[HN Gopher] EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals
___________________________________________________________________
EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals
Author : mmastrac
Score : 93 points
Date : 2023-09-26 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appleinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (appleinsider.com)
| ROFISH wrote:
| Good! I'm looking forward to having to uninstall a crypto miner
| on my mom's phone because it told her the only way to play a
| slots app is to allow third-party apps.
| ssklash wrote:
| The "won't someone think of my mom" argument. Somehow we get by
| just fine on x86 with arbitrary software being allowed, but for
| IOS it's unthinkable?
| kiratp wrote:
| We don't get by fine on x86. That is the whole point here. My
| non-technical family are able to make their iOS devices "just
| work" with 0 support.
| albert180 wrote:
| And everyone else does it with Android. Still Apple-Fanboys
| insist that everyone is dumb as a rock and needs to kept
| secure by Nanny Apple
| robertlagrant wrote:
| We don't get by just fine - there are lots of viruses. But it
| is much easier to install an iPhone app than a program on
| your computer, so it is definitely more likely.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| We don't "get by just fine".
|
| Computers overflowing with naively self-installed
| adware/malware is a recurring and persistent problem with
| some relatives of mine. Nothing you can say stops them from
| inadvertently doing it again, they simply lack the
| sophistication to understand, and then complaining that their
| computer is slow or doesn't work anymore. Putting these
| people on iOS is a godsend, these kinds of issues don't
| happen there.
| causi wrote:
| Why don't you set up her iphone as a managed device so you can
| stop her from doing that?
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Of all the arguments in support of Apple's prohibition against
| third party browsers, your mother's gambling addiction is the
| saddest, most bizarre, and by far the least convincing.
| crvdgc wrote:
| This sounds like a false dichotomy. It's possible to opt-in for
| a "dev" mode which gives the user more choice, but not
| implemented because of the potential profit loss.
|
| Imagine arguing against press freedom because a relative might
| fall for some disinformation.
| hedora wrote:
| I don't think there is any news here.
|
| He's saying that Apple should abide by the Digital Markets Act,
| which goes into effect in November. A summary of the changes the
| DMA will require would be nice.
| RIMR wrote:
| >A summary of the changes the DMA will require would be nice.
|
| If only there was some sort of website where you could search
| "Digital Markets Act Summary" and find more information. Too
| bad nothing like that exists on today's nascent Internet...
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| In these discussions I often see a dichotomy between freedom and
| security. At the limit it's true that if you have complete
| control over a device, you can screw it up.
|
| But you can have a lot more freedom without sacrificing security.
| For a start, you can have a web browser that supports the latest
| web APIs. For me, that would be enough, but you could also add a
| Linux VM. (Then you would have ChromeOS, basically.)
| Dah00n wrote:
| Is there a better source that isn't a proud apple fan site?
| cmdli wrote:
| I, for one, do not look forward to having to sideload Facebook,
| Instagram, Google, Gmail, and every single other megacorps app
| just because they want to track my every click. I would rather
| give power to Apple than all the other companies.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I don't think that's actually going to happen -
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081
| RIMR wrote:
| I have great news for you: The hyperbolic nonsense you just
| described will literally never happen.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| If you were that concerned you'd use web version of all of the
| above.
|
| Would be nice if Apple required you to have a functional web
| app before installing app. I.E.FB Messenger - the only reason
| why it doesn't work on mobile browser is so that FB can track
| you more via their App.
| frizlab wrote:
| Same here. Side loading will open the door to a whole new
| category of malware/adware/crapware. Yes of course the App
| Store is not perfect but at least Apple has control over it and
| can stop things when they are degenerating. I'm not looking
| forward to a new Facebook VPN that will "enhance my phone,"
| available through side loading only, that I will of course
| never install but which my grandma or another unsuspecting
| entity would...
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Meta is already in the regulators' sights. Data harvesting is
| not something the EU is blind to. Presumably there would be
| injunctions made against them from so easily pied pipering
| users into doing that. Not to mention, most users do not want
| to have to jump through more hoops just to have the same old
| FB/IG/WhatsApp experience. They'd balk.
| jansommer wrote:
| We can sideload apps on Android, but those apps are all on the
| Play Store, which actually gives them more tracking
| capabilities, because it's hard to block stuff using Play API's
| grishka wrote:
| A good solution to apps wanting to track your every click is
| not organizational but technical. Just don't give them APIs for
| reliable cross-app tracking. That advertising ID? It simply
| _does not need to exist at all_. Same for all the attribution
| bullshit.
|
| Besides, sideloading enables installation of modded apps giving
| users more choice.
| catiopatio wrote:
| The advertising ID gives users and Apple control over
| tracking _when also coupled with AppStore policy that
| disallows improper use._
|
| It's impossible to prevent fingerprinting of users and
| devices via purely technical measures -- taking away the
| advertising ID won't help.
| Condition1952 wrote:
| I'm looking forward to downloading free and open source
| software from f-droid.
|
| I don't care about gmail because I don't use it
| wizofaus wrote:
| Will this include the ability to compile apps for iOS without
| requiring Apple made hardware/software (that specifically must
| run on MacOS)? Have never understood why developers haven't
| kicked up more of a fuss over that restriction, but it's why I
| would never write iOS apps as a hobby.
| RIMR wrote:
| From my reading of the DMA, I would suspect that gatekeeping
| software development only to users who pay for Apple's hardware
| and software licenses would not be allowed. I imagine they can
| still keep things locked down, but they will have to include a
| way to turn off their restrictions so that people can run
| software without their gatekeeping.
|
| I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to continue
| prioritizing security and keeping things locked down, but the
| end user deserves to have a key that can unlock things if they
| want them unlocked.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| No. I don't think tooling is included in this.
|
| I assume many people are hard at work to get a free version of
| something like the xcode build system stood up. It's mostly
| there already, but I haven't seen anyone put the parts all
| together in a way you can self-host.
|
| I think iOS hobbyists these days usually use a SASS build
| system with a free or cheap lower tier.
| catiopatio wrote:
| > Have never understood why developers haven't kicked up more
| of a fuss over that restriction
|
| It's an innate limitation, not an arbitrary restriction.
|
| Should Apple really be forced to port their tooling -- and the
| entire, massive software stack it's based on -- to other
| platforms?
|
| I assume most developers targeting Apple's platforms don't kick
| up a fuss because they're happy running macOS.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I think this is a warning shot. It'll be a while until EU
| actually files a case, and more time until it's adjudicated. And
| then Apple will fight it tooth and nail. Do not hold your breath.
|
| "Open everything up" -- pretty vague.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| I have never owned an iPhone and even I find this a very bad
| idea. A lot of people buy iPhones because they prefer the choices
| made by Apple. If there were secondary AppStores, you would have
| a Metastore and a Googlestore very quickly, since Whatsapp and
| Google Maps have become indispensable for large parts of the
| world. You don't even have to take them off Apple store, but make
| newest features custom store only. The amount of money to be made
| by precisely targeted advertising by ignoring Apple's rules is
| immense.
|
| Sure Apple is not as open as Google, and neither is as open as
| Arch Linux, but that doesn't have to be the best solution for
| every product. Phones are too personal and loaded with tons of
| personal data. Opening everything to it's rivals is just another
| phrase that consumer data is now in a free for all, a 21st
| century gold rush, just offer few bucks/conveniences that are
| hard to ignore and by the time you blink your entire social group
| is on 5 custom stores.
| RIMR wrote:
| Nobody is forcing anyone to use third-party app stores. The EU
| is just forcing Apple not to engage in anti-competitive
| practices.
|
| If you want the security of an all-Apple ecosystem, you will
| still be free to do so. If I want the freedom to install
| whatever I want to my iPhone, I will be free to do so.
|
| Nobody is trying to take away your right to use your phone as
| you want, they are trying to grant you the right to use your
| phone as you want.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Yes, nobody wanted virues/malware on Windows, and nobody was
| forced to install them. We all know how it went.
|
| If people didn't want malware, they were free to read
| carefully and not click on untrusted files/links.
|
| What if you want the freedom to install whatever you want on
| your gaming console? What about your Printer? Your watch?
| Your car infotainment system? The list is endless.
|
| Consumer choice is off course being taken away here, for good
| or bad I am not sure. But to pretend as if it's not is wrong.
| Apps like Whatsapp are such must haves that their mere extra
| features on a diff store will propel that store to stardom.
| spullara wrote:
| I for one look forward to there being a franken iphone in EU
| covered with ads and malware. Apple should give them exactly what
| they want. Every major software company will have their own app
| store for their apps. It will be glorius!
