/signup a la 1Password. I
| guess Sign In with Apple helps with this a little.
|
| > Their bad behavior is clearly visible, I'm completely
| unclear as to what the EU doesn't seem to care. They seem
| to be laser focused on mobile to the determinant of
| desktop and consoles.
|
| All in due time. Who says they don't care? Perhaps you
| should cast a wider net for news articles.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-targeted-fresh-
| eu-...
|
| https://internationalbanker.com/technology/eu-antitrust-
| legi...
|
| > MS had devices/OS that no one wanted,
|
| People didn't want their OS because they couldn't secure
| the apps the people wanted. Which will also be an issue
| for these 3rd party app stores, as people can just go to
| the official store, or you deal with mutually assured
| destruction scenarios (see below).
|
| > RIM was late to the game and had their lunch eaten by
| that point.
|
| Fair, but couldn't you say the same about Meta/Google iOS
| stores?
|
| > As for Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by
| making themselves the default but more importantly, all
| of these examples are platform providers, not app
| developers (at their root). Meaning, they make their
| money by taking a cut, not by selling apps themselves or
| even through ads in apps (maybe ads in their store).
|
| I'm almost certain that Amazon just has it as a means to
| sell the content (eBooks, music, movies) that they host,
| and Samsung just packages as bloatware as it their wont.
| They don't actually invest in their Android 3rd party
| stores because there's no compelling reason to use them
| instead of the Play Store.
|
| > The calculus changes for someone like FB, EA, EPIC,
| etc, especially for less savory app creators who don't
| care about privacy.
|
| App creators are going to publish to multiple app stores
| to get the largest user base, though sure, as with game
| consoles, perhaps the ones running different stores might
| cut them exclusivity deals. Epic does want its own app
| store to get past the 30% cut, but I'm wondering if them
| or EA even has enough iOS games signed up with them for
| them to pursue the creation of yet another Origin store
| that gamers hate. I can't imagine the bulk of EA-
| affiliated mobile games being anything but tie-in
| material, not exactly Fortnite. Maybe they'll expand
| their mobile division, who knows. Ultimately, Apple
| Arcade is hard to beat.
|
| > I'm not saying that FB will create a store and become
| the number 1 app store, but that they will release their
| apps via their own store (with it's own rules, or lack
| thereof) and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized
| into using it.
|
| And that's the crux of it: I'm saying that's an act of
| MAD, because while the Apple App Store then loses their
| apps, it means Meta loses all of the customers who aren't
| going to bother to transition or just switch to mobile
| web, which is assuredly a non-zero number. Unless they
| can somehow make it a 100% seamless transition to create
| and manage yet another user account, it's going to be a
| hurdle for adoption. _Especially_ if they 're not
| offering anything other than their _current_ apps- that
| 's not enough to entice users to join, if anything that's
| a _negative_ user experience, Meta is making it harder to
| use their _existing_ products.
|
| And Google taking G-Suite or other crucial apps off the
| official App Store? Forget about it, that sounds like
| prime antitrust fodder for the regulators.
|
| Ultimately, these large corporations tend to run into
| difficulties playing in each other's sandboxes.
| Facebook/Google launching third party app stores would be
| far from a surefire success.
| vivegi wrote:
| I love this just for these three rules:
|
| > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and
| sideload directly from the internet.
|
| > Allow developers to offer third-party payment systems in apps
| and promote offers outside the gatekeeper's platforms.
|
| > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the
| ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar
| conditions to subscription.
|
| and restriction on this behavior:
|
| > Require app developers to use certain services or frameworks,
| including browser engines, payment systems, and identity
| providers, to be listed in app stores.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| People don't choose iPhone because they want those things, they
| choose iPhone because they want to be protected from them.
|
| Look at the Lumenate app that was just on hacker news
| yesterday:
|
| - Android users are complaining about having to create an
| account to use it
|
| - iOS users just pushed a button and didn't even have to share
| their email or make a password
|
| - iOS users who subscribe have one place to manage their
| subscription, know that Apple will remind them _before_ the
| subscription auto renews, and know that they won't be trapped
| or tricked into continuing to pay.
|
| I don't know why people on HN think somehow third party payment
| services are going to be better for Apple's users than Apple
| has been. And I don't know why HN users are so eager to ignore
| the disaster that the install-exe-from-internet computing mode
| has been for security.
|
| If you hate Apple so much, use an Android, but once again, keep
| your grubby hands off my iPhone. I hate that Europeans are
| trying to make my quality of life worse, like they have been
| for years with cookie popup bullshit.
| vivegi wrote:
| 1. Lets say I already have a payment service provider I have
| negotiated with for my app. In India, for example, we have
| Unified Payment Interface that has zero fees for upto ~$1500
| (USD) per transaction. Why should I be forced to use Apple's
| service? I am looking at this move by EU to push for change
| in Apple's behavior globally.
|
| 2. No one is forcing thirdparty app stores on users. You can
| continue to roam within the Apple walled garden appstore for
| eternity and no one is stopping you. It is only Apple that is
| forcing out thirdparty app stores from their rent-seeking
| monopoly and restricting consumer choice and developers'
| freedom in the garb of protecting users.
| iamtheworstdev wrote:
| i literally have never chosen an iphone for that reason and
| no know one who has.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Good for you. Have you considered that you live in a
| bubble? People buy iPhones because they work better, and
| end-to-end control of the experience is how Apple does
| that. If you don't want a curated experience, there is
| Android.
|
| Given the browser choice utopia that is Android, it is hard
| to believe iPhone does any business at all, if hacker news
| comments are to be taken seriously.
| concinds wrote:
| German politicians were discussing banning Telegram. With
| centralized monopoly App Stores, they easily can. With
| sideloading, they can't under current frameworks; and they're
| unlikely to mandate remote-uninstalls of "illegal apps"
| anytime soon.
|
| Sure, central subscription management and "Login with Apple"
| are convenient, but I'd much rather governments not have the
| ability to block apps on my personal devices.
| ko27 wrote:
| > People don't choose iPhone because they want those things
|
| Your argument is ridiculous. People didn't choose iPhone
| because they wanted to deprive themself of an option to
| switch browsers engines or payment vendors either.
|
| People actually chose iPhones for a thousand other reasons.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I choose iPhone because of the additional privacy. I had
| Androids for years, got fed up with the setting and the
| choices that all seemed to result in poor experiences.
|
| I chose to buy an iPhone because I only have Safari (it's a
| feature - keeping the browser engine market diverse -
| otherwise welcome to Chromium). With only Safari on iPhones
| my default iPhone keychain is used, I get Hide my Email by
| default, etc.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| People choose iPhone because it works better and is
| reliable for longer. It works better and is reliable for
| longer because the APIs are better and more stable, the
| browser is relentlessly optimized for performance and
| energy consumption, and because Apple can limit bad
| behavior through App Store restrictions.
|
| If Facebook tells people to install the meta store, and
| TikTok tells people to disable the setting and install the
| .exe, they will. Kids will turn off the setting so that
| they can get free swipes or whatever in their games.
|
| If whatever app doesn't want to worry about losing
| subscribers, they will just not allow you use Apple's
| payment methods, and we'll be back to the dark days of
| entering credit card information manually.
|
| There are a thousand reasons, and Europeans are finding a
| thousand ways to make my computing experience worse. Look
| at cookie noticed for an example of exactly how well good-
| intentioned European regulation works in practice.
| ynniv wrote:
| No one chooses phones based on browser engines. Why anyone
| is upset with Apple improving security by only allowing
| executable pages in Safari is beyond my comprehension.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I would, after this and switch to usb-c. 3 months ago I
| was deciding where to put 1300 euro, apple vs samsung top
| of the line, and samsung won. This was 1 out of cca 4-5
| points that decided it (sideloading, notch, usb-c, better
| zoom photos for family/nature, weight... apple had only
| battery as plus).
|
| Firefox mobile with ublock origin (and other plugins)
| makes general internet seriously usable.
|
| Sideloading for me is not about some cracked games. I
| have older (otherwise still good) Pioneer receiver that
| had failing remote, and official (but unsupported and
| removed from store) app to control it. Otherwise I need
| to shell 500-1000$ for new one of comparable quality.
|
| Clearly, for some obscure reason nobody can explain, not
| everybody in this world has your mindset, values and
| decisions. Something to learn here.
| nicce wrote:
| I would not buy Samsung if I care my privacy. It would
| require custom ROM installation to get rid of all that
| pre-installed bloatware and data collection.
|
| Non-tech user has no idea about this nor have way to fix
| it, and they might be still happy.
|
| Like said, different values and decisions.
| ko27 wrote:
| That's my point. People won't stop buying iPhones whether
| Apple allows or forbids those things. So the argument
| made by the comment I replied to, that people chose
| iPhone over Android because of browser engines, payment
| vendors... makes zero sense.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| then don't install third party apps on your iPhone and only
| install Apple software? Like I literally cannot understand
| the thought process behind this. Someone needs to physically
| restrain you from installing an app that you _don 't_ want?
|
| Nobody is forcing you to do anything, other people just get
| more options. People here on HN support this because people
| here like software freedom instead of being treated like
| infants.
|
| Running any executable you want on your device is the
| foundation of free personal computing without having third
| parties control what you can do with your machine. Nobody is
| putting their hands on _your_ iPhone, it 's the other way
| around, Apple doesn't get to put their paternalistic hands on
| mine from now on.
| nicce wrote:
| > then don't install third party apps on your iPhone and
| only install Apple software? Like I literally cannot
| understand the thought process behind this. Someone needs
| to physically restrain you from installing an app that you
| don't want?
|
| Because not everyone understands tech very well. There will
| be tons of social engineering campaigns to make you install
| the app you don't want. And enough of them will succeed.
| And have succeed on Android.
|
| We might also see a shift where big players will not
| release their apps for App store, because they want to
| collect more data from you. I think for example Apple's
| cross app tracking notification is dependent on the app
| store policy.
|
| It is really complicated problem. Giving a stock Android
| for some non-tech user is much more risky than giving stock
| iPhone at the moment.
|
| When there are too many features, the user is the biggest
| risk. While HN audience might not be in part of that, a
| major population is.
| superb-owl wrote:
| This is huge. Forcing Apple to allow app side-loading, third-
| party payments, etc is going to wrest away control of the iOS
| ecosystem (and eat pretty heavily into their revenues [1]
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-
| generated-r...
|
| I hope some of these regulations spill over into the U.S. and the
| rest of the world.
| Zenst wrote:
| Oh, I'm sure Apple can drag this out for years and year in the
| courts lobbing health and safty arguments etc.
| bzxcvbn wrote:
| First time they're out of compliance, the fine is 10% of
| their global annual revenue. Then 5% of their daily average
| revenue until they comply.
|
| Second time they're out of compliance, the fine doubles.
|
| If they still breach compliance, they get investigated for
| systematic non-compliance. The Commission can then impose
| structural and behavioral changes.
|
| Or Apple can stop providing service in the EU. But they're
| not going to say goodbye to a fourth of their global revenue.
| They will comply.
| johnzim wrote:
| Well. After the first 2 instances of being out of
| compliance, that's exactly where they'd be anyway.
|
| I agree it seems unlikely but the math checks out.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Only if the EU court is willing to suspend sanctions during
| that time. That's not what happened with Microsoft for
| instance.
| pchristensen wrote:
| For many (most?) users, Apple's restrictions, especially
| sideloading, protect users from bad actor app owners (looking
| at you, Facebook). To me, allowing sideloading is like allowing
| chemical weapons to be used in war. Yes, it's a new tool and
| capability at your disposal, but it's also available to every
| powerful and unscrupulous participant.
| coldcode wrote:
| As soon as side loading or their own app stores are allowed,
| all sorts of companies may require that. Maybe most big
| companies will stick with Apple's.
|
| As an iOS developer, hardening the 10k-ish apis that exist in
| iOS will be mostly impossible to do in a short term given the
| attack vectors would now be outside of Apple's control,
| probably resulting in incompatibilities and bugs. Android is
| a horrible platform already given the myriad of different OS
| versions that exist (and often are not updated by the users)
| that you have to support.
