[HN Gopher] Apple announces ability to download apps directly fr...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple announces ability to download apps directly from websites in
EU
Author : Hamuko
Score : 477 points
Date : 2024-03-12 12:08 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| ano-ther wrote:
| > We're providing more flexibility for developers who distribute
| apps in the European Union (EU), including introducing a new way
| to distribute apps directly from a developer's website.
| lutoma wrote:
| Important limitation if you click through to the "Getting ready
| for Web Distribution in the EU" page:
|
| > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must [...] be a
| member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two
| continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than
| one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year.
| nottorp wrote:
| I thought it was already established that you don't have to
| be in good standing... cough Epic...
| lapcat wrote:
| This is just more malicious compliance by Apple. Indie developers
| are completely locked out of web distribution, and it applies
| only to developers who are already paying the Apple tax.
|
| > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must:
|
| > Be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for
| two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than
| one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year.
|
| > Developers will pay a CTF of EUR0.50 for each first annual
| install over one million in the past 12 months.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
| classified wrote:
| I really hope the EU regulators won't let this slide.
| Spivak wrote:
| Which part? I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't
| charge publishers to be on iOS. This isn't malicious
| compliance, sans the size requirement it's exactly what they
| asked for.
|
| This keeps happening where people keep hitching "I don't want
| to pay Apple" to every wagon except a law that requires Apple
| to make access to iOS free.
|
| "Allow other payment processors": Okay you still pay 27%
|
| "Allow other stores": Okay you still pay a commission, a
| different one.
|
| "Allow installing from websites": Okay you still pay a
| commission, you just have to write us a check.
| ulucs wrote:
| DMA requires free access to the platform
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| Citation needed
| internetter wrote:
| 56: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to
| ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with,
| and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the
| same operating system, hardware or software features that
| are available or used in the provision of its own
| complementary and supporting services and hardware
| Spivak wrote:
| That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't
| give themselves special private APIs to do things other
| apps can't or charge to access them.
|
| Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container
| through the loophole which is OS components can have
| special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS
| for 1st party software is fuzzy.
| internetter wrote:
| Yes. The App "App Store" has special APIs that allow
| other apps to be installed on the phone that do not
| experience this charge.
| Spivak wrote:
| That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple
| has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS
| applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple
| can't collect fees from apps installed through
| alternative stores.
|
| This is the tension, people really really want "ability
| to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean
| "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but
| that's not what the law says.
| candiodari wrote:
| I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It
| says apps should be able to access the platform "free of
| charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the
| reading that limits this to special API access is the
| tortured reading.
|
| Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing
| either. They're saying that ANY API access that is
| possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES
| app installation of course. It does not specify WHO
| doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those
| alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app
| owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that
| means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store,
| not the application being installed. Apple is not
| complying with their own reading either.
|
| It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps
| should be able to run on ios free of charge.
| Spivak wrote:
| Y'all really need to read the whole act. The quote that
| stated this doesn't even come from (56).
|
| > (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as
| developers of operating systems and device manufacturers,
| including any technical functionality that such a device
| may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a
| manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of
| the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-
| communication technology, secure elements and processors,
| authentication mechanisms and the software used to
| operate those technologies, which can be required for the
| effective provision of a service provided together with,
| or in support of, the core platform service by the
| gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party
| undertaking providing such service.
|
| > (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents
| alternative service and hardware providers from having
| access under equal conditions to the same operating
| system, hardware or software features that are available
| or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own
| complementary or supporting services or hardware, this
| could significantly undermine innovation by such
| alternative providers, as well as choice for end users.
| The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure,
| free of charge, effective interoperability with, and
| access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same
| operating system, hardware or software features that are
| available or used in the provision of its own
| complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such
| access can equally be required by software applications
| related to the relevant services provided together with,
| or in support of, the core platform service in order to
| effectively develop and provide functionalities
| interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim
| of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to
| interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to
| the respective features as effectively as the
| gatekeeper's own services or hardware.
|
| They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are
| both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access
| to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a
| 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your
| own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not
| say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform
| free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual
| act, you can write whatever you want in there (and
| legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of
| this is the actual law.
|
| For the relevant bit it's article 6 paragraph 7.
| candiodari wrote:
| I read that as: if Apple wants to allow installation of
| programs ("apps") on IOS, it must allow, free of charge,
| others to do the same. Free of charge to everyone. Free
| of charge to alternative app stores, free of charge to
| developers, free of charge to apple customers, ... free
| of charge to anyone. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but that
| is definitely a valid interpretation to me.
|
| What exactly is unreasonable about that reading?
| ulucs wrote:
| Using that loophole would be an Article 13 violation
| InsomniacL wrote:
| As an example,
|
| Using 'Tile' trackers, ios pops a messages up every so
| often saying 'Tile' has been accessing the Location API
| from IOS.
|
| But Apple introduced a competing product, 'AirTags', and
| this doesn't have the same (annoying) regular popup.
|
| Does this mean that Apple's Product will no longer be
| allowed to use a special Location API bypassing the
| security/barriers their competitors have?
|
| I understand the need for security, but Apple has no
| incentive to remove friction from the process when it
| negatively impacts their competitors and doesn't impact
| them at all.
| Spivak wrote:
| It seems RAW they could go a few directions:
|
| 1. They make AirTags follow the same rules as every other
| app.
|
| 2. They introduce a new toggle that users can grant to
| Tile that gives them the same abilities as AirTags.
|
| 3. They introduce a new entitlement that can be granted
| to developers who apply for that give them the access
| that AirTags has.
|
| They've taken #3 for both alternative stores and web
| downloads so I imagine that would take it here.
| philistine wrote:
| If that ends up meaning that competitors can make
| Bluetooth headphones with the functionalities of Airpods,
| I'm all for it !
| iamacyborg wrote:
| That's strange considering I get those location access
| popups for the Apple Weather app on my iphone.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The only reason you do is to negate negative commentary
| or performance around battery usage, and the increased
| drain of always allowed location.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| "free of charge" is pretty clear, but IANAL.
| alerighi wrote:
| It's basically saying the same thing. One thing other
| apps can't do on iOS is... installing packages on the
| system. This is only a thing that the App Store app can
| do. So Apple has to open up to third party the
| possibility to install packages on the device, exactly
| how on Android any third party can install apps on the
| device.
|
| By the way, this will impact Android too, since there are
| permissions that are limited only to Google applications
| such as the Google Play Services, that (interpreting this
| rule) now shall be opened to any apps that require them.
| drstewart wrote:
| Wow, cool. So how do I get distribution on Mercedes (HQ:
| Germany) or Renault (HQ: France)'s infotainment systems
| to install any apps I want on cars?
|
| What? These European companies are exempt? Crazyyy
| yoavm wrote:
| This is has nothing to do with the companies being
| European. DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.
| Spivak wrote:
| Ahh yes, the "all lightbulbs regardless of their
| manufacture are required to have at least <this> energy
| efficiency" style regulation where <this> is set
| "neutrally" at the efficiency of LED bulbs.
|
| Read article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 and tell me this wasn't
| written to target like five US tech companies in total.
| yoavm wrote:
| I have read it. I defines how much money the company
| needs to be making the EU and how many users they need to
| have. Sure, it's targeting big companies.
|
| The LED example you gave is actually a great one: I don't
| think the regulator cares if you're using LED or not. The
| intention is to reduce the usage of lightbulbs that
| aren't as energy efficient as modern technology allows
| them to be. If you can make a incandescent lightbulb that
| is as efficient, good for you. No one has targeted
| incandescent light.
|
| Same here. Yes, companies this size are almost only
| American (and Chinese). That doesn't mean that American
| companies were the target.
| drstewart wrote:
| >DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.
|
| Gee, I wonder why. Maybe you should re-examine this
| statement:
|
| >This is has nothing to do with the companies being
| European.
| dns_snek wrote:
| If you're going to mindlessly accuse the EU commission of
| favoritism you should look through the mountain of cases
| that prove otherwise.
|
| https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-
| cartel...
| layer8 wrote:
| Petition your representatives to designate those as
| gatekeepers of a core platform service. But first look up
| the definitions of those, and the criteria for gatekeeper
| designation, in the DMA.
| sneak wrote:
| Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against
| system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own
| customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world
| should work opinion?
| internetter wrote:
| Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA:
|
| The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure,
| free of charge, effective interoperability with, and
| access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same
| operating system, hardware or software features that are
| available or used in the provision of its own
| complementary and supporting services and hardware
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a
| regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only
| thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like
| it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes:
|
| > Pricing or other general access conditions should be
| considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights
| and obligations imposed on business users or confer an
| advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to
| the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users
| or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing
| the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The
| following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to
| determine the fairness of general access conditions:
| prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or
| similar services by other providers of software
| application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed
| by the provider of the software application store for
| different related or similar services or to different
| types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed
| by the provider of the software application store for the
| same service in different geographic regions; prices
| charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the
| software application store for the same service the
| gatekeeper provides to itself.
| internetter wrote:
| > The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is
| charging that can even remotely seem like it may be
| prohibited
|
| The CTF is the exact topic of discussion in the context I
| provided the clause
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for
| interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. That's the
| distinction, and why it isn't automatically illegal. It
| would only be illegal if it gives Apple's App Store an
| unfair competitive advantage.
|
| And as you can see from the text of the DMA, in order to
| declare the CTF illegal, the EC has to conduct a fair,
| impartial, fact-based investigation that considers
| Apple's viewpoint. Then they produce a preliminary report
| which Apple is allowed to rebut. After that they can
| issue a final ruling, and Apple is allowed to appeal that
| to the court of justice. Even if the CTF is found to be
| illegal after all of that, Apple gets 6+ months to make
| changes unless the EC can prove that they were working in
| bad faith.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for
| interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs.
|
| Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for
| which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies
| even when not using the App Store... what are they
| charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's
| user's devices? That's the only thing that's left
| halostatue wrote:
| The CTF applies when not using the App Store, because the
| _equivalent_ of the CTF is baked into Apple 's 30%.
| People asked for unbundling, and this is what Apple came
| up with.
|
| Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access
| to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their
| compilers from their software vendors (the price for the
| HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
| garaetjjte wrote:
| GCC works on HP-UX, so I don't know what this is trying
| to prove. They can charge for Xcode whatever they want,
| but what does that have to do with installing apps.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Exactly. Not to mention, the HP-UX business model
| famously flopped in the face of Linux, BSD and Free
| Software. It's almost the perfect example of how Open
| software distribution provided a better experience than
| the alternatives.
|
| The CTF is it's own refutation. A competitive market
| should not need to kiss anyone's ring in order to
| function.
| bombcar wrote:
| Dev kits for consoles are so even more insanely
| controlled and costed.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access
| to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their
| compilers from their software vendors (the price for the
| HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
|
| But that doesn't seem to be the case, as Apple hasn't
| monetized Xcode and the iOS SDK libraries differently
| since the DMA came up.
|
| Apple can charge for the SDK and all that it entails, but
| they can't charge for apps getting to run on users' iOS
| copies, as that's not something IP law contemplates.
|
| What happens when a fully FOSS iOS dev environment comes
| out, like the way you can compile Windows binaries on
| Linux right now? What would Apple be charging for then?
| __d wrote:
| > What would Apple be charging for then?
|
| The CTF offsets Apple's costs in developing and
| maintaining the "core technology": the OS and the
| frameworks that the developer uses in their application.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for
| interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs
|
| So the distinction is that they're charging devs to be
| allowed to run their app on iOS period, rather than
| charging for access to a particular set of APIs (which
| would be illegal)?
|
| Because if so, there's a hole in that argument. Right now
| I can run any web app I want on my iPhone and the
| developer need pay no platform access fee. However, that
| app is blocked by Apple from accessing many native APIs,
| despite it running on my hardware. And to access those
| APIs it would need to pay Apple a fee...
|
| So in conclusion, Apple should charge every website
| operator a per-user annual fee for using the Apple's
| platform.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Web apps are forced to use webkit, and the EC is fine
| with it. Because apparently web apps are not a core
| platform regulated by the DMA.
| sneak wrote:
| Well, is there a legal basis for Apple charging this fee?
| I'm licensed to use Xcode presently, which means I can
| legally produce iOS binaries without paying them. I'm
| legally allowed to distribute those binaries because I
| own the rights to them, the apps being original works
| (and not derived works).
|
| What, specifically, is the core technology fee _for_
| other than dissuading competition? It 's not for using
| Xcode (I already have that now), and it's not for
| redistributing Apple software (iOS binaries aren't that).
| What technology specifically? Is it a software license?
| Is it for a patent license? Is it payment for a service?
| What is it?
| Aloisius wrote:
| Have you actually read the licensing terms you agreed to
| for Xcode and Apple SDKs?
|
| > Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section
| 2.2.B., You may not distribute any Applications developed
| using the Apple SDKs (excluding the macOS SDK) absent
| entering into a separate written agreement with Apple.
| realusername wrote:
| Just the size requirement makes it useless, why would
| anybody bother with a web distribution if they already have
| 1 million (!) installs on the appstore where they already
| have all their customers?
| internetter wrote:
| That's the point of these ridiculous rules
| LordKeren wrote:
| The front runners for doing this would probably be Google
| and Meta. Large companies that publish several ad-
| supported apps. Side stepping the App Store would let
| them revert Apple's privacy protections for tracking
|
| However, I believe another statute of Apple's
| implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or
| Self Distribution-- an app cannot be both
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| I don't see how they would. Aren't many of the anti
| tracking features implemented at the OS level?
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| Trivially easy. Create an app that generates a random
| number and store it in the apps local storage. Send that
| with any interaction to whatever service you're
| providing. Hiding this feat in plain sight isn't that
| hard.
|
| Currently there are two things preventing a developer
| from doing this:
|
| 1. you're supposed to be honest and not do that.
|
| 2. you could be caught during review by a bot or a human.
|
| Nothing at the OS level to prevent this.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| But all that does is let one app track your usage _in
| that app_. To do tracking outside of that, you 'd need
| other apps to get access to another apps' local storage.
| Which you need the OS to give you permission to do.
|
| We have toggles for preventing cell data usage, they
| could trivially do the same for wifi usage, or accessing
| other app's local storage.
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| Sure you can create a sandbox that can cater for _some_
| app and keep it completely isolated. And yes, whereas
| previously any app could basically see and do anything,
| now there are limits at the OS level.
|
| But an app that shows the latest cat video needs
| connectivity and the server serving that car video now
| tracks when you were watching it.
| asadotzler wrote:
| And no one, not even Apple, complains about that kind of
| tracking nor attempt to stop it.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| This is a ridiculous example
|
| Yes, but there's no way to stop that kind of tracking
| since those app require you to sign in.
|
| The current App Store already has this kind of tracking.
| skydhash wrote:
| I think computing devices need to have some kind of zero
| trust sandbox available for installation (kinda like a
| VM) where any API and system calls that an app use is
| spoofed. iOS have done this for files and photos
| (recently), but some is still all or nothing, like
| contacts. At least camera and microphone access show an
| indicator when they're in use.
| realusername wrote:
| If you really have to pay a fee per install, ad-supported
| apps are probably the worst candidates to go standalone
| in my opinion. Those don't get much money per user.
| hiatus wrote:
| The fee is ~50 cents per user.
| cyberax wrote:
| Are there any apps from Google/Meta where you _don't_
| need to authetnticate?
| seszett wrote:
| The only Google application (besides Play store and all
| the stuff that's more or less part of the system) I use
| is Google maps and it doesn't require being logged.
| bakugo wrote:
| > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge
| publishers to be on iOS
|
| Why not? Maybe they can't rule that Apple must make the App
| Store free for developers, but they can rule that the App
| Store can't be the only way to install apps.
| Spivak wrote:
| > App Store can't be the only way to install apps.
|
| Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the
| same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other
| App Stores, and surprise, they are.
| bakugo wrote:
| > But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't
| take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.
|
| Yes, it is. For Apple to be able to take a cut from other
| app stores, they need to have full control over said
| stores, so effectively it's just their App Store under a
| different name. Hopefully this won't fly under DMA.
| adamlett wrote:
| _For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app
| stores, they need to have full control over said stores_
|
| No, they just need a legally binding agreement.
| wolf89618 wrote:
| > 4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the
| installation and effective use of third-party software
| applications or software application stores using, or
| interoperating with, its operating system and allow those
| software applications or software application stores to be
| accessed by means other than the relevant core platform
| services of that gatekeeper.
|
| > 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and
| providers of hardware, free of charge, effective
| interoperability with, and access for the purposes of
| interoperability to, the same hardware and software
| features accessed or controlled via the operating system...
|
| More about DMA here:
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-
| co...
| Spivak wrote:
| Yes, people keep quoting these sections but it doesn't
| say what folks want it to say.
|
| 4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications
| from outside the App Store. That has no relationship _at
| all_ to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual
| relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment
| under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of
| developers, number of users, etc..
|
| 7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that
| allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra
| for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless
| still charge developers to access iOS. But from there
| Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that
| only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.
| waffleiron wrote:
| I think the intent is clear. If apple is allowed to
| charge, they could charge 1000 USD per install and the
| whole law would be moot.
| philistine wrote:
| Here's something to blow your brain: perhaps the English
| version is incorrectly translated. With Ireland now the
| only Anglophone country in the EU, I would trust the
| French and German versions of the text to have far more
| clear intent.
| asmor wrote:
| usually all translations of eu law are canonical.
|
| all officially translated versions of the EUPL are too.
| margana wrote:
| Even if they were allowed to ask for a fee, they would not
| be allowed to set conditions that they can subjectively
| rule on. Particularly the "in good standing with Apple" is
| a blatant violation since it effectively lets them block
| anyone they want for any reason, which is in violation of
| the very basic "shall allow and technically enable"
| language of the DMA.
| pjerem wrote:
| > I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge
| publishers to be on iOS.
|
| Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their
| domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they
| want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those
| holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1
|
| I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge
| mistake if they think they are in position to negociate
| anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the
| european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be
| enough iterations until achievement.
|
| It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the
| core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The
| European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal
| to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single
| Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let
| Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't
| understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to
| act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that
| locking access to the market in the EU was fine.
| phh wrote:
| > if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough
| iterations until achievement.
|
| I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already
| supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that
| current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any
| European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say
| the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games
| and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit)
|
| That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the
| DMA.
| letsdothisagain wrote:
| Yeah that's why I'm expecting another change. When they
| tried banning Epic the EU said no, and Apple was forced
| to move to this point. I expect/hope that the EU comes
| back with a further "clarification" on Apple's contention
| that they can gate this to 1,000,000 downloads.
|
| It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not
| fair" when faced with a functional government.
| shiandow wrote:
| I suppose the next stage of malicious compliance will be to
| allow absolutely _everyone_ to publish apps _everywhere_ , but
| with some technical warning that is designed to be ignored.
| Thorrez wrote:
| What's malicious about that? That the warning is designed to
| be ignored? If they deleted the warning, would that be much
| different?
| chaostheory wrote:
| The same reason it's frowned upon to install random apps
| from the internet onto your PC. It's a disaster waiting to
| happen.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Mobile OSes are not the same as windows or even Mac.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Yeah, their main differentiator is that they're locked
| down.
| jackpeterfletch wrote:
| and are most peoples 2fa device
| dns_snek wrote:
| They're locked down through technological measures such
| as sandboxing, which is designed to resist against
| malicious guests regardless of their origin and
| distribution method.
| sharikous wrote:
| With typical usage they contain more sensitive data and
| people are less aware of what happens in them than PCs.
|
| And mobile phones are perfect spying devices too. So the
| security question is more delicate
| alerighi wrote:
| Well, not really. Usually people have all their personal
| data on their PC, rather than mobile phone.
|
| Maybe this is changing for young people, but on my
| parents hard drive (for example) there is 30+ years of
| all sort of personal data, documents of every kind,
| emails, documents, etc. Not counting all the password and
| access saved in the browser itself.
|
| If we talk about businesses, public administrations,
| hospitals basically everything is inside computers,
| including very sensitive data.
| yunwal wrote:
| The location data from your PC, for example, is not
| nearly as sensitive as a phone.
| leereeves wrote:
| I've directly installed hundreds of apps on my PC. No
| disasters have happened.
| acdha wrote:
| "I've driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I need
| to pay for seatbelts?"
|
| These are population level decisions which require you to
| think about mainstream use. For example, you probably
| have been safe because you know what to look for. This is
| not true of the general public and there are millions of
| people who _thought_ they were making a safe choice and
| only realized later that the polite person in the call
| center was not actually trying to help them, etc.
| leereeves wrote:
| > "I've driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I
| need to pay for seatbelts?"
|
| Bad analogy. A better analogy is: _I've driven many miles
| and never crashed. Why do I still need Toyota 's
| permission to drive?_
|
| I'm absolutely in favor of "seatbelts" for computers, but
| that means sandboxing, not censorship or rent seeking. It
| also means you can remove the "seatbelt" when you need
| to.
| acdha wrote:
| I used seatbelts because every car safety measure you can
| think of has had someone complaining about having to pay
| a cost for something they're too good a driver to need.
| Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal &
| safety standards seems similar: it definitely costs more
| than zero, it definitely is a restriction on absolute
| freedom, but it helps prevent things which are
| statistically certain to keep happening otherwise.
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| > Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal &
| safety standards seems similar.
|
| Which things, exactly?
| acdha wrote:
| Consider how well malware and adware has done where the
| authors can impersonate legitimate developers (remember
| when people got faux-Firefox as the first Google hit?) or
| can run distribution campaigns from shady web hosts for
| years? Notarization and domain limits mean Apple can
| block malware almost instantly and the developers have to
| burn a real company identity on each attack campaign.
| celticninja wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
|
| Not exactly blocking immediately are they.
| jajko wrote:
| That's a very weak argument in favor of apple, and I
| respectfully disagree. Just another variation of 'think
| about the children' meme without much substance, repeated
| in every single apple discussion ad nausea.
|
| Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your
| device, your choices (here we are already very far from
| apple mindset). Why the obsessive need to push this on
| literally everybody and not even giving the choice? Maybe
| you have some serious impulse control issues, but most of
| us don't.
|
| It can even be part of purchase process - choose ultra
| secure more locked down model, or on-your-risk more free.
|
| But we all know all this is just about 1 singular thing -
| revenue via customer/market capture. Oracle stuff indeed.
| vundercind wrote:
| > Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your
| device, your choices (here we are already very far from
| apple mindset)
|
| It keeps software and service vendors from going around
| security and privacy protections. Folks don't always have
| a choice of what they have to install, so "just don't
| install their stuff if you don't like it" isn't
| sufficient to achieve the same results, even if we ignore
| the inherent difference in UX between "100% of the
| software for this goes through the App Store" and "some
| software is not on the App Store".
|
| Doesn't mean you have to agree that path is better, of
| course, but it's also definitely not so easily dismissed
| as ridiculous.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Software and service vendors can't "go around security
| and privacy protections", they can do exactly what the
| operating system and Apple allow them to do (short of
| actual bugs and vulnerabilities which would exist
| regardless of distribution method).
|
| Either those protections are technological, baked into
| the OS, and therefore apply equally to all installation
| sources, or they don't exist. There's no in between.
| vundercind wrote:
| There's in-fact an in between, which is humans enforcing
| rules. It's what's in place now. It does have an actual
| effect, it's not like it's imaginary or doesn't do
| anything. Some of the rules aren't practically
| enforceable by software alone, at least so far (things
| like "don't try to fingerprint the user or device in
| unauthorized ways")
| dns_snek wrote:
| Those rules are even less enforceable by human reviewers
| because they don't employ people to reverse engineer your
| app, never mind any subsequent updates.
| vundercind wrote:
| Your contention is that the review process entirely fails
| at enforcing privacy and security rules that cannot be
| achieved entirely through automation, or fails at such a
| high rate that it may as well be entire?
|
| That doesn't reflect my experience submitting apps, nor
| as a user of Apple devices. It's certainly imperfect, but
| it achieves a lot more than if they simply stopped doing
| it.
|
| [edit] and in fact, some of the automated checks wouldn't
| be practical to run on a user's device--are those also
| totally ineffective?
| acdha wrote:
| Look at the history on the PC and Mac desktop side. Ever
| see someone who had Firefox or VLC, only the binary they
| got was loaded up with things not shipped by the real
| developer? Notarization prevents that shady phished from
| talking your dad into installing "a critical security
| update!!!" from their own server and then either having
| it immediately get access to his stuff or walking him
| through logging into his password manager, etc.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Analogies don't really work in arguments, it always just
| devolves into an argument about the analogy. They are
| useful in other contexts (like teaching, where it might
| be _necessary_ to simplify something).
|
| Overuse of analogies is one of the worst things the
| internet has done to discussion in general.
| skeaker wrote:
| The implication that restricting user freedom to the
| degree that Apple does is as vital as the seatbelt in
| your car is hilarious to me. A better analogy would be
| "how come my Apple car can only drive on Apple-owned toll
| roads but every other car can drive wherever it wants?"
| acdha wrote:
| "Why are people buying safer cars than the brand I am
| emotionally attached to?"
|
| Read through what's actually happening:
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
|
| > Apps offered through Web Distribution must meet
| Notarization requirements to protect platform integrity,
| like all iOS apps, and can only be installed from a
| website domain that the developer has registered in App
| Store Connect.
|
| If you can't see a safety benefit, go look at the Windows
| or Chrome extension malware industry and the billions of
| dollars it costs people every year. You don't have to
| like Apple or agree with everything they're doing to
| understand that there is a real problem here.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| What does Apple's boot taste like?
| josephg wrote:
| Right; but the whole point of a browser extension is that
| it interferes with how _other webpages_ work. But iOS
| apps can't do that. They're more like webpages themselves
| - sandboxed and run as isolated processes. In the absence
| of browser bugs, it should be safe to click any web link.
| Websites can impersonate one another. But my device stays
| secure.
|
| iOS apps already work like that. Why does Apple have so
| little trust in their own security model?
| celticninja wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
|
| The problem exists in the Apple app store. So why behave
| as if it is an issue unique to windows and android?
|
| The apple situation makes it worse, people now expect the
| app store to be a safe place to download from and perhaps
| do less due diligence because they assume apple are doing
| the heavy lifting, mainly because Apple keep telling us
| they are doing the heavy lifting to protect us.
| celticninja wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
|
| Making a safe choice by downloading an app from the app
| store where Apple reviews all apps for user safety and
| security.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Some people need to be protected from themselves though.
| I don't receive support requests anymore from my
| grandparents since they switched from a Windows-based
| computer to a ChromeOS system. It suits their needs while
| being locked down, and it limits the amount of damage
| that can be done.
| dlubarov wrote:
| Isn't ChromeOS secure because of sandboxing, not because
| of curation? And isn't the situation similar with iOS? I
| wouldn't really expect Apple's curators (or automated
| analysis) to reliably detect malware, but I expect the OS
| to limit what kind of damage can be done.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| > I don't receive support requests anymore from my
| grandparents...
|
| And yet the ChromeOS platform still supports putting
| hardware into developer mode.
|
| Apple's policy is about protecting profits.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| It's not frowned upon, it's the normal way of doing
| anything non-trivial in Windows land. You don't get
| something from a repo, you go to the Foobinator Tools
| website to download BarApp Pro
| bee_rider wrote:
| Windows is frowned upon.
|
| Laptop sales decline every year. People are giving up the
| idea of keyboards and big screens to avoid Windows
| laptops. Copying and monetizing the open source repo idea
| is the smartest thing smartphone manufacturers did.
| mattl wrote:
| I thought Windows had winget or something now?
| layer8 wrote:
| I suspect the GP is being sarcastic.
| sebtron wrote:
| That would be great! I'd love to just be able to make and app
| and let Iphone users get it, without Apple having any
| business in it.
| rchaud wrote:
| You just explained why web apps are nerfed on Safari.
| 14 wrote:
| I would love that. I have recently tried downloading a few
| apps for different reasons and every single all is locked
| away, for any useful features, behind in app purchases. I
| remember the days back when iPhone first came out you could
| find apps and no such thing as purchasing features. It
| dawned on me that my iPhone is a pretty shitty platform
| unlike my Pc where I can download many free open source
| projects made by passionate people who like to share. I
| haven't owned an android in years but I am seriously
| contemplating getting a google pixel phone as they still
| have unlocked bootloaders. Our phones are capable of so
| much more but have been dumbed down so apple can let
| developers sell us features through apps while taking a 30%
| fee along the way.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > I have recently tried downloading a few apps for
| different reasons and every single all is locked away,
| for any useful features, behind in app purchases.
|
| And you think those developers, once freed from the Apple
| App Store, will release their apps for free on the web???
| sebtron wrote:
| Probably not them, but other developers for whom Apple's
| bullshit (like the 99$/year fee) is too much of a barrier
| of entry would be happy to share their work for free.
| sebtron wrote:
| This reminds me of my tragicomic experience trying to
| install a calculator on my work iPad.
|
| First one I tried had ads.
|
| Second one required making an account.
|
| Third one had some features reserved for the paid version
| (e.g. factorial).
|
| Then more adware and other crap.
|
| After 20 minutes I gave up and used pen and paper.
| mordae wrote:
| You mean like Android does?