| andersa wrote:
| Protections against malware are the job of the operating system
| not an app store.
|
| And I don't understand the point about ads. The vast majority
| of apps currently available on the app store is already
| plastered with ads?
| spullara wrote:
| Every app asking for every possible access to your stuff no
| matter if it needs it or not is currently protected against
| by the app store, not the OS.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| What apps are you using? Not a single one on my iPhone has
| any ads.
| fragmede wrote:
| App Store is the biggest offender, personally. At the top
| of every query is an ad.
| Tagbert wrote:
| The App Store ads are trivial and not the concern. I'm more
| concerned about the tracking that apps will be able to do
| when Apple cannot block them from installing. Hello
| FaceBook++
| colonwqbang wrote:
| This idea that without a tightly controlled monopoly enforced
| by digital locks, the world will immediately devolve into
| chaos.
|
| On my phone I can install proprietary apps from Google's store,
| or open source apps from F-droid. What's wrong with having
| choice?
| hightrix wrote:
| I agree that having a choice is absolutely important. I want
| to have a choice of a closed ecosystem, like Apple. Can we
| not have the option between open (Android) and closed
| (Apple)?
| spullara wrote:
| Apple is very far from a monopoly in EU:
|
| In the first quarter of 2023, Apple obtained 26 percent of
| the European smartphone market based on shipments.
| Historically have Apple's sales been very cyclical, peaking
| in the fourth quarter each year.
| memefrog wrote:
| You have choice, the choice to buy an Android phone, already.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| gostsamo wrote:
| With all due respect, but you don't see the irony in your
| comment.
| account-5 wrote:
| Was about to say the same thing.
| [deleted]
| curiousgibbon wrote:
| The EU gets to decide their local tech market. Should apple
| stop selling phones there on principle?
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Extraterritoriality? If you sell something in the EU (or Asia,
| or Australia etc) you have to abide by their laws. Just because
| the company is headquartered somewhere else doesn't absolve
| them of that
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I agree that the EU has no buisness telling US what to do or
| vice versa. But we can regulate our market as we see fit.
|
| So Apple can just withdraw if they don't like the local rules.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Good! This is the kind of anti-trust action we need to see and
| focus on.
| mungoman2 wrote:
| Everything? I don't understand from this article or it's links
| what this is actually about.
| pera wrote:
| This is the actual quote from Breton, EU Commissioner for
| Internal Market:
|
| > _The next job for Apple and other Big Tech, under the DMA
| (Digital Markets Act) is to open up its gates to competitors,
| be it the electronic wallet, browsers or app stores, consumers
| using an Apple iPhone should be able to benefit from
| competitive services by a range of providers_
| smithcoin wrote:
| I for one am excited at the prospect that I might be able to
| install Firefox with ublock origin on my iPhone.
| astrange wrote:
| You won't, because once Chrome becomes available it will kill
| every other browser vendor.
| mattnewton wrote:
| how? I can still install Firefox on desktop and android
| despite chrome's dominance.
| Tagbert wrote:
| What is the user base of Firefox now? Single digits, last I
| hear. Chrome just keeps growing. Once iOS no longer uses
| WebKit as it's base, the Chrome Blink will dominate.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| So what? That does not affect those of us using Firefox.
| astrange wrote:
| You don't know how many websites you're using do totally
| different things under an if (Chrome) though, or will in
| the future.
| paxys wrote:
| Chrome is available (and dominant) on desktop yet Firefox and
| a dozen other alternatives are doing just fine. There's no
| reason why it shouldn't be the same on iOS.
| astrange wrote:
| Mobile is large enough to keep desktop working too.
|
| Firefox really isn't doing just fine, though Google might
| decide to keep them alive through browser payments just to
| not look like a monopoly.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| According to StatCounter Firefox's market share of all
| browsers is 2.93% followed closely by Samsung Internet(?)
| 2.59% and Opera 2.26%
|
| I wouldn't call that "just fine".
|
| If not for Safari (18.84% market share) Google could just
| dictate what happens on the Internet, because Chrome-based
| browsers would be the de facto standard.
|
| The only reason sites still bother to support non-Chrome
| browsers is the fact that people on iOS monetise REALLY
| well compared to other segments.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > people on iOS monetise REALLY well compared to other
| segments
|
| And therein lies the motivation to "open up" Apple's
| ecosystem, people just can't stand looking at all those
| dollar signs without being able to get their hands on
| them any way possible.
|
| "So Apple just gets exclusive access to their users'
| money?!?" Well, they are the ones that built and maintain
| the ecosystem. Everyone else just wants to get in there
| and extract wealth like slash-and-burn rainforest
| developers or strip-miners.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| While I agree that Firefox probably is nowhere close to
| Chrome in terms of market share, StatCounter isn't a
| great source of information here. StatCounter works
| through trackers, which are blocked by default on common
| Firefox installs.
|
| Sites work well in practically every browser because
| we're not living in 2005 anymore. Some missing APIs are
| broken, but how often do you really need WebSerial on
| your phone.
| pretext-1 wrote:
| I believe Safari will improve though. Currently Apple has
| little incentive to put more money into Safari because
| there's no competition. Once they have to open up iOS to
| competition, they'll spent more money on Safari to stay
| competitive. The web is still an important platform they
| cannot just ignore. And they have the resources and the know
| how, so they have a good chance of succeeding. And they will
| still be the native and default choice (even with browser
| choice), so they will also have that advantage still.
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple invests a lot into Safari today.
|
| The reason you don't think so is because you are likely
| equating developer features with investment. But actually
| Apple just has different priorities which are security,
| privacy and battery life. They aren't trying to push more
| pro-advertising features like Google is or turn the browser
| into an operating system.
|
| It is delusional to think that if Chrome becomes more
| popular that they are suddenly going to abandon their
| values.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Their priority is to do what sells and that's very little
| when they have monopoly power at their disposal.
| redder23 wrote:
| Maybe not surprising but if you read the comments on the website
| there seems to be only Apple fanboys commenting who are butt-hurt
| about it. You can not make this up, consumers who root for a
| monopoly.
|
| This reminds me of gamers who hate the Epic Games Store with
| passion even though they give the actual devs of the games a
| bigger cut.
|
| Competition is always good for the consumers. And I get the
| security part when it comes to Apple BUT it does not justify that
| they take a cut of 30% from every dev, its basically a money
| printing machine they do not deserve AT ALL. The same for Valve,
| they only take 30% because they can, not because they provide any
| value for it. All the do it provide some servers for distribution
| and a discussion forum, that hardy costs 30% of a games profits.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > if you read the comments on the website there seems to be
| only Apple fanboys commenting who are butt-hurt about it
|
| It makes sense, though: Apple is all about making things easier
| for the user at the expense of third party developers. Users
| don't need to deal with app reviewers denying bugfixes because
| they used the demo credentials on the wrong app, they can just
| be mad at apps for being buggy. Banks all around the world are
| paying a secret Apple tax to let Apple users pay with iPay or
| whatever it's called.
|
| I think the situation with Valve is different. Valve has
| competition and has had competition before; game launchers on
| Windows (and Linux, I suppose) are perfectly viable, it's just
| that none of their competition put any effort into making their
| game launchers as good as Valve's.
|
| I think Apple should be able to charge whatever percentages
| they want, as long as you can install alternative app stores.
| If their customers accept the higher app prices in exchange for
| Apple's convenience features, the percentages are perfectly
| fair.
| andersa wrote:
| Good. It's high time to end these gigacorps trying to place an
| unnecessary toll booth in front of entire markets.
| barelysapient wrote:
| I guess iPhone will soon be as awesome and open as Android!
| mardifoufs wrote:
| If anything, it's android that is turning into a more closed
| and restricted environment.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| as long as the first party iOS experience is still solid, I
| don't care. If apple has to prevent updates / services to 1p
| services because 3p cannot keep up, then I'd be pretty
| incensed. There is a reason i left android last year!