|
| I also wonder what the law requires as to switchover to the
| new rules, new OS releases or going back X versions or
| something? Is there are time frame?
|
| Imagine also being an app developer and having to build/test
| releases for multiple app stores that include different
| payment gateways. Without a solid and secure API environment
| in the OS, how do you manage that with screwing up? iOS has
| always been easy to do since you only have to support one
| major OS back. A couple jobs (like 7 years) back our Android
| app was a nightmare to manage, as we had multiple OS
| release/phone suppliers that rarely got bug fixes in at all
| and never at the same time, making fixing/testing some things
| a nightmare. Might be better today, but I remember how much
| of a pain it was.
| int_19h wrote:
| Android allowed sideloading for many years. How many
| companies require their apps to be sideloaded?
| seydor wrote:
| > allowing sideloading is like allowing chemical weapons to
| be used in war.
|
| yes, it is exactly like that. Millions of people who download
| .exe to their compuyters every day are doing chemical warfare
| inlined wrote:
| Millions of people downloading .exe files everywhere are
| why we have an infosec industry. I trust indie developers
| on the App Store because of the restrictions and the review
| process. I'll never side load a small developer's app. And
| I worry that major players (I.e. Facebook) will require
| side loading so they can be free of the App Store rules
| about privacy.
| seydor wrote:
| infosec, like defense (stuff like the internet and apollo
| missions) are how humanity progresses. Power plays always
| keep us behind
| threeseed wrote:
| How has malware, viruses, botnets, phishing etc
| progressed humanity ?
| judge2020 wrote:
| If you got a job at Best Buy's Geek Squad for a week, you'd
| quickly realize just how irresponsible most people are with
| what they install on their devices.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| More like a chemistry lab to everyone. Most won't even touch
| the thing because it requires too much knowledge and is
| intimidating. Some will doubtlessly use it to "make meth" and
| get burnt or blown up. But some will also use it to produce
| better understanding or accomplish a task on their own using
| their own expertise.
| ParksNet wrote:
| Apple's greed (in maintaining the egregious 30% commission for
| so long) is going to undermine their entire ecosystem.
|
| If Apple moved voluntarily to 10% or 15% for all, there never
| would have been the industry pressure for this sort of
| regulation.
|
| The EU would have been better to just mandate a maximum %
| commission for all digital marketplaces above a certain level
| of revenue. This new solution will get poked full of holes by
| Apple and lead to an inferior experience for consumers.
| silvestrov wrote:
| > _Apple simply chose to pay a $5.5 million fine every week
| for months in the Netherlands instead of obey orders from the
| Authority for Consumers and Markets_
|
| How to piss off the EU political system in one simple step.
|
| This ruling is no surprise after such behaviour from Apple.
| They made their own bed.
| mpweiher wrote:
| Yep.
|
| "So you think our fines are too puny to make you comply?"
|
| "There fixed that for you."
| Vespasian wrote:
| That felt somewhat desperate, like Apple didn't really know
| how to deal with this.
|
| I wonder what their endgame was? Did they hope that users
| would rise up and defend apple against their government
| over dating apps?
|
| Did they think the government would blink first? (Why would
| it?)
|
| Was this an attempt to hinder similar laws in other
| jurisdictions? (If so, how?)
|
| Where they simply too stunned and inflexible to react
| quickly?
|
| It made no sense to me and I fear we will never learn?
| deepGem wrote:
| This is what beats the heck outta me. A company that is
| sitting on nearly 150B in cash somehow feels the need to
| pinch 30% commissions from developers till date. I understand
| this as an initial business model. I mean a 15% reduction in
| app revenues is not even a rounding error in Apple's P&L.
| What the hell are they thinking. The goodwill that they'd
| earn from devs will go a long long way and if they signal
| that their share will eventually go to zero over a period of
| 10+ years, that'll get more devs to embrace iOS. I fail to
| understand the current leadership at Apple.
| bennysomething wrote:
| They are there to earn money for their share holders (which
| to be clear isn't just rich people, it's pensions including
| pensions for fire departments etc). They must act in their
| share holders interests. Cutting their fees with no
| justifiable reason is not something they are going to do.
|
| There's no conspiracy, companies are there to make money,
| that's it.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > This is what beats the heck outta me. A company that is
| sitting on nearly 150B in cash somehow feels the need to
| pinch 30% commissions from developers till date.
|
| The rich don't become rich by being generous and giving
| money away.
| ksec wrote:
| _So the people that can make the company more successful
| are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the
| companies. And the product people get driven out of the
| decision making forums, and the companies forget what it
| means to make great products. The product sensibility and
| the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic
| position gets rotted out by people running these companies
| that have no conception of a good product versus a bad
| product._
|
| _They have no conception of the craftsmanship that 's
| required to take a good idea and turn it into a good
| product. And they really have no feeling in their hearts,
| usually, about wanting to really help the customers._
|
| -Steve Jobs
| nolok wrote:
| Also called the Hewlett Packard special.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > If Apple moved voluntarily to 10% or 15% for all, there
| never would have been the industry pressure for this sort of
| regulation.
|
| They did[0], but the actual companies lobbying for this are
| the ones that don't benefit because they're making $x
| millions less due to iOS.
|
| 0: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-
| program...
| caramelcustard wrote:
| Pretty sure 30% commission is not an Apple-exclusive thing.
| Google Play, consoles and Steam have the same rate.
| ParksNet wrote:
| Switch has 30% with a 5% rebate to consumers.
|
| Steam has a regressive 20%/25%/30% tiered commission
| structure.
|
| There are sweetheart deals we have no knowledge of, like
| Apple's deal with Amazon to get Prime Video onto their
| devices.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| And AFAIK Apple charges 15% if you earn less than a
| million in your net revenue, yet noone mentions that.
| Which, by the way, could be considered a sweetheart deal
| of its own, just like Steams tiered system. As for the
| Switch it's still 30% and to the developer it doesn't
| matter whether there's 5 percent going to the customer or
| not.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Apple only made that change _after_ incredible pushback
| from their community, and it still doesn 't address the
| real problem: Apple could be charging 2% and they would
| still have a monopoly on app distribution that deserves
| to be broken up. Steam isn't comparable, since it charges
| that 30% fee _and_ competes against other distributors.
| Despite that, developers continue to choose Steam over
| alternative platforms like Itch.io or EGS. Likewise,
| Apple is free to charge whatever they want for their app
| store, they just need to compete with other service
| providers to ensure they 're providing a fair deal.
| Bud wrote:
| Someone needs a tutorial on what "monopoly" means.
|
| Controlling app distribution solely within your own
| platform is not a monopoly. You might wish it were. You
| might not like it; you might want it changed. But that
| doesn't magically mean you can call it a monopoly. It's
| not a monopoly.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| More like "after Tim Sweeney suddenly became obsessed
| with Apple and started demanding things".
|
| "...they would still have a monopoly on app
| distribution..." on the platform that they've created,
| supported and maintained over the years, in the market
| that already has alternatives.
|
| "Steam isn't comparable..." ah, so Steam charging the
| same percentage is a whole different thing...i see.
|
| "...competes against other distributors." on the Windows,
| Linux and MacOS operating systems, operating on a
| platform that is not exclusive to any manufacturer in
| partucular.
|
| "...they just need to compete with other service
| providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal." They
| already do compete, look up alternative iOS stores.
| [deleted]
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| The incidence of fees is born by the consumer so it
| should matter.
| scottyah wrote:
| It originates from publishers. When Amazon was pressuring
| all the publishers to sell cheaper e-book versions for
| their Kindle, they were aggressively cutting prices to win
| consumers from competition. They'd then use their classic
| "70% of your purchases come through us, so lower your
| prices for Amazon or we will cut you from our store" to get
| more profits. The publishers obviously hated this, and
| especially seeing the brand damage of their brand new
| flagship type books on sale since it made them seem like
| they were in the bargain bin for not selling well. Since
| Amazon was a reseller, they could do whatever they wanted
| with the pricing.
|
| Apple came in as a "savior" for the publishers and said
| that the publishers can set their own prices and take as
| much profit as they wanted... just as long as Apple got
| 30%. This 30% originally came from the music publishing
| industry (where they did set the price themselves, remember
| $0.99 songs?), went through books and now has been legacy'd
| onto apps. If nothing changes here it'll probably exist for
| metaverse stuff if they go there.
| kinnth wrote:
| If iPhones had different app stores with 15% fees, then
| consumers would decide. I think the real issue here is
| consumers are gona get hyper confused and it wont be a better
| experience for anyone.
|
| Every single app creator out there will now want their own
| "app store" and it's going to be a mess. 30% fee initially to
| capture that market was what our company factored in and grew
| exponentially with. A 15% fee is nothing if the market is
| fragmented.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| More likely, some apps will simply bypass the whole app
| store concept entirely. There are a lot of downsides to
| requiring every app install be intermediated by a third
| party, especially for internal or very niche apps where the
| app store isn't really adding any value because the
| provider is a trusted/known brand to the customer already
| (e.g. they may have a negotiated contract).
|
| For consumer apps, there doesn't seem to be much appetite
| to do this on Android at least, though Telegram can be
| installed outside of app stores. It rolls its own update
| system and that seems to work fine.
| warning26 wrote:
| _> Every single app creator out there will now want their
| own "app store" and it's going to be a mess._
|
| This is such an oft-repeated argument, yet overlooks that
| Android already allows sideloading and alternative app
| stores. If everyone-creating-their-own-app-store hasn't
| happened on Android, why would iOS be different?
| Karunamon wrote:
| Full devils advocate here, but the argument I've always
| heard is that the play store is a lot less arbitrary and
| restrictive than the App Store, so there's less reason to
| want to go outside of it.
|
| Apple locks out so many useful kinds of software that
| there actually may be enough momentum for real alternate
| app stores to proliferate.
| Bud wrote:
| I have never, in 15 years on iOS, run into a single "kind
| of software" that Apple has supposedly "locked out" that
| I actually wanted or needed.
| [deleted]
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Apple locks out so many useful kinds of software_
|
| For someone who doesn't have a personal Android phone,
| what useful software is out there that I can get on an
| iPhone?
|
| Related: What mass-market software is out there that
| isn't available on the iPhone? I don't mean *nix tools
| and niche game emulators. Things that would make many
| people actually care about alt stores?
| Karunamon wrote:
| In addition to everything the others mentioned already,
| anything that's not a web browser that might at some
| point show NSFW content. Applications like Discord and
| Tumblr been forced to make ux-degrading changes to comply
| with this Victorian-era prudishness.
|
| (and before you mention an application you know of that
| doesn't have this problem, remember that Apple's
| enforcement and reading of the rules compares unfavorably
| with nuclear particle decay)
| GlitchMr wrote:
| - Web browsers with ad-blocking and plug-ins (Apple
| currently requires all web browsers to use system Webkit
| with very limited APIs).
|
| - Game cloud streaming services (xCloud, Stadia, GeForce
| Now).
|
| - Unofficial clients for websites such as YouTube that
| add features that official client doesn't have.
|
| - Tools to disable advertisements in applications.
|
| - Programs licensed under GPL as Apple App Store bans
| those.
| dwaite wrote:
| > Unofficial clients for websites such as YouTube that
| add features that official client doesn't have.
|
| I'm sure Google can send a cease-and-desist to all sorts
| of other stores instead of just Apple.
|
| > Tools to disable advertisements in applications.
|
| This would be breaking the sandbox model of the system, I
| don't think the regulation requires dismantling system
| security
|
| > Programs licensed under GPL as Apple App Store bans
| those.
|
| No such rule. VLC on App Store is the first example that
| comes to mind. There are also GPLv2 components (such as
| WebKit) shipping in iOS itself.
|
| The FSF has said there are (IMHO bureaucratic) issues
| with GPL on an App Store, specifically that e.g. Apple
| takes on certain responsibilities, rather than the
| developer.