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| If indie developers were to quality, anyone would qualify and
| security incidents would inevitably increase. That's what Apple
| is trying to prevent. Keep the attack surface small.
|
| Apple's philosophy is similar to the justice philosophy of
| nations like Singapore. Freedom in exchange for security. Some
| people like the trade off and some don't. And if there is
| anything that we know for sure is that when it comes to tech,
| freedom is the last of people's priorities.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| No, they want more money. They are hesitant to give up a big
| cash cow.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| It doesn't have to be an exclusive choice for Apple: more
| money and more security for Apple. Many HN folks (many of
| them using plenty of Apple products) probably won't like it
| but the reality is that we all vote with our wallet and
| with our time
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| We can also vote with our actual votes and outlaw
| behaviours we don't like.
| __d wrote:
| It's an interesting situation.
|
| We're all free not to buy Apple products if we don't like
| how they lock them down. There are several alternatives,
| Android being the most obvious. And yet, iPhones still
| sell well.
|
| There are also minimum standards of behavior that we
| require of every participant in society, including
| regulations on the behavior of products.
|
| The DMA's identification of "gatekeepers" makes a
| distinction between the requirements on products with
| smaller vs larger market shares. More successful products
| are now held to a higher standard, if you like.
|
| This isn't unprecedented: progressive taxation, labor
| laws, etc -- there are many situations where this
| happens.
|
| It's not like Apple has a monopoly on phones, but they're
| significant enough that the EU wants them to behave in a
| certain (different) way. Both the DMA and Apple's
| responses to it seem a bit clunky (so far). I expect
| it'll take some time for an equilibrium to emerge.
|
| I think it's also notable that Apple now has (at least)
| three major different versions of its
| software/infrastructure: EU, China, and rest-of-world. I
| fear that's a trend that will only continue.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| something something "those who give up freedom for security
| deserve neither" something something
|
| The problem with the "freedom-for-security" tradeoff is that
| there is nothing to keep the security provider - a government
| or private corporation - from _continuing_ to provide
| security once you 've surrendered freedom. Apple was very
| good at combating scams and fraud on the App Store _when the
| iPhone was new_. The problem is, that 's expensive, which is
| why Apple decided to charge 30% in the first place. Once
| competitors stopped trying to release mobile operating
| systems and users had been accustomed to "just download App
| Store stuff it's safe", Apple moved away from investing in
| App Store security. We can see this with how many outright
| scams wind up on the store today.
|
| Singapore is a similar situation. The security a government
| is supposed to provide is protection against, say, organized
| criminals, but government and organized crime has the same
| structure, function, and incentives as one another. A
| government that takes away your freedom may be able to
| protect against organized crime, but that also lets them do
| exactly the same things organized crime might do. The only
| security this provides is security of Singapore's tax revenue
| and political control _from appropriation by competing
| violence-users_.
|
| Same thing with Apple. They aren't securing you, they're
| securing themselves in power, with your security trickling
| down from their handcuffs.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| My comment was from the point of view of the security
| provider. The security provider receives your freedom and
| gives you security. Of course, from the point of view of
| the freedom holder, there are no guarantees that the
| security provider will fulfill the promise in the sense
| that you expect (i.e. that they won't violate it
| themselves) but you can generally expect that they will at
| the very least reduce the number of individuals threatening
| your security from private individuals plus the state to
| just the state.
|
| Your full and complete security can't never be guaranteed
| unless you hand over your full and complete freedom. Sure,
| today there are many scans in the App Store but today there
| are also way more mobile users than there were in the early
| days and phones have gone from digital toys to holders of
| digital personal life.
|
| If you want to see what a world where you keep most of your
| freedom looks like, try using the Google App Store with an
| average phone (see: phone with no security updates since
| 2021) and see how many scams you get. Guaranteed way more
| than Apple. Like an order of magnitude more.
|
| Let me give you another analogy. You are a villager in a
| corrupt country besieged by out of control armed gangs
| taking control of areas of the country. Areas such as
| yours. You got a corrupt country making your life hell and
| gangs making your life hell. Now you have a choice to move
| to another country where there is corruption but no gangs.
| That other country is Apple, Singapore and basically any
| South American country got its gangs under control. There
| are millions of people that literally want to get an Apple,
| get into Singapore and get into this kind of SA country.
| Sure, a world where higher powers don't abuse their power
| is nice but that world does not exist in our reality. You
| choose the lesser evil. That's what Apple is doing here.
| noirscape wrote:
| > and have an app that had more than one million first annual
| installs on iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year.
|
| In other words the option is still a joke not worth using.
| "Yes, you can distribute independently... as long as you've
| already been popular on the iOS App Store in the past year".
| toyg wrote:
| It's a half-assed bribe to try and keep big developers on
| their side. "Alright, alright, we'll let you keep some money
| - just stop crying to the regulators already!"
| joshstrange wrote:
| Two big changes here. One is allowing third-party app stores to
| exclusively offer their own apps (I guess removing the
| requirement that they accept other apps). And the second is
| allowing apps that meet certain requirements to be installed
| directly from the publisher's website:
|
| > Apple's specific criteria, such as being a member of the Apple
| Developer Program for two continuous years or more and having an
| app with more than one million first installs on iOS in the EU in
| the prior year, and commit to ongoing requirements, such as
| publishing transparent data collection policies
|
| But as you can see you won't be seeing indie apps distributed in
| this way. Though, to be fair, for most indies the App Store with
| the old rules is probably the best deal available to them.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Though, to be fair, for most indies the App Store with the
| old rules is probably the best deal available to them.
|
| How do you figure? Given the choice, many indie Mac developers
| continue to distribute their software outside the Mac App
| Store.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| The core technology fee doesn't exist on the Mac.
| lapcat wrote:
| How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than EUR0.50
| per first annual install?
| internetter wrote:
| Because it means you need to be making more than
| $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which
| is difficult
| lapcat wrote:
| > Because it means you need to be making more than
| $3.3-$1.5 per user per year to break even on this, which
| is difficult
|
| Perhaps this is the case inside the App Store, but it's
| not the case outside the App Store, where indie apps tend
| to be higher priced and upfront paid.
|
| Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first
| annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will
| never even reach that point.
| internetter wrote:
| > where indie apps tend to be higher priced and upfront
| paid
|
| If this is the case, this is an even worse deal, due to
| the annual install fee. If it was one time, it wouldn't
| be so bad.
| lapcat wrote:
| "Moreover, keep in mind that the first million first
| annual installs have no CTF, and most indie devs will
| never even reach that point." Thus the CTF is mostly
| nonexistent for indie devs.
|
| In any case, though, it's only 5 euros for 10 years of
| installs, and many indie apps have paid upgrades (which
| don't exist in the App Store) at least once every 5
| years.
| internetter wrote:
| As an indie app developer myself, I don't want to have
| this reoccurring expense hanging over my head. As I
| incorporate, the 600$ in fixed yearly expenses is
| stressful enough.
| lapcat wrote:
| "Good news" then: this is merely a hypothetical
| conversation, and Apple won't allow you to distribute
| from your website unless you already have over a million
| EU users.
| yusefnapora wrote:
| But in order to qualify for distributing via your own
| website, you need to have had a million installs in the
| prior year. So everyone who could potentially use that
| distribution method will by definition be subject to the
| CTF. It seems like an indie dev's only non-Apple option
| that can avoid the CTF is to distribute through a third-
| party app marketplace and hope to stay under a million
| installs.
| axxl wrote:
| Because a revenue % is based on a financial transaction
| that guarantees you money where an install (which
| includes updates) does not.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| If your app is ad-supported, you pay 0%. It also makes
| the freemium model viable. If you have an application
| that has in-app purchases, then people may download, play
| the free portion, and never pay you. If you have to pay
| $0.50 for that, then it may not go well.
|
| The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling, say,
| a $10 app.
| lapcat wrote:
| > The 0.50 is probably much better if you're selling,
| say, a $10 app.
|
| That's precisely what indie devs outside the Mac App
| Store are doing. They don't have ad-supported apps. Most
| of them are upfront paid, perhaps with a time-limited
| demo. The business models that you're talking about are a
| product of the App Store race to the bottom.
| mdekkers wrote:
| > How is taking 15% or 30% of all revenue better than
| EUR0.50 per first annual install?
|
| I think for free apps that's a bit of a big deal?
| lapcat wrote:
| Yes, of course, but again, this doesn't really apply to
| the indie developer situation:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678917
| joshstrange wrote:
| On the Mac I would agree with you, on iOS I think the best
| option is probably old rules App Store due to the CTE alone.
|
| "Best deal available to them" != "best deal one could hope
| for".
| overstay8930 wrote:
| The app still has to be notarized, this seems logical to me, I'd
| only be worried if they ever allowed unsigned apps to run.
|
| There are plenty of "free Vbucks" and survey sites that show you
| how to enable sideloading on Android to download said app that is
| just pure malware.
| gear54rus wrote:
| yes, very worrying to be able to run software you want on the
| device that you purchased
| acdha wrote:
| This framing ignores the very real harm which has come to
| millions of people. It's not the 80s any more and there are
| mature industries built around spying on users or tricking
| them into decisions with significant financial consequences.
| Most of the effective defenses require something like
| notarization to make it hard for attackers to simply
| disappear without legal consequences, so we need ways to do
| that at reasonable cost.
|
| EUR0.50 seems like a reasonable cost for that, similar to how
| we don't make circuit breakers or seatbelts optional just
| because some guy thinks he doesn't need them and resents
| paying the extra cost.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| I'm not going to hire an IT team to install and maintain MDM
| to prevent my grandmother from falling for a scam website and
| installing "free money quick 2024 +++ candy crush ultra"
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| If you want to block your grandma from being able to
| install apps from outside the Apple app store, that's fine
| (as long as she agrees to it). Seems like a useful feature.
| Maybe file it under "parental controls" or something.
|
| If you want to block _me_ from being able to install apps
| from outside the Apple app store though, that 's none of
| your business (or Apple's).
| overstay8930 wrote:
| It is Apple's business, actually. Don't like it? You
| don't like anything about the Apple ecosystem. Buy an
| Android phone from one of the thousands of OEMs.
|
| Apple is not stopping you from buying a phone that isn't
| from Apple.
|
| If most people thought like you did, they would just not
| buy iPhones. The problem is nobody wants what you're
| asking for, because you're buying into the euro-populist
| cope that it helps consumers, even though this was just a
| play to allow European companies to even have a small
| chance at making money in tech because of how over
| regulated the industry is in Europe.
|
| You're asking for iOS to be a flavor of Android, and the
| reality is the Android experience fucking sucks.
| tristan957 wrote:
| How is anyone supposed to take your argument seriously
| when you use the term "euro-populist cope?"
|
| > even though this was just a play to allow European
| companies to even have a small chance at making money in
| tech because of how over regulated the industry is in
| Europe
|
| Please cite your sources.
|
| > You're asking for iOS to be a flavor of Android, and
| the reality is the Android experience fucking sucks.
|
| No. The user is clearly asking to run software on a
| device that they own. Why is Apple controlling what
| software people can run on hardware that they don't own?
| Should Microsoft not allow people to run software on
| devices that Microsoft does not own?
| asdp9iujaspid wrote:
| > worried if they ever allowed unsigned apps to run
|
| I see this stance often - Do you mean worried for the wellbeing
| of the easily manipulable (e.g. children) on the platform, Or
| worried for the quality floor more generally?
|
| The former has an argument, the latter does not in my opinion.
| Even then while I welcome a requirement for apple to notarise
| apps for regular install (particularly as a means to verify the
| source), I'd also demand the ability to run unsigned apps
| unrestricted - whether the barrier is self-signing, a settings
| checkbox, make me stare at a 30s countdown, whatever.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Exactly. My device, my code can run.
|
| The idea that I can't run my own apps because a company is
| protecting me is laughable.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| I worry about my family both young and old who all had adware
| and malware ridden Android phones before I got them iPhones.
|
| The vast majority of people use smartphones against their
| will and have no desire to learn anything about the magical
| Facebook machine in their hands.
|
| They press buttons and things happen, who cares what the
| dialog box says, they press the button that will get them
| doing what they want to do the fastest, who cares if it said
| whatever they were doing is dangerous. This is how most
| people view their phones, and why there are Android botnets
| and not iOS botnets.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > who all had adware and malware ridden Android phones
| before I got them iPhones.
|
| In all fairness nothing changes. You are happy with the
| store? Stay on the store!
|
| But I am an adult, a developer with 25 years of experience
| and enjoy hacking.
|
| It is my right to pretend from Apple to let me install
| whatever I want on the device I bought and own 100% and to
| not be patronizing.
|
| Put the damn setting somewhere hard to activate
| accidentally and require triple authorisation if it need to
| be, but stop playing games.
|
| Thanks
| isodev wrote:
| All of your concerns are actually solvable through software
| ... if Apple were willing to work on it. But doing that
| doesn't bring a lot of revenue so they keep pushing the
| narrative how the entire category of applications is
| malicious or risky.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| I think they should allow unsigned apps to run in a similar way
| to developer mode on the Xbox.
|
| You can enable unsigned apps, but you'll loose Apple services
| (e.g. iMessage). This should be enough to convince normal users
| not to do it, but allow those who really want to do it, to do
| it.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| So how is it possible, that I can run unsigned, unnotarized
| applications on MacOS?
| overstay8930 wrote:
| That is one of the reasons why businesses must have security
| software monitoring your entire system on macOS, but not on
| iOS.
|
| On Windows, people literally just give everything they
| install complete root access to their entire system when
| installing applications, might as well bring that to iOS too,
| right?
|
| You're not making the point you think you're making. There's
| a lot more danger using macOS/Windows than iOS, and the
| people who interact with computers at work aren't given
| administrative access for a reason.
|
| I can grant anything access to my iCloud Keychain on macOS,
| do you honestly think iOS users should be able to press a
| button to allow this if a random app requested it? Do you
| even think they will know what that means? Now imagine if
| unsigned applications could access keychain like on macOS.
| How well do you think that will go down?
|
| Apple drew the line at consumer safety, and developers hate
| that they can't abuse their powers like they do everywhere
| else.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| > That is one of the reasons why businesses must have
| security software monitoring your entire system on macOS,
| but not on iOS.
|
| Because it is not even possible on iOS, so false sense of
| security
|
| > On Windows, people literally just give everything they
| install complete root access to their entire system when
| installing applications, might as well bring that to iOS
| too, right?
|
| You have not used Windows for looooong time, otherwise you
| would know that this is not the case since Windows 7 and
| not the case at all on Domain (enterprise) Windows since
| Windows XP
|
| > I can grant anything access to my iCloud Keychain on
| macOS, do you honestly think iOS users should be able to
| press a button to allow this if a random app requested it?
| Do you even think they will know what that means? Now
| imagine if unsigned applications could access keychain like
| on macOS. How well do you think that will go down?
|
| Of course, why not. Are iOS user dumber than MacOS users?
|
| > Apple drew the line at consumer safety, and developers
| hate that they can't abuse their powers like they do
| everywhere else.
|
| This has nothing to do with safety, but with users
| demanding support for their iOS toys, while refusing to
| acknowledge, that if Apple bans me from App Store for
| whatever reason, all the money spent on iOS support are now
| running down the drain.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| It's clear you have so little knowledge of the area
| you're trying to talk about there's not really a point in
| continuing.
|
| The real world isn't a computer, and Apple is held
| responsible for user mistakes.
|
| Remember the fappening? Apple never let users make
| security decisions on their iPhone again and forced MFA.
|
| You're talking about walking back decades of platform
| security because you want to be special, which by the
| way, everyone who does this for a living agrees with
| Apple here, including Google. That's why they're making
| Rooted phones worse experiences, 99% of people cannot be
| trusted with the sort of access you're talking about, and
| Google knows that.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| > It's clear you have so little knowledge of the area
| you're trying to talk about there's not really a point in
| continuing.
|
| I am developing for Windows, MacOS, Android and iOS.
| Please continue explaining me how I know nothing about
| it.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > On Windows, people literally just give everything they
| install complete root access to their entire system when
| installing applications, might as well bring that to iOS
| too, right?
|
| UAC prompts get in the way, and if the user account isn't
| an admin the app can't do anything.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Yeah, it'd be terrible, awful, horrible if we could run the
| software we want on the computers we purchase. I've been
| installing software on WIndows without an infection since
| 2002, probably before you were born and I've been using
| third party Android app sources for various projects and
| products for a full decade without a single unwanted
| malware like behavior other than obnoxious notification
| spam. Yeah, tell me how much danger I'm in from my Windows
| and Android software, child.
| rchaud wrote:
| > There are plenty of "free Vbucks" and survey sites that show
| you how to enable sideloading on Android to download said app
| that is just pure malware.
|
| And yet the world hasn't collapsed due to every Android users'
| identity and bank accounts being stolen.
|
| Maybe users aren't as dumb as Apple pretends they are.
| Ballas wrote:
| I just want to be able to install my own apps on my own device
| without paying $99/year (and with a signature that lasts a
| reasonable amount of time).
|
| Sadly, this doesn't seem to allow for that.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Altserver+Altstore. Altserver will resign your apps, and
| altstore can background "refresh" your apps so they _shouldn't_
| expire on your.
|
| It refreshes when your on the same wifi network as altserver,
| for me it works most of the time, but sometimes I need to kick
| altserver to get the phone to see it.
|
| Doesn't fix the issue, and its a limitation that annoys the
| hell out of me too, but at least helps mitigate it. (Though it
| doesn't solve the number of self signed app limit)
| robmccoll wrote:
| That's the thing that would prevent me from buying a Vision Pro
| down the line. It's going to be an iOS-like walled garden
| experience. If it could run arbitrary macOS apps on device, it
| would be infinitely more useful (but probably cannibalize the
| MacBook market and why would Apple ever roll out a new product
| line that doesn't force developers to pay them 30%?)
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _It 's going to be an iOS-like walled garden experience._
|
| You say "it's going to be" as if this hasn't been the Apple
| device business model from the start.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I mean... it hasn't been their model from the _start_ ; the
| Apple II was wildly successful in part because it was so
| open, and Macs never had a walled garden (though the
| situation there does seem to have gotten somewhat worse
| over time).
| __d wrote:
| When the Mac was introduced, there were two loud groups
| of people:
|
| Those complaining bitterly that Apple had ruined the
| product by eliminating expansion cards, and holding the
| case shut with a special screw that needed an "only
| available from Apple" screwdriver.
|
| And those who gladly bought the first computer that
| didn't need users to open up the case and mess around
| with expansion cards and dip switches and so on.
|
| And so it goes.
| throwitaway1123 wrote:
| > It's going to be an iOS-like walled garden experience.
|
| It might be even worse. Apparently you can't even add a web
| app to your home screen on the Vision Pro. Vision Pro users
| are paying for a native app that loads youtube.com in a
| webview: https://christianselig.com/2024/02/introducing-juno/
| criddell wrote:
| I've wanted to be able to do this on video game consoles for
| ages. I have a powerful computer with a big screen in my living
| room but I'm locked out of it.
|
| I hope once the EU starts to look at Sony and Nintendo next.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Knock yourself out: https://github.com/Atmosphere-
| NX/Atmosphere
|
| The Nintendo Switch is a great console for sideloading. There
| are numerous ports of PC titles like Quake and Half-Life, as
| well as a library of Homebrew games and modding tools. If
| you've got an original Nintendo Switch there's practically no
| excuse not to crack it, unless you intend to play online.
|
| Same goes for the 3DS, too. You can now play Virtual Boy
| games using the built-in 3D screen, which enables
| preservation of Nintendo's darkest age (with or without their
| approval). I have soft-modded versions of both the Switch and
| 3DS, and recommend it to anyone that wants that "unlocked"
| experience.
|
| If you want an Xbox or Playstation computer, buy the SOC from
| AMD. They sell them on Alibaba and get the same support
| Microsoft and Sony recieve (read: dogshit). Most people would
| agree that it's wiser to not use console hardware for PC
| software when you can build a superior machine for a lower
| price. But hey, if you wanna waste time and money I won't be
| the one to stop you.
| dkarras wrote:
| So they should be forced to develop the SDK and the dev tools
| for free and provide that support for free? I mean it would be
| very nice of them to do so, but legally forcing them to do it?
| I don't know about that. It is a shortsighted "solution".
| xuhu wrote:
| The SDK is paid for when purchasing the phone. Same as with
| Mac OS, OS X, DOS, Windows, Android, Blackberry, ChromeOS and
| every other OS out there. It's not shortsighted, it's worked
| well for the past 50 years or so.
| okanat wrote:
| and for advanced developer tooling you can charge. This is
| what MS does. Visual Studio (not Code) is not free for
| businesses.
|
| One can still do C# development using only Windows SDK
| and/or dotnet SDK for "free".
|
| You cannot do C/C++ or Rust developement without a license
| but with MinGW you also can do it without MS SDK. MS
| doesn't prevent people from using GCC compilers. Their core
| C++ developers even use it: https://nuwen.net/mingw.html
| dkarras wrote:
| the point is, MS and others are free to choose how they
| will offer their services. They can say "hey I'll provide
| this for free, and I will make you pay for this other
| thing". As long as they are not a monopoly in computing,
| they should be free to do whatever they want, no? If they
| go bonkers with what they ask vs the value they provide,
| competition will wipe them out - easy peasy.
|
| Apple could have said at the beginning "hey this is
| iPhone, there are no external apps for it though" - which
| was actually the case! iPhone did not have 3rd party apps
| at launch.
|
| Then Apple could have said "good news everyone, you can
| now develop for the iPhone. Dev kits start at $10000 per
| unit, apply to partner with us, call us at this number"
| and that would be the end of it. Lots of gadgets still
| work like that and nobody bats an eye.
|
| Apple decreased the barrier to entry and provided it as a
| service, charged for it but created good value in return,
| and it worked! But now that governments signal that they
| will punish such success, the next Apple will likely not
| go the way of low barrier of entry - this will hurt the
| regular folk, people with not so deep pockets.
| dkarras wrote:
| What worked well for the past 50 years was freedom. None of
| those operating systems were _forced_ to provide dev kits
| at no additional cost. They did it to compete. If Apple 's
| additional costs' value proposition was not there, they
| would not be successful, they would not be able to attract
| good developers creating good software. Apple is not a
| monopoly either, there is competition. So forcing them to
| provide a service at no additional cost is just theft. And
| corporations can circumvent the hit they will get from
| being forced in innumerable ways in a capitalist system,
| all at the expense of the consumer.
|
| The point is, nobody is disallowed from competing with
| Apple and its ecosystem on its merits. If Apple didn't
| provide enough value in return to what they ask, they would
| fail. Signaling that you will punish success with force
| means that the next Apple will be a lot more cautious about
| how they do things. Jacked up prices (as long as value
| proposition is there, people will pay, they will just pay
| more), requiring dev kits (can you force a company to
| change their hardware design so that it can be developed
| on? where is the limit?) / expensive partnership agreements
| / increasing the barrier to entry... Unless companies are
| "state owned" they have infinite ways to keep their profits
| at the expense of consumers. Apple's existing deal was a
| good deal - it was working, competition was (and is still)
| there. Now they will have to do the things that will just
| inconvenience users as a side effect, which is what they
| don't want to do, but they will be forced to do regardless.
| layer8 wrote:
| I believe they would be allowed to charge for the SDK and the
| dev tools as long as they don't require developers to use
| that SDK and the dev tools. I'm sure someone else would
| provide an alternative SDK and tooling then.
| dkarras wrote:
| But is it even legally required for them to provide a
| stable 3rd party software support? That would be
| ridiculous. So if they put in the effort to provide such a
| base and open it to public, why can't they choose to be
| compensated for that work?
|
| My problem can be summarized as (assume the company in
| question is not a monopoly):
|
| * Is it illegal to sell a device with a microprocessor in
| it that has no support for 3rd party programmability? ->
| no, most digital devices are like this in fact.
|
| * Is it illegal to sell a computing device and develop
| software in house for it? Maybe charge for some of it?
| Still with no 3rd party support? -> no it is not illegal.
|
| * Is it illegal then, to contract other developers /
| companies to write that "in house" software for the device
| you are making? -> no that is not illegal
|
| * Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies to
| buy software / programming services from them to include in
| your device? -> no that is not illegal
|
| * Is it illegal to make agreements with other companies so
| that they can sell licenses to "unlock" their software in
| your device and get a cut from their sales? -> no it is not
| illegal
|
| * Is it illegal to sell dev kits to the the above? So the
| device in question is still not a device you can develop on
| - but you can create another device where 3rd parties can
| develop on, and you can sell it to them. You can also pick
| and choose which companies you will work with. None of this
| is illegal.
|
| * Is it illegal to automate all of the above? Provide low
| barrier to entry, no bureaucracy, if you want to develop
| for the device just do, pay us $100 a year, and give us a
| cut and you are golden! No need to get into direct contact
| with us, wait months to get our manual approval - we
| streamline everything and even the little guy can
| participate? -> HN thinks that this suddenly must be
| illegal. If they are providing all this service, they
| should be legally forced to do all for free.
|
| I just don't get the logic.
| epaulson wrote:
| I'd even be willing to pay the $99 a year, I just want the
| signature to last longer than a week, ideally forever. For
| years when I don't feel like updating the app, I won't pay the
| developer membership fee.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Uh, don't the $99/year certs give you signatures that last
| like a year?