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I doubt it can be if more apps are allowed. E.g. allowing one
| browser means they can control very tightly the performance
| characteristics of it and any other apps that use its
| renderer. If third party browsers are allowed then it's much
| harder to do that.
|
| I know Android does it, but Android's got many years of
| experience doing it, and it's generally not as smooth as iOS.
| Dah00n wrote:
| Apple would likely rather delete the code and stop releasing
| phones than do that.
| account-5 wrote:
| About time. Never understood how apple seemed immune to this when
| the likes of Google and Microsoft were targeted for their
| monopolistic behaviour.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Microsoft controlled >90% of the entire desktop computing
| market when they ran into anti-trust issues with the EU. I
| suppose I'm not old enough to remember, but I don't recall the
| argument at the time being "They control 100% of the Windows
| market". Perhaps it was?
|
| Comparatively, it looks like Apple has marketshare in the EU is
| somewhere between 25 and 40% of the mobile phone market,
| depending on your source.
| ghusto wrote:
| > "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was?
|
| Kind of. The argument was that since they controlled 100% of
| Windows, and "coerced" people into using IE (and "coerced" is
| a kind way of putting it), and Windows was 90% of the desktop
| market, that shit was bad for everyone.
|
| 40% of the mobile market is significant, when you consider
| that the other 60% isn't held by a single company.
| musictubes wrote:
| Google and Microsoft got into trouble because they used their
| dominance in services and OS to strong arm manufacturers to
| only use their stuff. They used their clout to hurt
| competition.
|
| Apple does very little of this IMO. No one is forced to use
| Apple equipment and no one is forced to work with them. It is
| trivially easy to avoid Apple either as a consumer or
| developer. If you don't think you can make enough money
| publishing to the App Store then you can code for some other
| purpose. If you want a phone that allows apps that Apple
| doesn't allow you can get an Android.
|
| I do not understand the argument that Apple has to sell devices
| that work the way you want them to. There is no false
| advertising, nobody is getting fooled, and nobody is being
| forced to work with Apple or pursue their customers. Apple has
| made a very popular system, why do so many people feel entitled
| to change what they do?
| evilduck wrote:
| Because Apple holds no monopolies unless you trivialize the
| definition to include virtually everything.
| kwanbix wrote:
| Doesn't Apple hold a monopoly on the iPhone/iPad ecosystem?
|
| Why am I not allowed to install Firefox or Chrome (real
| Firefox or Chrome)?
| evilduck wrote:
| Yes. But this is trivializing the definition of monopoly I
| just warned against.
|
| What can't be construed with this logic?
|
| Verizon holds a monopoly on the devices they allow on the
| Verizon network. Wal-Mart holds a monopoly on the products
| they allow on their retail floor space. Xbox holds a
| monopoly on their game compatibility. McDonalds holds a
| monopoly on selling burgers inside McDonalds. You can
| define these trivial "micromonopolies" on literally
| everything you want. Which is why courts have never
| punished any company for this nonsense line of reasoning,
| especially when it's on a company that holds no actual
| "macromonopoly", and monopolies by virtue of existing
| aren't illegal anyways.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Not anymore than Honda or Ford hold a monopoly on their
| cars...
| Barrin92 wrote:
| the monopoly car companies have on their cars is one of
| the ways they fleece consumers. It's why they have
| pricing power on repairs, can charge whatever they want
| for their self driving solutions etc. There's a reason
| why almost all of them are trying to turn their cars from
| mechanical vehicles into glorified software/service
| platforms, it's a way to lock people in.
|
| In a world where hardware and software is open and
| interoperable and you can say, buy a self driving
| solution from any vendor (which is essentially what comma
| does in a hacky way), consumers benefit. Same is true for
| phones or laptops.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Fine then apply rules equally, I want to be able to use
| Nissan parts in my BMW and play Xbox and Steam games on
| my PlayStation...
|
| There are advantages to having a walled garden and I
| would want to have some assurance that I would be able to
| block side loading and that it would never be applied
| without it being clearly and constantly visible to the
| user. I also want to be sure that no 3rd party can compel
| me to install their own App Store to get their app which
| is a quite possible and likely scenario due to the DMA.
| arp242 wrote:
| But after I bought a Honda or Ford I can do with it what
| I want and install whatever aftermarket stuff I want.
| Ford makes no pretence to have an exhaustive whitelist
| what I can do with my car, whereas Apple does.
|
| (In recent years some of the electronics might be locked
| down, or I wouldn't be surprised if they are, but this is
| also criticized and the reason things like right-to-
| repair laws have been proposed and in some cases
| enacted.)
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I mean didn't we already rule that as true? That's why
| there are so many laws forcing the manufacturers to
| produce and sell parts for N year, allow third party
| repairs shops, etc.
|
| Like of all things to pick cars are literally a place
| this has played out where Apple would be in the wrong.
| memefrog wrote:
| [dead]
| treyd wrote:
| Virtually every consumer tech product sector is a segmented
| monopoly.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| I'm still waiting for the DMA to apply to Xbox, Playstation and
| Nintendo Switch.
|
| If Apple is forced to allow third party stores, I can't fathom
| a reason why Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo wouldn't have to do
| the same.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been
| repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is
| even worse (if Apple didn't get a cut, would they be as willing
| to push the increasingly ad-infested google search?)
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Google's thing is just a default, no? Consumers can change
| it?
| colonwqbang wrote:
| Yes it is, so it isn't really comparable to what Apple is
| doing.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Apple is doing it. Google is paying Apple to set a
| default.
| 728ee0f3 wrote:
| but most dont
| threeseed wrote:
| Except this has all played out before.
|
| Consumers do what they are told to do. If a website says
| install this app in order to use it they will. If an app
| says approve this permission to use this app they will.
|
| And so you will inevitably end up with websites that only
| support Chrome which will increase its market share up
| until the point it is an IE style monopoly. And aspects
| like the cost of testing apps/sites on multiple diverging
| browsers will further entrench this monopoly.
|
| People go on about how this is great for competition as
| they can finally install Firefox etc. No. This is going to
| cement Google's control over the browser market and wipe
| out third party browsers like Firefox for good.
|
| And then we will end up with pro-advertising features that
| are built into the browser that you can't block.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Sorry - I don't see how this relates to Google paying
| Apple to be the default search engine.
| nostromo wrote:
| Because Apple isn't a monopoly.
| camdenlock wrote:
| Why is the EU so arrogantly, hand-wringingly, mustache-twirlingly
| evil? It sometimes feels like some kind of comical LARP.
| Jensson wrote:
| Stopping anti-competitive practices is one of the least evil
| thing you can do.
| froggertoaster wrote:
| [flagged]
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It's kinda noticeable when that happens but it also makes sense
| that a lot of people will individually read the article and
| post similar sentiments at similar times, even all within 3
| minutes. If they were all green names there's probably a point
| but it's another matter to think that some anti-Apple
| organization is just sitting on these accounts for years
| waiting for their moment to strike.
| andersa wrote:
| It just shows you how important of an issue this is.
| thund wrote:
| yes, I want to install My apps, eg developed by me, on My
| devices, and have full access to all hardware feats, without fake
| obstacles and limitations
| rahkiin wrote:
| I also want to be able to reprogram my oven and washing machine.
| And also my car. I should be able to run any app on my
| infotainment system, not just those from the manufacturer.
|
| Less tongue in cheek: let me install any game I want from any
| game store on Xbox and Playstation and Switch. I do not
| understand why this only focuses on Apple. Is that just the media
| for clicks?
| nunez wrote:
| Fucking good.
|
| It's bullshit that you can only run Safari on iOS or that the App
| Store is the only store you can use.
|
| Yes, I understand the security implications of a third-party
| browser having deeper integrations into the OS and potential
| battery life concerns.
|
| I also don't care.
|
| I want to run Firefox on my phone. The actual thing. With
| containers and extensions. Let Safari compete on the merits.
|
| I want the choice of being able to pay for a great app or use its
| "good enough" open source equivalent outside of the App Store.
|
| iOS is a fantastic operating system. iPhone and iPad are stellar
| hardware with brilliant physical UX. Apple Watch is leagues
| beyond anything else in its class. I will keep buying Apple stuff
| until I can't anymore.
|
| But a monopoly on core system functions isn't necessary to keep
| that high bar high.
| quickco wrote:
| > iOS is a fantastic operating system. iPhone and iPad are
| stellar hardware with brilliant physical UX. Apple Watch is
| leagues beyond anything else in its class. I will keep buying
| Apple stuff until I can't anymore.
|
| People want Apple's quality, reliability and performance, but
| also want no restrictions so they can run any app and install
| anything.
|
| Those things aren't compatible.
|
| E.g., Windows and Linux (Desktop distros) don't have many
| restrictions. But they can be unreliable.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's mostly a matter of how much you can throw at it in terms
| of resources. If there was a five dollar charge for every
| Linux kernel running you could have all of those and you'd
| probably still have cash left over.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| I guess you either are unaware or have an outdated device. I
| have Brave set to the default browser on iPadOS and iOS.
|
| There was/is previously a restriction on including dynamic
| content or non UIWebView/WKWebView rendering, but I'm unaware
| of current IAS-MAS policies.
|
| You're also demanding the impossible/very difficult because
| mobile browsers don't support extensions. It's just not a
| thing.
|
| Also, Firefox is already available for iOS. If it doesn't meet
| your requirements, then it's FOSS and you're welcome to
| contribute improvements that meet your requirements.
| frizlab wrote:
| Safari on iOS does have support for extensions or am I
| missing something?
