[HN Gopher] Apple tells EU it has five different App Stores, not...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple tells EU it has five different App Stores, not just one
Author : mikece
Score : 223 points
Date : 2024-01-09 14:21 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5mac.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5mac.com)
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, I suppose the lawyers feel that they have to be seen to
| be doing _something_, but this feels like an extremely weak
| argument.
| kosievdmerwe wrote:
| Aren't purchases also shared between stores? Like if you buy an
| app on iPhone you also get it on iPad?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Depends on the app but basically, yeah. For example, the
| Ivory for Mastodon app is a Mac/iPhone/iPad application, and
| the "Mac App Store Preview" shows screenshots for all three
| devices.
|
| https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/ivory-for-mastodon-by-
| tapbots/...
| postalrat wrote:
| If true then consider them gifts.
| threeseed wrote:
| No.
|
| For example if I buy OmniGraffle for iPad I don't
| automatically get the Mac version.
|
| There are options for developers to do this but it's not
| automatic.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| If this is their best argument then they might as well save some
| money and stop paying the lawyers on this one.
| Hamuko wrote:
| They tried it with Safari too. Unfortunately for Apple, turns
| out that their marketing department came up with the tagline
| "Same Safari. Different device." when advertising how
| seamlessly Safari works across all their different devices.
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/02/apple_safari_browser/
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Also vulnerabilities and bugs that are exactly the same...
| jzb wrote:
| If you can't win any other way, just gum up the works as long
| as you can to protect profits as long as you can.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder how many days of app-store revenue in Europe it
| takes for their lawyers to make up their salaries.
| jgilias wrote:
| This is on the same shelf as when they tried to convince EU that
| iPhone is not in fact a phone, so their ask about using a
| standardized charger doesn't apply.
|
| A friend got one of them new notPhone with a USB C charging port
| a week ago.
|
| Sometimes EU does good things, this is one them. I'm so looking
| forward to alternative app stores.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Mixed feelings. I'd like a GNU store but that's about it. It
| will be annoying when people start using the Facebook spyware
| store or some other junk. That's their choice I guess, but it
| makes the ecosystem work (typo edit: work should be worse) I
| think.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Let's say Apple gets forced to allow third party app stores.
| Would there be anything stopping Apple from requiring those
| app stores to have real, actual individual be responsible for
| the actively policing those stores for things like fraud and
| actual malware? For example if there are too many reports of
| fraud or abuse though some store Apple could hold that
| individual responsible and or withdraw the signing key for
| their store? I would guess something like could help.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Yes, the EU. It forces Apple to allow sideloading - that
| means installing apps with no restrictions, from any
| sources such as any random website. A store is just an app,
| thus there will be no way for Apple to force alternative
| stores to anything.
|
| There doesn't even need to be a person that could be held
| responsible, or they could be easily masked behind
| anonymity of the web or layers of white horses / phished
| identities.
| Y-bar wrote:
| But from my perspective sideloading is not necessarily a
| separate on-device store.
|
| An on-device store would be equivalent to Steam which
| first need to be installed on the device for example via
| the regular iOS App Store or sideloading or another
| already installed app store.
|
| Sideloading would be downloading from a web page or
| secondary device or similar method.
|
| Separate stores would be a decent middle-ground for my
| part when less tech-savvy people inevitably ask me "can I
| trust this app" I can reply with "are you about to
| install it from store X or Y or download elsewhere?". If
| the answer is "that store from Epic Games" I could sigh
| quietly and say "it's likely okay".
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Yes, and you if sideload a store app from a website (a
| random one, or Facebook, MS, etc), Apple is out of
| control in that case. They could ban the altstore from
| their own App Store, but not from the web.
|
| My problem is exactly with these "safe stores from well
| known companies". Apple helps me. EpicStore and MetaStore
| helps them sidestep the anti-tracking and anti-spam rules
| of App Store.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Apple helps me.
|
| That's a bit of a stretch. Apple, much like every other
| business, cares about you insofar as you're a paying
| customer. That's why they don't let you use... well,
| stuff like third-party payment processors.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Which is great, I much prefer Apple Pay and their
| overview of all subscriptions etc and them actually
| enforcing what changes I make there, as opposed to the
| situation on Android where I was charged by custom
| payment gateway implementations after cancelling the
| subscription many times and Google just told me to take
| it up with the app vendor who never responded.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Hey, more power to you. The good news is that after the
| DMA rolls out, Apple doesn't have to stop offering any of
| that. You can keep using it until Apple stops providing
| the function, same as you would have without the DMA.
|
| I'm glad we have passionate Apple enthusiasts helping us
| prove how harmless market regulation actually is.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| The problem is that app vendors will no longer be forced
| to use it. That seriously hurts my sense of security as a
| user of the platform - the very thing why I chose it.
| eitally wrote:
| But it doesn't affect Apple's 1P app store, app review
| process, or other security processes at all, so if you
| are content exclusively using Apple's App Store then
| there's no impact. If you look at the Android ecosystem,
| there have been all kinds of app stores for years. Some
| run by hardware OEMs, some open source (FDroid), and some
| that are run by app review sites that basically function
| as sideloading hubs for pre-GA versions of apps.
| Arguably, things generally work and overall I don't
| believe system security has been negatively affected.
|
| The real issues here are with the payment processing
| captured by Apple & Google, and why their gatekeeping
| (net negative to competition) should be a profit center
| for them while at the same time being a net negative
| (arguable) to consumers.
| bee_rider wrote:
| That's not quite true, lots of other businesses don't
| care about you insofar as you're a paying customer, they
| care about insofar as you are eyeballs for their actual
| customers.
|
| Apple's business model is mostly: give money, get
| services and devices. That they are able to sell this as
| a nice special plus is a huge indictment of the computer
| and OS market.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is that what they are planning to do?
|
| I definitely can see a "store is just an app, you must
| allow third party apps" as a sort of maximal approach.
| But treating app stores as a sort of special thing that
| requires extra permission and coordination doesn't seem
| totally impossible.
|
| It could be sort of nice if each store was isolated
| inside a different sandbox and had it's own filesystem.
| (I wouldn't be that surprised if something like that
| happened because it is both justifiable from a security
| point of view, and also mildly annoying for people who
| want to use third party stores, which I guess Apple would
| prefer).
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| It's what they did, the law is approved and will come
| into effect soon. A store is just an app like any other
| apps - e.g. your browser. If you can download an app from
| the web, you can download a store, and the store can
| download other apps.
| bee_rider wrote:
| That's unfortunate
| bee_rider wrote:
| I find it weird that this comment was downvoted while my
| comment up two was upvoted. If you agree that a store
| should be something other than just another app, then you
| ought to agree that it is unfortunate if this is their
| plan.
|
| If you agree but downvoted because you think it isn't
| their plan, maybe you can show us why the person I
| responded to here was wrong? That would be reassuring!
| pretext-1 wrote:
| Why do you care if other people ,,start using the Facebook
| spyware store"? No one is forcing you to use another store.
| Android has alternative app stores and you can still use the
| Google Play Store for everything if you want to.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is DJI still distributing their app as an apk, or are they
| excluded from everything for some reason?
| jgilias wrote:
| Well then, don't use DJI stuff.
|
| I'm pretty sure Apple will keep positioning their App
| Store as the official authorized way to get software for
| iDevices. I'm also pretty sure that there's going to be
| huge inertia there and most of the apps are going to be
| on App Store still. So your ability to live in a walled
| garden won't be affected much. Yes, some apps will move
| away from the App Store, and I suggest you to vote with
| your wallet and not use them.
|
| I for one absolutely cherish the ability to install
| software I choose on the device that's supposedly mine.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Sure, this is why I have mixed feeling rather than
| straight up opposition.
|
| Would it be nice to be able to install third party apps?
| I'd like... a GNU store, maybe a Suckless store, Panic is
| decent. There are pros, it isn't all cons.
|
| There is a downside, though, snooping companies like
| Facebook and Google are going to use this to circumvent
| Apple's privacy rules.
|
| I disagree that this is a case of "vote with your
| wallet." I already voted with my wallet by opting into a
| less open ecosystem for my phone. In general, individuals
| voting with their wallets have limited reach, this is why
| people do things like join unions or co-ops.
|
| It was good to have at least one popular platform that
| enforced at least some bare minimum standards that we
| could opt in to, that most app authors wanted to support.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > In general, individuals voting with their wallets have
| limited reach, this is why people do things like join
| unions or co-ops
|
| Correct. There are two problems here:
|
| 1. Apple won't let people install the software they want
| on their phones 2. Lots of companies want to get their
| software installed on your phone by whatever means to
| control it and turn it against your interests
|
| Both of these are bad. The DMA fixes 1, but HN users
| consistently complain that in doing so it will prevent
| Apple from mitigating 2. But relying on a company like
| Apple to stop other companies from abusing users is not a
| reasonable state of things. People should, through
| collective action (probably a law) prevent this abuse.
| And the DMA does not preclude this.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Maybe living in the US has made me unnecessarily
| pessimistic about the likelihood of having consumer
| protection laws make that last step. I'd be happy to be
| wrong but I suspect we'll end up in the local pessimism.
| jgilias wrote:
| Oh, but then you don't have anything to worry about. As
| far as I understand nothing will change in the US
| regarding App Store policies. It's just the EU where this
| would apply.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| I can find official DJI apps on both iOS and Android. So
| they optionally offer an apk download, just like WhatsApp
| did for years.
| never_inline wrote:
| 5-6 years ago, when smartphones were new in India, ShareIt
| was most popular application for sharing files across
| phones. It's an ad-ridden piece of spyware. Because
| everyone were using ShareIt to share music and photos, and
| I refused to use it out of paranoia and a general dislike
| of intrusive ads, I got some reputation of being the "weird
| nerd".
|
| Thankfully Google Files got popular later.
|
| It's pretty easy to imagine how a bad application like
| ShareIt or TikTok may be required to be considered socially
| normal.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| > I got some reputation of being the "weird nerd".
|
| So what!? Who cares what other people think? "Oh, gosh,
| you're the weird one who won't jump off a bridge!" Damn
| right!