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Is a PWA good enough? Depends what you want your app for but
| most don't need the native-only features limited to native apps
|
| To my users I'm on the app store for ease of installation,
| that's all. No one knows how to install a PWA.
|
| When I'm building just for me, it's web every time
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Maybe I don't want to have to worry about if a PWA is good
| enough, and will remain good enough?
| fxtentacle wrote:
| "The Core Technology Fee (CTF) is an element of the business
| terms in the EU that reflects the value Apple provides developers
| through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and
| services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with
| users around the world."
|
| I feel sick. Yet, I am intrigued by what kind of drugs the PR
| team at Apple is taking... ;)
|
| In my opinion, Apple's proprietary APIs provide a negative value
| to developers. Shuffling APIs around for no obvious reason is why
| none of my old iOS / Mac apps still work. I've been forced to
| issue refunds to people who upgraded their macOS and then
| afterwards noticed that my apps don't work anymore. And since
| Apple owns the customer relationship, we couldn't even send an
| email to warn them that upgrading will break their setup. (Pro
| Tools had to do that on basically every OS X upgrade.)
|
| On Windows, things JUST WORK! :) and they've continued working
| with almost no maintenance for almost 9 years. The Windows
| version is, thus, highly profitable.
|
| But the Mac version was a financial disaster. And discontinued.
|
| EDIT: Just to clarify, I was super happy with Apple from about
| 2008 to about 2014 and shipped multiple iOS and Mac apps. But
| needless to say, my impression of them has soured when they
| started treating us developers badly. I'm now using Pop! OS as
| daily driver and it kinda feels as nice as OS X was before the
| stupidification efforts started.
| klaustopher wrote:
| > provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools,
| technologies, and services that enable them to build and share
| innovative apps with users around the world.
|
| That's what the 99$ fee for the developer program is for. The
| 50ct Core Technology Fee is just Apple showing the middle
| finger to successful developers. I hope the EU goes after this
| fee first. The whole reason for the DMA is that developers do
| not use Apple's platforms to bring apps to the user's devices.
| The user has paid for the device and the operating system, the
| developer has paid for the developer account, so I am really
| interested to see how Apple justifies that fee in a court of
| law.
| jijijijij wrote:
| Maybe Apple's goal is to become irrelevant enough to not be
| subjected to the DMA. I mean, making developers despise you
| is a brilliant first step towards such an end!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Why is size a question here? If apple is subject now, but
| then dropped to 1/10th the number of users, could they
| suddenly no longer be required to adhere to the DMA? Why is
| the size of the provider suddenly a test to determine if
| consumer protections are in order?
| dbbk wrote:
| Yeah this is what I really don't understand. They say they
| have to be compensated for their R&D work and for providing
| the APIs and cloud services etc. Okay.
|
| ...but the program fee already does that??
| kmeisthax wrote:
| They have to be "compensated" in the intellectual
| property[0] sense of "we reserve the right to invent new
| reasons why we need to be compensated". Nothing is ever
| truly "paid for" or "owned" here.
|
| [0] "Federal contempt of business model"
| judge2020 wrote:
| I think you'd be hard pressed to take the $99/yr they make
| from the dev program fee and use it to cover the salaries
| for the engineers implementing and maintaining all of iOS'
| developer-facing APIs.
| tonfa wrote:
| Isn't having good apps/api a selling point for apple
| hardware (where they already make massive amount of
| money), why can't that be a motivation by itself?
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Why would that fee pay for all that? Why wouldn't revenue
| from sales of iPhones pay for that?
| CivBase wrote:
| Who decided that _developers_ should be the ones paying
| for the development of those APIs in the first place? Are
| we just going to ignore Apple 's own products and
| services that their platform allows them to profit off
| of? And the market share afforded to them by supporting
| popular third-party apps and services?
|
| There's plenty of precedence for platforms being
| profitable even with free APIs - including Android,
| Windows, and even Apple's own MacOS. iOS is not special.
|
| Apple would pay for those APIs whether or not the dev
| program fees alone were enough to cover the expenses. But
| they'll also take as much from the devs as they are
| legally allowed to. And if the fees are enough to keep
| devs from distributing outside the app store, even better
| for Apple.
| joking wrote:
| and what about the devices itself? doesn't apple get money
| from selling iphones and ipads?
|
| The only downside I see on the DMA is that it has come very
| late, and that it's only an european law. Mobile devices
| are computers, and once sold you should be able to install
| whatever you want like on any other computer. The shame on
| apple is that it is increasingly difficult to install
| software even on the computers.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm not sure what % of their R&D budget comes from the $99
| fee vs various other AppStore percentage based fees. But...
| should it be a flat fee? It seems sort of reasonable to
| charge more successful apps more, they are apparently
| benefiting more from the ecosystem, right? Like progressive
| taxation. (If anything, why not institute increasing
| developer "apple tax" brackets?)
|
| It looks like, just from some random googling, Apple makes
| somewhere in the range of $85B per year from their App
| Store, and there are around 34 Million iOS app developers.
| Do people really want to pay north of $2000 for their
| developer licenses?
| paulmd wrote:
| > The user has paid for the device and the operating system,
| the developer has paid for the developer account, so I am
| really interested to see how Apple justifies that fee in a
| court of law.
|
| pretty much the same way nintendo or sony or microsoft
| justify it, I'd think.
|
| it's pretty much exactly the same thing as windows S edition,
| or a console - you _paid_ for the laptop, the developer
| _paid_ to get notarization to release it. As Android shows,
| it is also probably legal to refuse to unlock the
| bootloader... now you own an "appliance".
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/windows-1.
| ..
|
| And again, consoles have been doing this for two full decades
| now. PS5 isn't sold at a loss (and I don't think it matters
| if it is - your business model is not my problem) but I can't
| go mine crypto or emulate games on a PS5 or Xbox even if
| that's what I want to do with it as a user.
|
| And I know that consoles got a specific carveout in the DMA
| "for some reason" (more evidence this is really just a bill
| of attainder in generic dress) but really there is not a
| moral difference here, and people have (including here,
| including the apple haters) have generally convinced
| themselves that it's OK. It's simple, just do the same thing
| with apple: "my phone is an appliance and I don't need to
| emulate games to be happy with it". It's a console in my
| pocket that makes calls.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| In the EU, the spirit of the laws is what counts in court,
| not the letter of the law. That means it's a lot easier to
| understand things if you start with the intended
| consequences:
|
| Can you have a normal life without Xbox S or PS5? Yes => no
| need to regulate here
|
| Can you have a normal life without iOS or Android? No =>
| it's an essential utility => let's regulate this
| paulmd wrote:
| > Can you have a normal life without Xbox S or PS5? Yes
| => no need to regulate here
|
| > Can you have a normal life without iOS or Android? No
| => it's an essential utility => let's regulate this
|
| this is a silly false dilemma/double standard you've set
| up.
|
| if you want to apply the "do I need this exact device"
| standard - then no, you do not need a PS5, and you do not
| need an iphone. Therefore there is no need for
| regulation.
|
| if you want to apply the "can I live my life without this
| whole category of Thing" - you probably can't live your
| life without some form of entertainment, and some form of
| generalized computing device, right? So no, you can't "do
| without" _something like_ a PS5 or a phone or a laptop,
| no.
|
| And the Xbox and PS5 _are_ general purpose computing
| devices - there is no technical reason you shouldn 't be
| able to check emails or run a word processor on your
| Xbox, other than that's not the market segmentation MS
| wants. Again, this is an example of a device _so
| successfully_ convincing people that it 's _really_ an
| appliance that literally the EU wrote it into a law that
| there 's no need for this appliance to comply.
|
| Again: what's the problem? Just do the same thing with
| the iphone.
|
| regardless, you are choosing to ignore the whole point
| about Windows S - you certainly can't life your life
| without Windows or MacOS, right? And if you want to point
| to niche solutions... nobody is stopping you from buying
| a Sailphone, but you would probably agree that's not a
| sufficient solution for the market as a whole.
|
| Again, the whole thing is _very narrowly_ a bill of
| attainder, both in its written form and application. If
| the purpose is "protecting consumers" there is no
| logical reason to exclude Windows S or PS5 or Xbox or
| other general-purpose computing devices from being
| utilized as such by consumers.
|
| The EU has no business to be declaring these classes of
| devices as having no need to comply with market act
| requirements, especially when the boundaries are so
| fuzzy. Apple TV is pushing into mobile gaming. Series S
| is pushing downwards into mobile gaming. What is the
| difference between these 2 classes of devices, why should
| one get a pass? Why should Motorola be allowed to refuse
| to unlock their bootloaders without voiding a warranty?
| Etc etc. Literally narrowly targeted at ios and nothing
| else - even when it would benefit the consumer.
|
| And more generally people are deliberately (and
| knowingly) missing the point that these types of
| appliances _are_ common and _are_ widely accepted -
| literally so widely accepted that the EU wrote special
| permission for many of them. Phrasing it as if Apple is
| somehow _uniquely_ denying users access to the
| capabilities of their hardware is incredibly misleading -
| literally the EU _wrote into the DMA_ special permission
| for many vendors to continue denying their users access
| to the capabilities of their hardware.
|
| But, it's apple, I get it, everyone hates apple. But at a
| technological level they're not special or different.
| bombcar wrote:
| Everyone _knows_ the problem has nothing to do with
| openness or whatever, but that it comes down to the 30%
| fee and companies not wanting to pay it.
|
| The problem is the law isn't written to say "30% fees are
| too damn high" and just mandate that the fees can't be
| over X% or are capped at $Y per install/device/whatever.
| asmor wrote:
| Everyone knows that?
|
| I'd say that's a misunderstanding of the motivations
| behind EU law.
|
| If you think this is the result of lobbying work or
| protectionism, let me ask a simple question: Why does the
| GDPR exist?
| shagie wrote:
| . Game distribution Steam
| 30% (25% after $10M, 20% after $50M) Epic
| 12% Humble 25% (15% to Humble, 10% to
| charity) GOG 30% Console
| Microsoft 30% Playstation 30% Xbox
| 30% Nintendo 30% Mobile
| Apple 30% Google 30%
| Physical Gamestop 30% Amazon 30%
| Best Buy 30% Walmart 30%
|
| Source: https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/
| 2019/09/Gam...
|
| Note that this is from 2019 before Apple and Google
| changed their rates for small developers in 2020.
|
| Question: will this also prevent GameStop from buying
| something for $20 from the distributor and marking it up
| to $26?
| bee_rider wrote:
| "The spirit of the law thing" is something I've seen
| repeated WRT the EU, but it seems like a really bizarre
| way to run anything important. The law obviously can't
| tell us what its spirit is beyond what the letter is.
|
| We can guess what legislators want... I guess a lawyer
| must have come up with this idea, because inconsistent
| guesses are going to give them lots of extra business.
|
| Maybe it would be better to annotate laws with what their
| spirit is, so we don't have to guess. In fact, just write
| that down instead of the apparently non-functional letter
| of the law.
| McDyver wrote:
| Reminds me of this: "The intent is to provide players with a
| sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different
| heroes.
|
| As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from
| the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards
| before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average
| per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be
| making constant adjustments to ensure that players have
| challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course
| attainable via gameplay.
|
| We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the
| community has put forth around the current topics here on
| Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.
|
| Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community
| feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can."
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Are we supposed to know who you're quoting and what it's even
| about?
| smoldesu wrote:
| "pride and accomplishment" was a bit of a gamedev meme for
| a while, related to EA completely fumbling their response
| to a PR mishap: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/star-
| wars-battlefront-...
|
| It tends to get brought up whenever dainty corporate
| language is used to justify a casino for children, or
| something similarly nefarious.
| toyg wrote:
| EA games commenting on the backlash to some charges they
| introduced for a game in 2017:
| https://gizmodo.com/congratulations-to-ea-games-for-
| posting-...
| jwells89 wrote:
| Having tracked API changes fairly closely on macOS and iOS for
| many years now, I can't think of too many that were just
| pointless furniture shuffling. Nearly all of them were to
| enable addition of new features or to improve developer QoL in
| some way -- dropping 32-bit support for example allowed them to
| make long desired improvements in AppKit that were impractical
| prior due to quirks in the way Objective-C works.
|
| That said I also don't think it's a reasonable expectation for
| old binaries to continue to work indefinitely. Maintenance is a
| reality of life of a software developer, and personally
| speaking if I found myself unable or unwilling to do quick spot
| checks on each platform my apps run at least once a year, I'd
| just drop support for those platforms or discontinue the app.
|
| That's not to say that Apple is blameless here, but I think
| Microsoft has set an unrealistic standard (while also making
| some things much more difficult for themselves... Windows on
| ARM for example will never materialize so long as developers
| expect to be able to toss a binary over the wall and abandon it
| for a decade, because no matter how good an x86 compat layer
| is, it's still significantly worse than native).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Windows on ARM will never materialize because Qualcomm can't
| make compelling hardware for it to run on.
|
| Keep in mind that the M1 at launch was as fast as a lot of
| Intel's lineup _running emulated x86 apps_. That 's what
| Qualcomm needs to be able to pull off. If the performance is
| there then people will buy the laptops. That changes the
| developer story from "please recompile and retest your apps
| so they'll run on laptops nobody's buying" to "if you
| recompile your app it'll run 20% faster on this already
| screaming fast laptop chip".
| jwells89 wrote:
| Proficiency in emulating x86 is just one piece of the
| puzzle, though. It helped drive M1 adoption to be sure, but
| users also had a lot of confidence that developers would
| pull through and provide native binaries in a timely
| manner, catapulting the capabilities and battery life of
| their shiny new laptops even further. Apple and third party
| Mac devs had pulled it off twice already, so there was good
| reason to believe that they'd do it again.
|
| If the new Qualcomm chips have good performance, it'll
| drive sales initially, but enthusiasm will fizzle if 2-3
| years down the road developers aren't making meaningful
| efforts to port their Windows versions to ARM, because a
| Windows on ARM device running mostly emulated processes is
| almost certainly going to fall behind M-series Macs running
| mostly native in performance and battery life. If Qualcomm
| can't keep up substantial performance improvements on a
| yearly cadence, they also risk getting lapped by
| traditional x86 machines.
| jmholla wrote:
| > but users also had a lot of confidence that developers
| would pull through and provide native binaries in a
| timely manner, catapulting the capabilities and battery
| life of their shiny new laptops even further.
|
| Yea. There was a real concerted effort by not Apple
| employees to get all these *modern* tools working on M1s.
| I remember at the company I was at, a small handful of
| engineers working diligently to get our internal dev
| software and processes working on M1s.
| sunshowers wrote:
| It's important for platforms to support works of art
| indefinitely. It is not reasonable to expect, say, decade-old
| games to be updated (something that can involve weeks or
| months of work because underlying toolkits may need to be
| updated as well). This was a huge issue when Apple killed
| 32-bit support.
|
| Moves like this destroy trust within communities.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| That's how platforms are killed by neglect. They become
| locked into their old forms and become replaced wholesale
| instead of evolving piece by deprecated piece.
| sunshowers wrote:
| I think there are many other solutions, such as producing
| a Wine-like layer in between. But that requires active
| effort and commitment.
| dig1 wrote:
| > That said I also don't think it's a reasonable expectation
| for old binaries to continue to work indefinitely.
| Maintenance is a reality of life of a software developer, and
| personally speaking
|
| There is a fine difference between keeping old binaries
| running and maintaining your application. I don't expect
| certain applications to be maintained, but I expect them to
| run on newer versions of OS for many years. If you think this
| is impossible, Apple can learn a lot from Microsoft and
| Linux. And IMHO, Microsoft didn't make unrealistic standards.
| One of the reasons why Windows has been the most dominant OS
| for years is exceptional backward compatibility.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 16 bit support got dropped from Windows over a decade ago.
| It's not like macOS drops things at random, Monumental
| architecture changes are good reasons to break any apps
| that hadn't been touched in x years.
| hyperdimension wrote:
| No, it's still there in the 32-bit version of Windows
| (10, anyway.) Windows 11 doesn't support 32-bjt, so I
| suppose you could say it was dropped then, but Windows 10
| is still supported.
| pathartl wrote:
| The amount of backwards compatibility that Windows has built in
| is frankly insane. I've been going through a catalog of games
| and making sure they can run on modern Windows. Other than
| games that were written strictly for 16-bit, I haven't run into
| a game that can't be made to run. Sure, some require patches in
| the form of DLL shims, but it's rare that I even have to break
| out compatibility mode.
| pmontra wrote:
| > I am intrigued by what kind of drugs the PR team at Apple is
| taking
|
| No drugs. PR teams write what helps their company to succeed.
| They don't have to believe into what they write.
| jijijijij wrote:
| > They don't have to believe into what they write.
|
| Imagine the level of sociopathy required for the job. Truly
| soulless, despicable work, but I almost feel sorry for them.
| Like, could they even form an authentic human connection
| anymore, when they have sold out, given up so much humanity
| to an indifferent market creature? How would you feel about
| an "I love you" coming from someone payed to lie and
| manipulate?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Personally, I'd write it if it was my job. And then bitch
| about it to my friends and we can roll our eyes.
|
| Just like any stupid thing I'm asked to do.
|
| Actually I'd be much happier writing that than dealing with
| ticket YJ-2934 hanging out in Jira.
|
| I don't need to be a sick, deprived sociopath.
|
| Then again, I still happily buy and use Apple products.
| They'll get over their pointless tempter tantrum at some
| point. I hope.
| klaustopher wrote:
| I am really impressed how much time and effort Apples legal
| department spends to find every single loop hole in the wording
| of the DMA. The 50ct per install for alternate app stores, 50ct
| per install for non-App Store apps after the millionth install, 1
| million dollar in securities for alternate app stores, etc all
| follow the words of the DMA, but not the spirit. I am really
| interested to see the European Commissian drag Apple in front of
| a court and them having to legally defend their actions. I assume
| that all of those things they are setting up to circumvent people
| from using their rights will really blow up in their faces.
| internetter wrote:
| The EU has always been enthusiastic about the _spirit_ of the
| law, and Apple is not used to this. You can see their temper
| tantrum unfold every time they find this out.
| procgen wrote:
| Disregarding the letter of the law seems arbitrary and
| capricious.
| klaustopher wrote:
| There's different ways to interpret laws for courts. One of
| them is called teleological interpretation where you follow
| the intent of the law. For this courts also look into the
| documentation the legislation provided when defining the
| law. This is usually not done by lower courts, but courts
| like the CJEU use those when the letter of the law is
| unclear to define this for the lower courts to follow.
| internetter wrote:
| Is it? Developers used to determinism in software
| frequently don't understand that in _all_ jurisdictions the
| law is ultimately interpreted by humans. I 've been going
| through some legal processes myself, and my friend who is a
| lawyer reminded me more times than I care to admit that
| this is the case.
|
| In the US, SCOTUS's job is literally to interpret the
| spirit of the law in the event of ambiguity.
| Hamuko wrote:
| The situation in the US seems to suggest that trying to
| finely analyze the exact sequence of words in a law or the
| consitution still leaves a whole lot of room for arbitrary
| decisions. Abortion was a constitutional right until it
| wasn't and the constitution was not changed between.
| isodev wrote:
| I'm so tired of this, instead of doing the right thing, Apple
| just keeps trying to brute force the legal framework. You
| don't need fancy legal team to know this is not the way.
| klaustopher wrote:
| From a business point, I can totally understand what Apple
| is doing. Making this as painful and unpredictable (as a
| developer you never know if your app will be successfull
| and gain more than 1 million installs) is _the_ way to keep
| developers using the old contract and keep them on the app
| store. This makes sense for Apple to find every loophole
| possible ...
|
| As a consumer, and an Apple users, I want them to be
| slapped as hard as possible for how they implement this.
| frizlab wrote:
| Funny how things go. As a consumer especially, but even
| as a developer I don't want the DMA to succeed and
| purposefully _want_ iOS to be a walled garden. It's
| literally one of the reasons why I'm on iOS!
| klaustopher wrote:
| That's the nice thing about the DMA ... Nobody forces you
| to install a 3rd party app store, nobody forces you to
| install apps from websites, nobody forces you out of the
| walled garden. For you nothing changes. Those that want
| to use their 1000EUR device differently than you now have
| the chance to.
| frizlab wrote:
| As the "tech guy" in the family things might change
| actually.
|
| (One of) the reasons why I like the walled garden is how
| it simplifies everything troubleshooting-wise. I have a
| few quirks to know, the rest is because of hardware
| failure and that's it.
|
| My peer not being tech-savvy might install stupid things
| from stupid places and it might be a problem.
|
| The way it's done it's unlikely, but still it just
| complexify things for next to no reasons in my book. (Yes
| 30% is a lot; I _personally_ don't care, though I do
| recognize I'm a good position and I can afford not to-but
| then again, the most vocal about the 30% are not the most
| unwealthy...)
| klaustopher wrote:
| That's also solveable. For android you need to enable
| deep inside of the settings to allow 3rd party installs.
| Nobody is preventing Apple to do something like this. Or
| that you can create a profile that disables that setting
| that you can install on your familys devices. Nothing in
| the DMA prevents this.
|
| Just because it makes your life easier as the family tech
| support is a pretty selfish reason to hope for a very
| good pro-consumer law to fail.
| frizlab wrote:
| The way it's going I'm actually pretty sure if they did
| that they'd get reprimanded...
|
| Also it makes _my_ life annoying when I open Safari and
| am presented w / what can be told as the worst pop-up
| ever and have to spend literally minutes dismissing it
| for something I neither wanted nor needed. It's the
| cookie banner all over again.
|
| Does not seem like a lot, but as a developer I use
| devices in a factory configuration a lot, and it's just
| as annoying as it's useless.
|
| Basically it's the cookie banner again. Served no-one (at
| least definitely not the consumers), but annoyed a lot.
|
| As for the "those that want to use their 1000EUR device
| differently than you now have the chance to,"
| well......... nobody forced them to buy a 1000EUR device
| did they?? They knew of the limitations; they had to, or
| they're very dumb.
|
| The law is not pro-consumer contrary to people say, it's
| anti-garden, which is definitely not the same, and I'll
| die on this hill.
| ulucs wrote:
| > Basically it's the cookie banner again. Served no-one
| (at least definitely not the consumers), but annoyed a
| lot.
|
| Oh no, you have to be given the option to not permit your
| data to be shared with ~1000 different partners with
| "legitimate" interests. Honestly, the only thing that is
| wrong with GDPR is that it came out too late.
| frizlab wrote:
| 90% of the websites today use google analytics which is
| not GDPR compliant, and yet nothing happens.
|
| Ironically Apple did more for privacy than GDPR ever did,
| and was able to enforce it... by having a walled garden!
| isodev wrote:
| > yet nothing happens
|
| Every time you dismiss a "we care for your privacy"
| banner, you're being made aware that your data is shared
| with hundreds or thousands of data brokers with
| "legitimate interest". The fact that vendors prefer to
| make your experience miserable rather than give up
| tracking is another example of "malicious compliance".
|
| What happens is that you now have the right to request a
| copy of the personal information a site has collected and
| ask them to delete it. You can also sue them if they
| don't fulfil your request. You're welcome to exercise
| your rights as an EU citizen at any time.
| latexr wrote:
| > and yet nothing happens.
|
| Not true.
|
| https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-win-first-major-fine-
| eu-1-million-us...
| user_7832 wrote:
| > Also it makes my life annoying when I open Safari and
| am presented w/ what can be told as the worst pop-up ever
| and have to spend literally minutes dismissing it for
| something I neither wanted nor needed. It's the cookie
| banner all over again.
|
| Know what's cool? Firefox on android supports ublock
| origin. There are some chromium forks too with desktop
| extension support (on android). Funny what an open(er)
| market and easy of installing apps does, huh?
| ghusto wrote:
| Nearly no sites comply with the cookie-banner law, if
| they did, you wouldn't mind it.
|
| It essentially says "Tell the user you're tracking them,
| give them a button to click not allow you to do that". If
| sites actually did that, I honestly couldn't care less
| about the extra second it would take to click "No, fuck
| off".
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| People (myself included) say the same thing about why
| they buy their tech illiterate relatives macOS computers.
| And it works. And guess what, it works despite Apple not
| getting a cut of every everything.
| rchaud wrote:
| > My peer not being tech-savvy might install stupid
| things from stupid places and it might be a problem.
|
| Yes, and they may also respond to phishing emails served
| up by the Mail app. Do your peers consider you
| responsible for fixing that too?