|
| For that reason, it's possible a contributor may shoot
| down publication, which IIRC caused VLC to have to
| rewrite certain components before launch.
| depressedpanda wrote:
| > For someone who doesn't have a personal Android phone,
| what useful software is out there that I can get on an
| iPhone?
|
| A web browser that isn't a hamstrung reskin of Safari,
| and that can run uBlock Origin.
| threeseed wrote:
| You do understand that uBlock Origin has private, profit-
| generating relationships with advertisers.
|
| And you want them to have full access to every URL that
| you visit ?
|
| Rather than use AdGuard or any other ad-blocker that
| can't go and sell your data to third parties for money.
| summerisle wrote:
| That's uBlock you were thinking about, which is owned by
| AdBlock. I'm 98.9% certain that Raymond Gorhill's project
| which I can build from source and install is not doing
| that.
| concinds wrote:
| 1) Completely false for uBlock Origin; zero relationship
|
| 2) It's fully open-source so the above is verifiable
|
| 3) AdGuard and every single other (proprietary) adblocker
| for Mac and iOS includes content blockers, but also
| includes web extensions that request access to "all web
| page contents", including credit card numbers you type
| in, allegedly for the purposes of custom element blocking
| etc. (not open source, we can't check). Try installing it
| and see. Apple still allows web extensions that have
| complete access to all webpage contents (which is
| necessary for many legit extensions), they just block
| specific WebExtensions APIs that uBlock Origin requires.
| Literally zero benefit to privacy whatsoever, yet
| everyone buys the BS.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Call recorders.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| "...hasn't happened on Android...", except it did but
| mostly in Asia. Not to mention the manufacturer-exclusive
| appstores.
| trollied wrote:
| Counter argument: The millions of different game
| launchers on Windows. What a complete and utter mess.
| getcrunk wrote:
| That doesn't apply. You are forced to use the different
| launchers if you want certain games
| orangecat wrote:
| And it would be better if Microsoft had total control
| over what you're allowed to run? Give them that power in
| 1990, and the web never exists outside of a research
| project.
| int_19h wrote:
| Now imagine there's a single game launcher, and that's
| the built-in Xbox app. Games that aren't approved by
| Microsoft don't get published.
|
| I'll take the current arrangement any day of the week,
| thank you.
| Hamuko wrote:
| You mean like twelve and most of the games with custom
| launchers are still on Steam?
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| Here in China there is like 800 app stores for Android.
| warning26 wrote:
| Isn't the Play Store blocked in China? Seems like _that_
| would be the main reason for the proliferation of
| alternatives.
| chris_st wrote:
| I see this, and it just makes me think that if they had, we'd
| be seeing posts that say, "Apple's greed (in maintaining the
| egregious 10% commission for so long) is going to undermine
| their entire ecosystem. If Apple moved voluntarily to 5% or
| 3% for all, ...".
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 30% is an insane amount.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| How does it compare to a regular bricks & mortar retail
| store? Shelf fees, etc?
|
| Edit: downvoted for asking a question? Thanks HN.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| How much warehouse space does it take to sell 3,000,000
| copies of fortnite? How much shrink did they have?
| Nasrudith wrote:
| The shrinkage is called chargeback and processing fees.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Great so that's 3.5%
|
| Where is the other 26.5% coming from?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| How many people do you think Apple employees whose job is
| solely or primarily-centered around iOS developer
| relations, tools, support, store infrastructure etc. etc?
| oaiey wrote:
| How does that compare to CDN, stripe Integration, a fancy
| certificate and a shop web page. That is the question. It
| is software distribution.
| ksec wrote:
| Exactly. I wish people stop using Retail as a counter
| argument, especially when 99.999999999% of them have no
| idea how Retail works.
| laserlight wrote:
| How much is a fair amount? Who decides that and how?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The market, through competition.
| Bud wrote:
| Is "the market" going to magically provide all the
| substantial benefits of an Apple-run store for apps, too?
|
| No. It's not. "The market" is going to say: sorry users,
| fuck that, y'all can just magically research all this and
| provide your own security and privacy from here on out.
|
| Which is impossible, of course.
|
| Result: much poorer user experience for the vast majority
| of users. Which is why Apple did it their way in the
| first place. No, it was not because of revenue. Anyone
| who says that is either lying or is incredibly lazy and
| hasn't looked up where Apple actually makes its money.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The app store had 85B ($85,000,000,000) gross revenue in
| 2021. Apple made 30%.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-
| app-...
|
| From https://revenuesandprofits.com/how-apple-makes-
| money-underst...,
|
| > The devices and platforms help Apple lock-in the
| consumer into its ecosystem. First, Apple achieves
| hardware lock-in with the devices. Then, it achieves
| software lock-in with operating system software,
| application software, and third-party software and apps.
| Then, iCloud helps Apple achieve the data lock-in.
| mappu wrote:
| The scale of the App Store, or iphone-vs-android in
| general, or even other markets such as semiconductor
| lithography - is just so mind-bogglingly massive in scale
| and cost, that the entire human race only has one or two
| entrants. It's not currently possible for new entrants to
| break in at all. Competition is simply non-existent.
|
| If the barriers-to-entry are so high that you can't have
| real market competition, then regulation is the only
| option left.
| laserlight wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification, because your previous
| comment seemed to contradict.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Oh, is there a competitor to the app store that will let
| me get apps for my iOS devices?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| That already happened when the consumer bought an iPhone
| instead of an Android phone. Is there supposed to be
| fractal competition all the way down?
| Bud wrote:
| Did you research Apple's costs for running the App Store,
| screening apps for security, etc., before making this
| blanket statement? I'd wager not.
| Someone wrote:
| They still (rightfully, IMO) can charge third parties for
| getting access to their customers, just as super markets charge
| for getting stuff on their shelves, or as amusement parks take
| a cut for the right to sell ice cream.
|
| Now, as to what's reasonable there? That will be a separate
| discussion. So far, Apple has put the bar at over 20% for
| countries that have passed similar legislation, likely on the
| argument that payment processing need not cost more than credit
| card companies charge (a few percent, in the EU)
| 988747 wrote:
| I wonder if it would make more financial sense for Apple to
| withdraw from EU market, rather than complying.
|
| The numbers for 2021 are pretty much in line:
|
| $89B - Apple sales in Europe (including some non-EU countries,
| most notably UK)
|
| $85B - Apple AppStore revenue worldwide.
|
| The question is: which one has more potential for growth.
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Apple would still turn a profit even by just
| selling the hardware in Europe.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Only if you're confident it's some uniquely EU idea (which
| it's not, regulators all over the world are thinking about
| doing this).
| amelius wrote:
| Then I wonder what would happen if Taiwan introduced the same
| legislation.
| Youden wrote:
| How could it make more financial sense to withdraw?
|
| As long as Apple keeps selling iPhones, there's still profit
| to be made, App Store be damned.
| adventured wrote:
| It doesn't. The parent premise - that Apple is going to be
| severely harmed financially by any of this - is something
| far beyond silly.
|
| Apple will barely see a dent from it. Their profit
| juggernaut will keep rolling on almost exactly the same.
|
| The parent comment in question - "and eat pretty heavily
| into their revenues" - is confusing their personal
| projected wishful thinking (obviously desperately wanting
| big tech to falter) with actual reality (the one where
| Apple has no serious competitive threats in smartphones for
| what they do, and as such they'll keep marching on just the
| same).
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Apple clearly does have serious competitive threats to
| what they do, it doesn't even have majority market share
| in the EU. But it also won't threaten their revenues
| much. On platforms where users and developers _do_ have a
| choice from day one (Android), the app store is
| sufficiently useful that most devs do choose to stick
| with it. It seems unlikely that Apple can 't make the app
| store competitive on its own terms.
| seydor wrote:
| it will be a ~10% drop of their profits maximum . They have
| nothing to fear, and have been engaging in these shenanigans
| just because they can
| pavlov wrote:
| Remember that App Store revenue is also generated in the EU.
|
| Let's assume that 15% of App Store revenue is from the EU.
| That would leave an additional $12.7 billion hole in Apple's
| pocket.
|
| Worse, it would mean Apple's third-party developers lose
| about $30 billion in revenue. (Apple takes a 30% cut, so the
| total App Store sales volume is about $283B). Those
| developers would also lose all access to their existing users
| in those countries. It would be a massive black stain on
| Apple's reputation.
|
| It's the kind of drastic move that you simply can't do as a
| platform provider unless your hand is absolutely forced by
| something like international sanctions.
| IshKebab wrote:
| And more importantly it would further erode their market
| share. It would be an absolutely insane move.
|
| Much more likely they'll go the route of malicious
| compliance. You can side load apps but you can't add them
| to your home screen. You can set a third party voice
| assistant but it can't launch apps. Etc.
|
| Will be very interesting to see how this plays out!
| threeseed wrote:
| > You can set a third party voice assistant but it can't
| launch apps
|
| Facebook and Google are going to love this.
|
| They can build a voice assistant app which will provide
| them with all of the apps people use the most, people
| they contact, places they visit, searches they do etc.
|
| It's going to be a privacy nightmare.
| tchocky wrote:
| I don't think so. The EU market is pretty huge and
| financially strong. Maybe they will only allow sideloading
| and payment freedom for the EU with special iOS builds.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| This would be very consistent with their prior actions.
| Apple's "opening move" with prior rulings and laws on in-
| app payment processing has been to require separate
| binaries locked to specific jurisdictions. The company
| genuinely believes that competition is consumer-hostile _at
| best_ and outright dangerous at worst.
|
| The question is, how far will Apple go to keep Americans
| from turning on "EU mode"? Will it just be the usual
| country toggle? Will sideloaded apps be geofenced to the EU
| with Location Services? Or will they start adding
| bootloader fuses for each jurisdiction so that you can't
| install the "EU sideloading firmware" on US-purchased
| iPads? Or all of the above? I hope the EU is ready to
| litigate whatever hoops Apple makes people jump through -
| because Apple loves inventing new hoops.
| kmlx wrote:
| depends on the company really. some might think a bit more
| about offering their products to eu countries considering
| (some of) these rules. which imo are quite serious, and
| some even ridiculous.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Which ones do you find ridiculous? They frankly diverge
| from the current status quo but to me they all go in the
| right direction.
| kmlx wrote:
| i foresee a fiasco in general, but a few stand out:
|
| > Share data and metrics with developers and competitors,
| including marketing and advertising performance data.
|
| with competitors? :))
|
| > Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital
| services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper.
| This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-
| calling services interoperable with third-party services
| upon request.
|
| could have been solved easily if they proposed a working
| group to come up with the next video and messaging
| standard. right now i foresee the discussions we had back
| in mid 00s: we use our own video encoder. they use h263.
| and those other guys use vp9. good luck to the team
| writing a transcoder that works real time :))
|
| > The Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires
| platforms to do more to police the internet for illegal
| content, has also been approved.
|
| "think of the children" legislation.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I don't see why you are surprised by the sharing with
| competitors and the obligation of interoperability.
| That's in line with what's imposed on dominant player in
| an unbalanced market. Basically Europe is saying to
| gatekeepers that they can keep their platform but it will
| come with a lot of caveat from now on.
| TimPC wrote:
| Asking for data sharing without specifying exactly which
| data is included and exactly which data is exempt is
| ridiculous. The standard for laws need to be far higher.
| Which metrics? Which data? If the lawmakers mean all data
| they are going to discover very quickly a lot of that
| data is subject to privacy standards. You can't for
| example share the data you use to train a personal
| assistant without sharing queries people have made of
| that assistant.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Considering how far backwards companies bend over to make
| business in China and some Arabic countries I don't
| expect a single company with some profitable business in
| the EU to leave that market.
| kmlx wrote:
| for sure. but a newly established company with strong
| revenues in a part of the world where there are no rules?
| difficult to answer.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So what? Nobody is obliged to serve any market, or a
| markets obliges to open for _individual_ companies. If
| company A won 't, companies B and C propably will.