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Because they'll be friends and family. Or just have some of
| my data because I talked to them. Anyone being insecure
| means everyone is (somewhat) insecure.
|
| Of course, "side-loading" should still be possible if it
| has sufficient barriers for casual users.
| dktp wrote:
| If my Mac only allowed downloads from the Apple store, it
| would essentially render it useless (for me)
|
| Likewise, I like to think that opening up my phone could make
| it more useful
| bee_rider wrote:
| All of my non-phone devices are Linux. I like the
| separation there. Phones are not really good devices for
| working on, and as a result, aren't that fun to tinker
| with. I'd rather just leave it locked down.
|
| The app based model that phones use is kind of crap. I will
| happily pipe together a bunch of little scripts and
| programs in bash to make a workflow for my niche usecase.
| But, phone apps don't seem to focus on inter-operability.
| As a result, in the phone ecosystem you just have to find
| an app, or the task is basically impossible. If I'm not
| going to use third party store, and there are fewer apps in
| the official App Store, I'll probably use my phone less.
|
| On the bright side, maybe making the phone ecosystem worse
| will open up room for more proper Linux phones with the
| full desktop suite of tools.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I'd like a GNU store
|
| This is the reality on GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and
| Pinephone.
| bee_rider wrote:
| True. Generally when I looked into those, the reviews
| focused on the poor build quality, high prices, and limited
| software. But it was a couple years ago, though, so I bet
| they are doing better now.
|
| I think for my next phone I'll look into them again. I like
| Linux. I like tinkering with my computer. I don't really
| enjoy the smartphone form-factor that much, so I'm worried
| that I won't enjoy tinkering on my phone as much, so I've
| got somewhat tepid feelings there. But we'll see how things
| evolve.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-daily-driven-in-
| profession...
| bee_rider wrote:
| That's a very positive review.
|
| Hoping to get four or so more years out of my current
| iPhone, but I'll definitely check them out when it
| finally dies.
| sigmar wrote:
| >The company contends that iMessage [doesn't fall within the
| scope of the DMA] as it is not a fee-based service and it does
| not monetise it via the sale of hardware devices nor via the
| processing of personal data.
|
| oh, cool. Where do I go to get my no-fee access to iMessage with
| my pixel phone?
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm guessing you just need to install one of the five app
| stores onto your Pixel, and then you can install iMessage from
| there
| elashri wrote:
| Although it is on app stores, iMessage updates happens with
| the iOS updates itself. It is just there because you can
| actually remove the Messages app and then re-install it later
| if you want.
| bbarnett wrote:
| It just happens to be bundled with the OS. Updates come
| from the app store.
|
| Otherwise you'd need to update the entire OS, just for a
| minor security fix to imesssgae.
| interactivecode wrote:
| I mean it's apple, that's not a stretch
| ryanpetrich wrote:
| Yes, that's right. You need to update the entire OS for a
| minor security fix to iMessage.
| bbarnett wrote:
| But.. you're serious?! Honestly, I've never used anything
| in that ecosystem, but.. I'm baffled.
| tikkabhuna wrote:
| OS updates on iPhones frequently list new emoji in the
| release notes. It would be interesting to see what the
| most mundane reason for an iOS update is.
| frumper wrote:
| Emoji are not just iMessage characters.
| pests wrote:
| This is deliberate. It's the carrot.
|
| The expectation is users will download for the new emojis
| and in the process get all their security updates.
|
| Before, people would delay updating forever as they would
| see no noticible benefits and even sometimes decreased
| performance.
|
| Kinda the same reasoning auto updates are on by default
| and we have the concept of evergreen browsers etc.
| eitally wrote:
| In that way, is it similar to Google bundling various
| Google 1P apps with AOSP images (not to mention
| partnership deals with various Android OEMs)?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| > Google bundling various Google 1P apps with AOSP images
|
| Huh? The only AOSP images Google produces that I'm aware
| of are GSIs, which build directly from AOSP and therefore
| can't have proprietary apps. https://source.android.com/d
| ocs/core/tests/vts/gsi#building-...
| gregoriol wrote:
| I don't remember seeing it popping as an update through
| the App Store ever.
| raverbashing wrote:
| That sounds almost like "IE on Windows" though the fact it
| can be removed is surprising
|
| (Also reminds me of Android messaging nagging me to push
| RCS messaging - ain't nobody has time for that Mr. Google)
| zilti wrote:
| RCS isn't by Google, it's a standard that Apple refuses
| to support.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Last I heard, Apple announced (directly to 9to5Mac for
| some reason) that it will support RCS this year, probably
| to head off litigation. Google, on the other hand, still
| doesn't support RCS in Google Voice and has announced no
| plans to do so.
| zilti wrote:
| Why the hell should Google Voice support it? It's an SMS
| successor that gets provided by the carriers and is bound
| to the phone.
| piperswe wrote:
| Because Google Voice is a service that provides SMS. If
| Google thinks RCS truly is the successor to SMS, why does
| Google Voice only support SMS?
| zilti wrote:
| Ah, I mixed it up with one of Google's old messengers,
| sorry.
| threeseed wrote:
| Google has extended RCS with proprietary extensions [1]
| including E2EE.
|
| So there is plain RCS and Google RCS.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/30/23981350/google-
| messages...
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is a bit of a weird quote, they are quoting Reuters but I'm
| not sure if they are arguing against them or what. They also
| say:
|
| > While iMessage has so far not been deemed a platform - as it
| doesn't have enough regular users in Europe (WhatsApp is far
| more popular there, even among iPhone users)
| zuppy wrote:
| I honestly don't understand why everyone misses a very
| important fact: iMessage is not an app, it's a service that
| uses Apple's servers and Apple's engineers to maintain it and
| you have not paid for it. No, as an Android user you do not
| have a right for free access, use SMS for that. It would have
| been nice if there was an Android iMessage App, but demanding
| for someone else to pay for you is dishonest.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| I honestly don't understand why everyone misses a very
| important fact: iCloud email is not an app, it's a service
| that uses Apple's email servers and Apple's engineers to
| maintain it. No, as an Android user you do not have a right
| for free access to other people's iCloud inboxes. It would
| have been nice if there was an Android email client, but
| asking for someone else to pay for you is dishonest.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Well yep, that's how it is. You don't get iCloud email
| account without an Apple device.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| That's not what I said, mister throwaway :)
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| So what did you say? You actually want access to others'
| inboxes? I don't understand what that means. That's
| usually password protected and considered private data.
| arghwhat wrote:
| They highlighted that the original logic was somewhat
| faulty, and could be applied to say "Non-apple users
| should not be allowed to send emails to Apple users,
| because they have not paid Apple to maintain the iCloud
| email infrastructure!".