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Extensions that are less powerful and must go through App
| Store review. Which is fine, if you want that keep using
| Safari! But I'd like to run actual Firefox.
| ericmay wrote:
| Why not buy an Android device then?
|
| Once you remove these things that you want to remove, you
| wind up losing the very things that attract you to iPhone
| in the first place!
| gmhafiz wrote:
| Like the person said, the real thing. Brave and Firefox
| browsers you mention still use Safari engine underneath.
| antiterra wrote:
| If running gecko instead of webkit is one of his requirements
| then, no, he's not currently welcome to make that
| improvement.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Are you implying iOS browsers, including Firefox, are not
| mere WebKit skins?
|
| Also, mobile Firefox supports plenty of what I consider
| essentiall extensions. It's almost as if you got those things
| wrong on purpose
| rossng wrote:
| Firefox on Android does support addons (in a limited way,
| though you can install any addon if you _really_ want to). I
| wish iOS users had access to diverse rendering engines and
| browser addons.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| >you can only run Safari on iOS
|
| Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a
| total monopoly, while WebKit itself has no chance of being a
| monopoly in the forseeable future, so I doubt there's a good
| anti-competitive case to be made for forcing Apple to stop
| doing this. It would only accelerate the monopolisation of the
| browser market if this happened. It would be good for consumers
| in the short term to allow v8 on iOS but I deeply distrust
| Google.
|
| Breaking the App Store monopoly there is a much stronger case
| for. There is a security argument for the app store, which I
| would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase
| price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the
| end user than the average piece of malware. Not to mention the
| expenses it imposes on developers, like requiring them to
| maintain a subscription and buy Apple hardware.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| By this kind of logic there is so much bullshit wherever there
| is consumer choice, and all products should be legislated to be
| the same, Soviet style.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Alternate web browsers are allowed on iOS. The rendering engine
| is a boring, unimportant implementation detail that users do
| not care for. The success of Chrome for iOS is proof that
| rendering engine doesn't matter for diversity.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| If only there were phones that did exactly what you wanted
| stale2002 wrote:
| There will be! After the law goes into effect it will be the
| iPhone.
|
| Feel free to not install internet browsers that you don't
| like though.
| smoldesu wrote:
| The parent just said the iPhone is what they wanted. Is it
| hard to believe that someone could both like Apple _and_ look
| forward to a world with more control over their phone?
| cmcaleer wrote:
| The Pixel 5's security update end of life is in two weeks[0].
| This is a phone that launched October 2020.
|
| My iPhone XS which I bought in 2018 just got the iOS 17
| update and it's working pretty well.
|
| I want to be able to load whatever I want on my phone, but I
| also don't want to _have_ to buy a new phone every couple
| years (or sooner! Looks like the 5a is still in production
| with security updates ending in 11 months) to get Android
| updates, or even security updates.
|
| [0]: https://endoflife.date/pixel
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| The rumors are that the Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro will launch
| with a promise of 7 years of updates, including not only
| security fixes and bug fixes but also feature drops. We'll
| see what's announces next month, but Google might be about
| to jump ahead of even the iPhone on this point.
|
| Disclosure: although I have worked for Google in the past,
| I haven't worked for them in more than 8 years, never
| worked on Android or Pixel beyond internally testing pre-
| release Android OS versions, have never had anything to do
| with setting their lifecycle policies, have no inside
| information on these rumors, and am not speaking for Google
| here.
| dnissley wrote:
| Switch to another phone then. Easy peasy. Why would you buy a
| phone with this known limitation if you care about it?
| grishka wrote:
| It's not about personal choices, it's about enabling fair
| competition. If you sell a general-purpose computing device
| and market it as one, you should relinquish any control of it
| once it's sold.
| quickco wrote:
| > If you sell a general-purpose computing device and market
| it as one, you should relinquish any control of it once
| it's sold.
|
| The freedoms we have, and the freedom that should be
| protected is market choice to buy or not buy any consumer
| product.
|
| If you don't like Apple, don't buy its products and
| purchase a device from a large number of competitors. It is
| really that simple.
|
| There is no rule that consumers have a right to do
| anything. You are not guaranteed a right to install a
| Windows app on your iPhone, or iPhone apps on Windows. You
| aren't guaranteed that your coffee machine can run Python.
| sbuk wrote:
| Who decided the iPhone is a general-purpose computing
| device?
| smoldesu wrote:
| The EU did, by qualifying Apple as a services gatekeeper
| on iPhone: 1. An undertaking shall be
| designated as a gatekeeper if: (a) it has a
| significant impact on the internal market; (b)
| it provides a core platform service which is an important
| gateway for business users to reach end users; and
| (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its
| operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such
| a position in the near future.
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
| grishka wrote:
| Apple did, with their marketing.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Apple did for iPads:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2017/11/16/ipad-pro-whats-a-computer-
| ad/
| kajumix wrote:
| Competition is the natural state of affairs. Nobody has to
| enable it. IBM/Microsoft weren't forced by the EU to give
| up market dominance in PCs. And if the EU tried, it
| couldn't ever do a better job than Apple did. It's no
| surprise that EU lags so much behind the US in tech
| innovation.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Now apply this argument to PCs in the 90s and you can
| probably see how dumb it is.
| dnissley wrote:
| Was Microsoft preventing people from installing firefox on
| their PCs? Am I misremembering this era?
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Was Microsoft preventing people from installing firefox
| on their PCs?
|
| It wasn't FireFox, but Netscape definitely was actively
| worked against.
|
| > Am I misremembering this era?
|
| Apparently.
|
| But here is a link to refresh your memory.
|
| https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/the-netscape-microsoft-
| browser-...
|
| To save you a click:
|
| "The Shell Execute Bug
|
| However, Microsoft's most significant tactic was the
| infamous "shell execute bug." This bug caused some users
| to fail when trying to install Netscape, but it was not
| present when installing Internet Explorer, giving
| Microsoft yet another advantage. While Microsoft claimed
| the bug was unintentional, many believed it was a
| deliberate attempt to prevent users from installing
| Netscape. The bug caused significant damage to Netscape's
| market share and cemented Microsoft's dominance in the
| browser market."
| chungy wrote:
| It was Netscape at the time, and yes. Yes, they were.
| dnissley wrote:
| Microsoft required PC manufacturers to have IE installed
| along with Windows, which is shitty, but not nearly as
| shitty as preventing users from installing Netscape,
| which they did not do.
| mpol wrote:
| It was a different situation. Microsoft Windows was
| considered a monopoly, with around 95% of the desktop
| market (there was no mobile market yet). Microsoft used
| this to gain a monopoly in desktop browsers. When you are
| a monopoly, other rules apply, you cannot just abuse your
| customers and competitors with it.
| yreg wrote:
| How is shipping OS with preinstalled apps shitty?
| IanCal wrote:
| Makes it much harder for any similar apps to compete,
| even if they're better. So you end up with worse overall
| outcomes.
| sbuk wrote:
| They absolutely did. The whole antitrust case revolved
| around Microsoft threatening OEMs to terminate their
| reseller agreements if they sold the machines with
| Netscape Navigator pre-installed. It is the literal
| definition of monopoly abuse!
| dnissley wrote:
| Pardon me for not being more precise -- they never
| prevented end users from installing Netscape on their
| machines.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They weren't preventing you from installing Netscape.
| They were bundling IE with their computers by default,
| and less technical savvy people didn't know they could
| install and use another browser.
| adventured wrote:
| Microsoft's anti-trust problems were not primarily about
| Netscape. If that's all it had been it would have been a
| trivial resolution.
|
| They were about vendor abuse, vendor contracts. Which is
| one of the key ways Microsoft tried to maintain its power
| over the tech industry.
|
| And of course as another person noted, Netscape was not
| in any manner blocked off of Windows. Netscape lost
| because it was charging for a browser while IE was free
| and usually installed by default. Then Netscape
| compounded the disaster by producing a couple of
| particularly terrible browser versions in a row while IE
| kept improving.