| kmlx wrote:
| > So what?
|
| if your goal is more protectionism, then it's great. but
| if you want to produce market leaders then it's bad.
| hef19898 wrote:
| If by market leader you mean creating monopolies, or
| oligopolies, there are rules againstt that in place. So
| there seems to be some concensus of seeing those outcomes
| as non desireable. And those rules cover consumer
| protection and choice, Microsoft has some experience with
| that when it comes to Internet Explorer.
| kuratkull wrote:
| Being a monopoly is not against the law. Abusing your
| monopoly is.
| bzxcvbn wrote:
| That's pretty much the point of the regulation. If you're
| okay with being preyed upon by billion-dollar companies,
| stay in the US. If you'd like to be protected as a
| customer, come to the EU.
|
| Besides, the DMA has specific exemptions for small
| companies. Once a company reaches the "gatekeeper" level,
| they will have had all the necessary time to figure out
| how to comply with the law.
| guerrilla wrote:
| That would be a strategic mistake even if it made short-term
| sense (which it probably doesn't) because it would leave a
| big hole for to fill that could be leveraged to compete with
| them later in the US.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Doesn't Apple route all of their international sales through
| Ireland, which is in the EU? They'd need to find another tax
| haven.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Not all of them, no. Broadly just the European ones, plus a
| few others where it's not worth setting up a different
| regional HQ.
| TrickyRick wrote:
| Some of that App Store revenue comes from the EU BTW.
| Probably a quite sizable chunk of it.
| juanani wrote:
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| It won't eat into any revenues. In the Netherlands Apple
| charges 27% commission on any revenues paid into external
| payment systems [1]. And what is the EU exactly going to do -
| ban Apple from charging for access to their software APIs [2]?
| That seems like one step from banning charging for software as
| a whole.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/4/22917582/apple-
| netherlands...
|
| [2] Yes, APIs themselves are not copyrightable, but what
| developer is going to spend the resources to reimplement all of
| iOS' APIs, with no documentation of how the underlying hardware
| works?
| username_my1 wrote:
| Lol shit loads of psps have super simple native SDKs: PayPal,
| stripe, adyen....
|
| They're all waiting for the day developers switch to their
| apis. And developers usually work with them over the web,
| they just didn't do so on ios because of apple policy
| [deleted]
| layer8 wrote:
| Apple will likely do as little as possible as late as possible,
| and try to stall as much as possible. It will be interesting to
| see how it will play out.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| It will play as usual, with huge fines.
| layer8 wrote:
| Not sure Apple is willing to give up 20% of their total
| revenue (which is the maximum penalty after repeat
| offense).
| ATsch wrote:
| There's still plenty of money to be made until the law
| comes into effect, the regulatory bodies become active,
| the cases are prepared, rulings are made, all of the
| layers of appeals have gone through, the regulators have
| decided whether the new measures are in compliance, it
| becomes a repeat offense, etc.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Nobody is, but they all do. If they don't comply then
| they will have their assets confiscated.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Never underestimate the creative genius of Apple. They will
| come up with new solutions to keep their walled garden.
|
| "Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and
| sideload directly from the internet"
|
| I bet this is going to be a horrible user experience. "Are you
| really sure?", "Apple takes no responsibility not warranty"
| whatsoever.
|
| What sound usually easy on paper...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I agree, it could be ugly. The GDPR is supposed to be great,
| but what practical impact did it have on most of us? Cookie
| consent dialogs _everywhere_.
| dwaite wrote:
| Cookie consent is not compliant with GDPR - I need an
| ability to retract my consent as easily as I gave it, which
| zero of those sites actually provide.
|
| If the EU ever actually starts enforcing GDPR, I expect a
| quick reckoning.
| tester756 wrote:
| Cookie consents predate GDPR.
|
| They're misused by sites. You don't need to show cookie
| consent if your cookies are purely technical (e.g auth)
| jacquesm wrote:
| The impact is: far fewer data breaches in the EU than
| before, fewer of them wiped under the carpet, security no
| longer seen as a cost but as an important element in the IT
| strategy and with a seat at the table during design,
| operation and decommission (and in many cases: at the C
| level). On the whole the change has been remarkable, the
| last four years have seen a sea change in how corporations
| look at data, security and compliance.
|
| If all you associate with the GDPR is cookie consent
| dialogs then maybe these discussions are not for you?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That all sounds pretty rosy, and my BS-meter is pegged. I
| think it's just as likely that the corporations have
| figured out how to skirt the law and get everything they
| wanted anyway.
|
| > If all you associate with the GDPR is cookie consent
| dialogs then maybe these discussions are not for you?
|
| You realize that you are the unique one? Most people
| don't care about abstract concepts of digital privacy and
| just hit whatever button on that dialog that makes it go
| away. Who knows what they're opting in to, and they don't
| really care.
|
| These are definitely the sorts of things we should factor
| into regulation lest we continue to pave that road to
| hell with shiny good intentions.
| robonerd wrote:
| > > _If all you associate with the GDPR is cookie consent
| dialogs then maybe these discussions are not for you?_
|
| > _You realize that you are the unique one? Most people
| don 't care about abstract concepts of digital privacy
| and just hit whatever button on that dialog that makes it
| go away. Who knows what they're opting in to, and they
| don't really care._
|
| His point just went straight over your head. GDPR has
| nothing to do with cookie consent dialogues. That you
| think otherwise demonstrates that you don't know much
| about this topic, hence: _" maybe these discussions are
| not for you?"_
|
| Incidentally, in my observation cookie consent dialogues
| is a pet peeve of people on forums like this, but not
| with the general public. It's something techies bitch
| about.
| int_19h wrote:
| People in EU did care enough about privacy to vote in the
| politicians who passed GDPR, no?
| Epskampie wrote:
| You can request and get a full copy of your data anywhere,
| and be fully deleted if you want. Every company has become
| aware and afraid of data leaks because they are required to
| report them.
|
| The cookie banner thing is... unfortunate.
| akie wrote:
| If anything, the banner indicates that the site is
| tracking you. The site chooses to do that. The GDPR
| doesn't force them to.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The cookie banner thing is... entirely optional. Just
| don't track your visitors, problem solved.
| oaiey wrote:
| Cookie consent is not gdpr.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| This is also the IAB's fault by trying to be clever and
| decide "the user will just consent to everything" in order
| to continue business as usual.
|
| It did not have to be this way.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| They backed out from these tricks in the Netherland standoff.
| As you guessed, it started with horrible wording, and has now
| became something way saner (albeit they kept their fees
| requirements)
| nradov wrote:
| Denying warranty claims for that reason would already be
| illegal under existing laws in most developed countries.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes, but there's few entities out there actually
| enforcing these kinds of laws. For example, if you ever
| use the manufacturer-sanctioned bootloader unlock on a
| Samsung phone, that blows a fuse in the phone that says
| "my warranty is void". Samsung refuses to service phones
| that have ever had their bootloaders unlocked, regardless
| of what was actually done to them. As far as I'm aware
| nobody has bothered to sue Samsung over this feature.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| They didn't back out on these: They were forced to give
| them up in the Netherlands. And then, when South Korea
| passed a similar law... Apple has announced the _same
| tricks the Netherlands refused to accept_ as their plan to
| comply with the South Korean law.
|
| You can bet they'll start playing the same games with the
| EU once this goes into effect. Regulating big tech requires
| not just passing the law, but a heavy handed enforcement
| that doesn't put up with delays and antics.
| lobocinza wrote:
| "Wait 60 seconds to proceed"
| warning26 wrote:
| Definitely -- I can imagine them making it some kind of
| faustian bargain, where in exchange for enabling sideloading,
| you void your warranty, never get any software updates again,
| can't connect to any Apple online services whatsoever, etc.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Tech companies seem to believe that it is a neat trick to
| mislead regulators, in my opinion this is a serious
| mistake: regulators hold the power to destroy you and
| playing 'clever' may give you bragging rights but
| ultimately it can doom your company. Underestimating the
| power of nation states is a pretty dumb strategy for any
| company that relies on the cooperation of the countries
| they intend to do business with.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| That would violate the EU legislation as currently written.
| grishka wrote:
| > can't connect to any Apple online services whatsoever
|
| So what's the downside?
| veilrap wrote:
| If you don't want to use Apple services, why are you
| buying an Apple device? These facetious arguments make no
| sense.
| grishka wrote:
| I use a Mac because the hardware is great and the
| software is least worst.
| astral303 wrote:
| You know the walled garden is put up with good reason -- to
| keep fraud and abuse out? And that very few are actually
| capable of doing such a job, and the software industry has
| continually demonstrated the lack of that capability.
| mpweiher wrote:
| > creative genius of Apple.
|
| You're forgetting the "no creative geniuses"-clause, aka
| repeated fines of 10-20% of worldwide turnover.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| I don't think fucking around with EU regulators is something
| Apple should do here. They'll probably revenge even with
| stronger further regulations later.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I think they should fuck around and find out.
| wmeredith wrote:
| > "Are you really sure?", "Apple takes no responsibility not
| warranty"
|
| Sounds good to me. As a techie who maintains several phones
| for several family members at a variety of tech-literate
| levels, I certainly hope this experience sucks and is
| difficult to figure out.
| dingleberry420 wrote:
| Don't worry, it won't be legal for Apple to void the
| warranty for this.
| sircastor wrote:
| The concern is not a voided warranty. The concern is
| tech-illiterate users being able to install some random
| app they found on the web. They find a special version of
| Facebook and install it, and now their phone is
| compromised.
| FredPret wrote:
| We techies vastly overestimate the technical nous of
| people who don't care about it.
|
| For example, my dad, who has had decades of internet
| usage, tried to buy a USB drive that promised to speed up
| his computer for only $99.
|
| These folks need an app store.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _They find a special version of Facebook and install
| it, and now their phone is compromised._
|
| The Android ecosystem is a bit of a cesspool, but surely
| even it isn't having major issues with swaths of people
| having their phone compromised, right? My parents aren't
| going to sideload an apk.
|
| I have faith that there's a way to do this right.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| It won't matter much, the external app stores can make it
| worth their while. They'll give away valuable apps (e.g.
| Epic Store) and charge 20% less.
| FredPret wrote:
| I love the walled garden. You want a self-managed server,
| buy one.
|
| I want a foolproof thin client for myself and all the older
| people in my life
| dan1234 wrote:
| Will it though?
|
| I don't know anyone who side loads onto Android, and even Epic
| gave up and put Fortnite back onto Google play[0].
|
| I'm sure that any side loading will be hidden beneath layers of
| warnings designed to put off all but the most determined.
|
| [0] https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/21/21229930/fortnite-
| availabl...
| zaik wrote:
| F-Droid is somewhat popular among privacy minded folks. You
| probably want it for NewPipe and Conversations.
| chacham15 wrote:
| The US already has one which is supposed to be voted upon soon:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...
| the_duke wrote:
| This is just for payment providers though, not alternative
| app stores.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Are you just reading the summary? It does force them to
| allow 3rd party apps and app stores too:
|
| >A covered company that controls the operating system or
| operating system configuration on which its app store
| operates shall allow and provide readily accessible means
| for users of that operating system to choose third-party
| apps or app stores as defaults for categories appropriate
| to the app or app store
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
| bill/271...
| delecti wrote:
| Huh, there's even a bipartisan spread of cosponsors. That
| might actually have a chance.
| sph wrote:
| Happy that I might be able to install something else than Safari.
| I want the Gecko engine on iOS. Sad that being in UK probably
| means we'll ignore it because "Brexit." I got a text the other
| day telling me that, since we've left the EU, roaming charges are
| back. Hurray!
|
| Without making this about politics, this is a great step forward.
| Still unsure how Apple & co. will make their proprietary video
| and messaging platforms "interoperable". I doubt they'll be
| writing an RFC any time soon.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >Happy that I might be able to install something else than
| Safari. I want the Gecko engine on iOS. Sad that being in UK
| probably means we'll ignore it because "Brexit."