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| iCloud Mail is a service that allows your user agent to
| connect and send messages to other email servers.
|
| iMessage is a service that allows your phone to connect
| and send messages to other iMessage users.
|
| Use email if that's what you need. Nobody forces you to
| use iMessage/Telegram/WhatsApp/...
| arghwhat wrote:
| > Nobody forces you to use iMessage/Telegram/WhatsApp/...
|
| The EU strongly disagrees with this statement in case of
| the the latter two, which is why they are being targetted
| by the DMA and must provide interopability so that you
| cannot continue to be forced to use them.
|
| If iMessage had users in the EU, the same would have
| applied there.
|
| Being forced to use something does not mean you are being
| held at gunpoint or that no other options exist. For
| messaging apps, being in a location where your entire
| social network uses one app is indeed a case where the
| average person ends up forced to use that app as picking
| another option means not talking to your social network
| (unwanted) or having to convert everyone else
| (unreasonable). This harms both competition and users.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| The EU strongly disagreed about many things that it later
| admitted were wrong (or just quietly changed its stance
| on), for example nuclear energy policy or biofuel
| additives. It also kind of does its own thing without
| really consulting the general population. Practically
| nobody even knows what's happening there in my country.
| Symbiote wrote:
| We are discussing Apple's submission to the EU
| regulators.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Yes, one of the newer things EU is wrong about.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| so? in both cases you are using Apple's precious servers
| samrus wrote:
| I don't think your arguing in good faith. I dont like to
| throw around the word "shill" but it gets hard sometimes.
|
| Assuming you are just misunderstanding. The comment about
| iCloud email is talking about interoperability. Where
| someone with a gmail account should be able to send an
| email to someone with iCloud account. And vice versa.
|
| The argument is that it is not OK to prevent this sort of
| interoperability, and requiring this does not mean you
| have serve the users of other services with servers and
| hosting, you just have to allow WhatsApp to send messages
| to imessage and vice versa. Just like email
| hu3 wrote:
| No need for SMS. There are more than 10 free messaging apps,
| starting with Signal.
|
| To add to that, in most countries iMessage has irrelevant
| market-share and I know people who don't even know what that
| word means (we tech people live in bubbles). So an Android
| iMessage is not really sought after in most places anyway.
| eitally wrote:
| If you want to be pedantic in this way, SMS isn't free,
| either. You pay your carrier for access to that (and their
| servers and engineers to support & maintain it).
| yndoendo wrote:
| Technically a carrier is only needed for receiving messages
| and not sending. Sending a SMS to someone who is on AT&T is
| just as simple as sending an email to [phone
| number]@txt.att.net.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| You don't. You get no-fee access to iMessage with your Apple
| devices (phones, tablets, laptops, desktops). Why is that
| relevant though? Why should Apple be forced to support apps on
| their competitor's platform?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Because the EU specifically wrote a law requiring (among
| other people) Apple to support apps on their competitor's
| platform, as a response to a bunch of anti-competitive
| nonsense the tech industry does with messaging apps.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| No, they didn't. There might be something about
| interoperability of the service with other services, but
| they definitely didn't do what you claim.
| arghwhat wrote:
| To clarify: The Digital Markets Act includes a
| requirement for large message services to be
| interoperable (e.g., that you can chat with a WhatsApp
| user from Telegram), but Apple argues that iMessage does
| not have enough users in the EU to qualify.
|
| Apple might be correct in this regard, as iMessage is not
| very popular in EU specifically. For this to apply here,
| either Apple would have to be caught lying about their
| numbers (not impossible), the EU would have to lower the
| minimums, or the US would have to create their own
| counterpart as iMessage is much more popular in the US.
| pmontra wrote:
| Everybody really use WhatsApp to send messages to friends
| here, especially in group chats. I'm using Telegram with
| some friends and for some groups but WhatsApp is bigger.
| Anything else is a rounding error.
|
| It's not even easy to know who's got an iPhone now: it's
| just a big phone with lots of cameras as any other one.
| However it's likely that two close friends, families, etc
| all using iPhones could decide to use iMessage for their
| own messages. Same as for... (had to google it) FaceTime.
| bauruine wrote:
| Getting it for free with your Apple device sounds like
| "monetise it via the sale of hardware devices" which they
| supposedly don't do.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| I don't know, it doesn't to me. To me it sounds like they
| provide a convenient free service like many other free
| services (Telegram, WhatsApp, ...), but limit it to their
| actual customers so it stays limited in scope and they
| don't need to start selling data and ad space like others
| do to support it.
| djfdat wrote:
| free in that case, being subsidized by other purchases
| and the value of lock-in on those users. Doesn't sound
| like free. Sounds likes a calculated offering where users
| are paying, not in terms of their data, but their
| inability to change platforms and guarantee of future
| purchases being spent on Apple products.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Is there any case in your world where a company just
| provides a free convenient service to its customers, or
| is it always an ulterior motive?
| arghwhat wrote:
| When a service reaches a certain size, it is not just a
| small free service for its users. This is the point of
| gatekeeper regulations: Ensuring that services large
| enough to have significant impact on people are well-
| behaved and compatible.
|
| The argument that iMessage is a service provided by Apple
| for Apple products and that they should be allowed to do
| whatever with their products is the same argument they've
| used to restrict App Store, force developers to use their
| payment systems and charge outrageous cuts of every
| payment a user might make through there.
|
| iMessage plays quite a notable role in this, as a user
| whose friends use iMessage (more prevalent in parts of
| the U.S. I think) might feel unable to move away in order
| to be connected to their iMessage-using friends, in turn
| ensuring that they keep buying iPhones and paying Apple a
| 30% cut of all their app subscriptions from Duolingo to
| Disney+.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| They give iMessage an unfair advantage by allowing it
| access to their device functions they prevent iMessage
| competitors from accessing.
|
| They do this with a lot of things, if you try to use a
| password manager on iOS other than Apple's, it's so
| restricted it's almost unusable.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| What device functions exactly? I don't see many
| differences in the UX and functionalities of WhatsApp or
| Telegram.
| Kilenaitor wrote:
| Not OP but one that is usually contentions is the ability
| to act as an SMS client. Facebook's Messenger can or at
| least used to be able to do this on Android. It cannot on
| iOS.
| throwaway22056 wrote:
| Ugh, that's one of the things I really hate about it (and
| hated about Messenger and that Google app thing on
| Android).
| greedo wrote:
| Are you kidding? 1Password is excellent on iOS, far
| better than the MacOS version.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I don't think you can use 1Password passkey without
| turning on the default password manager; at least, you
| cannot login using apple account passkey on the computer
| with 1Password.
| jb1991 wrote:
| 1Password works great for me on macOS and iOS. What am I
| missing?
| Shadowmist wrote:
| I use Bitwarden on iOS and MacOS (and Windows and Linux).
| Works great.
| piperswe wrote:
| In my experience, password managers on iOS are
| significantly more usable than on Android.
|
| Source: recently switched from iPhone to Pixel, not sure
| how long I can keep it up though
| makeitdouble wrote:
| That would be fair enough if they didn't have a message
| trail of execs positing iMessage is a stake against
| android that they can't let go.
| bloppe wrote:
| This might be true in Europe, but not in America. In
| Europe, nobody uses iMessage, because WhatsApp got there
| first. iMessage is locked down and therefore less useful
| than WhatsApp. Despite the fact that iMessage is pre-
| installed in iPhones, and you can't change your default
| messaging app, and everything about the iPhone encourages
| you to use it, people _still_ download WhatsApp instead.
| That 's how things are supposed to be; the more useful,
| more open, more technically capable service won out. And
| no, WhatsApp does not have ads, nor does it collect your
| data due to its E2E encryption.
|
| In America, iMessage got there first. Even though it's
| technically worse than WhatsApp, enough people use it (a
| majority) that it doesn't matter that it handicaps its
| own users with SMS and green bubbles. People think it's
| all the other phones' fault rather than the iPhone's
| fault. It's a massive driver of iPhone sales, and Apple
| execs are on the record acknowledging that.
|
| That's not how it's supposed to work. The better
| messaging platforms should be competitive. Apple stock
| would _tank_ if they were forced to open up the iMessage
| API.
| withinboredom wrote:
| > Apple stock would tank if they were forced to open up
| the iMessage API.
|
| If I were on the board of Apple, that's precisely why I'd
| be pushing for it to be open. I would be terrified if my
| company's value were in a stupid chatting protocol. It's
| the difference between accidentally driving off a cliff
| and purposely driving off a cliff with a parachute. I'd
| choose the parachute and make money/goodwill from the
| exposure vs. losing everything because the "blue sheeple"
| woke up.
| Arnt wrote:
| They say they don't do that. Here's one way it could have
| happened:
|
| Suppose Apple had plans to monetise iMessage at the time it
| was developed and eventually decided against it for
| whatever reason. This would leave the company with a an app
| running on most phones. What to do? I can easily imaging
| someone standing up in a meeting and suggesting: "Well,
| running it costs very little, why don't we just minimise
| the cost of running it and keep providing it for as long as
| the cost is low?"
| bloppe wrote:
| That doesn't change that fact that they're monetizing it
| via hardware sales
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| The bullet points-read of the DMA do's and don'ts is Apple is
| only obliged to not impose barriers to installing third party
| messaging apps, browsers, mail clients, camera apps, etc.
| nerdix wrote:
| Its pretty funny because one of the only decent arguments
| against Beeper was that iMessage isn't actually free because it
| is a service that is funded by hardware sales so therefore
| Apple is under no obligation to provide it to non-customers.
| Arnt wrote:
| Apple is saying, separately, <<our reason to run iMessage
| isn't selling hardware>> and <<funding for running iMessage
| comes from customers and we won't provide it to non-
| customers>>. Both paraphrased by me. I've no idea why they do
| develop and run iMessage, but I also don't necessarily see a
| conflict between the two sentiments.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| I don't charge a fee to sit at my dining room table and eat the
| food I cook.