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| It's perfectly reasonable to create even more walled
| gardens than the Apple walled garden, once you open up
| for different markets. That's the beauty of choice.
| internetter wrote:
| For years Apple has placed deliberately crafted
| limitations on 3rd party apps that put theirs at an
| advantage. They've done anything but treat developers
| fairly. If they did, maybe this legislation was unneeded,
| but with the way they've been acting, it feels like a
| long time coming.
|
| Edit: self plug: https://boehs.org/node/private-apis
| rchaud wrote:
| Opening up the app store doesn't force you step outside
| the walled garden.
| frizlab wrote:
| Until some apps are not in the App Store or a website is
| chromium-compatible only... Or that apps (e.g. youtube)
| outside the App Store is surprisingly more feature-
| complete than the equivalent in the App Store...
|
| Don't worry they'll find a way to make it socially
| mandatory (the same way not having a google account
| nowadays seems impossible (I don't personally but still
| do because of work for instance)).
| asadotzler wrote:
| And if you don't trust an app vendor without Apple's
| underpaid Chinese reviewers playing with it on an iPad
| for 5 minutes to guarantee your safety, then don't use
| those apps that pull out of the App Store. If YouTube or
| FB pull out of Apple's App Store and go to their own,
| Apple will have to cut it's hosting fees to get them back
| or lose that business and you'll suffer not because
| Google and FB pulled out of the App Store but because
| Apple pushed them out with exorbitant fees. You should
| want Apple facing that threat because it'll lead to lower
| App Store prices as developers won't pad a $5 app with
| $1.50 in extra cost to you to cover the exorbitant Apple
| fees. But you'd rather blame users who want to run what
| ever software they want on the computers they purchased
| than blame Apple's shitty business practices. That's on
| you, bud.
| frizlab wrote:
| Once again there are alternatives; nobody forced anybody
| to buy iPhones.
|
| It's not like Apple lied at any point saying "buy our
| phones and do whatever you want on them!" No. It's clear.
| You do what they want. In what name should they be forced
| to "open" it to anybody?
|
| What's next? Force google to make their map data open?
| How would _that_ go? It's mostly the same thing.
| jug wrote:
| There is also an explicit clause about on anti-circumvention in
| the DMA so they're on thin ice here.
|
| Article 13 is the fun one for Apple: https://www.eu-digital-
| markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_A...
| sneak wrote:
| Complying with what you guess at the lawmakers' intentions
| was/were is a fool's errand. The law is the text, nothing more,
| nothing less. That's the point of the law. If the law falls
| short or has loopholes, it's a bad law and it's the
| legislature's job to fix it, not citizens' to suss it out.
|
| To assume the law means things that aren't written in the law
| is, quite basically, undemocratic.
| klaustopher wrote:
| Written it in another comment. If there are ambiguities in
| the written law, for example because the legislature did not
| specify in the text of the law, that you can't charge for the
| access to the platforms, high courts like the CJEU will take
| approaches where they determine the spirit of the law (i.e.
| by looking at the discussion material the legislature
| presented for passing the law) to find out what the intent of
| the legislature was and then defines this law.
|
| This is for example how Germany now has a basic right to data
| protection. It's not written in the constitution, it was
| formed by our supereme court by looking at what the
| intentions of the author's of our constitution were. Same
| principle applies to EU laws.
|
| I agree that this is not a citizen's job. That's why I wrote
| that I am very happy to see the EU commission drag Apple in
| front of the CJEU.
| isodev wrote:
| The DMA is perfectly clear regarding its intention and
| context. Trying to split hairs to find wiggle-room in the
| text just so a gatekeeper can maintain the status-quo for a
| while longer is absolutely malicious.
|
| Furthermore, Apple's behaviour is quite discouraging for us
| EU based developers who actually understand and aspire to the
| EU's values and what we consider "normal" treatment of the
| people using our apps and services.
| realusername wrote:
| > such as being a member of the Apple Developer Program for two
| continuous years or more and having an app with more than one
| million first installs on iOS in the EU in the prior year, and
| commit to ongoing requirements
|
| I didn't expect much but that list is a big joke.
|
| If you were looking for a way to distribute your ios software on
| the web, well that ain't it.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Seems like it would've been easier for apple to just enable
| installing android on iPhones and iPads and just walking away.
|
| I do wonder if that would've been enough to have compliance.
|
| I also wonder if apple could argue that web apps are enough.
| rchaud wrote:
| Google pays Apple $19b to keep it as the default search engine
| on iOS Safari, so there will never be an iOS VM running
| Android.
| spogbiper wrote:
| Allowing an alternate OS would allow users to avoid continually
| paying Apple to make use of their device. It will never happen
| sneak wrote:
| > _In addition, developers will soon be able to distribute apps
| directly from their websites, providing they meet Apple 's
| specific criteria, such as being a member of the Apple Developer
| Program for two continuous years or more and having an app with
| more than one million first installs on iOS in the EU in the
| prior year, and commit to ongoing requirements, such as
| publishing transparent data collection policies. Apps distributed
| in this way must meet Apple's notarization requirements like all
| other iOS apps and can only be installed from a web domain
| registered in App Store Connect._
|
| So, there will still be a centralized chokepoint for censorship
| of apps the government would prefer you not be able to have on
| your phone. Cool.
|
| This means no protest apps, no encrypted communications apps
| unless they have the appropriate government approval/licenses,
| etc.
|
| This is the same censorship they exert over the app store. It's
| no benefit to users.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| It's the big apps and vendors I want to have protection against.
| My negotiation position towards Facebook etc. is very weak. This
| is why I like when Apple is putting certain limits for them.
|
| With smaller apps I don't have this problem. There's typically
| plenty to choose from. If I don't like the policies of one, then
| I can go for something else.
| hu3 wrote:
| These limits are and should be placed by the operating system.
|
| Android has sideloading yet Facebook still uses the official
| store.
| jiripospisil wrote:
| From https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
|
| > First annual install. This is the first time an app is
| installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After
| each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of
| times by the same account for the next 12 months with no
| additional charge.
|
| Okay...
|
| > A first annual install may result from an app's first-time
| install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution
| option -- including the App Store, an alternative app
| marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through
| Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom
| app.
|
| Do I understand this correctly that you will have to pay the fee
| for each user (above the 1 million free) even if they just get an
| automatic update? Given that updates are automatic by default,
| you will end up paying even for inactive users (users who
| installed the app but long forgotten about it and don't use it).
| AwaAwa wrote:
| Sounds malicious. I expect their defense to consist of "can't
| spell 'App' without taking a portion of 'Apple' and therefore
| ...."
|
| Or maybe that's their hail mary for the next round.
| resource_waste wrote:
| Oh man Apple is finally getting a feature Android had for 10+
| years! Maybe in like 20 years iphones will finally have the
| features a $100 android has and will be up to bare basic
| standards.
|
| I def look sideways at people who buy a used $300 iphone when you
| can get a safer, higher quality, more feature phone with more for
| $150. This is different from someone buying Nike Jordans because
| they are status insecure, because Nike Jordan's dont affect my
| life. A critical mass of Apple users caused developers to make
| Apps for iPhones.
| LordKeren wrote:
| You shouldn't let people's decisions around phone purchases
| bother you
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I reckon an uptake of 0.5% of EU users will do this - people will
| distrust if it does not come from the Apple store.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| They have made it so complicated, you need to already have 2
| years app available and over a million downloads.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Alternative app marketplaces. Marketplaces can choose to offer
| a catalog of apps solely from the developer of the marketplace.
|
| How does that count as a "marketplace"?
|
| > Web Distribution ... will let authorized developers distribute
| their iOS apps to EU users directly from a website owned by the
| developer
|
| All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to
| prevent competition. It's not about security like they've been
| lying about; it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly.
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Before this, if you had an alternative marketplace, you had to
| accept submissions from other developers. You are still allowed
| to accept submissions from other developers, but are no longer
| required to.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I suppose the point is that, if we're being pedantic (and
| after all, that is what the internet is _for_), you cannot
| have a single vendor marketplace based on the commonly
| understood meaning of the word 'marketplace'.
|
| (But yeah, this is just slightly silly naming from Apple).
| yard2010 wrote:
| Are you demonstrating Cunningham's law because the internet
| is for porn
| bloppe wrote:
| Apple is just trying to protect users from scammers! I'm sure
| all this sensible authorization and notarization business will
| continue even after the fees are removed from the equation
| nektro wrote:
| debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but
| there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer
| overall
| greazy wrote:
| But does it? I haven't seen any hard evidence, and lots of
| anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents,
| fathers and mothers being better off.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Particularly when there are better alternatives. For
| example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of
| the device that disables new stores from being added. Now
| you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with
| Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it
| pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into
| trouble because they can't add others.
|
| Move the switch back and the device won't boot without a
| factory wipe. That's going to deter both anyone who can't
| successfully disassemble the device to flip the switch
| (i.e. severely technically illiterate people) and the
| people who aren't willing to press YES to a prompt that
| says it's about to erase all their data (i.e. mildly
| technically illiterate people), while leaving it possible
| for exactly the people it should be possible for.
| chongli wrote:
| What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their
| own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by
| Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you
| and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can
| install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so
| they can continue scrolling cat memes.
|
| I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-
| store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big
| social media companies pull their apps from Apple's
| official store and move to their own stores (with
| unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be
| successful at dragging their users with them.
| Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any
| success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they
| want.
| josephg wrote:
| Having only one website would also make the web safer. But it
| would also be super lame. Is that a trade you would make?
|
| Why would we want freedom to self publish on the web but not
| in mobile apps?
| jraph wrote:
| The vast majority of Android users use the Play Store (or the
| Amazon thing) exclusively. So Android is not different than
| iOS in this regard.
|
| The vanishingly few remaining users use F-Droid (sometimes
| exclusively), which is probably the safest app store on
| Earth, with GNU/Linux and *BSD distros' base repositories.
| Open source only, reproducible builds with public recipes
| written independently, trackers removed (because they usually
| rely on non-free libs).
|
| I honestly don't see how having only one store makes an OS
| safer. That store could be an unchecked mess.
|
| We could talk about policies around app inclusion and
| permission management though.
| ben_w wrote:
| If the argument is "the number of stores is not a useful
| metric", I agree.
|
| If the argument is "Apple in particular has a huge vested
| interest in making sure that their first party App Store
| doesn't distribute malware", that's somewhat stronger.
|
| I don't know which argument nektro was trying to make, I
| could read it either way.
|
| Personally, I lean towards the point about vested
| interests, although it is only "lean towards" not "fully
| embrace": what they care about isn't strictly security, but
| their bottom line, and being a US company with US moral
| norms and US payment providers, this can also be observed
| in the form of their content rules -- they seem to treat
| sex as a much more important thing to hide than
| violence[0]. This does not sit well with people like me who
| think violence is bad and sex is good.
|
| [0] A bit over a decade ago, the app submission process
| flagged the word "knopf" in German translations, telling me
| it was a rude word and I might get in trouble if I was
| using inappropriate language. It's the German word for
| button... or knob (but in the sense of button, it's never a
| dick), and so I can only assume someone got a naughty words
| list in English and translated it literally rather than
| asking for a local list of naughty words.
| willseth wrote:
| > All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is:
| to prevent competition.
|
| Web Distribution requires stricter app and developer review
| than Marketplace distribution.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Isn't that kind of the point? The goal was to get out of
| Apple's clutches when your customers have their devices, so
| Apple made the thing meant to be independent even more
| dependent than the original in order to deter adoption.
| willseth wrote:
| The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that
| Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when
| in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace
| distribution.
|
| > The goal was to get out of Apple's clutches when your
| customers have their devices
|
| Whose goal? Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it
| expects Apple to maintain security of devices and apps.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence
| that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and
| security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured
| than Marketplace distribution.
|
| Which goes to the parent's point that their intent is to
| prevent competition. Otherwise why would the alternative
| need _more_ onerous security measures, if not to act as a
| deterrent through friction?
|
| > Read the DMA. It is very explicit that it expects Apple
| to maintain security of devices and apps.
|
| It also says that the security measures have to be
| "strictly necessary" and "there are no less-restrictive
| means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or
| operating system" and "[t]he gatekeeper should be
| prevented from implementing such measures as a default
| setting or as pre-installation" etc.
|
| Which implies to me that you not only have to be able to
| turn them off, they have to be off by default.
| xzjis wrote:
| Apple makes more money from marketplaces than apps downloaded
| from the web.
| mellutussa wrote:
| > How does that count as a "marketplace"?
|
| I'm assuming that Apple is going to profit from that catalogue.
| stouset wrote:
| > it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly.
|
| Does this only makes sense if you assume payments are tied to
| the App Store? They aren't.
|
| If you remove payments from your list of motivations, what do
| you presume Apple's motivation is to encourage apps to list
| themselves on the App Store and not a third-party marketplace?
| thefounder wrote:
| Ads
| nottorp wrote:
| As an Apple customer in the EU, I'm staying on iOS 17.3 until
| they rewrite 17.4 4-5 times based on how many times they get
| fined again for malicious compliance.
| yaris wrote:
| "Always wait for a point release". It seems for this we need to
| wait for the _next_ point release. It should become clearer for
| EU side of the movement also - it is far from certain that
| Apple to be the one f*cked.
| nottorp wrote:
| I don't trust the EU much to fix the things that I personally
| care about indeed.
|
| Namely: unrestricted access for new, small entrants. Less
| restrictions on utilities. Stuff like that.
|
| My favourite pet example: I want DaisyDisk for iOS. What does
| Cook need threatening with to allow that?
| andersa wrote:
| That's actually exactly what the DMA is supposed to solve.
| So maybe you just need to wait.
| nottorp wrote:
| I don't know about my pet. It would need full storage
| access, and even I agree that keeping apps separate from
| each other is a good idea, security wise. I don't see how
| you can argue against that when you're considering
| monopoly issues.
|
| On the other hand, Apple not allowing apps not approved
| by them and not allowing manual single app installs
| without going through their app store or some other app
| store does look to me like a monopoly issue.
| coldtea wrote:
| Are you sure you want iOS? Perhaps you want Android?
|
| Sounds like you just want the iPhone hardware, but not the
| spirit of the OS that contributed to what it is. Adding
| manual disk management makes more like running Windows XP
| than a smooth "mostly just works" phone.
| nottorp wrote:
| Well, if Apple's space usage report would be more
| detailed and made sense, maybe I wouldn't need it.
|
| But... "Other" ?
| rsynnott wrote:
| Realistically, if Apple is determined to fight this, it may
| drag on for years.
| justinclift wrote:
| Apple could end up funding the EU's Russia defence from just
| the fines alone. ;)
| fundatus wrote:
| Unfortunately fines are a net zero from the EU's
| perspective, as fines are simply deducted from the EU
| contributions paid by its members.
| jerjerjer wrote:
| EU contributions to what, Apple?
| justinclift wrote:
| They're probably meaning the (annual?) EU funding
| contributions from its member states. ie Germany, France,
| etc.
| Loveaway wrote:
| Just switch to Android, why take this kind of user hostility
| from Apple?
| nottorp wrote:
| For the same reason I don't switch to Windows: the
| alternatives are even worse.
|
| Apple isn't the best, no one deserves "best" in desktop and
| mobile operating systems, but it's the least bad.
|
| In mobiles we basically have a duopoly, and the only ones
| who are likely to care about the customer's interests are
| regulators. Neither Apple nor Google have any incentive
| because there is no 3rd option.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| What should I do if I have both and want both to operate
| the way I want because I paid for them? Just like I paid
| for a Macbook and a Surface and can install anything on
| both at my will
| pests wrote:
| > What should I do if I have both
|
| Already messed up. Shouldn't buy things you don't approve
| of.
| okso wrote:
| Apple keeps a strong control nevertheless, as detailed in the
| page "Getting ready for Web Distribution in the EU."
|
| > Apps offered through Web Distribution must meet Notarization
| requirements to protect platform integrity, like all iOS apps,
| and can only be installed from a website domain that the
| developer has registered in App Store Connect.
|
| Further, the conditions for eligibility seem to block access to
| new startups and indie developers.
|
| > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must: (...) Be a
| member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two
| continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than one
| million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year.
| markus92 wrote:
| The one million requirement is where you start paying them the
| 50cts per install, right?
| rekoil wrote:
| It is indeed.
|
| Can't have this being used by those who might not net Apple
| any money, they're locked out obviously. Fair and reasonable.
| /s
| usrusr wrote:
| An interesting perspective, makes it surprisingly fair play
| and totally crippling to third parties at the same time.
|
| I guess the outcome will be that outside some completely
| irrelevant oddballs there will just be one or two entities
| like Epic serving the intersection of non-casual gamers and
| people who consider the iPhone a gaming platform and they
| won't pull much market away from Apple, but serve as a
| limiter to how much Apple can abuse their platform rule. It
| will look like a failure, but only because some of the
| limiting effect on platform abuse will also bleed into makets
| not directly affected by EU rules.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| No, the outcome will be that the EU rightfully fines them
| an examplary amount for this non-compliant farce of a plan.
| bloppe wrote:
| > surprisingly fair play
|
| And they'll be fairly fined for it
| madeofpalk wrote:
| You pay the CTF 50 cents on _all_ installs outside of the
| Apple App Store.
|
| You get 1m free Apple App Store installs/year.
| halostatue wrote:
| Unless that's changed for the worse, you are misremembering
| the CTF rules.
|
| App _marketplaces_ pay 0.50EUR per install-year from zero.
|
| App _developers_ (except web distribution, perhaps) get 1M
| free app installs per year, regardless of marketplace.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Ahhh, thanks.
|
| > _One million free first annual installs. Membership in
| the Apple Developer Program includes one million first
| annual installs per year for free for apps distributed
| from the App Store and /or alternative marketplaces._
|
| > _Developers of alternative app marketplaces will pay
| the Core Technology Fee for every first annual install of
| their app marketplace, including installs that occur
| before one million._
|
| https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
| shinryuu wrote:
| > Web Distribution, available with a software update later this
| spring, will let authorized developers distribute their iOS apps
| to EU users directly from a website owned by the developer.
|
| iPhone users don't really own their own device, do they...
| pavlov wrote:
| The iPhone revolution was that your phone used to be owned by
| the carrier, but now was owned by Apple, and Jobs got away with
| it.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Hence why most European countries just mostly stayed with
| pre-paid, and operators have been trying to bride us with
| contracts for iDevices, or if that doesn't get us, contracts
| in disguise for pre-paid users as post pay.
|
| I will keep using Android devices with physical SIM until it
| isn't no longer viable.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| Due to financing options like Klarna, keeping on monthly
| prepaid sim-only plans (which are cheap) and using a
| finance option to purchase the device outright has become
| much more popular at least in my circle in the UK.
| desas wrote:
| You don't even need Klarna, the Apple website offers 0%
| 24 months financing for iPhone in the UK.
| sbuk wrote:
| That's nonsense! Bundled contracts are common in most if
| not all of Europes economies.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Where are your numbers against my numbers?
| sbuk wrote:
| Show me yours first!
| pjmlp wrote:
| Nah, you were the one doubting me, Thomas, I don't need
| to show my wounds.
| sbuk wrote:
| You're the one making spurious claims! Too much 'In
| Europe...' bullshit posted here
| pjmlp wrote:
| It goes both ways my friend.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| That might be the case, but the phones aren't bound to
| any specific carrier. A phone bundled with an O2 contract
| can be used by someone with a Telekom contract.
| yourusername wrote:
| This really seems like a post from 15 years ago. In my
| experience prepaid is almost dead. It's the most expensive
| way to use a mobile phone and you can get a decent sim only
| subscription for 5 euro per month.
| paxys wrote:
| Used to be owned by your carrier for two years, and you could
| always pay to unlock it. Now it costs double and Apple owns
| it forever with no recourse.
| CaptainMarvel wrote:
| I don't. This is a stark realisation that I have had over the
| past few years. I would once staunchly recommend iPhones for
| their strong security, in particular app isolation, on-device
| AI, and physical device security.
|
| However, over the years there have been more and more instances
| where Apple decides what I can do with my phone. From
| restricting APIs to give their first-party apps advantage, to,
| most recently, not having any (local) method to move voice
| memos off my Apple Watch.
|
| I've realised they are orchestrating their hardware and
| software to build a truly solid wall from within which they can
| extract continuous rent from their captives.
|
| I don't own my device because I cannot freely run the software
| I create on it (without paying Apple and gaining their
| approval, which is impossible in some cases).
|
| I'm done with Apple... but there are no acceptable
| alternatives. Android is bad in other aspects.
|
| This is not a free and fair market; it's a duopoly.
|
| I genuinely pray weekly for a phone like the Framework Laptop,
| where I can run my own software (Arch Linux) and repair and
| replace the hardware as needed.
| Vinnl wrote:
| I assume you're aware and have some other reason that
| disqualifies it (e.g. you're in the US), but Fairphone does
| exist and comes pretty close (i.e. PostmarketOS is supposed
| to run, at least): https://www.fairphone.com/
| CaptainMarvel wrote:
| Thank you. I did actually come across this a few weeks ago
| as I semi-regularly search for new phones in my despair!
|
| It is the closest phone to what I have been after for a
| while. I particularly like their long software support and
| their support for right-to-repair. It runs stock Android,
| however I'm not sure whether that means Google is still
| fully entrenched into all aspects of the phone by default
| including through Play Store APIs, notifications, etc.
|
| (If anyone would shed some light on the software side, I
| would appreciate it because I'm not familiar with modern
| Android.)
|
| Even if it were suitable I would not be in a position to
| buy it for a while, hence I am still plodding along with my
| iPhone but just keeping an eye out for good alternatives.
|
| Edit: I re-noticed you said it runs postmarketOS. That's
| awesome and I'll need to look into it - I know very little
| about it. Though it seems many aspects of the hardware are
| not supported on even the Fairphone 4.
| jcfrei wrote:
| My guess is that if you want to use any of the common
| apps you will need the play store services app that does
| all the data collection.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Fairphone runs pretty standard Google Android, basically
| what you get in the emulator if you ask for the "Google
| Play" image, sliightly closer to AOSP than the Pixels.
|
| The bootloader can be unlocked trivially (just like on
| OnePlus/Nexus), but loses SafetyNet when you do.
| COGlory wrote:
| The company that imports Fairphone 4 to the US (Murena)
| runs e/OS which is OK. There's a bit of FUD that pops up
| on HN about e/OS from time to time, but the reality is
| that it's a mostly de-Google'd but still usable LineageOS
| clone. Their emphasis is on de-Googling, and usability,
| not security. It's probably worth a look. I'd say that
| their privacy/de-Googling is the best of all the
| LineageOS flavors. You can see comparisons between all
| the flavors here:
|
| https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
|
| That said, you can flash any Android Os that supports
| Fairphone, or PostmarketOS to it.
|
| The phone itself is responsive/quite good despite being a
| bit old at this point. I can do all normal phone tasks
| (email, web, music, navigation, etc) with no lag or any
| issues. I have not attempted to game on it. The Fairphone
| 4 is modular, parts are available for repairs, and it
| works great in the US with T-Mobile or T-Mobile MVNOs.
|
| https://murena.com/america/shop/smartphones/brand-
| new/murena...
| jcfrei wrote:
| Yup, this is the choice: Either a walled garden run by Apple
| that has a price premium. Or a discounted device by Android
| that allows Google to snoop on all your data if you want to
| use a single one of their services (App Store, Gmail, Google
| Maps) - and correct me if I'm wrong but without play services
| enabled an Android is not really usable. I rather pay the
| premium.
| josephcsible wrote:
| If you go with Android, you could flash GrapheneOS, which
| supports sandboxing Play Services.
| jcfrei wrote:
| very interesting, thanks! haven't heard of this feature
| before.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| GrapheneOS is as close to a private phone as possible
| nowadays, though it does require paying Google a somewhat
| hefty premium too (not as expensive as the iPhone, still).
| You can definitely use Android without Google apps, though
| GrapheneOS does include options that would let it behave
| like a normal app without special privileges. You can even
| isolate it to a work profile so it has no access to your
| main.
| nomius10 wrote:
| GrapheneOS runs the google play services as a containerized
| app instead of a system level app, allowing you to disable
| access as needed. The downside is that it's only available
| for pixel phones.
| mythhabit wrote:
| I depends what you want from your tool. I get around 4 years
| of use from the device. I upgrade every 2 years, and my son
| inherits my old one. I replace the battery if it's below 80%,
| it's usually once when I hand it over to my son.
|
| That is a reasonable fee every month for the tool I get. I'm
| not tweaking every little thing and I don't need full access.
| I don't want it either. So far, Apple has created dependable
| devices that serves my purposes. I don't see the value in
| "upgrading" my phone. Maybe the pace will soon be slowed
| enough that it makes sense, but so far, the leap every 2
| years has been enough for me to justify it. I know that is
| not what everybody want.
|
| I used to do hardcore linux on computers as well, but now
| that I have other things I want to spend time on, I just need
| a laptop that is a tool. And maintaining and especially
| debugging Arch/Debian/Whatever breakage due to an upgrade is
| not part of the things I want to spend time on.
|
| In principle, I do agree that we should have the ability to
| gain full access, one way or another. Maybe that means you
| cannot be part of the walled garden, but that should at least
| be a choice you can make.
| medstrom wrote:
| Claims they don't see the value in "upgrading". Upgrades
| every 2 years.
|
| You...think there are many people in 2024 with an even
| higher upgrade pace?
| kristjansson wrote:
| Memos from watch show up immediately in Voice Memo on the
| associated phone, where they can be shared via AirDrop,
| email, Tailscale, ...
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| A few years ago I was still considering de-Googled Android,
| but IMHO that's still being too tied to Google's ecosystem,
| constantly trying to catch up.
|
| IMHO hackers should focus their efforts on the likes of
| Pinephone / Librem 5 instead...
|
| (See also : avoiding Chromium.)
| jwnin wrote:
| It's been a 'rent, not own' model since day one, since
| batteries are non-user-replaceable.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| That is a wild take.
|
| For one, batteries certainly are user replaceable, though it
| does require specialized tools and quite a bit of care.
|
| Would you consider a car to be "rented, not owned" because
| they are difficult for the average end-user to repair?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Wow, I had no idea that even the first iPhone's battery
| change involved soldering !
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone+1st+Generation+Battery+R.
| ..
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| > Be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for
| two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than
| one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year
|
| These are the same as the current requirements to create an
| alternative App Store. So it sounds like this is a way for
| developers of a single app to allow users to install just their
| app. Before this comes into effect, these developers will have to
| create a custom store to allow users to install a single app.
| jshier wrote:
| Alt stores also require specific insurance, which doesn't seem
| to be the case here.
| Etheryte wrote:
| The terms and conditions for web distribution [0] are concerning
| to say the least. In short, you have to have at least one million
| first installs annually on iOS to even qualify, in addition to
| other terms such as "good standing in the Apple Developer Program
| for two continuous years or more". I doubt Epic and the like
| would be considered in good standing as far as Apple is
| concerned. Also, quote unquote, developers will pay a core
| technology fee of EUR0.50 for each first annual install over one
| million in the past 12 months.
|
| I don't see this ending well for Apple in any measure. It seems
| they think the EU lawmakers will just go away if they stick their
| fingers in their ears hard enough, but that's not how the EU
| works. The gears of EU turn slowly, but grind finely.
|
| [0] https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| They're the same terms as those required for an alternative app
| marketplace.
| rekoil wrote:
| Not exactly, looks like there's no requirement to have
| EUR1,000,000 in your bank account like you need for
| alternative app marketplaces.
| concinds wrote:
| They dropped that too.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/05/apple-tweaks-eu-app-
| sto...
| concinds wrote:
| In other words, you're only "eligible" for web distribution if
| you meet the threshold to pay the Core Technology Fee tax? (on
| top of the other requirements). Sounds convenient.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Conveniently non-compliant.
| christkv wrote:
| Seems pretty much written to keep Epic, Valve and others off
| the phone i imagine.
| captainmuon wrote:
| That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of
| creating a new shell company for every million users. (Which
| would be not so ridiculous as it sounds, there is plenty of
| software you cannot buy directly but only through a reseller.
| Epic could become a pure b2b shop on paper and sell Fortnite
| clients to regional distributors, or something like that.)
|
| Some time ago somebody made an alternative App Store for
| emulators, https://altstore.io . I think it works by having
| users get a developer's certificate and installing the apps
| like an in-development app. I think it would be really neat if
| this model got tested in court and declared completely legal.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > That's probably to prevent the most obvious workaround of
| creating a new shell company for every million users.
|
| Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is
| illegal.
| Someone wrote:
| > Which would be all around moot because the fee itself is
| illegal
|
| I haven't seen any statement in any jurisdiction by
| lawmakers or judges that supports that claim. It also
| would, to me, feel inconsistent with the rulings I read
| about:
|
| -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision:
| _"Rogers found in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts
| brought up against them in the case, including Epic 's
| charges related to Apple's 30% revenue cut"_
|
| - https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-
| entitl...: _"Consistent with the interim relief ruling of
| the Rotterdam district court, dating apps that are granted
| an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app
| payment provider will pay Apple a commission on
| transactions. Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the
| price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a
| reduced rate that excludes value related to payment
| processing and related activities"_
|
| What did I miss?
| layer8 wrote:
| You may have missed the "free of charge" wording in the
| DMA.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| You missed that this is the DMA we're talking about. All
| those cases are either out of its jurisdiction or predate
| the Act's passage.
| pavon wrote:
| The Epic ruling is in the US and are irrelevant to EU
| regulations. Dutch regulators have rejected Apple's
| response to the dating app ruling, and that matter is
| currently in the courts[1]. Lastly, these latest changes
| are in response to a new law, the Digital Markets Act.
|
| [1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/apple_app_rule
| s_nethe...
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Altstore and Altserver got approved as 3rd party marketplaces
| by Apple. The implementation will be key.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Never heard of them - as I said there will be a low uptake
| except for the tin foil hat hippy who downvoted my original
| comment :).
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| This makes no sense. All that Apple would have to do to close
| this loophole is to count installs per group of associated
| companies or developer accounts.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| You make it sound trivial to unmask shell companies, when
| even governments struggle with it currently.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| It makes no sense for app vendors to behave like crime
| cartels or sanctioned regimes in order to avoid a 30%
| fee. The margins are not high enough. It's fraud.
| Executives could go to jail.
|
| Also, this whole web of companies would have to
| distribute the same set of apps, which would make it
| relatively easy for Apple to spot. Contrary to a
| prosecutor, Apple doesn't have to prove anything. They
| just close the accounts without recourse if they have any
| suspicion. End of story.
|
| And the app vendor would have to forego the benefit of
| accumulating reviews under one name. Or they could have
| the opposite problem, users gravitating to one of the
| clones that ranks highest. How would they make sure each
| clone has no more than 1 million users?
|
| This is no way to run a company. It's totally bonkers.