|
| Specifically on this point, the UK's Competition and Markets
| Authority _are_ taking action.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-plans-market-investig...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > "will make their proprietary video and messaging platforms
| "interoperable"
|
| Because it's Europe, and also FaceTime and such aren't
| _anywhere near_ as popular over there, it is possible that
| Apple will just pull them from the market there. You can 't be
| forced to provide interoperability with a service you aren't
| operating.
|
| Whatever the result, this does mean iOS 16 is going to have
| many "features" that Apple didn't announce...
| smoldesu wrote:
| > it is possible that Apple will just pull them from the
| market there.
|
| It's also possible that pigs will sprout wings and fly away
| from manure piles everywhere. Apple is the same company that
| backdoored iCloud for China so they could operate
| domestically and make money from the CCP, though. The idea
| that they'd stop serving _the entirety of Europe_ because of
| some evil legislation is a complete joke.
| shapefrog wrote:
| > The idea that they'd stop serving the entirety of Europe
| because of some evil legislation is a complete joke.
|
| I think the idea comes from a US understanding of what
| exists beyond the border.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _Still unsure how Apple & co. will make their proprietary
| video and messaging platforms "interoperable". I doubt they'll
| be writing an RFC any time soon. _
|
| I'd be pretty happy if I could integrate iMessage and Signal
| together, since I hate the fact that iMessage is the only
| messaging platform with a native macOS app.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| What's Signal on Mac, Electron?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Signal.app/Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework
| warkdarrior wrote:
| What's stopping Signal from creating their own native
| MacOS app?
| kecupochren wrote:
| Telegram is also native on macOS
| joshstrange wrote:
| Which might sound well on paper but would be hell to actually
| do. iMessage and Signal are not 1-to-1 in their feature set
| nor is iMessage a superset of Signal. Also I find it odd that
| you are pushing for shoving a square peg in a round hole vs
| signal actually writing a native mac app. I'm not sure why
| it's iMessage's "fault" they have the "only" native messaging
| platform app for macOS.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Happy that I might be able to install something else than
| Safari.
|
| I hope you like Chrome then.
|
| > I want the Gecko engine on iOS.
|
| It will probably exist in some official capacity (not just the
| open source wrappers like IceWeasel or whatever they call it)
| but it will probably get about as much love as it does on
| Android which is to say not much at all. Also the market share
| will be <1% if I had to guess which means no developers are
| going to test on it and might even just user-agent sniff and
| block you. Chrome/Google will use all their properties and
| power to push users to install Chrome and it will become the
| defato browser for all of desktop and mobile. I'm not looking
| forward to that.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| As a happy exclusive user of Firefox on Android (and PC), I
| have yet to meet any sites except legacy corporate apps that
| had any sort of problem with FF in the last 1-2 years at
| least.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Same here, only positive feedback. ublock origin keeps all
| ads at bay so internet looks like a very usable place (aka
| same as on my desktop). I mean just for removing all
| youtube ads I would install it on my socks if possible
| sylware wrote:
| big tech does not want simple, but good enough to do the job, and
| stable in time protocols to interoperate with. Force the big to
| interoperate with the small, and not let the big crush the small,
| this is one of the whys of regulation.
|
| For instance, in the case of the web: noscript/basic (x)html.
| With basic (x)html forms, you can browse tiled maps, do shopping,
| interact with the online administration service, etc. With the
| <video> and <audio> element, the noscript/basic (x)html browsers
| can pass an URL to an external media player, what seems missing
| is the type of streaming. I don't know if you can specify the
| type of the href, HLS/mpeg DASH/etc, kind of a mime type for
| those. Then the ability to seek into a big video should be
| standardized, very probably an URL parameter to do this, at least
| per mime types if those exists, like t=xxhxxmxxsxxxms.
|
| Those are extremely simple, do not require those horrible web
| engines and are enough to do the job.
|
| The current javascript-ed web engines are insane and beyond
| sanity bloats (SDK included), locked-in by gogol/apple/mozilla
| via complexity and size.
|
| The real hard work is into "securing" those "simple" sites
| against corpo(=state?) sponsored hackers to make those not work
| and promote corpo-locked software and protocols. That could be
| idiotic hackers pushing the web to use those corpo-locked
| software and protocols.
| polskibus wrote:
| I'd love to see separating market making from participation,
| similar to finance. Ie. the same company must not operate and
| sell at the same time on that market.
| Kelteseth wrote:
| Wonderful! This would certainly help with complying with Qt
| LGPLv3 and the strict App Store requirements.
| summerlight wrote:
| This wouldn't happen if Apple decided to cut their Apple tax to
| 15% or something. They already knew that this 30% is not
| sustainable. 15% would be still considerably higher than usual
| payment processors' but something justifiable given their massive
| investment into the platform.
|
| But instead of taking this path, Apple decided to exploit this
| 30% tax for competition against other service providers. This is
| obviously unfair advantage, so sooner or later this kind of
| regulation was expected to come. I'm still not sure if Apple
| really believed that they could stop this kind of regulation, but
| they built their entire business structure based on a brittle
| assumption that they could retain full control on their ecosystem
| regardless of political landscape. Now they're going to pay the
| price of making a wrong bet.
| alimov wrote:
| > but they built their entire business structure based on a
| brittle assumption that they could retain full control on their
| ecosystem regardless of political landscape. Now they're going
| to pay the price of making a wrong bet.
|
| Do you really believe that you see or understand something that
| decision makers at Apple hadn't considered?
| summerlight wrote:
| Why do you think Apple's decision makers would make the same
| decision to mine based on the same information? I'm pretty
| sure that Tim clearly understood the trade-off and his
| leverage was on a more predictable path via more market
| controls. You gotta understand different people make
| different decisions even with the same input.
| strulovich wrote:
| It's very likely this would have happened even if Apple would
| have cut it to 15%. There's still about 12% on the table, and
| the rest of the gate keeping issues would still be there.
|
| History is full of precedents where a powerful party gave some
| of its power only to have it not stop and even accelerate the
| attacks against it.
|
| Apple could not stay the biggest company in the world without
| attracting attention such as this. One of those has to give.
| xutopia wrote:
| Apple probably gambled on keeping it at 30% everywhere other
| than Europe would still be worthwhile.
| ginko wrote:
| >This wouldn't happen if Apple decided to cut their Apple tax
| to 15% or something.
|
| Still wouldn't allow people to install Firefox.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Was expecting big fall in share price for Apple but this new
| didn't even registered anything in share price. Any idea why 10s
| of billions of dollars of pure competition free predictable
| profit is not a big thing?
| MrThoughtful wrote:
| Like so often with new laws, I think a more general one would
| have been better.
|
| Why is it about apps, app stores, developers, voice assistants
| and all that specific stuff?
|
| In my opinion, it should just have been this: A company is not
| allowed to artificially restrict what users can do with the
| products they bought.
|
| Then it would also not be allowed to restrict people from
| installing alternative operating systems on the hardware they
| bought.
|
| Linux on an iPad! How nice would that be!
| arlort wrote:
| Because laws need to be justiceable
|
| Overly general laws are prone to either evasion or arbitrary
| and unjust enforcement
| jahewson wrote:
| > Linux on an iPad! How nice would that be!
|
| Honestly? It would absolutely suck.
| [deleted]
| JoeNr76 wrote:
| The only questionable part is end-to-end encryption. I don't see
| how you can make your messaging apps interoperable and have E2E
| encryption.
|
| Most of the other things: mostly good. Apple and Google need to
| be taken down a peg or 10.
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| Couldn't you have the clients send each other their public keys
| as the first step in the conversation?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| A simplistic way of achieving this is that you have to download
| an app called something like "Signal support for iMessage"
| which is basically a headless version of the Signal app, which
| makes a local connection to the iMessage app.
|
| Apple would just need to publish an API for connecting to
| iMessage like that, and Signal would potentially need to allow
| users to add friends via their iMessage ID rather than their
| phone number.
| arlort wrote:
| You can't, not in a perfectly verifiable way
|
| At some point app A needs to know how to decrypt messages
| received on app B and/or vice-versa
|
| Nicely designed apps will do so on your device, shady apps will
| do so on servers, as a consumer you'll have to decide which
| companies behave and design their apps in a way that is
| satisfactory to you
|
| But you have to do that to use any app in the first place. If
| you're using a messaging app it means you trust its developers
| and how much data they collect and how they handle it. Adding a
| "how do they handle interoperation" checkbox does not
| significantly change that calculus imo
|
| (as to how E2E can work with interoperability, with an open API
| app A will just ping app B's servers in addition to its own and
| will have its own E2E key as well as B's key. Groups could be
| more complicated but group encryption is a pretty hard problem
| anyway and you might just give up and warn your users that
| cross-platform groups won't be E2EE)
| 8note wrote:
| For e2e encryption, the end user is the one who is in charge of
| the keys, no?
|
| If it works today, it should work tomorrow, the only question
| is how to publish public keys cross-platforn
| guerrilla wrote:
| Oh wow, that's quite a list. I wonder if any of it will end up
| having retroactive effects because
|
| > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable.
|
| I REALLY want to remove some of this junk Samsung forced on my
| phone (while omitting screen record on this model.)
| anonymousab wrote:
| I suspect the compliance will be as minimal as possible, e.g.
| uninstalling included junk will only flip some settings bit
| that hides some of the user facing activity. Just enough to
| make a glib "look, we obeyed the law" statement as they will
| assume nobody will actually take them to court over it.
|
| Perhaps I am too pessimistic.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| That's actually about how it is going to work. Apps on both
| iOS and Android are in the read-only system partition. Even
| when you disable an app on Android, the read-only system
| partition version remains and the latest version installed in
| the rewritable user folder gets deleted. It is absolutely
| just going to be a visual switch.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I really hope Sony and Nintendo are classified as gatekeepers as
| well because this
|
| > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and
| sideload directly from the internet.
|
| would be huge for Playstation and Switch owners.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| So far everyone complaining about app lockouts have been laser-
| focused on phones, because they're general-purpose and thus
| easier to legally justify sideloading on. Nobody wants to talk
| about game consoles - to open them up would almost certainly
| require revisiting DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on
| circumvention tools. The US Copyright Office wouldn't entertain
| extending the current "mobile devices"[1] jailbreaking
| exception to consoles, and Epic Games had to do all sorts of
| mental gymnastics to explain why Apple was a monopolist but
| Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony weren't.
|
| [0] Or your local equivalent.
|
| And yes, you _do_ have a local equivalent, unless you are
| living in Iran, Afghanistan, or North Korea.
|
| [1] Phones and tablet computers.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > to open them up would almost certainly require revisiting
| DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on circumvention
| tools
|
| This is a non-sequitur. If there were a new law that requires
| Sony and Nintendo to offer side-loading on their platforms,
| they would have every right to do so, as they own the
| copyright of those platforms. The DMCA protects copyright
| holders from the actions of others, it puts no limits on
| their own actions. If Sony wanted to break into your PS3, you
| wouldn't have any standing under the DMCA to sue them about
| it (of course, there are other laws that protect your data,
| your past contracts etc).