|
| But that doesn't mean anyone can come sit at my table and eat
| my food. Nobody reasonable thinks it does.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| In this case you only allow people to sit at your table who
| have bought a $1000 device from you, and you are also
| claiming that the food is free.
| Spivak wrote:
| Yes, and in this case the food is still free. Buy one get
| one doesn't make the second one not free. You bought access
| to the table and we provide free food to entice you into
| the purchase, but we're allowed to revoke the food at any
| time because you're not paying for it. It's like how mobile
| carriers will give you access to Netflix/HBO Max for free
| while you use them.
| sigmar wrote:
| That's a great reason why your dinner table is not covered by
| the Digital Markets Act. But here they're trying to argue the
| law shouldn't apply because Apple isn't getting money from
| iMessage, when it's clearly been part of their strategy for
| selling more iPhones for a long time[1][2].
|
| [1] https://bgr.com/tech/apple-had-a-good-reason-to-bring-
| imessa... [2] https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-
| biden-outlines-wh...
| Arnt wrote:
| That's interesting. I wonder which of the built-in apps Apple
| regards as being monetised via the sale of phones and which
| not.
|
| (Just to be clear: I have no problems believing that it is like
| that. I've worked at a company that spent a _lot_ of effort on
| a service that earned nothing, I asked about it, the CEO looked
| at me blankly and just said that that service wasn 't
| monetised. People make choices I don't understand. Why
| shouldn't Apple do that?)
| qgin wrote:
| Same place you can demand Burger King sell you a Big Mac
| spogbiper wrote:
| How do I use the other 4 app stores on my iPhone?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they are arguing that all their devices have different
| stores.
| wang_li wrote:
| It's not a competition thing, it's a size thing.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _The company contends that iMessage [doesn't fall within the
| scope of the DMA] as it is not a fee-based service and it does
| not monetise it via the sale of hardware devices nor via the
| processing of personal data._
|
| This seems to undermine one of the main arguments that was used
| against Beeper Mini, mainly that iMessage access was "purchased"
| by buying an Apple device, and so Beeper Mini users were
| "stealing" iMessage.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Did Apple use that argument against Beeper Mini? I thought it
| was just the public.
| freedomben wrote:
| Fair point, although I don't think Apple used _any_ arguments
| against Beeper Mini. They just released "security fixes"
| TrianguloY wrote:
| So, does this means that Apple doesn't have a monopoly, but 5 of
| them?
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Well one of them (on Mac) is certainly not a monopoly, on my
| Mac I have like two apps from the Mac App Store, the rest is
| bought directly or via Homebrew.
| danmur wrote:
| A monopoly on monopolies
| moffkalast wrote:
| Sounds like they need to be broken up, they make a compelling
| case.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I wonder what the thinking is with this argument. Make the EU
| come up with an argument that they need to open the apple watch
| and apple TV to third party app stores too because that seems
| more silly? Or are they just trying to split it up so iphone
| numbers are smaller? Or do they hope that they end up with a
| precedent that they can apply to all their devices instead of
| just one?
| guitarbill wrote:
| Android is quite a bit more popular than iPhones in the EU
| (roughly 66% vs 33%). And the iPhone app store is likely the
| most lucrative one for Apple. So it makes sense to try and
| isolate it. It will be interesting to see how the iPad affects
| this.
|
| I'm not sure about the wearable/smartwatch market. That could
| be more skewed towards Apple Watch. Doubt anybody cares about
| Apple TV. macOS store is likely exempt as - for now - Macs can
| install software from anywhere.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Not so, said Apple, as the App Store isn't a single entity.
|
| And yet, here's Apple's _own_ description of the App Store: _"
| For over a decade, the App Store has proved to be a safe and
| trusted place to discover and download apps. But the App Store is
| more than just a storefront -- it's an innovative destination
| focused on bringing you amazing experiences. And a big part of
| those experiences is ensuring that the apps we offer are held to
| the highest standards for privacy, security, and content. Because
| we offer nearly two million apps -- and we want you to feel good
| about using every single one of them."_
|
| https://www.apple.com/app-store/
| crazygringo wrote:
| It doesn't matter how Apple markets it to consumers.
|
| The law was written in a certain technical way, and what's
| relevant here is whether it counts as 1 or 5 stores according
| to the law.
|
| It's the same way you could claim Amazon is 1 store, or 58
| stores (1 for each country) or 2.5 million stores (for each
| third-party seller).
|
| They're all correct for different purposes, and none of them
| have anything to do with whatever Amazon writes in marketing
| material.
|
| Likewise, it's perfectly valid for Apple to argue that the law
| considers the size of an app store per operating system, since
| an app for one OS doesn't necessarily run on another.
|
| The argument might succeed or it might not. But it doesn't have
| anything to do with marketing copy.
| ajross wrote:
| The DMA is an antitrust statute. While sure, you can argue
| that Apple operates different stores as a matter of
| implementation, it strains reason to claim that they somehow
| _compete with each other_. No, this argument is silly. Silly
| arguments aren 't illegal, but it's hard to imaging this
| swaying any judges who aren't just looking for an excuse to
| find in one direction (which happens! which is why lawyers
| sometimes construct silly arguments to act as excuses).
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Both sides have to be consistent. If they lump all the app
| stores together to make an argument just about phones, for
| example, that won't fly with judges.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But that's not what anybody is claiming.
|
| This is a simple bar the DMA set up that an app store has
| to be a particular minimum size for the law to apply.
|
| That has nothing to do with whether the app stores compete
| against _each other_. They don 't have to. That's not the
| purpose here.
|
| There's nothing silly about Apple's argument. It's no
| different as to whether Microsoft has one app store for
| Windows and one for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're
| separate. Same thing for Apple Watch and Apple TV.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > whether Microsoft has one app store for Windows and one
| for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're separate.
|
| At the same time... https://www.xbox.com/en-
| US/games/xbox-play-anywhere
| arghwhat wrote:
| When dealing with antitrust, the general assumption is
| that you cannot _trust_ the company (heh). It is rather
| obvious that a company will do their best to interpret
| themselves in a way where legislation is less applicable.
|
| In this particular case, the argument _is_ silly: The
| users are presented with one storefront under one name,
| where apps can have different degrees of support, and
| apps can be installed on platforms they were not made for
| (e.g., iPhone apps on iPad or macOS) despite that they
| claim those are served by different "stores".
|
| If this argument was valid, you could also say that the
| Google Play store is not one store, but a gajillion
| stores for each individual Android device series - e.g.,
| a Google Pixel phone store, a Google Pixel tablet store,
| a Google TV store, a Samsung phone store, a Samsung
| tablet store, a...
|
| It is incredibly silly, and serves only to avoid applying
| the legislation to e.g. Apple TV so they can keep
| avoiding sideloading and forcing subscription cuts there.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It is also rather obvious that companies are allowed to
| defend themselves. "Trust" is irrelevant here -- this is
| a court case about facts.
|
| And your Google Play example isn't analogous, because
| this isn't about "device series", it's about operating
| systems. Samsung and Pixel phones have the same OS and
| generally share the same set of installable apps.
|
| I'm not saying Apple's argument is necessarily going to
| win. I'm just saying that it's not "silly" -- we
| shouldn't dismiss it like that. Because this isn't about
| some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in
| consumer's eyes, it's about how this particular law
| defines a store, for the purposes of this law only, in
| technical terms.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of
| what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes
|
| You misunderstand the law.
|
| Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law.
|
| There are all sorts of laws that have words and
| interpretations which could be argued either way.
|
| And the way that we choose between those interpretations
| is often through things like juries. IE, an every day
| layman's "common sense".
|
| > it's about how this particular law defines a store,
|
| And how that law defines a store, and could be
| interpreted between competing definitions is through
| common sense. It's through a human, a person, using their
| common sense to understand the law, and ultimately decide
| if that is how a store is defined.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock
| defining feature of the law._
|
| But common sense isn't all there is. The law is also full
| of technical definitions, and words which in a legal
| sense don't correspond to their "common" sense, which is
| why people spend years in law school.
|
| And like I said, there are multiple valid ways of
| defining the scope of a digital store. What matters here
| is the technical, legal definition in this particular
| case. Not the "common sense" of somebody on the street.
| withinboredom wrote:
| This isn't in the US.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| The DMA was deliberately written with Apple's app
| store(s) in mind. Apple's argument is silly because they
| know their argument directly violates the letter and
| intent of the DMA. In the unlikely event that Apple wins
| this argument, the DMA will be updated so they lose.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yes, and this is going to end up targeting the app store
| for iPhones no matter what.
|
| The question here is whether the DMA was meant to apply
| to Apple TV's, for instance. Or Apple Watches.
|
| If Apple wins, it's not even remotely clear that the DMA
| will be rewritten to cover Apple TV's. It's not clear the
| EU cares about Apple TV's at all.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| But if they're separate App Stores, why does Apple
| repeatedly say they're a single App Store?
|
| They do it again here:
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/11/apple-unveils-app-
| sto...
|
| _> "This year's winners include developers from across
| the world, whose apps and games were chosen by the App
| Store's Editorial team for providing users with
| meaningful experiences and inspiring cultural change."_
|
| Note: not "the App Stores' Editorial team"
|
| _> This year's winners showcase the scope of creativity,
| technical innovation, and design possible across the App
| Store and Apple's ecosystem._
|
| That sounds a lot like one App Store for the whole
| ecosystem?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| You half expect them to try saying "Umm actually, the App
| Store running on each device is a distinct store so we
| have two billion individual App Stores."
| mckn1ght wrote:
| They also break out the awards per platform. There are
| best apps for iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV and Mac, same with
| games.
|
| I seriously doubt that simple grammatical usage examples
| from a page like this would be enough. More likely the
| structure of the app stores and whether they're separate
| or not would have to be outlined in detail in a legal
| document like their Terms of Service (which admittedly I
| haven't scoured very thoroughly at all).