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such a
| cartel. Nicely distributed in small chunks to abide to
| the letter of (labour) law.
|
| I would not be surprised to find similar structures
| leveraging Amazon or Google posing as small shops.
|
| Apple choosing to splinter their app store rules, eulas
| regionally doesn't make it easier (for them) to surveil
| and control their Apple cosmos either.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| _> I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such
| a cartel._
|
| No, Siemens is not a criminal organisation running a web
| of hidden shell companies. Siemens is a conglomerate
| comprising a large number of subsidiaries and associated
| companies that they publish right on their website [1].
|
| I have no doubt that large companies use complicated
| structures in order to exploit loopholes. But there are
| limits to that, especially as Apple doesn't require a
| complex lawmaking process in order to change their ToS.
| They can close a loophole at the stroke of a pen. And
| they can close developer accounts at will if ToS are
| violated.
|
| [1] https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uui
| d:830cf...
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| The speed at which apple can alter their ToS is indeed a
| key differentiator.
|
| Any cartel instantly becomes a _criminal_ cartel if
| governance over laws /EULAs is basically absent and
| biased against the cartel.
|
| [added]
|
| Not saying Siemens is nefarious, but they do seem to be
| subverting the spirit of law. The conglomerate sure makes
| it easy to "reorganize" without due process for firing
| lots of employees.
| cyberax wrote:
| > I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such
| a cartel. Nicely distributed in small chunks to abide to
| the letter of (labour) law.
|
| Siemens is not a good example. If you're looking for
| better examples, there's Aldi. It intentionally splits
| its structure to avoid triggering stricter labor and
| reporting laws.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| ~20% of Apple's total earnings (not revenue) could come from
| the App Store: https://deepwatermgmt.com/apples-app-store-is-
| an-important-p...
|
| When you look at the multiple on services - the App Store could
| easily be >40% of Apple's total market cap.
|
| They're going to stick their fingers in their ears as long as
| they can to defend that.
|
| You don't give up the golden goose. You defend it.
| delfinom wrote:
| Good thing goose is eaten in Europe traditionally.
| toyg wrote:
| It's not even the harshest thing we do to that sort of
| bird.
|
| _Pate des californiens_ is going to be delicious.
| verticalscaler wrote:
| That's a bit of an exaggeration financially. I think Apple is
| afraid 100% of their market cap depends on the App Store,
| just not so directly.
|
| Phones are "done". Geese don't live forever.
|
| Switching away is hard. In the not too distant future a $99
| no brand phone will be equivalent to the iPhone experience
| for 80% of use cases, modulo the camera.
|
| If apps are just web apps and run on whatever hardware, Apple
| will need to come up with something new. Maybe the goose was
| really named Steve.
| planb wrote:
| That's why I hope they compete hard in the AI-in-your-
| pocket space. Seems like they got the hardware talent to
| make that happen (software-wise I'm not so sure, but at
| least it sounds like they focus a bit more on that now the
| car project is dead). I want Apple to win by selling
| expensive devices, not by collecting 30% fee on minors
| gambling for loot boxes.
| pas wrote:
| There's a very nice premium in execution. (And vertical
| integration.) For example their laptops are selling like
| hot cakes ... because they are seen as better made then the
| competition by consumers. (Sure, it seems the (premium?)
| laptop market finally getting some competition thanks to
| Framework/StarLabs/etc.)
|
| Obviously the same is true of the iPhone. And software is a
| big part of it. (I don't want to deal with Dell and
| Windows. And Asahi is getting better day-by-day.) And
| hardware too. (M1, M2, M3, etc.. and the A series chips
| allow their devices to really shine with the big battery,
| etc.)
|
| And ... while I don't like the actual UX of Apple-land, I
| don't like it either that Google with all their PhDs and
| big brain still cannot fucking solve the jankyness.
|
| Yes, they will hopefully be forced to give up the free
| money rent from the walled garden, and hopefully it will
| encourage them to invest in being a good platform, invest
| in software, win/keep market share on merits instead of by
| decree.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > In the not too distant future a $99 no brand phone will
| be equivalent to the iPhone experience for 80% of use
| cases, modulo the camera
|
| I'm not so sure, for the same reason people still buy
| MacBooks when cheap Windows laptops are available, and
| luxury cars when there is no shortage of lightly used Kias.
|
| Laptops and cars have been around substantially longer than
| smartphones, but it's still very easy to see the difference
| between cheap and expensive. While technically yes all of
| them do "the same thing", people are willing to pay for
| premium, and I suspect (due to relative affordability if
| nothing else) that the market of people able and willing to
| pay for a nicer phone is and will remain quite large.
| adrr wrote:
| IPhone is a status symbol. Why people buy designer purses
| or designer clothes. Someone people will look down on you
| if you text messages show up green on their phone.
|
| Also IPhone still has more revenue opportunity. AI
| assistant is the next one. Chat GPT has proven people are
| willing to spend $20 a month on AI that doesn't even hook
| up to your email, calendar, or files.
| nicce wrote:
| > IPhone is a status symbol.
|
| Maybe for some but not for everyone. In the past you
| could trust that your phone works 7 years instead of 2
| years by having software updates. It also is very stable
| on software side.
|
| I have saved so much money by buying iPhone and using it
| for more than 5 years.
|
| > Chat GPT has proven people are willing to spend $20 a
| month on AI that doesn't even hook up to your email,
| calendar, or files.
|
| The biggest benefit for paying is the large rate limit
| and the best accuracy on the market. Copilot is useless
| with 30 responds per day.
| pg_1234 wrote:
| The EU should make a public service announcement.
|
| Something along the lines of:
|
| "We urge all EU citizens with Apple devices to have an
| alternate means of accessing critical internet services like
| banking, to protect themselves in the event we are forced to
| block all Apple services EU-wide for legal non-compliance."
|
| ... then watch AAPL stock drop below NVDA ...
|
| ... and Apple come crawling back, suitably obedient.
| lgeorget wrote:
| That sounds awfully like market manipulation. We need
| something a tad more subtle.
| pg_1234 wrote:
| Market manipulation would be if they shorted the stock
| first.
|
| This would be:
|
| A) looking out for their citizens
|
| B) making it clear who's boss
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| It is, but all regulation is market manipulation (like,
| literally. It forces the market equivalent away from the
| free market). We have decided it's ok to vest that power
| in governments.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| EU App Store revenue is 7% of total App Store revenue.
| dns_snek wrote:
| How's that relevant? It's their second largest market for
| iPhone sales, representing around 25% of total units
| sold. If, as the parent comment suggested, the EU
| intervened and somehow banned Apple's services in the EU
| until they started complying with the law, new iPhones
| sales would effectively drop to 0.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| If all App Store sells stopped in the EU, it would be 7%
| of their App Store revenue which is only part of their
| services revenue which is only 1/5 of their overall
| revenue.
|
| EU is Apple's third largest market. The largest market
| ping pongs between China and the Americans
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2023/08/29/china-biggest-
| iphone-ma...
| swexbe wrote:
| China iPhone sales are down 24% yoy. With continuing
| friction this will not be a market they can count on in
| the future.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-11/apple-
| to-...
| scarface_74 wrote:
| iPhone sales are always down until there is a new form
| factor. This has been true since at least the 6S
| microtherion wrote:
| Ironically, the iOS banking apps I use are particularly
| finicky about only running on customer installs without
| developer capabilities enabled. I very much doubt that
| banks would queue up to install from web sites etc.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And from what I read, only 7% of the App Store revenue comes
| from the EU.
| paulpan wrote:
| This can't be repeated often enough. App Store revenue (part
| of Services segment) is a key growth driver and Apple will
| drag this out for as long as they can.
|
| I think it's inevitable iPhone 16 prices will increase in EU
| starting later this year. Arguably similar to Valve's Steam
| Deck, iPhone prices are subsidized by the apps revenue. Apple
| is going to try preserve their profit margins one way or
| another.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Increasing prices in response to this is irrational. Prices
| are a function of what people are prepared to pay.
|
| If people are prepared to pay more for an iPhone then Apple
| should have already increased prices, and if they are not
| then increasing prices will make less money.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's a function of what people are willing to pay _and_
| what suppliers are willing to sell for. So I think the
| price will go up a little bit, but probably not much.
| mqus wrote:
| I mean, "unlocked" iPhones _can_ be worth more money than
| regular ones, at least in theory. In practice, Apple can
| probably raise prices by 50% even if they would release
| the same phone just with an incremented number and people
| will still buy their stuff.
| zarzavat wrote:
| I'm not sure the DMA works like that. Someone correct me
| if I'm wrong but as far as I understand the DMA applies
| to Apple's operations in the EU, not devices that are
| sold in the EU. If you buy a "locked" iPhone outside the
| EU and bring it to the EU and set it up in the EU, I
| believe that Apple still has to comply with the DMA for
| that device because all of Apple's services are still
| operating in the EU. So Apple wouldn't be able to charge
| a premium for "unlocked" devices.
| margana wrote:
| People seemingly keep forgetting that you can have direct
| installs and alternate stores on Android but somehow Play
| Store is still dominant.
| pas wrote:
| Because there's not much you can't put on the Play store
| that's worth managing separately. (And because of this
| alternate stores are extremely meh.)
| nicce wrote:
| What is the argument for Apple's App store if there are
| no benefits in Android world? Just wondering.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Charging per install rather than per subscription is hilarious,
| almost as if all of this is designed to wind up the EU and
| cause the largest possible fine.
| rchaud wrote:
| It's designed to sow confusion among the big vendors in the
| app store driving most of the revenue, and keep them walled
| in where it's 'safe'.
| CharlesW wrote:
| It's per year, not per install. All subsequent
| installs/updates in that year do not incur additional
| charges.
|
| > _" Developers will pay a CTF of EUR0.50 for each first
| annual install over one million in the past 12 months."_
| dns_snek wrote:
| That really doesn't change their point. It's only slightly
| less ridiculous, but still completely unworkable and
| obviously against the spirit of the regulation.
|
| I say spirit of the regulation because I'm not a lawyer and
| don't want to make absolute claims about the law as
| written, and I trust the EU to close any loopholes that may
| arise.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| It's sad to see Apple adopting kind of an Oracle way of
| business. "Kind of"...
|
| They were screwed by Microsoft in the past. And now they're the
| ones screwing every single small and mid-sized software shop
| everywhere.
|
| When will we stop buying their products?
| pmontra wrote:
| I never bought an Apple product.
|
| Before the iPhone, because I never liked the Mac UI with the
| bar at the top and the apps menu over there and I didn't need
| an iPod.
|
| After the iPhone, a personal boycott because of the walled
| garden. It was not immediately clear what the endgame would
| be but it was pretty clear that this level of control by a
| single corporation on a large part of the world is a bad
| thing.
| 6510 wrote:
| There is no software to be written for me on this platform
| and it's growing.
|
| People who do write for it live in this electronic ghetto
| regardless of their size.
|
| The customer isn't king, she is a serf.
| RamiAwar wrote:
| Never buying an apple product again personally, or building
| ios apps.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| speak for yourself I've had two apple products, ever, an Ipod
| touch 4 (trash) and an ipod nano 7th gen, the nano was good
| but for music playback, I'd never get an iphone, I'm not down
| to lock myself down to their terrible ecosystem
| jajko wrote:
| When? When Apple products will stop being perceived as
| something better than competition. They somehow created the
| image that they are some sort of luxury, but if that was ever
| an actual case its long gone. Don't take me wrong, its a fine
| long term marketing performance and I respect them for it,
| but lets be a bit more technical and less emotional here.
|
| Some phones are way more expensive than A top line, have
| massive cameras, better screens, batteries (I mean real life,
| one of failures on A side for first decade), better
| integration with rest of the electronic world (like streaming
| fullhd tv from phone to any TV I saw so far, or having
| mouse&keyboard desktop on big screen via single USB-C cable
| out of box, or very good pen within the phone - image editing
| goes to another level). Plus you have much bigger variety,
| anything from 50$. And they are _open_ , not unimportant
| aspect not only for many HN users.
|
| That doesn't mean they do bad products, in contrary. But
| emotions aside, its now just another set of products with
| personally weird philosophy, even weirder emotional fanbase
| and just a much more closed ecosystem.
| ok_dad wrote:
| I am not a fanboy, but I do use Apple products. They are
| pretty excellent, and every feature you stated is available
| within their ecosystem, and more. Their stuff is expensive
| but it works pretty well together and I've had nearly no
| issues. The physical quality is at least worth the price I
| paid for my Apple stuff. The closed ecosystem is semi-
| annoying to me as a developer but it really doesn't stop me
| from doing everything I want to.
|
| tl;dr: Some people are just happy with Apple products;
| we're not cult members and saying that is insulting,
| frankly.
| fragmede wrote:
| Only if you take it that way. But when your smartphone is
| from Apple, along with you laptop, desktop, monitor,
| mouse, keyboard, calendar, notes, earpods, with a bevy of
| charging infrastructure to support that, it's not hard to
| see that you don't have to squint real hard to see it
| that way. There were some that went as far as to try and
| nominate Steve Jobs as president.
| ok_dad wrote:
| What about those who have Google phones, run Chrome on
| everything, have those Google audio pods, Google branded
| email, Google TVs, etc?
|
| Some people are fanboys of Linux products, and all their
| shit runs Linux or some other Unix or BSD (more fanboys
| than for Apple, probably).
|
| I even know a few people who just LOVE Microsoft and
| their products.
|
| It's fun to make fun of Apple people, I know because I do
| that too, but in reality the reason people like me own
| all that stuff is because it "just works together" and I
| don't have to fiddle with a bunch of random brand stuff
| to get it to work together, plus I have had a bad
| experience with Google so I won't use their products. If
| I hadn't had a bad experience with Google, I may have
| everything Google branded right now so it "just works
| together" too.
| fragmede wrote:
| I mean, some people make fun of them too. While it can go
| too far into mean spirited bullying, no one's above
| reproach thanks to the first amendment.
| ok_dad wrote:
| The first amendment gives you the right to say what you
| want free of us government interference but doesn't say
| anything about people thinking you're an asshole because
| you repeat the oldest joke in technology.
| jajko wrote:
| My wife has consistently bad experience with iphone,
| namely 13 mini. Just a badly designed product from her
| perspective, doesn't integrate well with anything via
| open standards that others implement effortlessly. She is
| not a techie, so theoretically an ideal customer, but no
| she still hates it with passion and next phone will be
| something-android. Personal anecdotes are sort of
| meaningless here, aren't they. But apple fans like you
| seldom disappoint, you seem to take my post personally,
| not sure why.
|
| I don't get why you immediately try to move discussion
| into extremes, maybe your style but not most of folks -
| either you have everything X, or everything Y. Sort of
| proving exactly my point. You don't even try to
| understand my argument - I can integrate _anything_ ,
| from any manufacturer. Plug in DELL monitor via usb-c,
| just works, immediately. Connect Sennheiser earplugs
| (since airpods pro sounds quality leaves a lot to be
| desired), bam and flacs flow via aptx-hd seamlessly. I
| could go on and on.
|
| Apple has very tiny offer to cater to all our needs and
| budgets. These days, even if price is not the problem,
| often they don't offer the best on the market. So smart
| thing is to have a diverse set, the opposite of locked-
| down you describe. People are beginning to be fed up with
| that since apple is showing its true colors, and this
| topic and discussion is exactly about it.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| > When will we stop buying their products?
|
| When their competitors finally bother to pay attention to
| build quality.
| tazjin wrote:
| Some of them do! Go check out a Huawei store, or, to a
| lesser degree, a Samsung one.
|
| It's true that it might not apply to _all_ their products,
| because they also cater to people without 6-figure USD
| equivalent incomes, but you can buy the expensive stuff.
| sublimefire wrote:
| It would be awesome to have a great quality hardware like
| mentioned but with an easy ability and support for Linux.
| Windows is just meh.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| > The gears of EU turn slowly, but grind finely.
|
| What would happen if big companies simply refuse to pay? Will
| EU put the European employees in jail? Would they put Americans
| in their jail? Will they do DNS block? Credit card block?
| Remove apple products from physical store? Many of the EU
| countries like Germany are export driven and certainly they
| don't want to close the market.
| EraYaN wrote:
| Apple has so much stuff and money in the EU, that there will
| be plenty to take. Only recently have the started to take
| back some of the funds from Ireland. Apple would be in a
| pretty bad place if those accounts were all seized, not in
| the last place because it would block all transactions
| including customer ones, ones to may for servers, rent etc.
| Apple might look stupid but they aren't that stupid.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Can't they take all the money out a month before they are
| planning to refuse to pay fine? I am pretty sure EU could
| never block Apple's fund unless they want to totally remove
| all the business from EU.
| selectodude wrote:
| The EU won't even seize Russia's assets. You think they'll
| start a shitstorm with the united states?
| asadotzler wrote:
| Seizing state owned assets from a state with nukes isn't
| at all the same thing as seizing local assets from a
| foreign corporation that flagrantly violates the laws of
| your locality. Your knee-jerk proof point here is a dud
| that offers zero insight and serves to provide heat and
| no light. Maybe consider deleting it as it's just a sad
| waste of characters and time for everyone reading it,
| illuminating nothing of value.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| That's an extreme response and you probably need
| counseling.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Did you paste that "burn" or did you actually release all
| that rage to reply to a one-sentence comment?
|
| The comment above yours touches on something important.
| The US might not look lightly at foreign powers treating
| US companies in that way. The world of business and
| politics is give and take, it's not a video game where
| things can be done one-sided without consequences.
| mithras wrote:
| For Apple they could just ban iPhones from the market, that
| should be enough to make Apple comply.
| dns_snek wrote:
| What happens when any company fails to pay the government?
| Their bank accounts are frozen and assets are seized, at a
| minimum.
| kebman wrote:
| "The gears of EU turn slowly, but grind finely." QFT.
| cm2012 wrote:
| Edit: Removed, I used too harsh language for Apple
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker
| News. We're trying for something a bit different here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| CM30 wrote:
| Agreed. Apple's stubbornness and clear attempts to retaliate
| against everyone for these changes are not going to go well for
| them, and they need to realise that at some point.
|
| It's genuinely shocking how petty the company is acting with
| these changes, and how obvious their attempts at only doing the
| bare minimum to follow the law are.
| toyg wrote:
| Remember when Apple taunted bigger companies to sue them, in
| the name of technological freedom? Pepperidge Farm remembers:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
|
| So sad to see them on the other side of the table now, using
| every trick in the book to screw over the entire sector. Mr.
| Cook, tear down this wall!
| bombcar wrote:
| The list of companies bigger than Apple is now very small.
| All that's left, really, are countries.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| These are some cult-like requirements. The term "good standing"
| comes not from business, it comes directly from the domain of
| authoritarian-destructive cults.
| leptons wrote:
| I'm not sure why the EU would let Apple make up the terms of
| their surrender. It's like letting a convicted felon decide
| on their punishment.
| serial_dev wrote:
| It's mobspeak.
| samatman wrote:
| Nonsense. The term "customer in good standing" has a well-
| established legal tradition in contract law. You're just
| making stuff up.
|
| https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/customer-in-good-
| stand...
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| No business is using this term in real life, but it's
| heavily used by cults.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Uh. I assure you, the term is widely used by companies
| and governments.
|
| Source:
|
| "Your PG&E residential account is in good standing at the
| time of the outage and at the time PG&E issues payment" -
| https://www.pge.com/en/outages-and-safety/outage-
| preparednes...
|
| "Must remain on qualifying service in good standing for
| duration of EIP agreement." -
| https://www.t-mobile.com/accessories/category/mounts-
| docks-a...
|
| "Request for Certificate of Good Standing" -
| https://cand.uscourts.gov/attorneys/request-for-
| certificate-...
|
| "Tangerine may reject the overpayment and your Account
| may not be considered to be in Good Standing." -
| https://www.tangerine.ca/en/legal/credit-card-cardholder-
| agr...
|
| "Use this form to pay the United States Tax Court to
| order a Certificate of Good Standing" -
| https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/802285219
|
| "Your account must be in good standing to sign up" -
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/answers/questions/899060/y...
|
| "To maintain status as a member in good standing, SCCs
| must notify the SCC program manager of any changes to
| information collected to administer the program." -
| https://www.sw.siemens.com/en-US/community-catalyst-
| program/
| vundercind wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_standing
|
| It's possible to criticize Apple without making stuff up.
| It's a road traveled by few, but it is there.
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| I do own an iPhone, but I do like the idea of Apple filling up
| the EU economy by paying out the fines that the EU lawmakers
| serve and will serve onto them.
| gumby wrote:
| Unfortunately this is backwards for me. My mac usage is direct
| download (when possible) for small developers, but get the
| advantages of the mac app store when using an app written from
| someone big. So if I were inclined to download something from
| Epic I'd want to use the app store anyway.
|
| For phones though I don't have the tools I do on the mac (ios
| is too opaque) so if I couldn't get it from the Apple app store
| I just wouldn't download the app at all.
| margana wrote:
| That's fine. Not every citizen has to actively use every
| right made available to them by the law. That doesn't
| diminish its value for the ones who do need it.
| gumby wrote:
| Sure, that's why I said, "for me".
|
| Perhaps there are many more, perhaps I'm an outlier, and
| perhaps I'm part of a big group and maybe some HN threads
| might uncover a which (sometimes happens).
|
| The requirement that you already have a lot of downloads
| pretty much defeats the support for small indie developers.
| But I doubt many people care much about supporting them
| anyway.
| Retr0id wrote:
| What does "quote unquote" mean in this context?
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| "Developers will pay a core technology fee of EUR0.50 for
| each first annual install over one million in the past 12
| months."
|
| His "" must be difficult to type. Ease of use.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Apple is going to have a hard explaining if the regulator asks
| why it costs EUR0.50 per first annual install when it's free on
| Android.
| mizzao wrote:
| And at some point, the effects may well ripple back to the US
| as well.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah it's not much of an 'announcement' at all. In Holland we
| call that "making someone happy with a dead sparrow". My cat
| tries that sometimes:')
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Isn't the point of third party stores being able to not
| interact with Apple gatekeeping whatsoever? What's this EUR0.50
| per install thing?
|
| On my pixel I can download and install any .apk I want. Easy
| breezy. Isn't this what the EU intended with the recent
| veredict?
| hyperthesis wrote:
| Apple legal's playbook is contempt:
|
| > "So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of
| infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course
| of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's
| far more popular iPad." -
| https://filklore.com/wordpress/2012/10/are-apple-in-contempt...
| gcanyon wrote:
| I'm a little bit playing devil's advocate here, but: concerning
| how?
|
| > you have to have at least one million first installs annually
| on iOS to even qualify
|
| That's not what the site says at all? "Membership in the Apple
| Developer Program includes one million first annual installs
| per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store,
| alternative marketplaces, and/or Web Distribution." That seems
| to indicate that there is no minimum, and installs up to 1
| million are free. That means that (wild guess) 99.5% of all
| apps ever released will pay no fee. EDIT TO CORRECT: see below,
| you have to have an app over 1 million downloads in the
| previous year to participate, but this description of the fee
| structure is correct. Which is...weird?
|
| > I doubt Epic and the like would be considered in good
| standing as far as Apple is concerned.
|
| If Apple plays games like this, they deserve consequences. But
| does it make sense to take this interpretation rather than just
| assuming the language means what it means: you haven't been
| kicked off the platform, and you've been around for two years?
| dsissitka wrote:
| Search for the first occurrence of million:
|
| > To be eligible for Web Distribution, you must: ... have an
| app that had more than one million first annual installs on
| iOS in the EU in the prior calendar year.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Ah, sorry, I missed that part. It's a weird distinction --
| you could have one app with a million installs, and a
| million apps with one install each, and all could be
| installed from your web page?
|
| So this points to the other thing I said, which is that
| there are _very_ few developers that will meet this
| requirement.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's less "concerning" and more "flagrantly ridiculous".
|
| A company has to pay _Apple_ half a euro for every executable
| download from the company 's own website? If Microsoft tried
| this shit with Windows people would be apoplectic.
| newbie578 wrote:
| We will see how long they can keep this facade up. I expect a
| couple of fines are needed to rein them in.
| andersa wrote:
| What the hell is going on at Apple? It's starting to become
| really funny to see one obviously non-compliant malicious
| compliance attempt being made after another. Do they really not
| understand that they're no longer involved in the relationships
| between users and developers?
| paulcole wrote:
| They are _deeply_ involved. If it's that bad for developers,
| drop the iPhone and develop solely for Android.
|
| Developers need the iPhone and Apple needs developers.
| pbmonster wrote:
| > They are deeply involved. If it's that bad for developers,
| drop the iPhone and develop solely for Android.
|
| EU: "No."
| paulcole wrote:
| Yes, that's called having differing opinions and it's not
| bad. If enough people in the EU agree with this, go for it.
| If Apple ends up saying that they're willing to abide by
| the letter of the law and no more, great.
| oblio wrote:
| Apple's not abiding by the letter of the law, though.
| They're the drug dealer flushing drugs before the cops
| come in, or in this case Apple is trying to buy time
| because each month they can delay this they're probably
| making $1bn more.
| malermeister wrote:
| Actually that's exactly the misunderstanding that's
| getting Apple in trouble. In European law, the letter of
| the law _doesn 't matter_. The _intent_ does.
|
| It's called teleological interpretation, here's an EU
| document with a bit more background: https://www.europarl
| .europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...
|
| Key quote:
|
| > When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular
| attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological
| interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the
| wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation).
| This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the
| open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties,
| as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter
| principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all
| language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the
| wording of a single version, as a national court can, in
| order to give an interpretation of the legal provision
| under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the
| meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially
| in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation)
| as well as its context (systemic interpretation).
|
| Facebook, too, tried rules-lawyering EU regulations only
| to be slapped with a huge fine. This shit doesn't fly
| here.
| Filligree wrote:
| It feels bizarre that companies keep making this mistake.
|
| People on HN, sure; we aren't all lawyers. But companies?
| The EU is the second biggest market on the planet, might
| pass the USA any year now. They really should be familiar
| with the basics of EU lawmaking.
| kristjansson wrote:
| It feels bizarre to an American perspective. How is a
| company supposed to follow rules that are open to
| interpretation? Or does the EU think it can legislate
| outcomes (even if they're uneconomic) ?
| stoltzmann wrote:
| You have to demonstrate that you're willing to follow the
| law. It's not like you'll get a gigantic fine as soon as
| the new law is implemented, assuming you actually make an
| effort to be compliant.
|
| In this case, Apple is dragging their feet screaming
| trying to do their best not to comply with the intent.
|
| What's going to happen next, they'll get a notice of
| nonconformity where they're asked to fix their behaviour.
| If they don't show good intent, they'll get hit with a
| fine. If they fix it and adhere to the laws here, then
| we'll all end up better - well, maybe the poor
| shareholders won't survive this hit...
|
| If you're a company operating in the EU, just a little
| bit of willingness to adhere to the laws goes a very long
| way.
| v7n wrote:
| The "reasonable person" tool is really useful here, and
| not at all unheard of in the US of A.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > How is a company supposed to follow rules that are open
| to interpretation
|
| That's easy. Make a good faith interpretation of the
| intent of the law and follow that.
|
| And don't try to find loop holes that only work in your
| favor.
| justinclift wrote:
| The EU literally had meetings with the affected companies
| to explain things.
|
| Apple just appears to be hard of hearing, perhaps
| purposely.
| realusername wrote:
| > If it's that bad for developers, drop the iPhone and
| develop solely for Android.
|
| That's what I've done personally but that's not something you
| can ask most companies.
| labcomputer wrote:
| Why not? Android has nearly twice as much marketshare as
| Apple in Europe.
| realusername wrote:
| Because it's not a market, that's the whole problem, you
| have to target both platforms no matter what you do
| otherwise you are losing some marketshare. (Unless you
| are doing it as a hobby like me of course)
|
| It's not like you can install android apps on iphone or
| iphone apps on android.
|
| Sure in a market you might tell the consumer "shop
| somewhere else" but that's not an option here since they
| can't.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| There's endless examples of apps that are exclusively iOS
| or exclusively Android. Many high quality paid apps are
| only on one platform.
| realusername wrote:
| That still doesn't make it a market, they lost users with
| this decision.
|
| It's nowhere like shops where you can price compare and
| pick the shop you want every week.
|
| In an actual market, both marketplace would compete.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| I fail to understand your point. It's up to developers
| what platforms they want to serve.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| The cost of switching device ecosystems can be comparable
| to the cost of renting an apartment in richer countries,
| and exceeding the monthly income in poorer countries. Yet
| we clearly recognize that renters need protections and
| can't reasonably be told to just move apartments over
| anything. So why shouldn't we hold phone ecosystems to
| the same standards?
|
| Especially when both do their best to make migration to
| the other difficult.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| I... Don't really see what your numbers could look like,
| here.
|
| Buying a cheap Android phone is $200-300 and selling an
| iPhone will more than pay for that. Switching from iCloud
| to something else for backups will actually save a little
| bit per month.
|
| Average London rent is equivalent to 40K USD per year, as
| a random "richer country" example. It's not in the same
| ballpark, is it?