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > to open them up would almost certainly require revisiting
| DMCA 1201[0] and removing the prohibition on circumvention
| tools.
|
| That law only forbids bypassing protection measures
| exclusively related to protecting access to a specific
| copyrighted work. Getting root on consoles isn't that.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Nobody wants to talk about game consoles
|
| They're talked about a fair bit tbh. All sorts of proposed
| legislature often goes to pains to say "except game
| consoles". The role of game consoles was brought up a fair
| bit in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > goes to pains to say "except game consoles"
|
| For no good reason. Both are effectively media consoles
| with the streaming apps available, and the xbox has a
| browser just the same as Apple[0], you can do your banking
| from it if you so choose (and some people saw that appeal a
| while ago[1]). The only difference is the form factor and
| the price point where the consoles are sold near-cost[2] -
| apple would throw in $500 worth of rare earth material if
| it meant they could keep their app store revenue model.
|
| 0: https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-
| network/console...
|
| 1: https://distantarcade.co.uk/online-banking-
| snes-1998-tran-di...
|
| 2: https://www.polygon.com/2021/2/3/22264242/playstation-5-
| sale...
| ajaimk wrote:
| While I want this to be true, consoles only exist because of
| game revenue.
|
| Not sure a $2000 PS5 is as appealing
| criddell wrote:
| Why would a PS5 cost that much?
|
| Has there ever been a console where, over the life of the
| console, the hardware was sold for a loss?
| dijit wrote:
| > Has there ever been a console where, over the life of the
| console, the hardware was sold for a loss?
|
| All of them.
|
| Speaking about PS5 specifically: there's quite a few
| advancements in there that you're not thinking about, the
| kraken decompressor that can run _at native NVME_ speed in
| hardware and load assets directly into video memory has no
| PC equivalent. Though PC vendors are trying to do NVME
| <->GPUMem these days, it still can't do effectively 9GBit
| like the PS5 can (theoretically).
|
| Even ignoring those architectural advantages and the R&D;
| last time someone did a cost comparison of an equivelant PC
| (a year ago) it was $1,600: https://gamerant.com/ps5-specs-
| pc/
| latexr wrote:
| > All of them.
|
| It's my understanding that's not (always?) true for
| Nintendo consoles. The Switch makes a profit on
| hardware[1] and that was a goal before launch[2].
|
| [1]: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/79180/xboxes-arent-
| profitable...
|
| [2]: https://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nintendo-wont-
| sell-switch...
| dijit wrote:
| That's extremely interesting and I didn't know it.
|
| Conventional wisdom dictates that consoles sell at a
| loss.
| criddell wrote:
| >> Has there ever been a console where, over the life of
| the console, the hardware was sold for a loss?
|
| > All of them.
|
| Are you serious? The Wii has sold more than 100 million
| units over the past ten years and you think it's been a
| net loss for Nintendo?
|
| PS5-to-PC comparisons are hard to do in a meaningful way.
| It's like saying a Toyota Camry is sold at a loss because
| if you build one part-by-part it's going to cost
| $100,000+ rather than the $30k a dealer sells them for.
|
| If you take those PC specs and contact a manufacturer
| with a plan to order 20 million units, they are going to
| come in at quite a bit under $1600.
| dijit wrote:
| I mean, it's conventional wisdom that Consoles are the
| _poster child_ for what "Loss Leader" means.
| https://www.makeuseof.com/games-consoles-sold-at-loss/
| criddell wrote:
| The first run may very well be sold at a loss, but almost
| every console has eventually turned a profit.
|
| I say _almost_ because the XBox 360 may have been
| unprofitable over it 's entire manufacturing run due to
| extraordinary warranty costs (red ring of death). I've
| read that it may have cost Microsoft more than a billion
| dollars, but I don't know if that's true or if that was
| enough to net Microsoft a loss over the 11 years it was
| sold.
| threeseed wrote:
| Sony in particular does this. For the first X years of
| its life, Playstation is sold as a loss.
|
| They generate revenue through game sales and then a
| decade later as hardware components become cheaper and
| scale increases they start to make money on the consoles
| as well.
|
| If they can't generate revenue through game sales the
| entire console model would be upended and hardware prices
| would rapidly increase. No company can take the risk to
| lose billions without a guarantee of future revenue.
| criddell wrote:
| > No company can take the risk to lose billions without a
| guarantee of future revenue.
|
| Apparently the Nintendo Switch was never sold at a loss.
|
| Does it really matter though? They shouldn't be allowed
| to abuse consumers for the sake of their business model.
| If it were true that they were selling consoles for an
| expected loss, that would act as a barrier to new
| competitors entering the market.
|
| Should companies like John Deere be able to prevent
| third-parties from doing maintenance on farm equipment
| because John Deere's business model relies on that
| revenue stream?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| The article says the $1600 PC has "double the graphical
| power".
|
| Consoles are certainly a good deal at the low end of
| gaming. If you want high framerates and resolution they
| won't do it for you.
| threeseed wrote:
| 4K and 120Hz are available on a number of games at least
| on PS5.
|
| Most people don't have TVs that can go any higher.
| dijit wrote:
| People buying consoles are not buying them for epic
| frame-rates or 8k resolutions..
|
| I bought my console because I absolutely despise Windows,
| and despite being a gamedev myself I cannot convince
| other gamedevs to work as linux for a target.
|
| Even then, the amount of effort fighting my operating
| system and the spotty support you would get (even on
| windows) is troubling.. because PC's generally are
| running a complicated workload at varying degrees of
| state.
|
| I buy a console game, it's going to work and if it
| doesn't I'm going to get my money back. My time is too
| precious to waste on excessive debugging to access
| entertainment.
|
| Ironically the PS4's insane update sizes and slow storage
| adapter nearly caused me to go over to PC.. So it doesn't
| always work, admittedly.
|
| By "double the graphical power" you mean it has more
| compute units, not the clock speed, memory or bandwidth,
| which tend to be more important in my experience.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| The differences between the PS5 and an equivalent PC
| build from components account for substantial
| improvements in price/unit; your article doesn't include
| an actual price breakdown so it is difficult to call out
| exactly where the costs come from, but:
|
| - Tightly integrated motherboard, designed and built in-
| house, including the CPU, GPU (integrated to CPU), RAM
| and comms removes a bunch of middlemen, with all of their
| testing, development and integration costs (which add
| substantial overhead on a home-built PC).
|
| - Thanks to the above, thermal and power management get a
| lot easier, which reduces power and cooling costs.
|
| - Economies of scale and long life-cycle planning let you
| make large orders of parts (at Sony's scale, economies
| where the manufacturer is producing to your demand) at
| lower unit costs, including manufacturing large numbers
| of custom parts (such as the case and power supply) with
| design features that minimize cost (rather than allowing
| home assembly). I wouldn't be shocked if any given part
| for the PS-5 were getting manufactured in quantities an
| order of magnitude greater than any of the SKUs in the
| comparison PC.
| izacus wrote:
| All new consoles are sold with profit or breaking even so I
| don't know where this assertion even comes from.
|
| Not to mention that they happily double dip by taxing for
| games, charging online service subscriptions and getting
| extra revenue via online stores.
| ksec wrote:
| > _Double Dip_.
|
| So now earning profits on hardware and charging for
| software or services are double dipping?
|
| I really hate the Apple used this term and it is now
| spreading everywhere.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The PS5 hardware is already profitable (well, the more
| expensive one at least). Well, it was before the inflation
| ramped up at least. But still, even if sideloading was
| possible on the PS5, PlayStation Store revenue would not dip
| down to nothingness.
|
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ps5-turning-profit-
| sony...
| threeseed wrote:
| But Playstation Store revenue would be decimated by piracy.
|
| This isn't conjecture we know for a fact it will happen as
| we see on PCs.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| It might kill off consoles entirely tbh
| izacus wrote:
| Not even close.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| If they don't get a cut of third party game revenue then
| making a console is a huge, risky investment for what? The
| opportunity to sell first party games to a smaller
| audience?
| wccrawford wrote:
| It would certainly fundamentally change their business model.
|
| XBox already seems to be changing, though, with the majority
| of their games also on PC and even supporting streaming to
| mobile devices, without a console at all.
|
| I could see Playstation moving towards that model as well,
| focusing on the games rather than the hardware.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| It won't - without root piracy will still be extremely hard.
| warning26 wrote:
| I think the biggest change we would likely see is that
| classic-game-rereleases would evaporate, as it would become
| trivially easy to install emulators.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| It already is on XBox, so no.
| Jcowell wrote:
| Disagree. "Trivially easy" must be set in common sense to
| the average consumer. It must be something that they can
| do easily without any guides or tutorials. Changing my
| name on Xbox is trivially easy. This[1] is not.
|
| [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-
| apps/devki...
| caramelcustard wrote:
| Disagreeing with your disagreement. How "easy" a tech-
| related task is to accomplish is determined by the users
| skills and experience, as well as software/hardware usage
| patterns that they've learned over the years. Official
| guides/tutorials for enabling/disabling various functions
| exist for Google Play/AppStore too. Does that mean that
| one of the easiest ways to acquire apps that have ever
| existed is...not easy? Because there really isn't much
| difference between following a "how to login into my
| Apple/Google account" tutorial and "how to enable an XBox
| feature".
| samatman wrote:
| I'm 100% confident that if Apple told EU they were
| complying with the new law, with a system where you
| either have to run _only sideloaded apps_ or _only
| official App Store apps_ at any given time, but could
| reboot from one to the other, the EU would say "very
| funny, here's your fine".
| judge2020 wrote:
| There is a developer mode[0] so maybe that's their angle;
| right now nothing changes for regular apps but I can see
| a future API where banks, competitive games, etc. check
| to make sure you're not running any sideloaded code (not
| that that's a big problem, as iOS 15 is still
| unjailbroken due to the extreme advancements in the OS
| security model).
|
| 0:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/enabling-
| dev...
| Karunamon wrote:
| If you're expecting the user to follow a tutorial to do
| some thing, that thing is already a niche of a niche.
| caramelcustard wrote:
| Never knew that kitchen appliances are "a niche of a
| niche" with their instruction manuals.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Not piracy, but the loss of revenue from selling the games
| themselves.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I sure hope not. As I age, the value prop of consoles is, I
| don't have to mess with settings or diagnose problems or
| sacrifice goats to the "did this update break something"
| gods.
|
| It just works. I can just play games.
| silon42 wrote:
| This was true when consoles were offline only and games on
| physical media... I'm not investing into newer ones unless
| they can do the same.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment, but in my experience that's
| just not true. [1] The PS4 and PS5 are nice and pain
| free. The Switch even more so, because the games will run
| right off the cartridge without needing updates. They
| have available updates, but the version shipped on the
| cartridge is 100% playable.
|
| [1] With the exception of the XBox because Microsoft
| can't get their shit together.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Not really similar.
|
| Sony, MS, and Nintendo already allow games to be purchased from
| other retailers, and always have. (See, for example, Game Stop,
| Best Buy, Target, etc.) Even digital downloads can be purchased
| from other retailers (i.e., Amazon).
|
| Thus, their in-console storefronts are just one of several
| options that players can use to purchase games.
|
| In contrast, the only way to get iPhone apps is through the App
| Store. No side-loading, third party stores, etc.
| criddell wrote:
| Sony gets a cut of every new PS5 game sold through all those
| third party vendors.
|
| Do you think the same setup on the iPhone would satisfy
| regulators? Roughly, this would mean Epic (for example),
| could set up an app store but every program they sell would
| have to be signed by Apple and Apple would probably still get
| their 15-30% fee.
|
| If the regulators are fair, then soon you will be able to
| write a PS5 or iPhone game and give it to your friends to
| play.
| wmf wrote:
| That's similar to what Apple is already proposing; they
| want 25% from any payment that goes thought a third-party
| payment processor.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| No, it's quite different. With the consoles, publishers
| are paying for the right to use the console maker's
| commercial IP (i.e., the Playstation or Xbox logo on
| their marketing materials) and technical IP (access to
| software APIs for using the hardware functionality). They
| do not pay royalties to the console makers for each sale.
| (Source: I work for a video game company and deal with
| these contracts...)
|
| Quite importantly, publishers don't have to pay the
| console makers if they want to (a) reverse engineer the
| console firmware so they can make use of the hardware (b)
| don't use the console maker's IP in their marketing
| materials (see Sega v. Accord, still good law), and (c)
| sell through retailers other than the console storefront.
| However, consoles are now complex enough that reverse
| engineering would take longer than the commercial life of
| the console, so it's cheaper and quicker to just pay the
| console maker the platform fee.