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| > The law was written in a certain technical way
|
| That's not how the law works.
|
| That's why all those Sovereign Citizens don't get to make
| their own laws up, even if they may have found a technical
| out.
|
| The spirit of the law also matters, beyond just the technical
| wording of the law.
| Kilenaitor wrote:
| Courts are the ones that interpret them. That's why Apple's
| argument is made to an EU court, not legislature.
| EPWN3D wrote:
| It's not that cut and dry -- "the spirit of the law" is not
| a get-out-of-jail-free card for poorly-drafted legislation.
| That's why we have courts. They'll weigh the text of the
| law versus the drafted text versus the equities of imposing
| this level of regulation on Apple.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The law was written in a certain technical way, and what's
| relevant here is whether it counts as 1 or 5 stores according
| to the law.
|
| European judges don't really look favourable on defendants
| attempting to circumvent laws on technicialities - they also
| take the reasoning behind a law into account. This crucial
| difference is what many American companies learn the hard way
| when they try to bulldoze their way through European laws.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| Uh, that sort of depends on what part of EU you are
| speaking of. The Romance countries does not have the same
| legal traditions as as the ones based on the English way
| (even if uk is gone, there are others that share tradition
| with them), and the Scandinavian countries are different to
| both.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > The law was written in a certain technical way, and what's
| relevant here is whether it counts as 1 or 5 stores according
| to the law. It's the same way you could claim Amazon is 1
| store, or 58 stores (1 for each country) or 2.5 million
| stores (for each third-party seller).
|
| IMO this culture of "Rules Lawyering" and being technically
| correct is one of the reasons why everything is so shitty and
| why companies always seem to get away with bad behavior in
| the US. This is the corporate version of a six year old
| waving his hands 2 millimeters in front of his sister's face
| saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"
|
| Yes, the marketing material is totally irrelevant and should
| be considered fiction, but I would hope that a judge would
| look at the actual end-user experience is in totality, rather
| than accepting some silliness like "look, it's 5 different IP
| addresses, so ackshually it's 5 different stores!" or
| whatever the technicality-driven argument will be.
| kristjansson wrote:
| There's nothing _but_ 'rules lawyering'.
|
| All good intentions that hope to have an impact on the real
| world have to be reified as policy, which has to be
| implemented as law, which usually delegates specifics to
| rules-making. We can be disappointed that ultimate product
| of that process often falls well short of the original
| intention, but laws and rules are wildly preferable
| implementation of policy than judgement alone.
| linkgoron wrote:
| That's just not true. A lot of judicial systems give
| leeway for judges to rule using the spirit of the law and
| not just the letter of the law. Especially for obviously
| fake arguments, or when laws need updating to newer norms
| or unforeseen technologies.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Judicial interpretation is essential. Half the artifice
| of western civilization is built on the word 'reasonable'
| and its interpretations in caselaw. However judgement
| cannot be the primary definition of a policy. 'I know it
| when I see it' couldn't even be the definition of
| obscenity - the court repaired it 10 years later with a
| more clearly delineated test in Miller.
|
| The definition of 'platform' or 'monopoly' or w/e in the
| context of TFA is necessarily going to be technical and
| detailed, and encourage the entities it regulates to
| drive right up to the lines it draws. The job of the
| policymaker is to draw lines that accomplish her
| intentions.
| kemayo wrote:
| The problem with "I know it when I see it" definitions is
| that there's an inherent lack of consistency, in that two
| different judges aren't guaranteed to reach the same
| conclusion.
|
| For instance: fair use of copyrighted content. The only way
| to know _for sure_ whether something is fair use is to go
| through a lawsuit. You can be pretty confident in advance,
| but you genuinely can 't rule out the possibility that the
| judge will disagree with you because of something entirely
| subjective.
|
| Writing an objective technical definition can lead to rules
| lawyering, but the fix there is to improve the rules and
| close the loopholes. Otherwise you're always at the mercy
| of being sued and happening to draw a judge in your case
| who makes a weird decision.
| linkgoron wrote:
| The system already acknowledges that two judges are not
| guaranteed to reach the same conclusion. First of all,
| because there's a system of appeals. However, an even
| stronger example is that you need a majority of judges in
| certain cases - e.g. in the US Supreme Court and other
| courts.
| bbor wrote:
| this culture of "Rules Lawyering"
|
| I'm with you on hating Apple but I actually like when
| judges stick to Rules Lawyering. It can be tempting to ask
| them to "consider the whole situation" and bend the rules
| towards justice, but that's how we get unelected people
| doing stuff like a court unilaterally removing abortion
| protections in the US.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| Ok, your example is kind of strange though because the
| courts unilaterally added them first.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The fact that the courts changed their mind multiple
| times is a further argument against trusting them.
| pests wrote:
| It is okay to change you mind when given new evidence or
| the circumstances change.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I mean yeah, as an individual. I'd hope for a little bit
| more stability and reliability in a legal system.
| pests wrote:
| That's why Supreme Court justices can't be removed - to
| resist the quick changing whims of the public.
|
| We're almost 250 years old. Hopefully some things have
| changed in our society and culture to cause a change in
| the legal system.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The ruling was 50 years old, not 250. Sure, the general
| process can change. But, it should be hard to remove
| freedoms that already exist, and the fact that they were
| able to change a 50 year old ruling on a whim is bad.
| trealira wrote:
| There wasn't any new evidence, though, and the
| circumstances hadn't changed, other than the composition
| of the Supreme Court.
|
| Their argument was not that circumstances had changed,
| but that the the case was decided wrong to begin with,
| comparing _Roe v. Wade_ to the case _Plessy v. Ferguson_
| , famous for deciding that laws enforcing racial
| segregation did not violate the U.S. Constitution so long
| as each race was given equal quality facilities
| ("separate but equal").
| bbor wrote:
| Yeah but for a legal reason. Not "eh it felt unjust". But
| more materially: yes I bite that bullet that was a bad
| procedural move that saved millions of women. If the
| Supreme Court really was taking a stand about turning
| back the mistakes we made with jurisprudence in the 19th
| century, I would've supported the overturning of roe v
| wade. Instead (and I hope this is a non controversial,
| HN-friendly statement) they were very clearly and
| somewhat openly driven by ideology.
| filoleg wrote:
| Laws are imo somewhere between code and natural language,
| and imo closer to the code end of the spectrum.
|
| If you go full "natural language" approach that's open to
| whatever interpretation, that's how you get kingdoms and
| dictatorships. Everything seems cool and all with the
| "natural language" approach to a legal system, up until the
| point the person in power decides to arbitrarily use it
| against the interests of the people they are governing.
|
| This is pretty much why laws in countries with at least
| somewhat functional legal systems tend to be treated more
| like pieces of code rather than whatever someone thinks
| things should vaguely and generally.
|
| The culture of "rules lawyering" is imo the best we can do
| if we want the legal system to treat everyone equally and
| impartially. Do you think that all the people involved in
| legal systems over thousands of years were just not
| enlightened enough to ever consider "why do we have all
| those ultra specific and codified laws, let's just issue a
| list of general things like 'don't harm other people' and
| 'respect property of other people' that would cover pretty
| much any undesirable behavior, and then call it a day?".
|
| If anything, legal systems became more "rules lawyered" and
| more similar to code over time, precisely because the world
| has been moving in the direction of more fairness and
| equality. I mean, not that long ago at all, we had some of
| the most advanced nation-states being ruled by a single
| king/queen/emperor/etc. And their word was not only a de-
| facto "absolute definition of the law", but also de-jure
| (as opposed to some contemporary modern nation-states, like
| DRPK or Russia, that where laws technically exist on paper,
| but de-facto their codified definition doesn't matter much
| at all,).
| avar wrote:
| Some dictatorships are doing stricter rules lawyering
| than any democracy, the "issue" being that there's an
| unambiguous rule somewhere that the King is sovereign
| without limits on their power.
|
| I think you have this backwards.