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > Average London rent is equivalent to 40K USD per year,
| as a random "richer country" example. It's not in the
| same ballpark, is it?
|
| Average London rent is $3333 per month per person? I'm
| struggling to believe that.
| KomoD wrote:
| Q4 2023:
|
| greater london: ~PS2600/mo (~US$3200)
|
| inner london: ~PS3100/mo (~US$3900)
|
| outer london: ~PS2200/mo (~US$2800)
|
| https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/rental-price-tracker
| sanitycheck wrote:
| From the result of a quick web search which found this as
| the first result, yes: https://www.standard.co.uk/homesan
| dproperty/renting/london-r...
|
| Not per person, I haven't ever been charged per person
| except in student accommodation and Japanese hotel rooms,
| not sure how we'd know what that would be.
| temac wrote:
| > The cost of switching device ecosystems can be
| comparable to the cost of renting an apartment in richer
| countries
|
| I'm not sure what you are doing with your phone but you
| should lower your dependencies on tech gadget if
| switching from iPhone to Android would cost you so much.
| The law can't regulate primarily for people making
| unreasonable decisions.
| meindnoch wrote:
| You realize how poor Android users are? There's no money
| to be made on Android, period. Many companies tried, all
| of them failed.
| paulcole wrote:
| Of course it is something you can ask most companies!
| Whether they'll do it or not is up to them.
| oblio wrote:
| Then what personal freedom is that in practice? The
| personal freedom to be ignored by thousands of companies?
| master-lincoln wrote:
| If I ask you to turn on your head lights at day time, am
| I ignoring your personal freedom? You can ask anybody
| anything and it won't interfere with their freedom I
| think. You are free to not even listen to the question...
|
| I might judge you based on your decision and chose to
| ignore you in future. This again would not violate your
| personal freedom I think
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Isn't it that software developers need hardware, and Apple
| seek to use their position to prevent developers enabling
| users on their (the user's) hardware without paying a large
| fee to Apple. Apple already got paid a large fee as
| manufacturer though
|
| Put another way: Devs don't need iPhones, they need users to
| have freedom to install the apps they choose to on the
| computing devices those users own; regardless of the three
| manufacturers of those devices.
|
| I wonder how this all works for Nintendo wrt the Switch?
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Th DMA was written explicitly to target a small group of
| mostly American tech companies, while excluding others like
| Nintendo.
|
| Traditionally, console manufacturers have lost money on
| hardware, and made it up in license fees for software and
| accessories. It is a bit more complicated in reality, and I
| think that situation should change, but the DMA as
| currently written won't have any impact on it.
| oblio wrote:
| It's targeting high impact companies.
|
| Smart phones are universal, 90% penetration. Game
| consoles are at best at 20% or similar.
| pennomi wrote:
| It doesn't affect Nintendo, yet. I suspect that if this
| legislation is successful, it will expand in scope.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > Apple needs developers
|
| Yet they are constantly making the case that third-party
| developers are value sponges that use "their" platform and
| access "their" customers for free, and give back nothing in
| return. They said the same towards Spotify in response to the
| recent ruling about anti-competitiveness in music apps.
|
| What Apple conveniently fails to acknowledge is that they
| make an obscene amount of money from selling hardware, and
| their motivation for investing in the platform and SDKs is
| that more and better software leads to higher sales of
| hardware. (I am aware that iPhone sales have effectively
| peaked, which is likely exactly why they have decided that
| they are the sole enabler of all digital commerce on the
| iPhone)
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Android is too much tied to Google too. At this point, the
| best that could happen is for the EU to grow a pair, and ban
| the US (/Russia/China...) tech companies, especially since
| there's already a 2015 court decision about that :
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems#Schrems_II
| eastbound wrote:
| At this moment, I'm really scared that the EU might not react.
| rsynnott wrote:
| So far, it has, fairly aggressively (or at least Thierry
| Breton has publicly; who knows that's going on behind the
| scenes), notably on the Epic thing.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Why wouldn't they? There's an EU-ran Apple DMA compliance
| workshop on the 18th this month[1] which I suggest anyone
| interested listen to. Stakeholders will be able to voice
| their concerns and there will no doubt be many, mostly about
| the Core Technology Fee which is non-compliant per se.
|
| How do I so surely know that? Because Article 6(7), the one
| that forces free-of-charge OS access for developers, is the
| only piece of the DMA being proactively challenged in EU
| court by Apple even before the compliance deadline passed[2].
|
| [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-
| poolpage/app...
|
| [2] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=
| &do...
| przemub wrote:
| > inconsistent with the requirements of the European
| Charter of Fundamental Rights
|
| Corporations are people too, or something :)
| oblio wrote:
| Governments generally don't like when legislation is being
| flauted publicly.
| rsynnott wrote:
| So, this is a strategy that has actually worked quite well for
| the likes of Facebook in dealing with the GDPR; they did
| eventually get some pretty nasty (>1bn) fines, but it took a
| long, long time.
|
| Early indications are that Europe has learned from the mistakes
| of the GDPR, and enforcement of the DMA is going to be a lot
| more proactive. Notably, Facebook seems to be scared of it; the
| delay to launching Threads in Europe seems to have been for
| DMA/DSA compliance (in particular, it's not login-walled
| anymore, at least in Europe). Hard to imagine them delaying a
| product launch for GDPR compliance...
| concinds wrote:
| Don't overcomplicate it. They want to preserve their Services
| revenue, because Tim Cook is a bean-counter and wants to
| maintain the profit margin. "After Steve" by Tripp Mickle
| provides some background.
|
| Many Apple indie devs and fanboys are literally screaming. I
| bet many people @Apple are too. There are so many things the
| company could do to regain geek-cred. Package manager and
| windowing on macOS. Align Mac App Store policies with the more
| liberal Windows 11 Store policies. Let people run what they
| want, even outside the EU, including other web engines. Invest
| in Proton so old Windows games can run on Mac (but then, no App
| Store tax). Keep OpenGL and Vulkan around for the scientific
| computation folks (and others). Commit to keeping Rosetta2
| around indefinitely, because compatibility is your #1 job as a
| platform. Open-source more stuff (god forbid, your OSes! why
| not?).
|
| But they've gotten timid and conservative. Top execs see risk,
| and VPs seem to think they're making products only for the
| stereotypical technophobic grandpa, rather than power users.
| rekoil wrote:
| They would make money hand-over-fist if they did all of that.
| addicted wrote:
| And before the Apple fanbois come and tell you how Apple is
| a multi trillion dollar business so they know what they're
| doing, a reminder that Apple didn't want the App Store in
| the first place, and wanted 3rd party apps to be web apps.
|
| It was the popularity of unofficially created apps running
| on unlocked original iPhones (which led to many unlocking
| their iPhone) that convinced Apple to create the App Store.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Apple didn't really want 3rd party apps to be web apps.
| The infamous "just build web apps" was a stop-gap measure
| while they were building the App Store.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > It was the popularity of unofficially created apps
| running on unlocked original iPhones (which led to many
| unlocking their iPhone) that convinced Apple to create
| the App Store.
|
| This just isn't the case. The first iPhone with iOS 1.0
| was essentially a very advanced demo that just barely
| made it out the door. There was no SDK, API
| documentation, or much of any developer toolchain for
| early iOS. Ask anyone that fought to build even simple
| unofficial apps what a nightmare using those early
| frameworks was like. They were _not_ ready for public
| consumption.
|
| Web apps were never the long term goal for third parties.
| Steve Jobs might have _said_ that in public but it was a
| deflection about native SDK questions. Web apps were a
| stopgap until the dumpster fire of an internal SDK could
| be rebuilt.
| yard2010 wrote:
| God. Imagine this timeline.
| sneak wrote:
| Apple makes money hand-over-fist already. Their stores are
| the most profitable retail stores per square foot in the
| history of retail. There's nobody not buying Apple today
| that would suddenly begin if they did these things.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Some of these things could happen, but I don't see Rosetta
| being kept around indefinitely. Keeping compatibility layers
| around becomes increasingly expensive with time, encumbering
| OS development and encouraging devs to never update their
| apps. It also opens up possibility of multiple compatibility
| layers being maintained at the same time, which multiplies
| these issues.
|
| It's much easier to just make virtualization of old versions
| of macOS easy to facilitate compatibility with old software,
| which they've done -- one can spin up a full featured GPU
| accelerated macOS VM with just a few lines of Swift, so you
| don't even have to use third party software if you don't want
| to.
| concinds wrote:
| Easier for Apple, but worse for users. Apple's main
| argument has always been this: "encouraging devs to never
| update their apps", but I don't buy it. Active developers
| all update promptly long before any threats of deprecation;
| they even go out of their way to switch to shiny stuff like
| SwiftUI. It's the long tail that doesn't get updated, and
| Apple's deprecation velocity changes nothing. Portal 2 (not
| Rosetta I know) runs poorly in a VM, but ran well on my
| 2011 MBP.
|
| I've heard from several former Apple fans who switched, and
| they all marvel at being able to run old binaries without
| recompilation. Even though they ship apps with the latest
| frameworks. It's still "just plain cool".
| jwells89 wrote:
| Mac devs are good about updating their apps, but it's
| much more hit or miss in the Windows world. If there's no
| impetus to regularly update for security reasons (e.g.
| browsers) or to keep people subscribed (e.g. Spotify),
| it's probably not getting updated too often. There's a
| considerable difference in culture between platforms, and
| I think it largely stems from the expectations set by
| Apple and Microsoft.
|
| Linux is kind of a mixed bag. Some devs are ultra
| responsive while others only update when absolutely
| necessary, but the FOSS nature of most apps there helps
| since you can always take matters into your own hands and
| fork a project if it's accumulated too much rust to be
| usable.
| KingOfLechia wrote:
| There's no reason to update a program once it's feature
| complete if it works offline. Apple is pushing harmful
| updoot ideology that kills old (but perfectly usable)
| programs.
| jwells89 wrote:
| This is maybe true for software that can never
| conceivably interact with the outside world (can't open
| files, isn't scriptable, etc) but at least on Windows and
| macOS where shipping static binaries or necessary
| libraries with the software is the norm, vulnerabilities
| pile up pretty quickly these days making it a bad idea to
| regularly use or in some cases even have installed
| software past a certain age. For these programs it's
| better to just run them in a VM where compatibility can
| be perfect by running an old OS and the size of the
| potential crater resulting from an exploit is minimized.
|
| It's a bit of a different situation under Linux where the
| norm is dynamically linked libraries kept up to date with
| a package manager, but even there static binaries and
| things like flatpaks and app images can be bad news.
| concinds wrote:
| Linux is fragmented. Windows has shockingly few indie
| devs given its marketshare (compared to Apple: Omni apps,
| Structured, Day One, Session, Pixelmator,
| Fantastical...). The Mac has plenty of eager indies that
| care deeply about UX and design, and many discerning
| users who care too. Caring about UX/design is their
| "carrot"; they don't need the "stick" (deprecation).
|
| The stick was mainly necessary for big devs back in the
| day, who never cared about making Mac-assed Mac apps. Now
| those have switched to Electron anyway; the stick no
| longer provides meaningful incentives. It just annoys
| people who want to play Half-Life for 5 minutes every few
| years.
|
| I'm sure the people on the Mac team think exactly the way
| you do though, so I guess I hope they read this, or at
| least that they make sure their assumptions are still
| valid.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Mac devs are good at updating their apps because Sparkle
| exists.
|
| It's hard to overstate the impact of Sparkle, it made it
| easy for developers to ship updates while also putting
| the control of that process in the hands of developers
| rather than the platform.
|
| Linux went the opposite route with dozens of package
| managers which makes it harder for updates to reach
| users.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Apple's main argument has always been this:
| "encouraging devs to never update their apps"
|
| That doesn't right at all.
|
| Apple famously dropped support for 32 bit binaries on
| iOS/iPadOS a while back (it's why I sold my iPad Pro).
|
| Pretty sure they dropped support for 32 bit binaries on
| macOS at some point as well.
| concinds wrote:
| Let me rephrase: "[if we didn't keep breaking apps with
| updates,] it would encourage devs to never update their
| apps"
| jimmaswell wrote:
| > VPs seem to think they're making products only for the
| stereotypical technophobic grandpa, rather than power users.
|
| Hasn't Apple always been "computers for people who don't want
| to think about computers", while power users finding the tech
| interesting is just an accident?
| kristjansson wrote:
| That's exactly who they're making products for. Buy it,
| hand it over, and kids from age 1 to 92 will be just fine.
| Developer interest in Apple is the product of macOS being
| incidentally a Real UNIX, the hardware being second to
| none, and the aforementioned market of kids 1-92 being
| quite large.
| concinds wrote:
| The third-party developers that built the platform are
| becoming increasingly resentful of Apple and of the
| platform. It hurts all of us if they switch, even if we
| just want to "never think about computers".
|
| This isn't 2012 anymore. Developers are into freedom and
| openness, and either Apple aligns itself, or Mac/iOS will
| have just as much appeal to cool indie devs as
| Android/Windows (a fraction of its current appeal). Apple
| platforms no longer feel exciting to devs.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| I think you are right that doing these things would improve
| Apple's standing with developers but it is important to note
| that none of the things you listed are in line with Steve
| Jobs' philosophy which you seem to imply here. Recall for
| example that the iPhone (aka iPhone 1) did not ship with an
| App Store. Apple doesn't even let you make iOS apps unless
| you own a sufficiently up to date MacOS device. So when you
| say "regain geek-cred," I think it's necessary to point out
| that this geek-cred never existed with a large (although
| perhaps not majority) of developers/power users, and when it
| did exist, it was not because Apple was doing things in line
| with the steps you have proposed to regain it. It was always
| about polish and ease of use. So when you say they've gotten
| timid and conservative I'm not sure in what respect you mean
| that. Because in terms of openness they have not changed at
| all and are still completely in line with Steve Jobs' vision
| in this respect.
| concinds wrote:
| True, but the world has changed and so have Apple's biggest
| fans (the ones that drive purchasing decisions for their
| social circles) and indie devs. They didn't mind back then,
| now they do. See the Accidental Tech Podcast guys for
| example, but there are many others (the infamous DHH and
| geohot just recently). People's attitudes towards huge
| corporations have changed. Things formerly rationalized as
| "for the user experience" are now seen as cash-grabs. Even
| many pro-Apple people are worried that rent-seeking is
| leading to product neglect.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Was this also Apple's philosophy, pre-iPhone back when they
| were mainly known for the macs?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > There are so many things the company could do to regain
| geek-cred.
|
| But why do geeks have to destroy everything for everyone
| else, just for the benefit of their hobbies? Isn't Linux and
| Android enough and everything else hardware wise and software
| wise that isn't Apple? Apple devices work great for people
| who want to get stuff done in the real world and are willing
| to pay developers for great software. Why does that annoy
| geeks? Not everybody is interested in tech, they want
| something that works and get on with their day.
|
| Just because geeks understand computers doesn't give them the
| right to dictate how other people should use their devices.
| Just like car modders shouldn't have a say on how normal
| people use their cars.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > Just because geeks understand computers doesn't give them
| the right to dictate how other people should use their
| devices. Just like car modders shouldn't have a say on how
| normal people use their cars.
|
| No one is telling normal people how to use their
| phones/cars. If you want the _option_ of doing something
| different, however, you may need the government to help you
| stop companies from being anti-consumer.
| sevagh wrote:
| What fake world do I live?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Everything on the computer is fake, it's just ones and
| zeros. It means nothing until it interfaces with the real
| world. Geeks like to make computers and other devices
| operate with no real meaning, for their own amusement.
| But that can and will get in the way for people wanting
| to use their devices as tools for real world tasks.
|
| You can make the same comparison for any machine. If your
| hobby is off-roading or dirt biking, you might want to be
| able to adjust fuel injection exactly as you see fit. But
| making every car or motorcycle owner have to adjust their
| gas/air mixture is not what normal people want. They want
| a safe vehicle that they can rely on for their commute.
| sevagh wrote:
| >There are so many things the company could do to regain
| geek-cred.
|
| This implies they have lost geek cred. I think that Apple
| could install razor blades in their keyboards tomorrow and
| have more than half of HN believe it's a good thing.
| shortsunblack wrote:
| All computers are Turing machines.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Apple is still non-compliant with the requirements of the DMA,
| especially in regards to Article 6(7), which provides:
|
| "The gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative
| providers of services provided together with, or in support of,
| core platform services, free of charge, effective
| interoperability with, and access for the purposes of
| interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or
| software features, regardless of whether those features are part
| of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that
| gatekeeper when providing such services."
|
| This means the Core Technology Fee is per-se illegal.
|
| The only exception to the provision is security, so Apple can
| probably demand notarization of IPA files (although maybe not
| really, since Android does not enforce that at all and the sky
| hasn't fallen over there) but the requirement that the developer
| already be in good standing and have 2 million app downloads is
| insane and non-compliant too.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| The rules aren't really strict enough it seems. The gatekeeper
| should not be able to have any control over app distribution at
| all. Notarization and other forms of code signing must be
| possible to turn off and should not place the gatekeeper in a
| privileged position (for example, it should be possible to
| enroll other certificates).
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The DMA says this about it:
|
| > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly
| necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that
| interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the
| operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software
| features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such
| measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
|
| > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the
| extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate,
| measures to ensure that third-party software applications or
| software application stores do not endanger the integrity of
| the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper,
| provided that such measures are duly justified by the
| gatekeeper.
|
| > Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from
| applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and
| proportionate, measures and settings other than default
| settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security
| in relation to third-party software applications or software
| application stores, provided that such measures and settings
| other than default settings are duly justified by the
| gatekeeper.
| arghwhat wrote:
| That is to say, they are allowed to provide certain
| mandatory security services where justified _for free_.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Exactly, plus the fact that Android seems to manage just
| fine without the notarization requirement would suggest
| that too could be invalidated by the Commission.
| stirlo wrote:
| I'm not supportive of Apple at all in this but to say
| that Android works "fine" without notarisation is a
| stretch[1].
|
| Apple already has already implemented a perfectly
| functional balance between security and developers rights
| on the Mac, they just need to adopt that model on iPhone.
|
| [1]https://www.police.gov.sg/Media-
| Room/News/20230920_police_ad...
| idle_zealot wrote:
| If they follow the Mac model of non-notarized app
| packages being installable with a warning (which can he
| disabled system-wide with a hidden setting) then that's
| basically equivalent to the Android model, which requires
| jumping through extra hoops to enable third-party app
| installs as well.
|
| People _will_ be tricked into jumping through all of
| those hoops to install malware on their phones, but
| people are already tricked into harming themselves via
| their phones all the time on iOS and Android alike.
| People are ticked into using their (legit) bank apps to
| send money to fraudsters, into downloading (from the App
| Store) NFT scam apps, into downloading (from the App
| Store) scammy and predatory apps disguised as free
| colorful puzzle games. What does this proposed malware
| do? Surreptitiously record location data? Trick the user
| into parting from their money? Pop up unexpected ads and
| redirects? Apple 's blessed apps already do all of that.
| What bad behavior is possible in from within an app
| sandbox that isn't common practice on the App Store? The
| only thing that comes to mind is location recording and
| sending of that information to the attacker, ie a spying
| GPS app installed by an abuser. The platform-level way to
| fix that would be to allow users to provide apps spoofed
| locations without informing the app that the location
| isn't real, which Apple won't do because... it would harm
| Netflix and Niantic's business model, I guess?
| duped wrote:
| > Apple already has already implemented a perfectly
| functional balance between security and developers rights
| on the Mac
|
| They really haven't - some APIs are locked behind
| entitlements that you can _only_ get by paying the
| developer fee and requesting it specially from Apple.
| Among other nuisances.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Read recital 62 on page 16 of the DMA. Then read Article
| 6(4) on page 35.
|
| Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is
| fairly applied. That includes charging money for access
| to the platform and to install software.
|
| Article 6(7) on page 36, says that once software is
| installed, access to the system services, APIs and ABIs
| must be free of charge. BUT THAT IS ONLY AFTER THE
| SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED. You are conflating two different
| things.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| That applies to software application stores (AKA the App
| Store), OSes (AKA iOS) are notably absent from that
| recital.
|
| Artivle 6(7) also does not make any distinctions about
| "once software is installed".
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The second paragraph of 6(7) certainly allows the
| gatekeeper to prevent any access to system
| services/ABIs/APIs except from installed software.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| It allows for security measures, that's the only
| justification for restricting interoperability at all.
| The "free of charge" for when it's allowed still stands.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Security is a really good reason to restrict access to
| the system from anything other than installed software.
|
| My best guess is that you are either confused as to what
| "installed" means, or you want the DMA to be more than it
| can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its
| limitations that you aren't thinking rationally.
|
| If you want to make a complaint that access to the system
| services are supposed to be free of charge but aren't,
| the EC is just going to throw your complaint in the
| trash. If you want to make a complaint that the Core
| Technology Fee is an unfair general access condition, you
| might actually get somewhere :)
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Security is a really good reason to restrict access to
| the system from anything other than installed software.
|
| The security requirements differ depending on the
| specific API/feature we talk about.
|
| The API that allows for app installation is itself
| covered by the provision, as the App Store is a service
| that Apple provides.
|
| The security measures Apple could implement here are
| enforced notarization and source restriction settable by
| the user.
|
| > or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are
| so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you
| aren't thinking rationally.
|
| Please refrain from doing personal accusations here, as
| per the guidelines.
| orra wrote:
| Wow, I can't believe how blatant their non-compliance is.
| That'll be some interesting legal advice they have.
| bsaul wrote:
| i don't understand how the EU didn't put up a very simple rule :
| users owns their phones and should be able to install any
| software they want without apple putting artificial restrictions
| or gateways exclusivity. Period.
|
| That should remove all the possibilities of apple trying to find
| the loopholes with shit measures such as those "options".
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| Or alternatively, that the manufacturer shall have no special
| privileges when it comes to software. The OS APIs needs to be
| public and if Apple can do something, someone else unauthorized
| should be able to do it also. This would also apply the play
| store privileges on Android, but that is a much less egregious
| violation than what Apple does.
| temac wrote:
| Google Play store has some exclusive privileges?
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| Yes, for example you can't allow an alternative app store
| to do auto updates on the background.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| That kind of restriction is now gone https://www.xda-
| developers.com/android-14-new-apis-app-store...