|
| With Apple, you aren't allowed to use their commercial IP
| for marketing your app, period, but you can use the APIs
| without paying for inhouse apps. However, there are no
| alternative marketplaces for apps; even in-house apps
| must go through the AppStore.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Quite importantly, publishers don't have to pay the
| console makers if they want to (a) reverse engineer the
| console firmware so they can make use of the hardware (b)
| don't use the console maker's IP in their marketing
| materials (see Sega v. Accord, still good law), and (c)
| sell through retailers other than the console storefront.
|
| Don't modern consoles all have signature verification?
| You would still need the company's blessing to even allow
| your game to be executed on any end user's system no
| matter how that executable was produced, right?
| criddell wrote:
| Is it as easy for a developer to release PS5 software as
| it is to release iOS software?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| That's not relevant to this discussion, because the
| choice is (a) recreate everything yourself from scratch
| vs (b) pay monopolistic rates because there are no
| alternatives.
|
| But on that note, a common refrain of iOS developers is
| what a PITA it is to make apps for iOS given the inferior
| quality of Apple devtools. Meanwhile, developers
| generally praise the ease of programming for the PS5.
| criddell wrote:
| Of course it's relevant because this discussion is about
| removing app store restrictions from consumer devices.
|
| You're saying there are lots of places for developers to
| sell PS5 software but that's irrelevant if you still need
| Sony's blessing and have to pay Sony some type of fee.
| From a distribution perspective, PS5 developers are not
| better off than iOS developers. There's no way, AFAIK,
| for a developer to release a title on either platform
| without jumping through hoops.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| From the perspective of a game developer that distinction is
| irrelevant. They still need the final blessing of
| Sony/Nintendo/MS in order for their games to run on end
| user's consoles.
| AltruisticGapHN wrote:
| I think there are good intentions behind it, but it also misses
| the mark by targeting big tech specifically.
|
| The good that could have come of it, is a sort of open sourcing
| of tech companies... but of course none of that is going to
| happen.
|
| Yet we have standards; like USB-C which are a good thing.
| Question is who should enforce creating more standards (to
| address eg the interoperability of the messaging apps cited in
| the article).
|
| The big issue I see here is it is completely unfair to Apple
| because Apple is really in a league of its own. It's very
| essence, what makes Apple.. Apple.. is that they create BOTH the
| hardware and software. When I buy a Mac Mini, or an iPad I buy
| the whole package, that is the value of it...
|
| It's like the EU telling Apple they know better how to design
| products and that Apple should redefine themselves as a company..
| yet.. by finetuning and crafting software for their platforms
| Apple offers a user experience that is simply the best.
|
| What the EU should have done instead is try to force big tech to
| work together?
|
| I don't know how to feel about this but as a European I'm tired
| of being a peasant... and this is going to set us back even more.
| :/
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Unfortunately Apple, although creating technically excellent
| products[0] is a very bad player as far as the environment is
| concerned. In particular, they insistence on thinness and
| related design choices (gluing everything together) makes the
| shelf life of their products relatively short. This is wrong no
| matter how you look at it. I have no problem with paying
| premium, I have a problem with the fact that my MacBook Pro
| from 2019 upgrades my main tool (Xcode) for a few hours, just
| because it is a 128GB model - supposedly the most popular one.
| I mean, it has "Pro" in the name, why does it behave like a
| toy? Why can't I replace the tiny 128GB drive with a 2TB one I
| just bought from Samsung? Because Apple decided I can't.
|
| It wasn't always this way. Before the thinness craze, I think
| around 2013, you could freely replace your memory and disks -
| and I still have several of these machines beefed up.
|
| [0] Most of the time - let's ignore little fucups everybody
| makes from time to time
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Hmm, I mean I wish we'd still be in the 1990's with user-
| replaceable RAM, batteries, CPUs/GPUs and all, but I don't
| know that Apple specifically is a "very bad" player in terms
| of longevity and sustainability. The updates you get on iOS
| devices for years on end (up to 10!) is notably unheard of in
| Android land. In fact, I'm using my original iPad Mini (from
| 2013 or so) still without probs, and have installed games on
| it as recently as a couple months ago; and so do I run a four
| year old iPhone 6s that's doing just fine with up-to-date
| essential apps for banking, auth, CoVid contract tracing
| (until a couple of months ago when we still needed those),
| etc. Likewise, Apple notebooks have _way_ better value
| retention /resale value, not to speak of battery power,
| display and overall quality. Whereas the Dell and Lenovo
| (Thinkpad, Latitude/Precision so comparable in price)
| notebooks I've received recently for customer project work
| have OOTB battery and other failures (I'm actually on my
| third or fourth Dell/Lenovo notebook within a little over
| half a year), to the point that I'm refusing to buy PC
| hardware as it is because it's just laughably last-gen
| compared to Apple, and sometimes not even that, it's not even
| funny anmore.
| blablablub wrote:
| A lot of talk about the Apple tax of 30%. But who is actually
| paying the vat of the purchase price? The developer or apple? If
| it is Apple, then with VAT rates of ~20% in the EU, a 30% cut all
| of a sudden does not sound so unreasonable.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Sounds like a security nightmare. The reason I like my iPhone is
| because it's a walled garden. Things just work. This regulation
| hampers this
| oneoff786 wrote:
| You don't need to leave the walled garden
| mantas wrote:
| Wait till must-have apps go for 3rd party stores and exploit
| that to no end. E.g. banking, transit, parking etc.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Can you point to examples where that has happened on
| Android (a comparable platform that has allowed sideloading
| since its inception)?
| mantas wrote:
| Android / Google App Store is much more lax, isn't it?
| tchocky wrote:
| Not really. It can still be a walled garden if there is an opt
| out option, so you can still be able to be inside it but with
| the option to go out of it and be able to sideload/use
| different app stores. Also the Apple app store will definitely
| still be the main source as people usually don't switch that
| easily for almost no benefit. No one will force you use a
| different app store as well.
| mantas wrote:
| What if super popular apps launch their own stores?
| [deleted]
| obblekk wrote:
| I generally believe Apple, Google and others should be able to
| profit from creating some of the most useful, innovative and
| technically challenging products in human history (remember multi
| touch was not an affordable thing before Apple).
|
| But, 15 years (since original iPhone) is about enough to reward
| the innovation. Beyond that point, it is the role of government
| to open up platforms to enable the next generation of competition
| and creation, otherwise things start to get stagnant.
|
| That said, there aren't a ton of things left that can't be done
| without Apple approval (or rather, tons of things but not tons of
| value being blocked). Free speech seems like the big one and I do
| think it's good for that to be officially supported (and require
| court orders to block rather than Apple/Google orders).
|
| I would be a bit worried about the the ability of the EU to
| regulate privacy as swiftly and effectively as Apple. If I go to
| a clinic, they ask me to side load an app while I'm sick, and
| that app has no real privacy protections...
|
| Probably on balance, this will be good for free society, and come
| with the natural knock on effect of more freedom to harm yourself
| as well.
| wvenable wrote:
| > If I go to a clinic, they ask me to side load an app while
| I'm sick, and that app has no real privacy protections...
|
| What privacy protections do you get from getting that same app
| from the app store?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > If I go to a clinic, they ask me to side load an app while
| I'm sick, and that app has no real privacy protections...
|
| That behavior should _also_ be regulated, because the app is
| collecting medical information.
|
| I'd much rather the government regulate this than some self-
| interested tech company which promotes privacy if and when it's
| financially expedient for them.
| cmdli wrote:
| Will that be regulated, though? It looks to me like the EU is
| just taking steps to give companies freedom (by allowing
| sideloading) but no steps to regulate that freedom (by
| enshrining app privacy into law).
| yulaow wrote:
| PII is already heavily regulated in eu and harmonized since
| years, most eu nations have even more stringent laws on
| medical and sexual pii data
| amelius wrote:
| The problem with these big companies is that they tend to
| produce useful stuff for the _average_ consumer only. But if
| they were broken up into smaller companies that created stuff
| that other businesses can use to build more products, I think
| we would have a more modular economy with far more choice than
| the current duopoly offers.
| jahewson wrote:
| If you're producing consumer devices you need scale. Huge
| scale. Niece companies catering to specific audiences sounds
| great but without scale, the prices would be an order of
| magnitude higher than you're used to paying. Modularity
| itself is costly as integration is one of the main factors
| driving down consumer devise prices.
| jahewson wrote:
| > Beyond that point, it is the role of government to open up
| platforms to enable the next generation of competition and
| creation, otherwise things start to get stagnant.
|
| No this is _not_ the role of government. Anyone is free to
| compete with Apple. Go do it.
| s1k3s wrote:
| I can't make up my mind if this is good or bad. On one hand,
| FAANG has a huge advantage over anyone else on the market, but
| they did build that product and they did spend their own money to
| do it.
|
| I'd be curious if there are any other occurrences in history of
| something so big ending up regulated by the government?
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| I think it is most similar to the Hollywood anti-trust case of
| 1948[0]. Back then movie theaters were owned by studios, and
| therefore they would only book movies to their own theaters.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-
| trust_Case_of_1...
| s1k3s wrote:
| Excellent read. This is why I'm here. Thanks!
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Apple has benefited fabulously for well over a decade. And I'm
| sure the EU will remain a profitable market even with these
| regulations in place.
|
| With these changes, Apple will go from being one of the richest
| companies in the world to... still one of the richest companies
| in the world.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Yes sir, I get that. My point was they're there for a reason.
| They must be doing something right.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| The point I'm making is that the argument "Well they built
| it, shouldn't they benefit" would make sense if these
| regulations posed any sort of existential threat to their
| success. But Apple is already so entrenched that regulation
| like this won't. The "doing something you right" you speak
| of is apple making a great product, and they can make a
| great product without their monopolistic practices.
|
| Furthermore, I don't think these regulations apply to
| new/non-entrenched players either, so I don't think they
| will stifle innovation.
| simion314 wrote:
| Microsoft was forced to create open standards for documents,
| the docx format.
| jahewson wrote:
| Not exactly - they were forced to publish the documentation
| for the binary formats, e.g. .doc publicly, without requiring
| royalties and with a covenant not to sue over use of any
| patents necessary for implementation. Previously the
| documentation was available to licensed 3rd parties only.
| OOXML is a subsequent creation.
| simion314 wrote:
| Thanks for the correction. So MS could have decided to
| leave EU if they did not want to accept interoperability.
| So the Apple fans have a study case here where a giant was
| forced to open up and nothing bad happened to the users,
| even good stuff like I can tell people that some project of
| mine can import from Word if they use the docx format.
| izacus wrote:
| Market competition is pretty much the only thing that keeps
| capitalism in check and benefits people. Without it, it breaks
| in such a horrible manner that it almost degenerates into
| feudalism with corporations replacing aristocracy.
|
| And moves like this are way overdue to kinda brings us back in
| balance where we (as users, consumers) actually can again mix
| and match products that compete for our choice and aren't just
| chosen because we're forced into using a certain corporations
| whole ecosystem due to some unrelated wishes.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Power companies, Telco companies. Oil companies, In some
| countries train companies.
|
| Sometimes this happens when services are provided by the state
| directly.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Microsoft is an earlier example of a company with theoretical
| competition but which ended up with significant intervention
| due to the practical walled garden they had created and where
| exhibiting significant monopoly powers over.
| Miraste wrote:
| And Microsoft's garden had much, much lower walls.
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Does anyone know if Shopify will be considered a gatekeeper? What
| are the qualifications for being deemed a "gatekeeper"?
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| I'm happy with this. Apple was begging for this with their
| narsistic and arrogant anti-consumer behavior.
|
| Also app store these days is pretty much ruined. Almost all new
| apps are "free" but in the end require a monthly membership or
| some other BS. Hopefully soon we can just pull apps directly from
| github releases.
| Klonoar wrote:
| ...or you could pay developers what they charge.
|
| Stop participating in a race to the bottom.
| criddell wrote:
| I'm looking forward to the consoles being forced to end some of
| their anti-consumer policies. It's about time people who buy a
| Switch or PS5 can use them for more than what Sony and Nintendo
| say they are allowed to.
| amelius wrote:
| It will be interesting to see what dark patterns Apple will come
| up with to resist this. I imagine every time you open Firefox you
| will get a popup window saying "Do you want to use Safari
| instead?"