|
| There was no scenario where a $49 browser was going to
| win regardless.
| sbuk wrote:
| The vendor abuse you mention involved threats around
| supplying Navigator pre-installed.
| skullone wrote:
| Maybe people would simply like choice? I know I know, Apple
| doesn't really offer any choice on their phones, but the
| point is they should.
| cmdli wrote:
| But people have a choice. They can choose Android, but they
| don't, even though they know iPhones are locked down. By
| this point, you have to assume that the people who buy
| iPhones are okay with it. Apple doesn't have a monopoly by
| any means.
| gsich wrote:
| My guess is people don't know that.
| stri8ted wrote:
| This argument holds less weight, when you consider things
| like iMessages, where there are network effects and no
| cross-platform support. Also, there are a number of apps
| that are only available on IOS, due to its higher market
| share and greater user spend. So there is a high
| switching cost, which is a direct function of Apple's
| dominant market position.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| I buy iPhones, but I'm not okay with it. Android has some
| of what I want, but a lot of what I don't.
|
| The market is not competitive enough to actually be able
| to vote with my feet/dollars. Options are give up control
| (choose Apple) or give up privacy (choose Google). That
| is not a choice consumers should be forced to make.
| sccxy wrote:
| Current iOS browser situation is quite a joke.
|
| Recently they added possibility for other browsers to "Add page
| to Home Screen".
|
| But this shortcut later opens in Safari...
| olliej wrote:
| Indeed, it will be so great when web developers can just force
| everyone to use chrome.
| johnzim wrote:
| The inexplicable need to make the browser a second OS with
| worse everything boggles my mind. Especially on mobile
| devices which prize battery life.
|
| It won't give users choice because we as an industry have
| again and again just chosen what's easiest for us instead of
| best for the customer.
|
| We'd 100% still be using Flash if Apple hadn't refused to
| support it because of the battery and performance issues.
|
| This forum spends a lot of time talking about the
| E**ification of everything and how user hostile many
| companies business practices are and then cheers tearing down
| the one walled garden a non-nerd can, by default, have a
| reasonable experience in.
| arp242 wrote:
| > We'd 100% still be using Flash if Apple hadn't refused to
| support it because of the battery and performance issues.
|
| Eh, it was very much on the way out already, and mostly
| used for things which didn't have brilliant alternatives at
| the time (e.g. videos) and sites like YouTube had been
| experimenting with "HTML5 video". Few people really liked
| Flash (outside of usage for games, which was and remains a
| valid use case IMO), but it was just used because browsers
| just didn't support a lot of things, and once HTML5 took
| off Flash usage dropped. HTML5 killed off Flash.
|
| This is why Apple could get away with just not supporting
| Flash, which certainly sped up this pre-existing trend, but
| the idea that "Apple killed off Flash" is a serious
| misreading of history.
| ghusto wrote:
| I'm more or less with you, except for ...
|
| > We'd 100% still be using Flash
|
| Oh no? I remember that whole thing, and being thoroughly
| confused. I was able to watch videos on websites on my
| Android phone that iPhone users couldn't, and it had no
| noticeable effect on my battery life.
|
| I'm not saying we should all go to defend Flash, but I
| strongly suspect Apple killing Flash had a lot more to do
| with the fact that using Flash got around App Store
| policies (you could do _a lot_ using Flash), than battery
| life.
| ilkke wrote:
| And by "battery and performance issues" you mean "people
| being able to play an insane number of games in the browser
| and Apple not getting a cut of the ad money". Flash was
| running just fine on Android with much humbler specs than
| then-current iPhone.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > We'd 100% still be using Flash if Apple hadn't refused to
| support it
|
| I mean, that's hyperbole. Even in a flash-dominated web,
| there was still tons of non-flash technology being
| developed and distributed. In 2023 it would definitely be
| obsoleted, if for no reason other than Adobe having no
| incentive to keep it around. Apple's decision feels
| tangential relative to the progress of internet bandwidth,
| delivery technologies and even just the plain advent of
| YouTube obceleting 90% of the places Flash was used.
|
| Flash would be dead today even if Apple did adopt it,
| because nobody in the industry wants to pay arbitrary taxes
| or kiss the proprietary ring. Their freedom on the web let
| them evolve and pick competitive replacements; Flash's
| death is hardly a defense of iron-fist ecosystem
| enforcement.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It would most definitely still be alive. Source: I worked
| for a company whose web UI was 100% Flash/Shockwave.
|
| If Steve Jobs hadn't publicly come against Flash and by
| extension forced the hand of everyone else, I'm pretty
| sure they'd still be using Flash just because change is
| hard.
|
| The company went so far as to ship a specific browser to
| customers that could still run Flash instead of spending
| resources to rewrite the crappy UI =)
| smoldesu wrote:
| > If Steve Jobs hadn't [...] forced the hand of everyone
| else
|
| Steve Jobs called where puck was going. Everyone knew the
| problem; clients were falling behind in capability, and
| web content was getting more advanced and bigger. _99%_
| of the things we use the modern web for have solved this
| problem with HTML5 and Javascript. The other 1% got
| locked behind a novel invention called "The App Store",
| a new way to pay 30% of your digital revenue to support
| APIs you ought to have access to in the first place. That
| sad fact is the reason why every Mac is loaded with
| Electron apps and WebViews for basic messaging and music
| players. Apple might even try to fix it if they didn't
| make so much money selling memory upgrades.
|
| If Apple's goal was to build on the web instead of
| gimping it for their own exploitation, they would have a
| stronger case here. The coin-operated corporate altruism
| horsy ride has come to an end though, and regulators are
| asking Apple to play by fair rules or leave.
| johnzim wrote:
| I take your point that it's been a long time - in the
| intervening 17 years that particular technology would
| probably have died out on its own, but the primary
| complaints about the modern web stack on desktop aren't
| dissimilar from those that pertained to Flash in the day:
| memory hungry, power inefficient etc.
|
| We're _still_ pumping out solutions that are easier for
| us and worse for customers on desktop and that's without
| the problem of software-driven user tracking, which was
| still just larval when the App Store opened up. In fact
| the only reason things aren't even _worse_ on desktop is
| that non-mobile devices are a much smaller % of where
| people spend their time, and therefore a smaller target
| with a more technically proficient user base.
|
| There's an open ecosystem available to people where you
| can load any old crap onto your device. It's even cheaper
| than iOS. Please just let most of (not all, some crap
| still gets past App Review) the junk alight there and
| give people a choice to buy entry into the walled garden.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > and give people a choice to buy entry into the walled
| garden.
|
| No, that's Apple's decision. The garden plays by Europe's
| rules, or people don't get a choice at all.
|
| De-facto monopolies are not inherently justified. Feel
| any way you will about it as a consumer; Apple uses their
| power to exercise anti-competitive control over their
| ecosystems. Governments will now step in to regulate the
| market Apple has failed to make competitive.
| larme wrote:
| Agree, most web developers now are just in the opposite
| campaign of web "users" and trying every possible way to make
| their jobs (squeezing every penny out of their "users")
| simpler without any other considerations
| crazygringo wrote:
| No it doesn't.
|
| I've added many shortcuts to websites from my home screen from
| within Chrome since this feature was recently added, and they
| all open in Chrome.
| sccxy wrote:
| I just tested with MS Edge and it 100% opened in Safari.
|
| And most frustrating is when you had Safari in private
| browsing mode, then shortcut (not pwa app) is also opened in
| private mode as new tab...
| crazygringo wrote:
| Maybe it's a bug in the Edge implementation then? Because
| it works fine in Chrome.
| iteratethis wrote:
| Cook is doing a largely undocumented European tour.
|
| He was also in the Netherlands to talk about/with ASML and NXP.
| There's a few dozen critical European suppliers that Apple
| depends on.
|
| He's also not hostile to legislation at all, he openly committed
| and confirmed to want to apply with legislation in any major
| market.
|
| Contrary to popular belief, legislation is not always perceived
| as negative by businesses. Without legislation, you're somewhat
| forced to get as unethical as the law allows, because if you
| don't, somebody else will.
|
| In more cynical cases, companies may even embrace legislation as
| a competitive advantage. An example would be pro-active copyright
| detection, the detection of misinformation on platforms like
| Youtube and Facebook. Very hard and expensive to implement, thus
| small companies don't stand a chance to compete.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| It is understandable why Apple wants to keep its current grip on
| iOS indefinitely. What I don't understand is why some people
| defend it, on this very forum!