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| They already did that.
|
| Article 6(7):
|
| > The gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative
| providers of services provided together with, or in support
| of, core platform services, free of charge, effective
| interoperability with, and access for the purposes of
| interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or
| software features, regardless of whether those features are
| part of the operating system, as are available to, or used
| by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Would this mean that something like safetynet and the
| payment api need to allow 3rd party alternatives? That
| would be very good for the rooting/custom ROM community.
| arminluschin wrote:
| There are also security requirements imposed by regulation. A
| free for all would not be compliant as far as I understand.
| Also arguably not in the user's interest.
| layer8 wrote:
| No, they are not imposed, merely allowed, and only if they
| are "strictly necessary and proportionate".
| auggierose wrote:
| The EU will still want to protect their capabilities to spy on
| people's phones, now, or maybe in the future. They will not
| want to mess with that by giving users too much control over
| their phone.
| toyg wrote:
| Your view of "the EU" as some sort of personified and
| consistent entity, is very naive.
|
| This legislation is primarily pushed by commercial interests.
| latexr wrote:
| No, not "period". As if Apple wouldn't attempt loopholes around
| that rule as well. What defines an "artificial restriction", or
| what's "gateways exclusivity"? Things need to have definitions
| and laws have contexts. No EU regulator is reading random
| internet comments and thinking "ah, if only we thought to put
| in that one random sentence from sword_punisher_69, it would've
| made the law airtight. Those arm chair regulators sure know
| their stuff".
|
| People in tech are in dire need of some humility. We don't know
| everything, we don't have all the answers, we can't just jump
| into someone else's job and immediately do it better. Is the
| law flawless? Probably not. Would all its issues be solved with
| one sentence? Definitely not.
| matwood wrote:
| Because the EU wanted to be able to target specific companies
| and not others. The way the DMA is written they can pick and
| choose to enforce it on whoever they want.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| They can (and do) always pick and choose when to enforce the
| law.
| CaptainMarvel wrote:
| My tolerance for Apple's walled garden expired with what they've
| pulled in reaction to the Digital Markets Act. It's become
| blatant (to me) they are landlords of their digital empire
| seeking to squeeze rent from everyone. I wouldn't mind paying for
| their expensive and yet still-profitable hardware if not for the
| antics they pull on the software side.
|
| Everyone should be able to run whatever legally-obtained program
| they have on their device without needing to pay someone, and
| without needing the permission of someone else.
|
| In my opinion, that should be law. (I think that would be net-
| beneficial to society and so worth the restriction on profits for
| a couple of humongous companies or whatever.)
| dangus wrote:
| I just wonder how products like game consoles would be viable
| under a law like this. I assume they would have to cost much
| more and there would be far less incentive for their
| development in the first place.
|
| Then again, we are at the end stages of game consoles.
| Microsoft in particular seems to be considering the idea of not
| even bothering with hardware. Software is where the money is,
| Chinese hardware companies can make hardware like you see in
| the retro handheld scene.
| fsflover wrote:
| Steam Deck doesn't cost much more and allows you to run
| anything you want.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| MS already allows you to unlock the ability to run custom
| code on their hardware for a ~$20 fee. Sony doesn't seem to
| do this yet, but on the other hand, they did eventually get
| the disk drive version of the PS5 to not sell at a loss.
|
| So, I don't think it'd affect them too much. Alternative
| stores would mainly just end up being convenient for small
| indies and homebrew developers, neither of which would've
| been able to afford the fees to get onto the official stores
| anyway.
| ED_Radish wrote:
| The Steam Deck iirc is sold below cost and seems to have been
| a reasonable success.
|
| The market for consoles would still exist. It would just be
| that the bar for console manufacturers would be set higher
| from "make a good console then extract value" to "make a good
| console, then make the best digital marketplace for it, then
| extract value" which seems fair to me. Make the big three
| sweat a lil.
| DrammBA wrote:
| I think consoles still make sense for their simplicity and
| convenience, there's a substancial demographic that just want
| a device they can turn on and game right away. They don't
| want the small annoyances that come with PC gaming (windows
| updates, proton compatibility, configuring graphics settings
| on a newly installed games, setting up gamepads,
| troubleshooting game issues, etc), and I'm not trying to
| exaggerate these annoyances to make them seem insurmountable,
| just saying that no matter how small the issue is, it's
| friction that users don't want. As long as that demographic
| exists, there will be consoles.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| That's fair, but I don't think that game consoles should (at
| least today) be placed in the same category as _Very_
| Personal Computers.
| hjnilsson wrote:
| The web distribution certainly makes it much more viable to offer
| apps outside the App Store, and have reasonable conversion rates.
| Now PornHub or similar could easily offer their app from the
| website.
|
| With this available (which is a much simpler system), all of the
| App Marketplace-convoluted setups seems redundant.
| clementmas wrote:
| I bought Apple stock a while back but that kind of behavior makes
| me want them to fail so bad. So I guess I'll sell my shares.
| tebbers wrote:
| This is still not good enough because as Apple demonstrated last
| week, they can capriciously remove access for any developer at
| any time for any reason at all. They need to be removed
| completely from the code signing and publishing process
| altogether.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| What happened last week? Could you please provide context?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I think it's about Epic's account ban and reinstatement
| afterwards.
| gabea wrote:
| I didn't read anything on the 30% for apps downloaded this way.
| Do you still have to offer IAP or is that optional if your app
| was downloaded from the web?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| More discussion on official Apple post:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678555
| tallanvor wrote:
| > Be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for
| two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than
| one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year.
|
| In other words, small developers without the resources to
| challenge Apple on these rules don't get to play.
| nerdjon wrote:
| It really bothers me that so much of this is focused on the
| developers, and that is the problem here. How many users actually
| want this? I am sure some, but I doubt it is a significant
| number.
|
| I have said this before here, but I am not looking forward to
| when this likely eventually comes to the US and as a user I have
| less control over my phone, not more.
|
| The walled garden is why I chose an iPhone and continue to stay
| with the ecosystem. Not being at the mercy of dark patterns that
| many website still employ when trying to cancel subscriptions or
| just not reminding me of a yearly subscription about to charge.
|
| Apps having no choice but to get money from me by going through
| the App Store is a benefit to me as a User. Developers I also
| hope quickly realize that if they try to push me to subscribe
| outside of the App Store they will get $0 from me instead of 70%.
|
| I continue to be worried about the Facebook's and similar
| companies (we already know Epic is doing it) forcing users
| outside of the App Store.
| afavour wrote:
| > so much of this is focused on the developers, and that is the
| problem here. How many users actually want this?
|
| How many users actually understand the issues at stake, though?
| I don't say that to be patronizing but it's a nuanced, thorny
| problem. I bet if you simply asked "do you think it should be
| allowed to download porn apps?" a good number of users (if
| asked anonymously!) would say yes. How many users understand
| why they can't subscribe to Netflix through the iOS app? How
| many know what Apple's cut even is? The government has all
| kinds of regulation in what my utility providers can and can't
| do, in ways I'm not fully clued into. I see this as similar.
|
| > I have less control over my phone, not more.
|
| > Developers I also hope quickly realize that if they try to
| push me to subscribe outside of the App Store they will get $0
| from me instead of 70%.
|
| To my mind all of this comes back to the free market: you're
| free to ignore all this stuff and keep getting everything
| through the App Store. If you and many others do the same thing
| then the market will prove the idea to be a dud.
| nerdjon wrote:
| > How many users actually understand the issues at stake,
| though? I don't say that to be patronizing but it's a
| nuanced, thorny problem. I bet if you simply asked "do you
| think it should be allowed to download porn apps?" a good
| number of users (if asked anonymously!) would say yes. How
| many users understand why they can't subscribe to Netflix
| through the iOS app? How many know what Apple's cut even is?
|
| The iPhone isn't a new platform though. I feel like people
| well understand what they can and cannot download through the
| App Store by this point.
|
| While I do completely agree that Apple needs to loosen the
| control on things like porn apps, that is a different issue.
|
| As far as Netflix, that is ultimately Netflix choice. They
| could allow you to subscribe through the App Store if they
| really wanted.
|
| As far as Apple's cut. I mean I don't ask my grocery store
| what their cut is, or target, or any other store. I don't ask
| what Steam's cut is, or Xbox, or Playstation, even though all
| 3 of those are similar cuts. As a user, that number really
| doesn't mean anything to me.
|
| > To my mind all of this comes back to the free market:
| you're free to ignore all this stuff and keep getting
| everything through the App Store. If you and many others do
| the same thing then the market will prove the idea to be a
| dud.
|
| That is the problem, how free am I really to ignore it if the
| only way to get by budget app or whatever other app that I
| have come to rely on is suddenly a different store or they
| just don't want me to subscribe through the App Store
| anymore.
|
| This isn't hypothetical, if I want to play Fortnite I will
| have to get the epic game store when that comes out. Is that
| really a choice for me? Instead of being able to choose if I
| want to play Fortnite or not, I instead am choosing if I care
| enough to download an alliterative store. Why is that ok?
| Instead Epic is making the choice for me, and it is up to me
| to decide if I care enough.
|
| And then it becomes normalized and just accepted because most
| users who don't understand the risks of alternative stores,
| just go with it.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > if I want to play Fortnite I will have to get the epic
| game store when that comes out. Is that really a choice for
| me?
|
| Yes? So far Apple hasn't had any trouble making that choice
| for you, letting Epic offer another option is not
| equivalent to taking away choices. You might as well be
| complaining that Epic or Apple's EULA is limiting your
| decision. It's a _you_ problem.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Epic was the one that made choices that pushed apple to
| remove Fortnite.
|
| Let's not twist history and say that Apple just suddenly
| chose to remove Fortnite. Epic made certain choices
| likely knowing what the outcome would be.
|
| Epic is the one that is removing my choice to play
| Fortnite through the App Store if I choose. If I want to
| play Fortnite on my iPhone I will have no choice but to
| use the store.
|
| So I have the choice I want to make "Do I want to play
| Fortnite" and then the choice I am forced to make by the
| developers "Do I want to download the Epic store".
|
| That is removing choice from me.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'm surprised that the iPhone is over 10 years old now
| and you still think all software is obligated to get
| distributed via the App Store. If you only download
| software from the App Store, that's _your choice_ - the
| world does not revolve around you or Apple 's decisions
| though.
|
| Look on Mac - you don't have a choice if you want to play
| Java Minecraft through the App Store. If you don't
| sideload, that "choice" has already been made for you.
| And it's certainly not because Mojang is going out of
| their way to spite Apple fans. Specifically,
| professionals avoid the App Store because it has been a
| bad deal on every platform it's appeared.
|
| You want your choice? Your choice is to not use that
| software at all, and find an alternative. That's what you
| decide when you die by the sword of a third-party's
| whims.
| afavour wrote:
| > Epic is the one that is removing my choice to play
| Fortnite through the App Store if I choose
|
| Yes and no. I get what you're saying. But Apple demanding
| a 30% cut is just as much of a reason for your choice
| being removed. If they didn't demand that then Epic
| wouldn't have done anything.
|
| Neither party is innocent here, they're both
| multinational tech giants fighting over our money.
| nerdjon wrote:
| > Neither party is innocent here, they're both
| multinational tech giants fighting over our money.
|
| That is true, people seem to think that just because in
| this particular case I prefer the way that Apple is doing
| this as a user it means that I necessarily agree with
| everything that Apple is doing or that they are saints or
| whatever.
|
| My problem here is that so much of this is focused on
| Developer choice, but no one is talking about user
| choice. Or developer somehow twist this into a thing that
| users care at all about. When most really don't.
|
| Is Apple's cut high? Sure. But it is lines up with the
| rest of the game industry with Steam, Consoles, etc.
|
| There is an important part of this that I feel like
| developers are missing, I feel like they think that every
| user will just go over and give them the same amount of
| money where for me I will just not give them my money.
|
| Which I fully realize I have the choice to do that and
| not give them money. And that is great. But That still
| means I cannot make the choice to use something I want
| without also being forced to make a decision that I don't
| want to make (use an alternative store).
|
| I fully realize that I am not being forced to download
| Fortnite. But my concern is that as this becomes more and
| more normalized that the idea that I could only get my
| budgeting app, instagram, banking apps, or whatever other
| thing that I am used to using now only outside of the App
| Store becomes a reality. And again this isn hypothetical,
| look at Epic with Fortnite. Apps like Fortnite, Facebook,
| and others will be the gateway app that normalizes other
| apps not shipping through the App Store. Since they will
| already be on your phone.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Hopefully, it will motivate Apple to make the App Store
| more competitive. The existence of third-party options
| will really make them work to make that 30% fee look
| attractive.
|
| On the PC gaming side, Valve regularly gets developers to
| abandon their own storefronts and pay their fee instead.
| Valve has huge market penetration, offers App Store-like
| services and has invested in a truly feature-complete
| platform. Because they have all this, publishers like EA
| and Ubisoft almost have no choice if they want to
| compete. Their own storefronts completely failed, despite
| continued investment and even the occasional attractive
| deal/title.
|
| I really do hope Apple is afraid of these consequences.
| They will be forced to differentiate themselves in more
| meaningful ways, and move past their obsession with
| service revenue and distribution control. If users are
| able to get a better experience by avoiding the App
| Store, I'd say that's Mission Success for the DMA.
| jamil7 wrote:
| > Which I fully realize I have the choice to do that and
| not give them money. And that is great. But That still
| means I cannot make the choice to use something I want
| without also being forced to make a decision that I don't
| want to make (use an alternative store).
|
| Can you not see how you're being unfair here? You're
| saying you would not buy something not distributed
| through the App Store which is fine and a valid choice
| but on top of that you want others who've made a
| different choice to be forced to distribute their work
| through the App Store and give up 15-30% of every
| transaction to Apple. Would you agree to pay that markup
| for having that choice?
| nerdjon wrote:
| No, I am not.
|
| I am advocating for the choice of the User. My first
| sentence in my original post. To me that is all that
| matters, I frankly don't care what the developer may or
| may not be forced to do if it comes at potential harm to
| the User.
|
| A developer choosing to only put their app on another
| store, regardless of the reason, is removing a choice
| from the User.
|
| Is 30% high, sure. But I also don't fully buy it being
| the end of the world considering it is the same cut that
| Steam, Xbox, and Playstation take.
| afavour wrote:
| > I am advocating for the choice of the User.
|
| But you aren't, though. You're advocating for a user to
| be able to download their app of choice through the App
| Store. But in advocating for that you're advocating
| _against_ the user having choice of which App Store they
| use.
| nerdjon wrote:
| The reality is there is no perfect solution.
|
| But people, like myself, bought an iPhone knowing about
| the App Store and the restrictions it has. If I wanted a
| more open platform I could have gotten an Android phone.
|
| Those restrictions do not harm me.
|
| What would harm me is apps suddenly not being available
| through the App Store because developers are the one that
| choose to distribute on another store.
|
| Which again is not a hypothetical concern when you look
| at Fortnite.
|
| That isn't giving me more choice, that is giving the
| developer a choice and I just have to choose if I want to
| follow along or not if I want to use a specific app.
|
| Would it be great if I really did have that choice and
| every app was still available on the App Store and I
| could use Apple's billing if I want. Yes! And if that was
| the case I would not care at all. But it's clearly not
| going to be that case for at least one app and possibly
| others if it becomes normalized.
|
| The most likely reality is that it will be a developers
| choice not the users, if an App Store from Facebook or
| Epic become big enough why would they force themselves to
| play by Apple's rules?
| smoldesu wrote:
| I feel like I just watched you go through every stage of
| grief. Yes, there is no perfect solution - that's the
| nature of authoring solutions in the first place.
|
| The status-quo is not perfect either though, and some
| might say it's imperfections are expressly
| anticompetitive. The existence of nice features like free
| long-distance calls on Bell telephones is not an argument
| against fundamental infrastructure problems. You're
| making a rallying-cry that avoids even accepting the EU's
| criticism on it's merits.
|
| > But it's clearly not going to be that case for at least
| one app and possibly others if it becomes normalized.
|
| I don't know which planet you live on, but that has never
| been a thing. Your payments _aren 't_ all routed through
| Apple unless you sustain yourself off Genshin Impact
| draws somehow. You buy food, you pay rent, you pay taxes
| and exist in a non-Apple world and non-Apple context. Not
| exclusively relying on Apple to aggregate your payments
| _is_ the norm, you 're steelmanning a nonexistent
| lifestyle.
|
| You can keep repeating the "I could have gotten an
| Android" line until your face turns blue, but the DMA is
| not about enabling Android phones to run iOS apps. It's
| about directly addressing Apple's internal market
| neglect, and their refusal to compromise on a clearly-
| anticompetitive distribution scheme. Every single defense
| that does not mention _how_ it directly relates to
| distributing iOS apps is a strawman that is unrelated to
| the text and intent of Europe 's DMA.
| nerdjon wrote:
| > I don't know which planet you live on, but that has
| never been a thing. Your payments aren't all routed
| through Apple unless you sustain yourself off Genshin
| Impact draws somehow.
|
| I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my iPhone.
| That's all... I never even claimed that all software I
| bought were through iOS.
|
| I buy games through Steam, Xbox and Playstation fairly
| regularly.
|
| I feel like you are trying to somehow catch me in not
| understanding what I am saying or something, but bringing
| up food makes zero sense.
|
| To be clear, I accept what the EU is criticizing. However
| I will once again ask why the focus is on the developers
| so much, and not the users. That is my problem here,
| developers cried and now we got something that users were
| not asking for.
|
| > Every single defense that does not mention how it
| directly relates to distributing iOS apps is a strawman
| that is unrelated to the text and intent of Europe's DMA.
|
| That is not true, because the how something is
| distributed also includes the rules and restrictions put
| in place by the place that is doing the distribution.
|
| We have to be able to analyze the repercussions of other
| stores and not just diminish them to "well it's a
| different server" as you seem to want to do. When in is
| far more than that.
|
| The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android phone.
| If as a user I wanted a more open platform, I could have
| gone that route. But I didn't. I chose to get an iPhone
| due to the restrictions put on developers by the App
| Store.
|
| The vast majority of the complaints are from developers,
| and I frankly don't see why they are the ones that
| somehow get to determine that a reason I bought my device
| is no longer valid. Apple has that privilege because
| again, I bought my device for that reason.
|
| So yeah, is the status-quo perfect right now? No, never
| claimed it was. Is it better than developers having all
| of the power and choice and I have to just follow along
| with their decisions with the illusion of choice of
| downloading other stores. 100%
| smoldesu wrote:
| > However I will once again ask why the focus is on the
| developers so much, and not the users.
|
| Because users don't create an anticompetitive system.
| Users buy things, they are ostensibly the customers that
| the market protects. It's akin to asking why Boeing is
| being lowlighted by the government while passengers are
| still buying 737 tickets. There is no correlation between
| the righteousness of a business and the desire for
| customers to patronize them.
|
| > I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my
| iPhone.
|
| Even on iPhone, nobody I know is refusing to buy Amazon
| Prime or Netflix because it goes through the browser. It
| might be a legitimate complaint, but it feels entirely
| tangential to how Apple chooses to implement their
| payment API.
|
| > The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android
| phone.
|
| Sure could - and the fact remains, it would have nothing
| to do with the regulation of the digital markets therein.
|
| > Is it better than developers having all of the power
| and choice
|
| There is literally not a single platform, even Linux,
| that exists with such a security model. Your hyperbolic
| misrepresentation of the situation is why I can so
| confidently and repeatedly say that you're wrong.
|
| Obviously, iOS does not give developers "all of the power
| and choice" by forcing Apple to comply with the DMA.
| Apple still gets to choose whether they participate in
| the market, as well as how they implement compliant
| features. They can ship iPhones that default without
| sideloading features, and craft their user-experience
| however they see fit. The only caveat is that there has
| to be room for fair competition at the software level, or
| they can't operate in Europe. If that's equivalent to
| surrendering to developers, then it's proof that Apple
| was never competitive in the first place.
| valicord wrote:
| > So I have the choice I want to make "Do I want to play
| Fortnite" and then the choice I am forced to make by the
| developers "Do I want to download the Epic store".
|
| > That is removing choice from me.
|
| Would you mind elaborating on this? Which choice do you
| have today regarding Fortnite on iOS that would be
| removed if Epic had its own iOS store?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > that pushed apple to remove Fortnite.
|
| There was no law that forced Apple to remove fortnight.
|
| They could have just left it on the store.
| asadotzler wrote:
| >I mean I don't ask my grocery store what their cut is, or
| target, or any other store
|
| It's 1-3% for your grocery store. Compare that to Apple's
| 30% and maybe you'll wonder why you didn't ask your grocery
| store sooner, especially if it's a local grocer with an
| owner and workers you might even personally interact with
| because they're all scraping by splitting that 1-3% while
| listening to you defending Apple's 30% cut.
|
| If Apple is so reasonable here, why not offer to pay 27%
| more to your grocer and their workers so they can get in on
| some of this reasonable 30% cut you so adamantly support.
| Nah, eff them, right? The real human beings bringing you
| literal sustenance for life for a 2% markup. They'll be
| totally fine, right? But multi-trillion dollar mega-
| corporations facing some downward pressure on their 30%
| cut, the big man's gotta draw the line at that. At least
| people know where your head's at.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I swear y'all really like putting words in my mouth. I am
| not advocating for the 30%, no where am I saying that. I
| am saying that as the consumer it is not part of my
| concern.
|
| Just like if I go and buy frozen fries at the grocery
| store I don't care how much they spent buying the
| potatoes. That is all the business deals that largely as
| a consumer is irrelevant to me.
|
| However since you missed the entire line, it is worth
| mentioning that Steam also takes 30% cut from developers
| and I believe Microsoft and PlayStation are the same
| (likely Nintendo but I don't know).
| asadotzler wrote:
| >This isn't hypothetical, if I want to play Fortnite I will
| have to get the epic game store when that comes out. Is
| that really a choice for me? Instead of being able to
| choose if I want to play Fortnite or not, I instead am
| choosing if I care enough to download an alliterative
| store. Why is that ok? Instead Epic is making the choice
| for me, and it is up to me to decide if I care enough.
|
| NO. Apple made the choice to push Epic out of the App Store
| by force or by cost of rent. Apple makes all the choices
| here and you're trying to shift blame. Had Apple a 3% fee,
| Fortnite would be in Apple's App Store but Apple made the
| choice to charge 30% and refuse sideloading. That's on
| Apple not Epic but you can't see past your Apple blinders
| to get the fundamental issue here that Apple controlled
| everything and the EU is trying to fix some of that. Apple
| is both the original sin and the ongoing sin here and
| everyone else is literally the victim, in higher prices and
| fewer choices-- BECAUSE OF APPLE, not Epic and not the EU.
| nerdjon wrote:
| And Epic made the choice to try to get around the rules
| of the store that they chose to enter.
|
| Epic is not without blame for not being on the App Store.
| They could have played by the rules and not try to get
| around this rules.
| generalizations wrote:
| Except that the free market has already shown that users
| prefer the walled garden, because they keep buying iPhones.
| If you don't like the App Store limitation, then you're free
| to go buy an Android.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Except that the free market has already shown that users
| prefer the walled garden, because they keep buying iPhones.
|
| That's assuming they're buying iPhones _because_ of the
| walled garden and not because of other reasons.
| generalizations wrote:
| Yes, and I think that the benefits gained by the walled
| garden are a big part of the iPhone's popularity. It's
| simple, it works, the scams are kept to a minimum, and
| it's a consistent, well-integrated experience. Those are
| all true of iPhones _because of_ the walled garden;
| Android can 't boast any of that.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| 99% of Android users never install an app from outside
| the app store either, Apple just does a better job
| filtering scams etc. out of their app store. If Google
| did a better job of curation it would be a comparable
| experience for the overwhelming majority of users.
|
| The ability to install 3rd party apps has effectively
| zero effect on how well Apple curates their official app
| store.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Apple just does a better job filtering scams etc. out
| of their app store.
|
| Well, sometimes: https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-
| theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...
|
| Just make sure that Grandma knows any of her security
| apps could be a Trojan, and she should be safe.
| generalizations wrote:
| All you're actually describing is that there's way less
| pressure for apps on the Google side to be as high
| quality as the Apple stuff. (Given the existence of the
| store alternatives, even if Google did enforce higher
| quality, those apps have plenty of other options to get
| on user's phones.) And that's kinda par for the course
| for the level of marketing-savvy that Google exhibits.
|
| > The ability to install 3rd party apps has effectively
| zero effect on how well Apple curates their official app
| store.
|
| You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a
| _curated environment_ largely through the curation of the
| app store. That curated environment is _massively_
| valuable to the average user. That 's the asset Apple is
| trying to protect.
| skydhash wrote:
| > You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a
| curated environment largely through the curation of the
| app store. That curated environment is massively valuable
| to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to
| protect.
|
| I am a big proponent of curation and one of the reason
| I'm an apple user is the high number of quality apps on
| the platform. But after encountering the apple
| publication process, it definitely feels like censorship
| and the lack of other options, even for applications I
| wrote, is stifling. I think it's better to encourage
| computer literacy than pretend that the outside world
| just does not exist (especially when there are so many
| scamming schemes on the app store).
| bowsamic wrote:
| The consistent well integrated experience is mainly from
| apple controlling the entire technology stack, rather
| than the App Store being closed. People buy macs for the
| same reason but they aren't walled gardens.
| asadotzler wrote:
| You are free to think what you like but absent evidence,
| it's just more claim chowder.
|
| My claim chowder: I have never once in my life heard an
| iPhone user say to me "I'm sure glad I can't turn on a
| buried setting and install apps from the web like Android
| users" or anything remotely like that, young or old.
|
| I have heard a bunch of kids on this forum with trumped
| up claims about poor senior citizens uncle or granny who
| can't be trusted with this because they'll be socially
| engineered into digging into their iOS settings, flipping
| switches with scary warnings, then visiting a random
| scary website and downloading a package, and then
| agreeing through install dialogs all to get an app on
| their phone so the crook can steal their bank info.
|
| The truth is, to anyone whose thought about it for more
| than a minute, that same scammer will literally just call
| up such an exceedingly naive person on the phone part of
| that smartphone and ask tech illiterate grandpa directly
| for his bank credentials and a claim that the crook's
| from the bank will work far more often than getting the
| old man to operate his smartphone in such a sophisticated
| and confusing way to get that malware installed. And he's
| not gonna find that setting and accidentally stumble
| through all the warnings unless he's being socially
| engineered so the whole idea is a silly edge case.
|
| More anecdata: I've played with my parents' Android
| phones every couple years when visiting them over the
| last 12 or 13 years, they were born in 1945, and their
| phones are always in better shape than mine, with fewer
| apps installed, and a more organized set of app launchers
| than I have. And neither has enable a third party app
| store despite my making them fully aware of the
| possibility on several occasions. This infantalizing of
| old people is a tired trope that gets dragged out far too
| often on HN. The people born before every office worker
| in the country had a computer, they're all dead. The
| Boomers hitting 80 years old today, they were working on
| Windows 7 before retiring. Blaming them for your
| resistance to change is silly and sad. That Boomer's
| parents, if they're still alive at about 100 (my grandma
| made it that long) those people had Windows too, it was
| Windows 3.1 but they know what "installing" something
| means because guess what, you could install programs on
| Windows 3.1 and you had to do it without the safety of an
| app store or even basic sandboxing. Enough with the
| "think of the seniors" trope, it's far worse than "think
| of the children" who haven't lived through computers for
| many many decades yet.
| sbuk wrote:
| If it's enforced by regulations, by definition it's no longer
| a "free" market. It's a regulated one.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The regulations made the smartphone/mobile OS market non-
| free in order to make the "apps for <insert OS name here>"
| market free.
| sbuk wrote:
| Just no. You can twist it all you want. The app market in
| the EU is no longer a free market in any sense.
| mthoms wrote:
| >If it's enforced by regulations, by definition it's no
| longer a "free" market. It's a regulated one.
|
| By that definition there are no free markets nearly
| anywhere (save for illegal markets). At least not in
| modern, well-functioning economies.
|
| (Attention pedants: I said _nearly_ )
| nucleardog wrote:
| > To my mind all of this comes back to the free market:
| you're free to ignore all this stuff and keep getting
| everything through the App Store. If you and many others do
| the same thing then the market will prove the idea to be a
| dud.
|
| This only really creates no impact to users if Apple were to
| force all apps to also be listed in their App Store.
|
| If, e.g., Facebook were to decide they don't like existing
| App Store policies and start their own store and only list
| their apps there, for a large portion of people using
| Facebook's store would effectively be a requirement (in many
| places WhatsApp is a requirement).
|
| What happens when the app for some piece of hardware you
| bought is on a 3rd party store? You don't have a choice there
| either. (Besides returning the hardware if you have the
| option.)
|
| I'm with the GP here. I don't own any other Apple hardware,
| but bought my phone (after a long line of Android hardware
| starting from the original ADP1) specifically to not have to
| deal with any of this. I don't have the time and energy to
| deal with any of this anymore. I have paid a premium to have
| these choices taken away from me and the decisions made for
| me.
|
| Sorry I'm ruining the world, but if people want a phone they
| can install arbitrary binaries on I really don't understand
| why they can't just go buy an Android. As you say, free
| markets... if this _actually_ mattered to people then Apple
| should take a hit in the market and either change their
| behavior or disappear entirely. Yet here we are.
| valicord wrote:
| > What happens when the app for some piece of hardware you
| bought is on a 3rd party store? You don't have a choice
| there either. (Besides returning the hardware if you have
| the option.)
|
| Surely that's more choice than if the app for some piece of
| hardware you bought is not on iOS at all because Apple
| refuses to approve it?
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > The walled garden is why I chose an iPhone
|
| And that's fine
|
| The feature is not for you
|
| You can keep using your iPhone as you always did, through the
| Apple app store
|
| But, there's a but: how many users would answer "no" to "would
| you like to download our app and get a 30% discount for the
| same exact features"?
| acover wrote:
| Are they forced to list on the apple app store?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Good thing is you're not forced to use them either!
| acover wrote:
| Do you consider the usage of oligopolies optional? I
| could live the life of stallman, but this decision kills
| an amazing user experience for subscriptions.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| The European commission has you covered on the
| oligopolies side.
|
| It's not killing user experience at all, if the user
| want, they can use the App store, because few if any app
| will ever make a complete move away from the App store,
| it would cost them way too much. The only ones that could
| pull such a trick are DMA's "gatekeeper" apps and they
| are under scrutiny from the EC, so you're safe here.
|
| (Well, Fortnite doesn't fall under DMA's 10 "gateway
| services" that deserve scrutiny from the DMA, but their
| alternative store will!)
| nerdjon wrote:
| Unless I am mistaken, there is nothing here that says a
| developer has to continue to also have their app on the App
| Store and allow purchasing through the App Store in addition
| to their own billing.
|
| Meaning, no I actually won't be able to use my iPhone as I
| always did once this becomes normalized and accepted.
|
| Please correct me if I am wrong about what the rule for this
| actually is.
| hu3 wrote:
| You're not forced to purchase apps.
|
| So if the developer is misbehaving, don't buy it.
| yau8edq12i wrote:
| Vote with your wallet, then. Only buy apps distributed
| through the Apple app store if you dislike alternative
| stores.
| nerdjon wrote:
| So again this is about giving the developer choice and
| not users.
|
| If a developer chooses to use an alternative store, even
| if I want to use that app, the choice is made for me to
| not use it.
|
| How exactly is this benefiting users?