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Google already does this in its iOS apps. When tapping a link
| in e.g. Gmail, it won't just open your default browser, but
| instead open a menu asking you to choose your default browser
| or Chrome. It has a "remember this choice" toggle but it
| shouldn't be there at all... just obey the OS default browser
| setting.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| FWIW, Google apps also ignore the default browser setting on
| Android in favor of their embedded Chrome instance, and
| consistently "conveniently reset" the internal setting that
| would make it use the default browser.
| concinds wrote:
| That's good. Choosing a default iOS browser is completely
| undiscoverable to average users, and unlike on Mac, can't be
| done within the browser itself.
|
| Try installing Chrome/Brave/Edge on iOS. They'll suggest
| setting them as default, and kick you to the Settings app.
| It's supposed to bring you to the Chrome/Brave/Edge app
| settings within Settings.app, where you can set the default
| browser; but 50% of the time, it'll fail, and will just open
| the Settings app without bringing you to your browser
| settings (you'll just be staring at whatever you were last
| doing in Settings.app, whether that's iCloud settings, manage
| storage, whatever you were last looking at). That bug has
| been there literally since Apple introduced default browser
| settings on iOS; maintaining it is clearly deliberate.
|
| It would be great if Apple built an identical menu to
| Google's into iOS when it detects multiple browsers are
| installed, and let users easily choose their default browser.
| Even better would be Windows XP-style "browser choice".
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| It's bad because it means that the moment that third party
| engines are allowed on iOS, Google apps are going to be
| strongly accelerating Blink/Chrome hegemony. Apple should
| be required to fix problems with the default browser
| settings pane while Google should be barred from promoting
| or favoring Chrome with its other apps and services.
| concinds wrote:
| > Google apps are going to be strongly accelerating
| Blink/Chrome hegemony
|
| Because they give the user choice?
|
| Again, this isn't just a problem with the "default
| browser settings pane". The first time an iOS user clicks
| a link, the OS should give them a list of all major
| browsers (like Windows XP was forced to by the EU) so
| that no browser is favored over another. That would be
| fair.
|
| Google's browser menu isn't a response to Apple's unfair
| default browser setting practices, but to Apple bundling
| Safari with iOS and unfairly advantaging it. Platform
| owners' browsers should ideally not be inherently
| favored, regardless of the platform's marketshare.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| If they're pushing a browser that the user doesn't have
| installed, it's more than giving the user choice, it's
| blatant cross-promotion.
|
| As I said, the UI iOS provides should be fixed (including
| a selector when the user taps a link) but at the same
| time, Google should not be able to use the install base
| of its various other apps to bolster adoption of Chrome.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Worse they don't open the link in safari. Instead it's a view
| in the gmail app so they can continue tracking your
| engagement.
| SSLy wrote:
| Facebook with all their apps and discord are guilty of this
| too
| criddell wrote:
| But the view _is_ Safari, isn 't it?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| I just checked and yes, the "Safari" option pushes an
| SFSafariViewController onto the navigation stack, which
| is for all intents and purposes proper Safari. Google
| cannot see anything you do in it because it's handled
| entirely out-of-process and even uses a different
| container (cookies, etc) than the main Safari browser.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Every single google search now has a modal that slides up
| from the bottom begging you to login to google. It's
| incredibly frustrating.
| tchocky wrote:
| Using different browsers and setting them as default is already
| possible in iOS. They are just forced to use WebKit as the
| rendering engine instead of Blink or Gecko.
| amelius wrote:
| True. But this "friendly stance" might change if browsers
| choose to use their own rendering engine now that the EU
| allows them to.
| izacus wrote:
| This hasn't happened on Android so your claim is pretty
| outlandish.
| Jcowell wrote:
| Android is too fragmented to having any pushing power for
| one company (other than Google and even Google's pushing
| power is low but that's due to a different matter). The
| experience too fragment , the API's too fragmented.
| iPhone's unified experience makes it easier for pushing
| power to come to play. If Facebook leaves the App Store
| and opens a new one and uses the epic games strategy to
| pull in developers, users will go there privacy be
| dammed. Privacy regulations should have came out before
| this.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Followed by "Thanks for making Safari your default browser"
| after you clicked on "Make Firefox my default".
| runako wrote:
| If app developers now will have access to the Secure Enclave, I
| sincerely hope Apple ships this as an EU-specific version of the
| hardware. I actually do like having hardware that can be (more)
| trusted, at least in some cases.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think you have a grave misunderstanding of how hardware-based
| security coprocessors work... Maybe look into how
| Windows/Android handles similar models using TPM?
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Wow, this is huge. I wonder if it will motivate Apple and Google
| to finally reduce their fees to something reasonable like 5%.
| ajaimk wrote:
| EU regulation just ruins tech in my opinion.
|
| GDPR was great in principle but all we ended up with was annoying
| cookie pop ups.
|
| Apple did a much better job with App Tracking Privacy.
|
| And not, EU so regulating that to make it worse
| lmc wrote:
| > GDPR was great in principle but all we ended up with was
| annoying cookie pop ups.
|
| Read through this list - there's more than just cookie popups:
|
| https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/
| the_duke wrote:
| The problem with GDPR is underspecification and bad enforcement
| because the agency of the country where the company is
| registered is responsible, and the fuzzy nature of the law
| allows companies to drag out fees with long legal battles.
|
| The annoying popups are basically malicious compliance.
|
| We'll see how things play out here, but this time there are a
| lot of provisions that should make enforcement easier.
| orangecat wrote:
| _The annoying popups are basically malicious compliance._
|
| Yes, and this should not have come as a surprise to competent
| regulators.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Cookie popups existed long before GDPR was even on the drawing
| board. I don't dispute that the cookie banner regulation is
| stupid, but don't twist the truth to fit your narrative. GDPR
| is a completely separate regulation.
| theplumber wrote:
| I love EU: "Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users
| the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under
| similar conditions to subscription."
| nuker wrote:
| > Share data and metrics with developers and competitors,
|
| I will quit Apple. Wait ... Google is worse ... :(
| yxhuvud wrote:
| It will be interesting to see what that refers to in
| particular. Remember we also have GDPR that restricts what data
| is allowed to be collected.
| [deleted]
| dijit wrote:
| I'm personally very happy with Safari slowing down the over-
| arching progress of "Web browsers are an application distribution
| platform", but I definitely see the value in this.
|
| I am very excited about the prospect of having federation between
| communication platforms... imagine sending messages from iMessage
| to whatsapp?! great, just like in the mid-00's!
| kmlx wrote:
| > great, just like in the mid-00's!
|
| funnily enough i was working on apps that did this back in the
| mid 00s. it was horrible. the standards simply couldn't keep
| up. the clients couldn't keep up. in the end it was better for
| the end user not use those standards and instead we rolled our
| own.
|
| could be different story today but i don't think so. just the
| video call feature would be an absolute mess to standardise.
| hell, even emojis would open up a can of worms. payments
| between contacts? contacts themselves? i fear this would end up
| being the mid 00s again.
| toyg wrote:
| _> the standards simply couldn't keep up_
|
| Or rather: developers were so up their own backsides that
| effectively refused to cooperate. Obviously you go faster if
| you don't have to talk to anyone, and everybody loves lock-
| in. Which is why this legislation is welcome.
| tchocky wrote:
| Emojis are just Unicode characters, why would it be so hard?
| 3836293648 wrote:
| That's just emoji. Think about Apple's animoji
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| There's lots of non-standard emojis used by various
| messaging apps.
| weberer wrote:
| >it was horrible. the standards simply couldn't keep up. the
| clients couldn't keep up.
|
| The best chat application I ever used was Pidgin circa 2008.
| It was so easy to be able to talk to all my friends across
| several different protocols in a single program.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Pidgin existed not because IM services provided
| interoperability but because someone wrote libgaim and
| equivalents for other protocols. Keeping those up to date
| was a massive effort.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| It was still awesome that it was possible to exist, and
| allowed to exist.
| bilsbie wrote:
| This could be huge for open source on iOS
| eqtn wrote:
| Will this enable steam to come to xbox and/or playstation?
| twoodfin wrote:
| Does anything about this legislation prevent Apple from simply
| offering a big switch to put your device in "unprotected" mode,
| giving apps and even full alternative OS's unrestricted access to
| the hardware, _but without any Apple apps or services available_?
| hoschicz wrote:
| I think essentially yes, they can't bundle all their apps and
| services; you have to be able to install their apps and
| services separately in the unprotected mode. Not very sure
| though.
| MBCook wrote:
| And Chrome now owns the web.
|
| Goodbye open web. It was a fun 30 years. Way to go EU.
| dzonga wrote:
| in as much this bring native firefox i.e gecko engines to iOS it
| will also mean innovative native apps not just on iOS since you
| won't be restricted to native apps that use apple technology ie
| Swift, UIKit etc you could totally write an app that renders
| using a game engine in Rust whatever and as long it compiles for
| the platform you're good to go. One thing though, hopefully
| sandboxing is maintained
| PhilipTrauner wrote:
| You can already do that right now (even Vulkan should work fine
| through MoltenVk), although accessibility will be poor when
| compared with Apple's offering unless significant effort is
| invested.
| stevenalowe wrote:
| "Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and
| sideload directly from the internet"
|
| Because security is an illusion anyway?
|
| I don't understand the hubris behind politicians dictating
| technical and/or business decisions. If you want interop so
| badly, start your own platform. You'll find maintaining its
| integrity/security an absolute unwinnable nightmare.
| mlindner wrote:
| If EU plays their hand too hard they may just end up with no
| Apple devices at all. Maybe that's their goal anyway. I wonder
| how long until the US takes them to the WTO or starts creating
| retaliatory tariffs.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Edit: It is clear that I was an idiot with this comment and my
| facts are quite wrong. Removed.
| darrenf wrote:
| > _They might choose to do so with a special version of iPhone
| that only works in the EU with EU languages and EU carrier
| bands (no English language strictly necessary because the UK
| left, remember?)..._
|
| I think Ireland (and Malta) would like a word:
|
| " _English remains an official EU language, despite the United
| Kingdom having left the EU. It remains an official and working
| language of the EU institutions as long as it is listed as such
| in Regulation No 1. English is also one of Ireland's and
| Malta's official languages._ "
|
| - quoting https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-
| countries-histor...
| cm2187 wrote:
| And in all fairness it is the only common language anyway. I
| read a study that compared the percentage of a generation in
| the EU that studied a particular foreign language that is not
| their native language in high school or university. English
| is north of 95%. The second largest are I think French and
| Spanish at around 30%. So when you have 27 nationalities in a
| room, there isn't really any other practical alternative
| right now. English is the modern latin, whatever you think of
| the US, UK or Roman empire.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| True... forgot them, my apologies to both nations.
|
| Though... Apple could just pull out of those nations...
| cm2187 wrote:
| EU senate? What senate?
|
| For a law to pass, you need the European parliament, the EU
| commission and the council, no such thing as a EU senate.
| arlort wrote:
| tbf Senate would be a better name for the Council of the EU,
| reducing by a good half the confusion when talking about
| "Council" in european politics
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I edited my comment. I apologize - I was way off on both
| points.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Well not completely off, it is true that if the commission
| and council aren't on board this bill will be stillborn.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| Well EU law starts off life as a proposal by the
| Commission, so it's virtually impossible for there to be
| a proposal passed by Parliament and _not_ have Commission
| support (unless Parliament has made significant
| amendments that the Commission does not like, although I
| 'm unaware of this ever happening).
|
| Council not agreeing is definitely a potential problem,
| but given the level of support from the Commission and
| Parliament I doubt the Council will block this.
| arlort wrote:
| Council support (for the general targets/scope) is almost
| guaranteed before a commission proposal sees the light of
| day, it might get amended and / or clash with parliament
| amendments but the fact a proposal has been made is a
| good indication some form of the law will pass
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-05 23:00 UTC)