|
| One commenter simultaneously defended gay marriages - "if you
| don't like gay marriages, don't get married to gays" - and
| defended the Apple's monopoly - "I like that there is only one
| Appstore and developers won't force me to sideload".
| thebruce87m wrote:
| I don't want something shittier that I will invariably have to
| learn about to remove from my families phones. It suits me fine
| if it doesn't exist at all.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| When it's a company you like and don't feel like you've been
| hurt by, it's very easy to not even realize the bizarre
| rationalizations you're applying. Only in hindsight does it
| become obvious.
| larme wrote:
| Lesser of two evils principle maybe? I defend apple in this one
| appstore topic not because I think apple is good, but just
| better than google and facebook.
|
| Of course the longterm solution is to get better legalization
| on privacy protection etc. But before that, I really prefer
| apple as a proxy between me and google/facebook/etc.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| If you like Apple's policies, just don't sideload and install
| everything from their official AppStore. Nothing will change
| for you then.
|
| You can do it on MacBooks as well.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| When this goes through, you can be 100% sure there will be
| a Meta-only iOS store along with a Google iOS store and all
| their apps will move there.
|
| After that if you want to use apps to access any Google or
| Meta service, you'll need to get it from their store - that
| doesn't have any pesky limitations on user profiling or
| stupid guidelines for privacy.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I think the threat of rival app stores is highly
| overrated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
|
| I don't think they have the product gumption, nor do
| users have the patience, to deal with multiple app
| stores. They'll just end up abandoning those apps, at
| least on iOS. Also regulators will not be amused by other
| companies forcing users to use their _own_ walled gardens
| if those gardens are going to be full on data-mining
| operations.
| frizlab wrote:
| That's stupid. Apps will just not be in the App Store and
| you'll _have to_ side load to be able to have them. Which
| we (at least I) explicitly don't want to do. And explicitly
| and even more don't want my computer illiterate entourage
| to do!
| e44858 wrote:
| Android allows sideloading, yet most apps are still
| available in the Google play store.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but this doesn't
| quite hold true. It's possible (likely?) that a someone big
| - one who ordinary folk would go through the jumps for -
| would only public their app via side loading (or alt app
| store) and use this to bypass some of the policy
| restrictions wrt privacy on the App Store. This then
| becomes a slippery slope and would act as a platform to
| allow other apps through.
|
| The tough part of "just don't side load" is when we have a
| somewhat contemptious relationship with some of the
| services you use, and they only offer their apps via alt
| methods.
|
| Worth noting that Epic Games couldn't get this to work for
| Fortnite (for a period they only offered Fortnite via a
| sideloaded apk), and I don't believe Facebook as tried
| this.
|
| There's also the finer details - if alt browse engines are
| allowed, will non-web browser apps start bundling and
| shipping their own browser engines (similar to the electron
| situation on desktop)?
| easton wrote:
| The only thing about this argument I don't quite agree
| with is that can't apple just continue to sandbox apps to
| heck and back even if they are sideloaded? Like,
| currently apps can't get a unique identifier for a user
| without the user allowing tracking, I don't see why that
| has to change because sideloading is a thing. Unless
| there's an implicit "and also the apps need to be able to
| get root/super entitlements without user consent" in the
| law.
|
| The App Store was only ever a first line of defense
| against icky behavior.
| andersa wrote:
| Likely for the same reasons people defend billionaires that are
| actively doing everything that can to shift more wealth away
| from them.
| notamy wrote:
| > What I don't understand is why some people defend it, on this
| very forum!
|
| I chose iOS specifically BECAUSE it's a walled garden and
| BECAUSE I can't tinker with it. When I owned Android devices,
| knowing the freedom existed led to me making stupid choices in
| the name of experimentation, and I had a broken phone
| annoyingly often.
|
| Choosing the walled garden is a legitimate choice, and I don't
| understand why some people who use this website are so
| desperate to take that choice away.
| ericbarnes wrote:
| > "EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on
| security and privacy," Breton told Reuters.
|
| I had to lol at that one.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Without compromising any of the security or privacy Apple cares
| to defend. There's words to mince here, but they're not in
| Apple's defense.
| organsnyder wrote:
| I was at [IAPP Global Privacy
| Summit](https://iapp.org/conference/global-privacy-summit/) 2022,
| where Tim Cook gave a keynote. He started with highlighting all
| of the ways Apple protects its users privacy (many of which are
| great, and the reason I use Apple products!), but then he pivoted
| to make the case that Apple being forced to allow rival app
| stores would compromise their ability to protect users' privacy.
| This fell flat to many in the audience: why can't Apple continue
| to offer a privacy-by-default experience while allowing more
| competition?
| andersa wrote:
| It's just BS. Privacy and security are OS functions, not part
| of an app store. iOS has a good base here already - certainly
| much better than windows where every app can just arbitrarily
| read every file on the computer...
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| > Privacy and security are OS functions
|
| Naive take. Network sockets, remote servers, and data brokers
| don't care about local file permissions and an OS won't be
| able to tell me if corp-surveillance.justbuyme.com might be a
| domain hosting a privacy-disrespecting service without some
| sort of human-mediated reputation service.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Then we can look forward to an exciting front in the arms
| race that is computer security. Surely Apple, for all of
| their engineering and design brilliance, are up to the
| challenge?
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It's like taking a rabid badger as a roommate.
|
| You can in theory keep it cornered in its own room (sandbox),
| but there's no way to be 100% sure it'll stay there. You can be
| absolutely sure that it will never stop trying to get out.
|
| App Store apps can be trusted to stick to a sandbox because
| they are vetted to a standard before being allowed there.
|
| There's no reason for Epic-F-Droid-Store have their
| applications adhere to any kind of standards enforced by Apple.
| They can do whatever shitty manipulative tricks they want to
| try to escape any OS level sandboxing Apple tries to build.
|
| Doubly so for 3rd party browsers. A browser has a huge attack
| surface and can also run code (javascript and WASM at the
| least). Keeping it secure and sandboxed is not a trivial thing.
| disiplus wrote:
| Ok, so what, apple can still claim you have the same
| protection if you use just our app store. And I have the
| ability to use the alternative store where I can download a
| game without paying apple 30%. It's great.
| maccard wrote:
| It won't be an alternative store, the game will get pulled
| from the app store.
|
| Now, despite the fact that I bought an iOS device to avoid
| having to deal with shitty third parties, I'm forced to use
| the epic store and whatever else.
| redeeman wrote:
| yes, zuckerberg is literally holding a gun to you head,
| "INSTALL META OR ELSE!"
| Apocryphon wrote:
| If the sandbox can be imposed on an OS level then apps on
| alternative stores will have to conform to the same baseline
| of security restrictions.
| yreg wrote:
| My opinion won't be popular.
|
| I think it is nice to have a choice of a walled off platform. If
| I wanted a "more open" platform, I would get an Android phone.
| There are plenty of amazing Android phones.
|
| I choose the tradeoff of Apple's curation.
|
| Yes, I cannot run arbitrary software and sometimes it is a
| disadvantage. Yes, I don't agree with all of the App Store rules
| all of the time. Yes, I don't think the App Store revenue split
| is entirely fair.
|
| However, I absolutely love that all the developers including the
| likes of Meta or Uber have to bow down to Apple's rules, which
| are mostly beneficial to me. I don't want to download apps from
| alternative app stores. I want them to be available in App Store
| and to be submitting to all of the curation rules.
|
| Perhaps it might seem ridiculous to you, but I want to have the
| freedom to choose a closed ecosystem as long as there is a good
| alternative.
|
| ----
|
| On the other hand, I think jailbreaking shouldn't void warranty.
| Also, I might be fine with a regulation that forces Apple to
| release an "official jailbreak". But that policy should then also
| apply to PlayStation, X-box, Tesla infotainment, etc.
| frizlab wrote:
| I totally agree and am bewildered that not more people do. The
| downsides and abuses to come are so obvious everybody should be
| revolting at the very idea. Instead we get a law to force it...
| aaomidi wrote:
| > But that policy should then also apply to PlayStation, X-box,
| Tesla infotainment, etc.
|
| I want the forced to open up to competitors to be applied to
| everyone.
| OJFord wrote:
| > However, I absolutely love that all the developers including
| the likes of Meta or Uber have to bow down to Apple's rules,
| which are mostly beneficial to me. I don't want to download
| apps from alternative app stores. I want them to be available
| in App Store and to be submitting to all of the curation rules.
|
| On Android, you have to abide by Google's rules if you want to
| be in the Play Store; Amazon's if you want to be in theirs;
| F-Droid's to be there.