| libertine wrote:
| Then they falsely advertise their Appstore, claiming it's one
| unified system when in reality it's not.
|
| And after that's settled, then it's just a matter of taking
| this case and breaking it into the number of stores they
| have, because they still have the monopoly of each system.
|
| Hopefully, the EU courts can see past this silliness and just
| steamroll over it - as an EU citizen, I do hope we've passed
| the point of having massive corporations dodge their
| responsibilities due to legal technicalities.
| heisenbit wrote:
| The beauty of being a regulator is that you have a lot of
| leeway when it comes to interpreting your rules. Apples
| disrespectful approach is certainly not going down well and
| even if it is intended play for time will cost them more than
| they gain.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Even if I like some of their products, this is a quite lame
| excuse, and typical Apple line of argumentation.
| pentae wrote:
| I wouldn't read into it too much, this is what some of the best
| paid lawyers in the world cooked up to protect their client and
| par for the course
| rambambram wrote:
| Whether they are the "best paid lawyers" or not, if I was
| Apple I would let the marketing department keep an eye on
| these public statements.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I'm not sure the marketing department cares. Apple has
| literally said their customers had lied about the butterfly
| keyboard issue for years, when they did the lying.
|
| They cannot be damaged, they have a populist demagogue-like
| effect.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Don't hate the player hate the game - law systems are so
| backwards sometimes, you can score a home run being lame
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Can you imagine if everyone abused the system?
|
| Good thing we frown upon that unless you are a trillion
| dollar corp.
| rob74 wrote:
| > _But Apple may succeed in arguing that its app stores for other
| devices should be excluded. (The Mac App Store should already be
| safe, as users are free to download and install apps direct from
| developers.)_
|
| And I imagine Apple would just _love_ to close this historical
| "loophole", but is probably afraid of the backlash...
| grishka wrote:
| That would not be possible because Macs are much more open by
| design. There are so many methods to subvert such a
| restriction, and most of them can't be removed without
| significantly degrading the utility of the OS. And even if we
| suppose they did do that, users would just stop updating and
| stop buying new hardware incapable of running old OS versions.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Could not they do that by arguing their chip requires using
| only ARM-SAFE apps?
| aa_is_op wrote:
| Good... five times the fine then!
| newbie578 wrote:
| Hilarious argument, I cannot wait for Apple to open the walled
| garden this year. Especially for the feeling of vindication here
| on HN. A lot of people would basically go on you as vultures if
| you dared voice your opinion that Apple should not have absolute
| control over the platform and that it doesn't matter what their
| ToS says..
|
| Look and behold the wall is coming down. And tbh it does feel
| pretty good after arguing about this on HN for the last couple of
| years.
| devsda wrote:
| > The company in its argument to the EU competition enforcer said
| it operates five App Stores on iPhones, iPads, Mac computers,
| Apple TVs and Apple Watches, with each designed to distribute
| apps for a specific operating system and Apple device
|
| They might as well count the iphones with different aspect ratios
| and inflate the number beyond five.
| simion314 wrote:
| AFAIK Japan is also working on the Google and Apple monopoly or
| abuses with the store, so for the ones that always will use the
| same anti-EU arguments try to make them generic to also work for
| Japan.
| christkv wrote:
| I wish the EU said. All public messages services must implement
| the xmpp protocol as an optional connection interface and be done
| with it.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Even if they do it, for the sake of argument, which they don't,
| it won't fly the way you'd like it because unless it comes with
| lots of red tape ensuring you cannot just whitelist/blacklist a
| certain type of client on a whim, it's useless. Apple will
| continue to enforce its authentication scheme where you have to
| come from iCloud, and you have to attest your device and OS
| too. What good is it for you to know it's XMPP under the hood
| if only a blessed client can connect to it?
| grishka wrote:
| Yeah, fine, there are 5 app stores, except they are still owned
| by the same company enforcing the same asinine rules in all of
| them.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| I've run across a report that the same app was accepted into
| iOS App Store while rejected with bullshit reason from the Mac
| App Store... go figure.
| threeseed wrote:
| This is not true. So the rules are very different between Mac
| and iOS.
|
| Apple allows all sorts of apps to be tolerated on Mac
| especially those that are developer focused and require
| elevated access.
| agluszak wrote:
| [news] Big Corp blatantly lies to avoid being punished for
| breaking the law
| amelius wrote:
| If you're opposed to the idea of governments regulating a market,
| then wait until you've seen a company regulating one ...
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Is Apple trying to pull an Amazon when they said they were a half
| dozen entities in EU and therefor did not qualify as a big
| company? ( perhaps even a small business.. )
|
| Btw they might have many "stores" but the market is single and so
| the brand and "store front", but let's entertainment yet another
| childish tantrum from Apple..
| zogrodea wrote:
| I hadn't heard about Amazon in court but curious to see what
| you and others in this thread are referencing with this
| comparison.
|
| Is it about this article? Maybe you would have another link I
| can read about what silly thing Amazon tried?
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/...
|
| Thanks!
| PedroBatista wrote:
| I was being "cheeky" and misremembered the details but it was
| based on this: https://qz.com/amazon-vlop-big-tech-dsa-law-
| eu-regulations-f...
|
| Still, the overall ridiculous claims and loopholes still
| stand.
| bni wrote:
| I don't care about developers needs in the slightest.
|
| As a user I want there to be a single App Store on the iPhone and
| not the horrible mess like Windows with everyone having their own
| store/launcher.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| I doubt that'll happen. Android has had the possibility to
| create alternative app stores since the very beginning and even
| though there are other stores like F-Droid or whatever Samsung
| calls their bloatware nowadays almost no one uses them. Apple
| will not bloat their devices with that crap (talking about the
| Samsung stuff F-Droid is great and I'd love to see an
| equivalent for iPhones) from the factory and the vast majority
| of users will still use the default because it's what they are
| accustomed to and what's recommended by the manufacturer.
|
| All mainstream apps will remain in the Apple store and
| everything will be pretty much the same with the ability to
| side-load whatever you please to the device you bought.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Google Play is much less restrictive. You can download real
| Firefox from there, so there's no point using a different app
| store for that.
|
| This might be a good side effect - to compete with other app
| stores (to discourage users from installing them), they might
| ease up the restrictions.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Does the App Store still ban GPL apps? If so, F-Droid is even
| more needed on iDevices...
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Can't you avoid the horrible mess on windows by not installing
| any store you don't want ?
|
| I assume you're thinking about Steam for instance ? Forgo
| Steam, and you're back to the iPhone situation where you only
| get a small portion of the ecosystem in nice and clean walled
| garden. You're in the mess only if you care about getting the
| full choice of applications, which Apple will never allow on
| its own.
| faet wrote:
| Even with steam I can buy a game on steam and install it on
| steam. Then when I go run it, I need to first install another
| company's launcher. This includes signing up, confirming my
| email, etc.
|
| Even single player games will require you launch, sign up,
| and auth with EA's servers before you can play said game.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| My issue with that is Apple's own polices aren't about consumer
| wants. Look at how they limit Steam Link and Netflix to prevent
| payment from customers. That doesn't help consumers in any way,
| but just Apple wanting more control and fees.
|
| Then it forces consumers to use a browser to pay like Netflix
| or Spotify, that consumers have no way of knowing about because
| the app can't mention it. Or have the entire app as a PWA like
| Xbox Cloud Streaming and Geforce Now because Apple don't care
| about the single App Store either, so I'm forced to find the
| "PWA app store".
|
| So even without caring about developers, I think this monopoly
| needs to be regulated. The other way to regulate it would be to
| force Apple App Store to carry all these, and allow all these
| different payments. I think you'd agree with me that that'd be
| even worse.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| I'd love to use Firefox on my iPhone with proper adblock. Alas,
| Apple will not permit me.
| jokoon wrote:
| it's crazy how many times US companies went to EU courts, would
| it GDPR, taxes, monopolies, etc etc
| okanat wrote:
| Because they are the ones that can exploit lax laws of the US
| (or lax execution). The reason the big companies became big is
| since 80s almost no company got broken by the US.
|
| The US is mostly a single culture and people mostly speak a
| single language. It is already easier to found more successful
| companies in the US. Then the laws give much more leeway in
| workers rights, privacy rights and environment protection in
| the US.
|
| When those companies enter EU market, they try to steamroll the
| existing EU ones who did everything by the book. They can
| exploit loopholes better, they can get better loans (sometimes
| at the expense of natural persons' accounts) and sell for a
| loss for longer, they can hire lawyers to delay decisions while
| forcing other competitors into bankruptcy.
|
| This reduces actual competition and innovation. Not the best,
| most beneficial product with better operational cost, customer
| benefit or even the best profit wins. The one that can inflate
| their value the most wins.
|
| Amazon is a great example of that. Their store sucks in every
| single way. Filtering sucks, search sucks, quality sucks,
| delivery sucks, returns except the Amazon center suck. There
| are way better stores in just Germany than Amazon. But
| everybody buys at Amazon because they can strong arm sellers to
| reduce prices to unreasonable levels and avoid strong tax laws.