|
| Consumers have choice over whose rules they care about. In a
| hypothetical iOS with app store competition, what you write
| would presumably still be true _for the Apple App Store_ ,
| there just might be an 'F-iOS' or whatever that insists the app
| is open source too, for example.
| yreg wrote:
| I believe companies like Meta could afford to leave the Apple
| App Store and distribute apps through their own app store
| only.
|
| Perhaps you might say that would be fair, but it is a world
| that suits me less than the current one.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| So why is that _not_ happening for android?
|
| You don't have to come up with hypothetical scenarios if
| you already have a real life example to look at.
| threeseed wrote:
| Because there's no point as they need their apps to be
| cross platform and so Apple is setting a baseline for
| what behaviour is allowed.
|
| But once Meta, Epic etc can run their own stores on both
| iOS and Android they will absolutely move their apps to
| them. Epic has already said how important this is to be
| able to implement their metaverse strategy.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| Epic already did this at the height of fortnite's
| popularity, by using a "fortnight installer" app that you
| had to get from outside the play store. Can't remember
| why they backtracked, or why they didn't offer
| store/sideload versions at the same time.
|
| Google even took steps to prevent people from installing
| malware pretending to be fortnite, and steered them to
| the official installer. Not out of the goodness of their
| heart, TBF.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I really, really don't think it'll be as easy you as say.
| Neither the audience nor the regulators will let them off
| easy, and these creaking giants aren't exactly great at
| launching popular new platforms, these days:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
| yreg wrote:
| Isn't Google far less strict on privacy rules (and their
| enforcement) than Apple?
| larme wrote:
| This actually happens in China and every phone
| manufactures has their own app store. It's a shitshow
| em-bee wrote:
| having multiple stores in itself is fine, but it's even
| worse worse. if you want to release your app on multiple
| app stores, you have to release on all of them at the
| same time. if you skip one they will not allow you to
| launch there later because you dared to treat them as
| second choice. imagine apple banning you because you
| dared to release on android first.
| wmal wrote:
| I like the walled garden of Apple as well, especially as a
| "family IT guy" who had no need to reset/reconfigure the
| systems or remove malware from any phones since talking the
| family members to switch to iPhones a few years back.
|
| Some of the properties of the walled garden have nothing to do
| with security, though. They are simply uncompetitive practices
| on Apple part. I'm happy someone said "enough".
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| False dichotomy.
|
| Having a curated store \neq Having only one store.
|
| Also, that misses all the other areas pointed out: "Be it the
| electronic wallet, browsers or app stores, consumers using an
| Apple iPhone should be able to benefit from competitive
| services by a range of providers."
|
| > But that policy should then also apply to PlayStation, X-box,
| Tesla infotainment, etc.
|
| Why? That only applies to "gatekeepers". So you would have to
| argue that apple is very unsuccessful and hence these are at
| the same level as apple... seems like quite a stretch.
| yreg wrote:
| >False dichotomy.
|
| No it's not. Currently all the apps that want to be available
| on Apple's platform have to submit to Apple's rules. If
| alternative app stores are allowed, they won't have to do
| that. As a consumer I like the current state of matters more.
|
| >Also, that misses all the other areas
|
| I'm reacting only to the App Store part. I'm all for opening
| electronic wallet or allowing browser engines into App Store.
| Those are off topic in this subthread.
|
| >Why? That only applies to "gatekeepers".
|
| I don't see how PS/Xbox/Tesla are any less of a gatekeeper
| than Apple.
| gigel82 wrote:
| The point is choice. As a consumer, you can choose to only
| get your apps via the official Apple store, which comes
| with all the "Apple rules" you want. As another consumer, I
| prefer freedom and hate monopolists so would choose another
| store. Everyone is happy!
| endisneigh wrote:
| why not just buy an Android?
| twayhn893249 wrote:
| >I don't want to download apps from alternative app stores. I
| want them to be available in App Store and to be submitting to
| all of the curation rules.
|
| Even if alternative app stores were allowed you'd more than
| likely never be forced to use them. Alternative stores are
| available on Android and yet the overwhelming majority of apps
| are still on the play store. The idea that Facebook, Amazon,
| Google or whoever would pull their apps and force you to use
| their store is complete FUD that ignores that the overwhelming
| majority of users wouldn't tolerate an app not being on Apples
| store.
| mcphage wrote:
| > The idea that Facebook, Amazon, Google or whoever would
| pull their apps and force you to use their store is complete
| FUD that ignores that the overwhelming majority of users
| wouldn't tolerate an app not being on Apples store.
|
| I think you're right, but won't that defeat the purpose of
| opening the stores up? For instance: right now, you can't buy
| Kindle eBooks through the Amazon app. You need to do it
| through the web browser, so Amazon doesn't need to pay Apple
| 30%. But if Amazon continues to list their Apple in Apple's
| App Store, how will that change? Would they have 2 versions
| of their App--one in Apple's store that disallows eBook
| purchases, and one in Amazon's App Store that allows eBook
| purchases? Or will they still just disallow eBook purchases?
| bryan_w wrote:
| Perhaps in this case they would be able to go to Apple and
| negotiate a more reasonable 5 or 6% cut and stay in Apple's
| store. Amazon gets discoverability in the safe, Apple app
| store and Apple gets a cut of the revenue, win win.
| ghusto wrote:
| It doesn't seem ridiculous to me, I get where you're coming
| from. Only I'd say you've been misled.
|
| As others have pointed out, you can have both a walled garden
| store and an Apple curated store -- and this is how Android
| operates. More menacing though, are Apples reasons for not
| wanting competition.
|
| Put simply; if Safari wasn't the only allowed browser on
| iDevices (other browsers are just skins over what is
| essentially Safari), they would lose a significant amount of
| power. They can throw their weight around now, partially
| because they have a strong web browser market share -- but it's
| artificially imposed.
|
| If you don't think it's forced, have a quick quiz at work
| amongst Apple fanboys, and find out how many of them use Safari
| as their default web browser -- on their Macs.
| [deleted]
| taffer wrote:
| If there were other app stores besides Apple's for iDevices,
| Google would require you to download the Play Store to access
| Gmail, YouTube and Google Maps. Once there's an alternative
| major app store where Apple's strict privacy rules don't
| apply, why should companies with a more relaxed privacy
| stance stay on Apple's store? Your Bank, Facebook, Adobe, and
| Amazon will likely move to the store with the lowest
| standards.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > I choose the tradeoff of Apple's curation.
|
| When individuals choices start to actively harm society laws
| are often created to prevent more harm.
| tzs wrote:
| One approach that might be reasonable is for device makers to
| provide a hypervisor to control actual hardware access, and
| then implement their environments in virtual machines running
| under that hypervisor.
|
| iOS then becomes just one environment that the phone's owner
| can choose to run under that hypervisor. Within any given
| environment the maker of that environment should be free make
| it as open or closed as they want.
|
| The device maker should have to make it easy to run different
| environments.
| yreg wrote:
| Yes! That would be nice.
| LightHugger wrote:
| Why are you on a website called hacker news if you think walled
| platforms are a good idea? It's antithetical to the concept...
| yreg wrote:
| Do you think I'm the only user here who bought an iPhone?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > I don't want to download apps from alternative app stores.
|
| Then don't. Nobody is forcing you.
| larme wrote:
| big corps (including apple itself) are powerful enough to
| force you to do everything if they really want.
| EtienneK wrote:
| If I can only get WhatsApp from the Meta Store then, yes, I'm
| forced.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| That does not happen on Android though.
| yreg wrote:
| I want to download them from the App Store. I use Instagram,
| but I want it to play by Apple's rules. Surely you understand
| what I mean.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yes, I get what you want. You want to coerce everybody that
| brought a phone like yours into your cause, due to its
| sanctity.
|
| And also, for some reason you are afraid that most people
| that brought that phone will refuse to join if not coerced.
|
| That first one is morally wrong. And the second one of
| factually wrong.
| threeseed wrote:
| Except this is a disingenuous argument.
|
| Because there will be many applications you may _need_ to use
| e.g. banking which will be on an alternative App Store purely
| so they can skirt Apple 's privacy restrictions. Finance is
| one sector where they would love to siphon all of your user
| data in order to better promote products and reduce risk.
|
| And so I would be forced to use them.
| aaomidi wrote:
| You can switch banks? Trust me if these banks are only
| following the rules because of Apple, I can guarantee you
| their backend is definitely not following these privacy
| rules.