|
| Some people in the EU see this as an actual problem for the
| economy and act. They try to level the playing field. The US
| government sleeps on the laws so the companies grow stronger
| and try to do even more misdeeds globally which also negatively
| affects EU.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Hahaha - what a BS argument!
|
| And if I have a MacBook, for instance, do I have a choice in
| downloading the app from the iPad store or the iPhone store? No,
| there's just one for my device!
|
| And do I have a choice to use a non Apple App Store? No!
|
| So while there might be multiple stores for Apple, there's only
| one for my device from Apple
|
| It's like arguing that any monopoly isn't actually a monopoly
| because the company has multiple physical locations. But the
| consumer has one choice, constrained by geography
|
| I'm no lawyer but this is clearly a Hail Mary, perhaps suggested
| by some law firm to get a little more money out of Apple
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > And if I have a MacBook, for instance, do I have a choice in
| downloading the app from the MacBook store or the iPhone store?
| No, there's one for my device!
|
| If it's an Apple Silicon MacBook, yes.
|
| It's actually the same App Store application but it can be used
| to download mobile apps. I think in this case the line being
| drawn at what frontend is used to interact with the stores is
| splitting hairs.
|
| I agree with the rest of your arguments.
| obmelvin wrote:
| I tried to do this recently to download some apps to my
| Macbook - a few 3rd party apps and the new Journal app from
| Apple. As far as I could tell, only some apps are directly
| installable on the laptop, despite this claim? It seemed like
| I basically needed to sideload the file directly from my
| phone to the computer.
|
| I tried googling and chatgpt, but would love to hear that I
| missed something!
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Developers have the option to disable iOS apps from being
| installed on Apple silicon macs. Unfortunately most 'big'
| apps just disable this for whatever reason.
|
| I don't believe you can 'sideload' unsupported ipas from an
| iOS device any more.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The reason why everyone disabled their iPhone & iPad apps
| on macOS is because nobody wants to license their
| software for unified purchases. Either because they want
| to charge different prices for each platform (which means
| they have to sell them separately and charge you twice),
| or because they're a streaming app with different
| licensing requirements between mobile and desktop.
|
| This isn't even exclusive to Apple. When Microsoft added
| Android app support to Windows 11, they also updated the
| Amazon App Store version of Minecraft so that it'd only
| work on a Fire tablet, because they want you to buy the
| more expensive native port. The alternative would be
| getting rid of the $7 tablet version and making everyone
| pay $30 for Minecraft just in case someone wants to port
| their licenses over to Windows.
| nodamage wrote:
| > Unfortunately most 'big' apps just disable this for
| whatever reason.
|
| Probably because they already have Mac apps built with
| native Mac controls designed specifically for use with a
| mouse and keyboard. Why would they enable the option to
| run a shittier touch-centric user interface and confuse
| their users with two different versions of the same app?
| stetrain wrote:
| You can use any App Store or downloaded app on your MacBook.
|
| For instance I have Steam on mine which is basically the
| definition of third party App Store.
|
| For iPhones and iPads you're correct though.
| jevoten wrote:
| > But the consumer has one choice, constrained by geography
|
| Even if their choice wasn't so constrained, the choice between
| shopping at the Walmart next door, or the Walmart down the
| road, is not very helpful. It would have been laughable if the
| Northern Securities trust [1] had argued they were not a
| monopoly because consumers could choose between multiple
| railways (all owned by Northern Securities). In fact, it would
| have been an argument in favor that they _are_ a monopoly.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Securities_Co._v._Uni...
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I download all my apps on my MacBook from brew/cask. I choose
| not to use the app store. I don't put my faith in corporations,
| but I'm also not putting the security of my phone in the hands
| of a 3rd party app store either.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Your laptop, however, is fair game?
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Brew has security audits and mechanisms in place to prevent
| bad actors. I trust OSS volunteers more than I trust
| corporations, does that make sense?
| jonhohle wrote:
| Let me introduce you to the NPM team!
| Dr4kn wrote:
| If 3rd party appstores are allowed what stops people from
| having an open source one?
| itake wrote:
| > And do I have a choice to use a non Apple App Store? No!
|
| I use Steam and Google Chrome on my Macbook. These include
| separate software storefronts.
| lumb63 wrote:
| I agree with your position regarding Apple's statement being
| bogus. That said, I don't understand the monopoly comparison.
| Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying a
| Ford and complaining Chevy parts don't fit. Or a Samsung
| dishwasher only accepts Samsung parts. Or a PC only accepts the
| user's password. Or a lock only accepts one key. Or a pet fish
| cannot fly.
|
| If you buy or use a product that has constraints, you will be
| subject to those constraints. If you do not want to be subject
| to those constraints, do not buy or use those products.
|
| The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple seem to
| badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to my own
| understanding. For instance, the above poster says "if I have a
| MacBook" - the fact that there are other products for consumers
| to buy besides MacBooks, without the constraints of a MacBook,
| is testament to the fact that Apple's position is not
| monopolistic.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| Are you a lawyer, by chance? Because this is the exact
| argument I keep making and the part that I really don't
| understand at all at the anti-Apple positions people take. If
| they were truly a monopoly, I'd be all for breaking it up but
| they're really not and I don't see how this falls into that
| definition for exactly the reasons you've stated.
| tommica wrote:
| > Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying
| a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don't fit
|
| Isn't a more apt comparison be that Ford does not allow Chevy
| to make and sell parts that fit to one of their vehicles.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Nintendo's store is the only one available on a Switch.
| That is almost a congruent comparison.
| tremon wrote:
| Except that you can buy games in a local store and play
| them on your Switch. When was the last time you bought an
| app in a convenience store and then installed it on your
| phone?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Ah, good point.
| hraedon wrote:
| This is true of the switch, but there are versions of
| both the PS5 and Xbox Series that don't have the ability
| to play physical media.
|
| Do they skate because users can pay more to get a version
| of the hardware that has that capability?
| svnt wrote:
| The method of distribution isn't the point at argument
| here, is it?
|
| For this argument to participate we have to assume it
| implies that people could develop, compile and deploy
| Switch games to commodity memory cards and then install
| them.
|
| Otherwise it is the same behavior, from the perspective
| of prohibiting competition.
| tremon wrote:
| What makes you think that I'm arguing the method of
| distribution rather than the number of independent
| sellers?
| geon wrote:
| Aftermarket car parts is a thing, so I don't really see your
| point.
|
| Actually, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If
| apple just allowed it, 3rd party app stores would spring up
| over night.
| eastbound wrote:
| Homebrew is a perfect example of 3rd party app store.
|
| And open-source and free, at that.
| JamesLeonis wrote:
| > Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying
| a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don't fit.
|
| More like Ford preventing you from using 3rd-party parts, and
| thus locking you into Ford's (more expensive) parts and
| service.
|
| > The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple
| seem to badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to
| my own understanding.
|
| The US is moving forward with Antitrust against Apple.
| Previous discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38883393
| jorvi wrote:
| > The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple
| seem to badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to
| my own understanding.
|
| It is your understanding that is bad.
|
| It really hinges on two simple facts: in modern life,
| smartphones are essential, and Apple is one of only two
| players in that market. This gives them absurd amounts of
| leverage vs other parties.
| rnk wrote:
| Yeah, the ideas expressed by the person above seem to lead
| to a lazy and incorrect argument that there's aren't any
| things to argue anti-trust. Google doesn't have one android
| store, they have 57, across 57 countries with different
| arguments. And in the they even have two, one focused on
| English and one on Spanish or something. Divide their total
| revenue by 100, see it is not so much!
| edgyquant wrote:
| And cars aren't essential? Further, Apple is not one of two
| players there are a handful of manufacturers of phones for
| sale in the US. The comparison to ford, and ford parts,
| maps directly to apples situation and it is instead people
| like you trying to change the historical understanding of
| anti-trust with arguments about how this tech is different
| because you don't seem to grasp said history.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| You have the wrong analogy. It's not that you bought a Ford
| and Chevy parts don't fit. It's that you bought a Ford, and
| can now only buy parts for it from Ford.
| Beldin wrote:
| > _...is like buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don't
| fit._
|
| Actually, many car companies source all sorts of parts from
| elsewhere. Not just tyres, though you'd be pretty pissed if
| your new Ford could only use Ford tyres. It's also under the
| hood (literally (literally)); Bosch is pretty big in that
| space, for example.
| dwaite wrote:
| > And do I have a choice to use a non Apple App Store? No!
|
| On Mac? There's many of them, the one which springs to mind
| most quickly being Steam.
| hurtuvac78 wrote:
| _> The Mac App Store should already be safe, as users are free to
| download and install apps direct from developers_
|
| Not a Mac user/dev here. If I am not going through the store, if
| I don't use xcode to sign my executable, won't MacOS force the
| user to go through cryptic command line changes to let them
| install my software?
| lights0123 wrote:
| Unless it's changed recently, it's just a right-click and then
| Open on the app. Older versions let you select radio box in the
| Security tab in the settings app to allow all apps.
| josephcsible wrote:
| That sounds misleadingly easy. The misleading part is that if
| you yep to open it the normal way, instead of getting an
| error that tells you that you can do that, you get an error
| that makes it sound like the developer did something wrong
| and there's nothing you can do.
| stetrain wrote:
| For unsigned apps you have to go into Settings > Security and
| click a button to allow the app to run.
|
| For signed apps there's no extra step needed by default.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > The company in its argument to the EU competition enforcer said
| it operates five App Stores on iPhones, iPads, Mac computers,
| Apple TVs and Apple Watches, with each designed to distribute
| apps for a specific operating system and Apple device.
|
| With a straight face they said this, or were they stifling a
| laugh? If they all say Apple on them, and all the money goes to
| the same place, and users share an account, and the payment
| processing is the same, and the same dude is running all of them,
| and... come on.
| seydor wrote:
| "which explain our high fees, because we are forced to run 5
| stores, with hundreds of departments that are curated by our paid
| monkeys"
|
| I am often critical of the EU but i can't mock them that well
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Apple is the classic defector in the prisoners dilemma. Hard to
| think of a company that has cooperated the least. Between anti-
| consumer behavior, cutting edge anti-tax behavior, and anti-
| competitive behaviors, they are defectors.
|
| It very much reminds me of a Machiavellian / Nietzsche style.
|
| Not that other companies don't do the same, but most aren't as
| brazen as Apple.
|
| I honestly learned a lot from Apple, although as an Individual
| its seems significantly more frowned upon to lie.
| figassis wrote:
| All 5 app stores have centralized user management. I login to the
| same account in all devices, using the exact same credentials.
| Watch store does not have fewer users than iPhone store, does not
| have fewer users than Mac store, does not have fewer users than
| iPad store.
|
| All 5 app stores have centralized payment card management. Every
| app I buy charges the same card. I remove that card, it
| disappears on all stores. A payment fails on one App Store, I get
| asked to verify my payment info on all other stores.
|
| I assume purchase notifications come from the same email. You
| manage your account on the same web UI.
|
| All app stores are the same, but of course you need a different
| UI and possibly backend. In fact, don't I buy apple watch apps
| from iOS? Aren't there universal iPad/iOS apps?
|
| Sometimes it feels like the level of conversation at these
| companies is below high school level.
| smabie wrote:
| High school level atleast much higher than the level of
| conversation in government.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Zing! Unless...?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| You can get your company banned from all stores, not just one.
| You have to sign up a dev account for all stores, not just one.
| You pay to publish to all stores, not just one.
|
| They should just argue that every single account accesses their
| very own unique store.
|
| A judge or jury should be insulted by Apple framing it this
| way. It's very much a "this only works because I think you're
| an idiot."
| plufz wrote:
| Yeah, it is a provoking waste of the legal systems resources
| and all ours time. This type of behavior should be punishable
| in itself.
| Geisterde wrote:
| So should frivolous lawsuits.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Wasn't it previously that you had to pay a separate $99/year
| fees for Mac App Store in comparison to the iPhone App Store?
| These days I think you can do with just one $99/year payment.
| chedabob wrote:
| Ye they were two separate programs, but in June 2015 they
| unified them.
|
| I presume this was preempting the addition of native 3rd-
| party app support in WatchOS 2 in September of the same
| year, so they wouldn't need another developer program
| and/or app store.
| figassis wrote:
| I don't think the way you productize something in order to
| extract more money makes it a different platform. I'm sure on
| the backend you just have different subscriptions on the same
| database.
| Faark wrote:
| Eh, these are implementation details.
|
| But how can those stores effectively compete while being
| controlled by the same entity? The EU breaking up Apple into
| separate companies for each "store" because of this argument
| would be pretty funny, though.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| The EU accepted that Safari for Mac, Safari for iOS and
| Safari for IpadOS are different browsers hence why the
| Gatekeeper clause doesn't apply to Apple.
|
| Apple just using the same argument they've successfully
| argued before already.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| They made that argument about Safari, but did they win? I
| cannot find a news article about the outcome of the
| argument.
| iruoy wrote:
| Well on macOS you're free to use whatever. On iOS and
| iPadOS Apple demands apps to use the Safari engine
| (WebKit).
|
| So they are a gatekeeper on iOS and iPadOS, but not on
| macOS.
| Geisterde wrote:
| Apple doesnt fit the description of a monopoly, but this
| lawsuit was launched anyways. If making the correct arguement
| doesnt stop you from getting sued, you still have to come up
| with something to say. It might not be a coherent argument, but
| then neither is this case.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > However, the term is used more generally to refer to laws
| designed to prevent companies from engaging in any kind of
| anti-competitive action - that is, do anything that would
| tend to artificially distort competition within a market.
|
| > One common myth is that antitrust laws only apply to
| monopolies. This is very much not the case: They apply to any
| company large enough to have a dominant position in any
| market.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| Apple is trying to give a laughable, irrelevant argument. They
| don't even realise it can be regarded as disrespect and play only
| against them.
| kibwen wrote:
| Perfect, then it will be easy enough to split Apple up into five
| different companies, right?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| That's exactly what companies do when they are faced with
| "companies of greater than size N must follow extra rule"
| regulations, although many here will say that is just cheating.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> many here will say that is just cheating_
|
| I'm going to have to ask for a source of this claim that
| people who want antitrust action against hypercorporations
| would somehow be dissatisfied with the stated goal of
| antitrust, which is to break up trusts.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Do you honestly think the iPhone would be less successful
| if it was broken up into a separate company from the mac
| business? And the complaints aren't really based on Apple's
| size, but its market success.
| greycol wrote:
| An iphone seperated from the mac business would either
| need to run it's own icloud that is open to other
| companies (e.g. mac if it still wants to sync with mac)
| or it needs to use 3rd party integrations (e.g. icloud if
| it's its own company or still part of mac). In one case
| iphone is making more money and is more open in the other
| it's spending more money and is more open (which is
| which; who knows) in either case mac and iphones
| incentives are no longer aligned on keeping a closed
| icloud and one (or both) of the products would likely
| become more open which is good for customers and the
| whole point of anti-trust.
|
| The sucess of iPhone/mac/icloud doesn't really factor
| into it (some of them will shrink and some will do better
| as they're not subsidizing other parts of Apple or can
| canibalize other parts of Apple's market). You'd be right
| in asserting the success of Apple is a factor, as those
| who are arguing for such a seperation would say, it's
| making outsized profits by not competing fairly in
| several of the markets it's in.
| kibwen wrote:
| What makes you think my goal is to make the iPhone less
| successful? What I want are markets with a wide array of
| healthy competitors, not our current shambling duopoly.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > The company in its argument to the EU competition enforcer said
| it operates five App Stores on iPhones, iPads, Mac computers,
| Apple TVs and Apple Watches, with each designed to distribute
| apps for a specific operating system and Apple device.
|
| What a fucking joke. It's like this guy that intentionally plays
| obtuse with his actshuallllly.
| gumballindie wrote:
| I know the EU is run but idiots but even they wouldnt fall for
| this - I hope.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| They should slightly alter it and personalize it per user, then
| they would have millions of App Stores.
| spogbiper wrote:
| You own.. Personal.. App Store..
|
| Somewhere to purchase wares
|
| Somewhere to pay your fares
| nashashmi wrote:
| Argument holds validity, not!
|
| > The company in its argument to the EU competition enforcer said
| it operates five App Stores on iPhones, iPads, Mac computers,
| Apple TVs and Apple Watches, with each designed to distribute
| apps for a specific operating system and Apple device.
|
| This is absolutely true. Each OS has a different set of apps. And
| the catalog is different for each OS.
|
| And this will now bite them hard. MacOS has alternative app
| stores from third parties. iPhone does not have an alternative
| app store. So iPhone is not following the same rule. Same
| argument goes for the iPad.
|
| And if a simple OS filter can dictate the "number" of app stores
| Apple maintains, then allowing third party app stores is just
| another _filter_ away. A new app store by --Company X-- can be
| added with its own catalog of apps and curation on the front page
| as well as its own search engine and own roster.
|
| This will bite them hard.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Interestingly, I use the AppStore perhaps 10 times per year.
|
| I suspect most people don't interact with it. Yes, I get updates,
| and yes I make use of the payments facilities, but I'm not really
| an active user on the app store..
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Good grief they're annoying.
| ianferrel wrote:
| >The company contends that iMessage [doesn't fall within the
| scope of the DMA] as it is not a fee-based service and it does
| not monetise it via the sale of hardware devices
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VevDpYZ0a4&t=83s
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Hilariously bad defense.
|
| www.apple.com
|
| apple.com
|
| These are 2 different businesses because they are not equal?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-09 23:01 UTC)