|
| Also, OS level permissions don't need to go away for third
| party apps.
| threeseed wrote:
| Switching banks can often mean changing home and personal
| loan products which is non trivial to say the least.
|
| And Apple can't properly enforce OS level permissions due
| to Objective-C dynamic dispatch.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| Why can't they? They control the objc runtime, and IIRC
| the way message passing works in that system requires
| throwing strings around with the involvement of the
| runtime.
|
| This being entirely separate from using allowed APIs for
| unapproved reasons, after passing whatever review/scan is
| done.
| gigel82 wrote:
| I am much more worried about Apple siphoning my data than
| my Credit Union. Apple is building an ad mega-empire, in
| big part via abuse of power on their monopolistic platform.
| olliej wrote:
| Does this apply to PlayStations, Xbox, Nintendos, etc?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Logically, probably. They may choose to change their operations
| based on this ruling because they could expect a similar ruling
| against them in the future. I would personally expect them to
| continue operating as they do until/unless there is a such a
| ruling.
| andersa wrote:
| Those are not considered general purpose computing devices
| under the current legislation, so no. It's currently targeted
| at mobile phones.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Isn't this going to try and turn iPhones into general purpose
| computing devices? Currently they're much more locked down
| than that.
| andersa wrote:
| People already use their phones for everything in our
| modern society, so they have simply declared them to be
| that, regardless of what Apple thinks about it.
|
| Even if I'd personally like it, I don't think the same
| argument makes much sense for a PS5 - when have you last
| used it to order groceries or new furniture? Apple would
| love to get a cut of those purchases, by the way.
|
| Starting by dealing with the devices that have the highest
| impact on the largest number of people, due to a runaway
| capitalistic empire trying to add an additional tax to
| everything that vaguely gets near it, has a higher chance
| of actually succeeding.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >when have you last used it to order groceries or new
| furniture? Apple would love to get a cut of those
| purchases, by the way.
|
| You can, though. There's no particularly convenient way
| to do most of those things, but that's largely because of
| manufacturer limitations. Nothing stopping you from using
| the browser on your Switch to go do instacart.com, tho.
|
| >Starting by dealing with the devices that have the
| highest impact on the largest number of people
|
| Why would this need to be addressed so singularly? Is
| that how the EU approaches most problems? It seems pretty
| sensible that they'd just regulate computing devices to
| allow for this sort of thing and then be able to pretty
| easily bring into compliance any who don't. Isn't that
| more or less what they did with the GDPR? It seems like
| regulating this would be even easier as non-compliance
| would be entirely visible to the consumer.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| > Nothing stopping you from using the browser on your
| Switch to go do instacart.com, tho.
|
| You can't just open up a browser on the switch (or a ps5
| for that matter). You have to use a workaround to access
| the browser that's only intended for viewing
| help/regulatory pages and interacting with wifi captive-
| portals. I guess they're really mad about the browser
| exploits that hit them in previous gens. (although,
| doesn't matter if you still have any browser access)
|
| It's on about the same level as escaping the UI on a
| touchscreen kiosk to access the web.
| andersa wrote:
| > Why would this need to be addressed so singularly?
|
| I don't know, I didn't write the law. They must have
| thought this is the better approach to start with.
| Perhaps they consider fighting one gigacorp at a time to
| be easier. After all, Apple has been left to grow
| unchecked until became larger than many countries.
|
| Sure wish the US would just handle Apple the same way
| China has handled Alibaba growing too large. One can
| dream, right?
|
| For context, they basically just said "you had your fun,
| it's over" and forcibly split the company in many smaller
| ones under new leadership.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Starting by dealing with the devices that have the
| highest impact on the largest number of people, due to a
| runaway capitalistic empire trying to add an additional
| tax to everything that vaguely gets near it, has a higher
| chance of actually succeeding.
|
| This is the worst approach, I think. Lawmaking shouldn't
| work where a juicy fineable target is spotted, singled
| out, and milked for all it's worth. Laws should set out
| rules that everyone has to follow.
|
| Also, it might be hard to order groceries on a PS5, but
| it's much simpler to make a PS5 able to browse the Web
| than it is to open up an iPhone to any HTML-rendering
| code, or background tasks, without compromising the
| seamless experience reasons many people bought one for in
| the first place.
|
| > due to a runaway capitalistic empire trying to add an
| additional tax to everything that vaguely gets near it
|
| It's not due to a runaway capitalistic empire. It's
| because it made stuff people really want, so they'll pay
| for it. You're thinking of political structures, where
| people are forced to pay taxes regardless of the
| outcomes. Apple are rich because they make things people
| want. That's not a runaway empire. That's just being
| really, really useful. This gross mischaracterisation of
| useful structures as empires is astonishing and unhelpful
| to any clarity of thought.
| andersa wrote:
| The point of the law isn't to fine Apple. The point is to
| ban their tax collection entirely, relieving society of
| this pointless money drain. Most people currently don't
| have a choice to not pay an extra fee to Apple - we'll
| see how many will once it's optional?
|
| Once the device has been sold to you (for a profit,
| even!), Apple has no business interfering in
| relationships between you and a separate business trying
| to sell you additional software for it, much less to
| collect a tax on entirely unrelated things like streaming
| video subscriptions.
| EtienneK wrote:
| No idea why you're getting downvoted. It's a valid question.
| wmal wrote:
| Not (yet). This is the current list of gatekeepers and their
| services: https://digital-markets-act-
| cases.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers
| Dah00n wrote:
| There's always one like you.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I hope there are a lot more like him. How dare we have
| consistency in our legislation!
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| Is it not a valid question? Very curious.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| If it weren't valid, the previous commenter would attack
| the question, not the person writing the question.
| [deleted]
| ribosometronome wrote:
| EU should follow the EU's lead and open itself up in the name of
| openness and fairness. Instead, they're working to make it easier
| to expel immigrants.
| suyash wrote:
| It's open for legal migrants, not for illegals, same logic
| applies for developers vs hackers.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Well, we'll see how it goes. There's good reasons for, and
| against.
|
| The one thing that I know, for sure, is that Apple users are
| valued a hell of a lot more, by crooks, than Android and Windows
| users. Those folks are probably rubbing their hands in glee (I
| would not be surprised if quite a few of them, are on this very
| forum).
|
| Should be interesting...
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| The Reuters article mentions a list of dos and donts but I
| couldn't easily find this after a quick search, does anyone know
| where it's available?
|
| EDIT: I found it "What are the "dos and don'ts" for gatekeepers?"
| [0].
|
| [0]
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I don't understand if this is an ask or a demand backed by the
| power of the EU.
| Rygian wrote:
| It's a new law already in effect.
| wmal wrote:
| I read this as a statement of fact. The Digital Market Act has
| come into force. The act gives the platforms (Apple included)
| few months of preparations to comply. Breton just reminds that
| the clock is ticking.
| vishnumohandas wrote:
| Looking forward to a healthier background execution framework so
| apps other than iCloud / Apple Photos can offer a reliable sync
| experience.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| There will be side-effects of well-intentioned, feel-good
| policies of supporting multiple app stores:
|
| - Malware including ransomware, password theft, and identity
| theft
|
| - Lookalike, counterfeit apps
|
| - Software piracy
|
| - Lowering of curation standards by Apple
|
| Certain other software bits cannot be open sourced, including
| specific cryptographic keys. There is a great deal of Darwin/XNU
| that is already FOSS.
|
| What would be helpful for r2r would be the availability of
| schematics and Apple-proprietary custom variants of third-party
| chips. Certainly, T prefix chips can't be too freely shared
| without weakening the integrity of the security baked into Apple
| products (no pie puns intended).
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Isn't that just evening the playing field with non-Apple
| phones? Isn't that what the EU is trying to accomplish?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > - Lookalike, counterfeit apps
|
| - Lowering of curation standards by Apple
|
| That has already been happening on the official App Store!
| Kosta Eleftheriou has done a ton of scholarship into the
| proliferation of bad apps. (Not to mention, poor UX such as
| archaic search.)
|
| People imagine multiple app stores on iOS would be shady data-
| hungry operations from the likes of Meta or Google. But opening
| things up would just as likely, and perhaps more so, foster
| curated, transparent app stores such as an iOS equivalent to
| F-Droid.
| 6510 wrote:
| From no way in hell it seems I'm gradually getting an iphone. I
| cant be bothered to buy my own prison. (If you don't agree I have
| a cage to sell you.)
| Tagbert wrote:
| A cage with windows and doors is not much of a cage.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-26 23:01 UTC)