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| The problem is your friend Apple locking up their
| subscription services behind fees that developers don't
| want to pay. And please don't tell me they need that
| money to run the service - a quick look at their profit
| numbers tells you the margin is significant.
|
| Apple could fix this overnight and choose not to.
| Therefore they clearly don't care about their users, by
| your definitions.
|
| Also: who do you think you are to tell developers how
| much money they're allowed to make? It's their right to
| decide whether they want to pay these platform fees or
| not.
| nerdjon wrote:
| And again we are back to the developers and not the
| users, thank you for proving my initial point here.
|
| I am the user that doesn't want to be taken advantage of
| by developers who choose to engage in dark patterns.
|
| I frankly don't care how much of a cut Apple takes from
| payments. Just like I don't care about how much my
| grocery store uncharges, I don't care what Steam, Xbox,
| Playstation, or any other marketplace charges.
|
| That isn't on me as the User. I want an experience that I
| am not at the mercy of developers who have been known to
| employ dark patterns. This isn't a theoretical thing, it
| is very much a thing.
|
| That is my problem here. This is NOT about choice for
| users, this about choice for developers. Meaning my
| options are being removed from me...
| ryanjshaw wrote:
| > I frankly don't care how much of a cut Apple takes from
| payments.
|
| Then you're being disingenuous. The root cause of the
| problem is Apple, not the developers. You can't just
| ignore it. The developers are behaving rationally within
| the rules controlled by _Apple_. I don 't understand how
| you don't see this.
| nerdjon wrote:
| The root cause for DEVELOPERS is Apple.
|
| You keep repeating my problem with this and proving my
| point.
|
| My problem is that all of the focus on this is on
| developers and not the users.
|
| The key reason I bought my iPhone as a USER is because of
| the restrictions put in place on the App Store by Apple.
|
| Do you see the difference?
|
| I fully understand why Developers don't like these
| restrictions. I am saying I don't care because again, as
| the user those restrictions are a positive for me.
| nullwarp wrote:
| Such a weird take, complaining that a trillion dollar
| company might no longer be your personal guardian who gets
| to decide what you are allowed access to.
|
| All you want is Apple to continue fucking over the people
| who build the software just so you aren't slightly
| inconvenienced. Bravo.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I would not call dark patterns that many developers take
| as a "slight inconvenience".
|
| I agree with some of the restrictions on what is allowed
| on the App Store, like porn and browsers. But that is a
| different topic than having other app stores.
|
| My concern here is billing, we know that developers will
| abuse this. They have done it and I have personally been
| in many meetings about user retention when they try to
| cancel.
| hu3 wrote:
| I find it interesting that some pro-Wallet garden folks
| argument is:
|
| "Don't like Apple? Don't buy it then."
|
| Well I can use the same argument for apps.
|
| "Don't like this third party app store or their dark patterns?
| Don't buy it then."
|
| Vote with your wallet, goes both ways.
|
| Or, hear me out, let's regulate so neither Apple nor other
| vendors can abuse their customers.
|
| And it's not like Apple's protection is effective. AppStore is
| full of subscription scams.
| generalizations wrote:
| > Vote with your wallet, goes both ways.
|
| So just buy an android. Vote with your wallet! Show Apple
| their walled garden isn't what people want.
| hu3 wrote:
| Yes I do prefer Android because I like being treated as an
| adult. So I already do that.
|
| Apple is not currently a choice given that requirement but
| having more choices is a win on my book so you go EU!
| generalizations wrote:
| Some people like having the choice of a curated system,
| and that requires a walled garden. You're removing
| choices, not adding them.
| hu3 wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy.
|
| I can have the coice of alternative apps stores AND still
| enjoy a curated wallet garden.
|
| How do I know it works? Android is precisely like that.
|
| You see Android users also like the choice of a curated
| system. Choice being the important word here.
| generalizations wrote:
| Um. Seems like even in this general thread, the Android
| ecosystem is considered worse than the Apple walled
| garden. That's a weird claim to make.
| hu3 wrote:
| I don't believe I made that claim. On the contrary.
| kube-system wrote:
| Not everyone who purchases a phone is the end user. If
| I'm buying a device for my organization or for a child, I
| might not want the device to enable that choice at
| runtime. I want to make the choice at the time of
| purchase.
| hu3 wrote:
| Don't worry. Restricting what's allowed in a company
| owned iPhone already exists throughout MDM. And that
| won't change because it's not your device after all.
|
| https://it-training.apple.com/tutorials/deployment/dm005
| kube-system wrote:
| I'm aware of MDMs, I administer one. That 50% addresses
| my comment, but also, MDMs are third party solutions.
|
| Regardless, my point is that opinionatedness is a feature
| that some people buy, even if many people on this forum
| don't.
|
| e.g. people might prefer to eat at a nice prix fixe
| restaurant instead of the Cheesecake Factory.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > You're removing choices, not adding them.
|
| Just don't install those other apps then.
|
| It's the same exact argument that you made! The same one!
|
| So no, your choice is not being removed, because in your
| own words, using your own argument, you can just not
| install those other apps.
| generalizations wrote:
| "Curated _system_ ", not curated apps. Words matter and I
| chose those for a reason. The "gotcha" you attempted just
| makes it clear that you have no idea why the walled
| garden creates an environment that is _more_ attractive
| to the average user.
| fsflover wrote:
| > the walled garden creates an environment that is _more_
| attractive to the average user.
|
| Any studies confirming this, or is it just your opinion?
| In my experience, nobody who owns an iPhone knows about
| the walled garden (among non-tech people at least).
| generalizations wrote:
| > studies confirming this
|
| Market share is pretty easy to look up? iPhones are
| massively popular, and have the majority market share in
| the US.
|
| > nobody who owns an iPhone knows about the walled garden
|
| That's-a bingo! Exactly. Because it just works, because
| Apple has tight control over the pipeline. _They don 't
| need to know_ and it seems like tech people don't
| appreciate the degree to which a trustworthy, mostly-
| idiot-proof appliance is incredibly valuable to the
| average user. Choosing between stores and warnings about
| trojans in security apps are not things that most users
| care about or want to think about. iPhones are great
| because the user can have little idea what they're doing,
| and still be pretty sure they won't screw it up.
|
| As I've said elsewhere, I run void linux on my personal
| thinkpads because I customize _everything_. But that 's
| not for everyone.
| fsflover wrote:
| People choose Apple due to the feeling of being secure,
| which has nothing to do with the walled garden, and
| probably actual security is harmed by it (see the fiasco
| with iMessage zero-clicks).
|
| Another reason is that everything just works, which can
| be achieved on GNU/Linux, too: see laptops with
| preinstalled systems.
| stale2002 wrote:
| The point being that you can't have it both ways here.
|
| You are the one who made the "just don't use it"
| argument, as applied to the iPhone.
|
| If you can use that argument, then so can everyone else.
| We can equally say "Ok, just continue to only use the
| iPhone app store".
|
| Its your argument. Either it applies or it doesn't.
|
| If you want to say that your argument is bad, thats fine.
| But if you don't then the argument can be equally used
| against you.
|
| I expect that you'll ignore this clear contradiction
| though and not address it like you just did in your
| comment, and if you do that I will take that as an
| agreement that your argument was bad and you just don't
| want to admit it, thus you avoid addressing the
| contradiction.
| generalizations wrote:
| > You are the one who made the "just don't use it"
| argument
|
| Uh, read a little farther up:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680209
|
| > Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store
|
| So, I imagine that if I restate my point here, you'll
| just ignore it. So how about I point you to elsewhere in
| this thread that I've made the point:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680211 and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39681056 and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680739
|
| In case you missed it, the key takeaway:
|
| > You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a
| curated environment largely through the curation of the
| app store. That curated environment is massively valuable
| to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to
| protect.
|
| I've noticed this trend with a lot of my engineering /
| tech friends: really good at tech, but completely
| clueless in understanding the actual _value to users_
| that a tech thing provides. That 's the distinction which
| makes this not-a-contradiction; but since you're probably
| mistaking the technology itself for the value it
| provides, that won't make sense.
| stale2002 wrote:
| So then that means that your original argument about
| "just go use an android" is equally wrong.
|
| If you disagree with that argument, fine. But you can't
| use it in support of anything.
|
| So then no, people cannot "just go use an android" as
| their choice is equally taken away from them by Apple's
| market power and decisions.
|
| It's totally fine for you to admit that your original
| argument of "just don't use X" is stupid.
|
| Which is why we now have regulation. Which isn't going to
| go away.
|
| Goodbye 30% fee!
| generalizations wrote:
| > your original argument about "just go use an android"
| is equally wrong
|
| Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense.
| If users want more freedom, they can just use Android.
| Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple.
| If they want something else, Android is right there.
|
| > Apple's market power and decisions
|
| Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated
| environment.
|
| It seems like you have this idea in your head about what
| I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't
| think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage
| anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and
| miss.
| fsflover wrote:
| Is this what people want?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
| vultour wrote:
| The problem is that the less-tech-literate people don't
| recognize the dark patterns. I like iPhones because it means
| I don't have to worry about my parents' phones. I am not
| looking forward to the day when all their contacts and
| pictures are siphoned off because they downloaded the
| required "ebook reader" via the big download button on a
| random website.
| jamil7 wrote:
| Can you explain how you believe the App Store prevents
| contacts and pictures being siphoned off currently?
| its_ethan wrote:
| Apps in the App store have to use a prompt to get
| confirmation that they are able to view and access
| certain things, like your photo library.
|
| Breaking down the walled garden of the App Store would be
| moving in the direction of a world where the prompts/
| requests for access that prevent (or reduce the odds of)
| data being taken/stolen is higher. If you can download a
| non-compliant app from any random website you might
| visit, you can bet your ass the 65+ population is going
| to end up downloading a bunch of malicious apps.
| jamil7 wrote:
| The prompt you're talking about is a part of the
| operating system's security and privacy model, this has
| nothing to do with the App Store or the DMA. The DMA is
| not requiring this to be changed.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Sure, and if a developer finds a way to bypass that
| security restriction, Apple no longer has the ability to
| ban that developer.
|
| > The DMA is not requiring this to be changed.
|
| Not according to the DMA maximalists on this thread, who
| believe that you should be able to install any software
| that does anything it wants.
| jamil7 wrote:
| They can revoke that developers' certificates and patch
| whatever vulnerability allowed a developer to bypass that
| restriction.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > They can revoke that developers' certificates
|
| Well, no, they can't. That's the whole point of the DMA.
|
| > and patch whatever vulnerability allowed a developer to
| bypass that restriction.
|
| Sure, close the door after the cow has left barn.
|
| In the rest of the civilized world, developers will not
| do something so blatant in the first place because they
| know it will result in an account ban.
| user_7832 wrote:
| While I understand and agree with your point, it's worth
| noting that things like SMS/OTP scams have already been
| around for years. Of course that doesn't justify making
| security weaker, but this isn't iOS going from super-strong
| to ultra-weak. It's realistically iOS going from a medium-
| weak to slightly-weaker.
| generalizations wrote:
| I agree. People with some experience in marketing - not the
| scammy kind, but the stuff where you learn to identify _what is
| valuable to paying customers_ - can probably see the problem
| here. Apple has intentionally curated a walled garden, and
| people like it in there. I run void linux machines at home
| because I customize _everything_ - but my phone is an iPhone
| because my previous Androids are a morass of unsynchronized
| semi-crap apps.
|
| Now the people outside the walled garden want in, and they're
| tearing down the walls to do it, and they seem to be completely
| clueless that by doing so they'll destroy the very thing that
| makes it so desirable.
| bdw5204 wrote:
| Apple's app store monopoly deprives users of the freedom to
| install apps that Apple disapproves of on their own devices.
| The benefit to users is that you can install apps that violate
| app store policies such as games about the US Civil War that
| feature the flag most commonly associated with the losing side
| of that war[0]. That's one of the more well known examples of
| Apple practicing censorship of their App Store.
|
| The dark patterns such as making it extremely hard to cancel
| subscriptions or not reminding users that they're about to
| charge should be made illegal as deceptive billing practices.
|
| [0]: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/25/apple-bans-games-and-
| apps-...
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| >the US Civil War that feature the flag most commonly
| associated with the losing side of that war
|
| The Confederate flag, then.
| bdw5204 wrote:
| The so-called "Confederate flag" that people recognize was
| never the actual flag of the Confederacy. It was actually
| just the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. The
| original flag of the Confederacy actually looks very
| similar to the American flag which is why their army used a
| different flag in the first place.
|
| See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate
| _State...
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Distinction without a difference.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > The walled garden is why I chose an iPhone
|
| It's obviously not the case. Not you, not anyone else.
|
| You obviously aren't mad about how unsafe MacOs is because
| Apple doesn't restrict installation on it. And you shouldn't be
| mad that the iPhone walled garden is no more, you did not buy
| it for that reason.
|
| It's somehow concerning that the company has so much grasp on
| your perception of reality that you are spitting out their
| _propaganda_ like this.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Please don't tell me what is and is not the case for myself,
| I clearly said what is the case for me and maybe instead of
| trying to explain why I supposedly feel differently you
| actually ask why those platforms are different.
|
| I use my iPhone and Mac very differently. All of the apps on
| my Mac were a single purchase, I don't need to worry about
| dark patterns there because I just own what I have.
|
| The mobile market is inherently different, largely thanks to
| developers pushing alternative forms of ownership. Instead of
| being able to just buy it, most of the apps on my iPhone are
| subscription based. Meaning I am more at the mercy of dark
| patterns by the developers.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > I clearly said what is the case for me
|
| You said it, yes. That means that's what you _now believe_.
| Not that it 's necessarily true.
|
| > All of the apps on my Mac were a single purchase, I don't
| need to worry about dark patterns there because I just own
| what I have.
|
| Are you using a firewall to block software updates? If not,
| you're still within reach of the developer and they can
| pull the rug under your feet.
|
| > Meaning I am more at the mercy of dark patterns by the
| developers.
|
| The developer cannot force you to move out if the apple app
| store in the first place! (Which is far from bulletproof
| when it comes to dark patterns anyway).
|
| If you want to stay in the safe corner of the web, just
| keep buying through the Apple App store! Like almost
| everyone does with the Android playstore.
| nerdjon wrote:
| It is incredibly condescending that when I try to explain
| why I chose something that you try to tell me it isn't
| why I chose it.
|
| It is also incredibly hypocritical that here we are
| complaining about being at the mercy of the choices that
| Apple makes and you are trying to tell me how I actually
| feel.
|
| This boils down to the platforms being different. The way
| that many apps are monetized on Mac (and Windows) is
| different to how things are monetized on mobile devices.
|
| So please stop telling me how I feel and why I made
| certain decisions. I think I know why I chose something
| and not you.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| You know what's incredible? For years Apple fans on this
| forum have been making arguments about why they buy Apple
| stuff ("better UX", "better hardware", "better privacy",
| "better performance ", etc.), and all those years, none
| of you ever mentioned "I like being restricted" as a
| reason for their purchase.
|
| Now fast forward a few years and Apple spinning tons of
| FUD about user security related to the app store monopoly
| and now a significant part of you guys are reusing the
| talking point. Definitely not what to expect from psyop,
| right?
|
| I really whished people were talked in school how
| propaganda and psychological operations work, how to
| recognize them and how to defend themselves, like with
| practical exercise and all, it's becoming a critical
| survival skill in modern societies...
|
| I'm not blaming you to succumb to this kind of things,
| smarter people did before and it's efficient enough to
| make people kill themselves "for the cause/the
| motherland", but that's terrifying to see it in action
| coming from corporations.
| nerdjon wrote:
| > none of you ever mentioned "I like being restricted" as
| a reason for their purchase.
|
| Here is the thing, I don't feel like I am being
| restricted. I never said the words I like being
| restricted. Want to know who is? The developers... the
| people pushing for this.
|
| THAT is what I am talking about, please go re-read what I
| have written.
|
| Which for the record I think is a good thing, we know
| many companies will take advantage of their users if
| given the option. And before you jump in "well apple is
| taking advantage of you", I bought their device knowing
| full well what our relationship was.
|
| I even mentioned that I think Apple should open up the
| store on their restrictions on porn apps and things like
| that. But that is also a separate discussion.
|
| The condescending attitude is making you read the wrong
| thing and it's frankly kinda tiring.
|
| Edit: And yes, people have talked about the restrictions
| put on developers on the App Store being a positive for
| Users... A lot over the years. Especially when it comes
| to billing.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Here is the thing, I don't feel like I am being
| restricted. I never said the words I like being
| restricted. Want to know who is? The developers... the
| people pushing for this.
|
| You can spin it again and again, it won't change the
| facts: it's the user that are being restricted.
|
| Sure it has the side effect of restricting the
| developers, because they can't reach the restricted user
| without Apple giving them access. But it's only a pretty
| recent side effect, when Apple decided to pivot their
| branding on "privacy": before that Facebook and al. spent
| almost a decade harvesting user data for free on iPhone
| without any complaints from Apple.
|
| Oh, and this is not just me making the argument: that's
| actually European Commission's argument too. And the fact
| is, EC won the case and Apple is caving.
|
| And if you need some help grasping this fact, you can
| think about how the European regulation is not about
| freedom for _European developers_ (targeting every user
| in the world) but about freedom for _European users_ no
| matter where the developer comes from.
| nerdjon wrote:
| > Sure it has the side effect of restricting the
| developers, because they can't reach the restricted user
| without Apple giving them access. But it's only a pretty
| recent side effect, when Apple decided to pivot their
| branding on "privacy": before that Facebook and al. spent
| almost a decade harvesting user data for free on iPhone
| without any complaints from Apple.
|
| That is not a bad example. Should they have restricted it
| sooner? Yes. But that is an example of the restrictions
| being a positive for users.
|
| > European regulation is not about freedom for European
| developers (targeting every user in the world) but about
| freedom for European users no matter where the developer
| comes from.
|
| Honestly debatable, considering the biggest names in this
| are Spotify and Epic. Last I checked Spotify isn't a
| User. Most of the push for this seems to be pushed by
| developers who tried to spin this as "user choice" when
| its really "Developer choice".
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Honestly debatable, considering the biggest names in
| this are Spotify and Epic
|
| Epic is an American company, which reinforce my point.
|
| > Most of the push for this seems to be pushed by
| developers who tried to spin this as "user choice" when
| its really "Developer choice".
|
| And no, it's not the medium-size business that are
| spinning things around, they have far less lobbying power
| than Apple and very very little leverage on the European
| Commission (compared to Apple that got away with a
| lightning cable exception on the Micro-USB mandate from
| the European commission a decade ago). Only this time
| Apple's lobbying wasn't enough, and European people will
| have access to pieces of software that Apple was
| forbidding for no good reason (web browsers for starter).
|
| Back in 2014 or so when I was still a web developer, I
| can tell you that Safari stood literally zero chance
| against the competition, and that the very poor state of
| the iPhone's monopoly browser was actually harming
| customers.
|
| At the end of the day, the developer will still have very
| little leverage on the user (they cannot realistically
| force the user to use a non-app store version of their
| app), and the user will be the only one making their
| choice to use apps that come from outside the Apple app
| store. It's only about user choice.
|
| Repeating corporate lies many time doesn't make them
| true.
| rglullis wrote:
| See, that's the cool thing about open markets: if companies
| start losing money because their customers prefer the walled
| garden, they will go back to it.
| skrause wrote:
| > _The walled garden is why I chose an iPhone and continue to
| stay with the ecosystem._
|
| I only chose an iPhone because I don't really like Android and
| there is nothing else. Only two different platforms is simply
| not enough choice, so you have to create choice within those
| platforms. While you like the walled garden I would like a
| native Firefox with the Firefox engine and uBlock Origin.
| cjpearson wrote:
| I find the situation is similar to right-to-work laws. If you
| find the walled-garden/closed-shop beneficial, you will not
| want it to be forcibly cracked open. Even though an individual
| can opt to remain with the App Store (or union), the influence
| of Apple (or the union) has diminished relative to the employer
| (or Facebook, Epic etc).
|
| In the end, despite all the marketing, neither issue is about
| user or worker freedom. It's about which entity has more power.
| tdb7893 wrote:
| I think most users don't care about the app store and would
| love a significant discount. Like if you have companies and
| users the choice people wouldn't willingly pay more for it
| simion314 wrote:
| You could open your eyes and look at reality and not imagined
| universe. Facebook apps are still on Android store, Facebook
| users do not install the application from some shady store. The
| issue is that Apple is a greedy bitch, they do not allow the
| developers to put a text on theier app that would inform the
| USER that they have a CHOICE to purchase a book/DLC/music from
| a website.
|
| See above I bolded for you that Apple is removing choices from
| the user.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I wouldn't call it imagined when Fortnite is not available on
| the Android App Store...
|
| There is at least one company that is very much pushing for
| this exact scenario, and has announced plans for releasing a
| store on iOS.
| simion314 wrote:
| So can you find other real example, since this one is
| invalid because of Epic lawsuit. All Apple fans name
| Facebook so please show us the Facebook example or maybe
| shut up about Facebook and use a real example not imagined
| ones.
| nerdjon wrote:
| What about Epic's lawsuit makes Fortnite invalid?
|
| Fortnite also is not on the most popular store on PC so
| it is not just about their lawsuit. They want to run a
| store on all platforms and have said they will be
| launching an Epic game store on iOS. So I don't
| understand why they are invalid.
|
| But that is a clear example, they are not on the official
| store for iOS or Android (which also is not part of
| Epic's lawsuit).
|
| As far as Facebook goes, I don't think anyone is claiming
| that Facebook will in fact do it so maybe tone it down a
| bit. But Facebook is an example of a company that has
| enough of a user base that they could try to convince
| users to download a store and likely many would since
| they are addicted to social media and they own Instagram.
|
| TikTok likely could. Microsoft would be stupid to not be
| looking into it. Steam could be looking into it.
|
| None of those are concrete and to my knowledge none of
| them have signaled that they would. But those are
| companies that have enough of a name and a product that
| they could likely very easily get users to download the
| App Store which turns into a gateway for others to use
| their store instead of the Apple App Store since it is is
| now on their phone.
|
| Regardless of all of those companies, there is zero
| reason to discount the fact that Epic is doing this on
| iOS. They skip the Android Play Store and they are doing
| it on PC. Fortnite has a ton of market power.
|
| Edit: Also Facebook very much has an incentive to explore
| this option. Not only would it be another revenue source
| (and maybe they could somehow tie it into their VR/AR
| stuff) but they have been vocal about their issues with
| Apple in the past.
| simion314 wrote:
| Epic is in a lawsuit with Apple, the reason the game is
| not in the store is not because Apple kicked the game out
| of the store.
|
| There is Minecraft as an example, they are not on Steam,
| Gog or Epic store but they are for sure on Android store.
|
| So find an example of a real application that is not made
| by a company that is in lawsuit or has or wants a Store.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Fortnite is not on Android:
| https://play.google.com/store/search?q=fortnite&c=apps
|
| That has absolutely nothing to do with their Lawsuit with
| Apple. They are also not on Steam. That has absolutely
| nothing to do with their lawsuit with Apple.
|
| So no, them being on iOS is not only because of the
| lawsuit with Apple.
|
| What does Minecraft have to do with anything? Yes I know
| they are owned by Microsoft but that is a weird example.
| While the OG is not on Steam, Legends is.
|
| So... Fortnite is a real example that is happening on
| Android, right now!
|
| They have already said they are going to do exactly this
| with iOS.
|
| > or has or wants a Store.
|
| That... doesn't disqualify anyone since that's the entire
| point. If they don't want a store, then obviously concern
| about them making a store and not being on the Apple App
| Store is a non issue.
|
| That makes no sense.
| debo_ wrote:
| It's not focused on the developers. As the DMA intends, it is
| focused on the digital market of mobile apps, which is
| currently anticompetitive.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| This is a great step forwards for mobile computing freedom.
|
| I imagine it'll make it a lot harder for congress to kill TikTok
| in the US if rolled out globally.
|
| Hopefully the EU can pressure Apple to relax some of the
| requirements.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| How does this have anything to do with the US?
| sparrowInHand wrote:
| How about companies ripped off by apple get together and offer
| the european union a "neutral" plattform, a app-store of its own
| without app-store tarifs? Make infrastructure infrastructure
| again and destroy the walled gardens while they are at it?
| Unfrozen0688 wrote:
| Android phones are great now. Come home devs. <3
| arnaudsm wrote:
| This topic is polarizing because it shows how Silicon Valley
| betrayed its original hacker mindset of openness in favor of tech
| feudalism.
|
| I'm pleasantly surprised to see the EU standing in this battle.
| This is a good thing for hackers, creativity and competition in
| the mobile space
| kmeisthax wrote:
| "Wait, it's all feudalism?"
|
| "Always has been."
|
| Silicon Valley's original sin is Steve Jobs conning Steve
| Wozniak and a bunch of tech contractors into building his
| business empire. Every company in the Bay Area is a politically
| implausible liason of a very specific kind of Objectivist
| control freak CEO[0] and the hippie nerds that can actually
| build what they want to sell.
|
| The hacker mindset of openness is very easy to confuse with
| Jobs-types that want openness for thee but not for me. It's
| very easy to complain about people currently abusing their
| power (remember Google's "Don't Be Evil" poking fun at
| Microsoft?) but hard to recognize incipient abuses of future
| power. The only way to unambiguously avoid this is to go full
| Stallman[1] and categorically distolerate any amount of control
| or ownership over one's work.
|
| To make matters worse, this industry is one in which you really
| can't make money unless you're selling something that's closed
| off and locked down. The people who actually do play fair get
| bankrupted any time the government is looking the other way on
| antitrust.
|
| [0] Yes, I _am_ calling out YCombinator. You 're part of the
| problem.
|
| [1] To be clear, RMS very much has Jobs' personality, grafted
| onto Woz's morality and skill. He would have become just as
| awful as Jobs had he not insisted on Free Software early on.
| user_7832 wrote:
| I don't think it's _fully_ impossible, but rather just very
| difficult, especially if operating in the software space. I
| 'd call framework laptops an example of the exception to the
| rule. But yes, they're very rare.
| hellcow wrote:
| This is likely my last iPhone. Apple's behavior in opposing their
| own customers is unacceptable.
|
| I'll switch to a Pixel running GrapheneOS, where I can run "real
| Firefox" and any other software I choose.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| Android Firefox lets you have uBlock origin, among other
| things.
| genpfault wrote:
| But not about:config :(
| vel0city wrote:
| Just opened Firefox on my Pixel, typed in "about:config",
| and got a long list of configuration options.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Works for me on Firefox Beta and Firefox Nightly, but not
| on normal Firefox.
| vel0city wrote:
| Ah, you're right, I'm running Firefox Beta. Forgot about
| that. Thanks for pointing that out.
| gvurrdon wrote:
| Same here. But, I'd like to wait until iOS 18 so that text
| messages from various contacts are less painful.
| justinclift wrote:
| If you're up for something experimental, then Genode on the
| PinePhone is coming along pretty well:
|
| https://genodians.org/nfeske/2024-02-15-fosdem-aftermath
| arminluschin wrote:
| ,,Real" Firefox is now possible in EU.
| fundatus wrote:
| Well, since Mozilla will have to pay 50ct per year per
| install to Apple to actually bring Firefox to iOS, I doubt it
| will happen unfortunately.
| arminluschin wrote:
| I believe they can continue to distribute via App Store for
| free.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| No, the "core technology fee" applies to the app store
| too.
| arminluschin wrote:
| It depends. The fee applies only if Mozilla opts into the
| "new terms". You're right that it if Mozilla chooses the
| new terms, they have to pay the fee on the app store too.
| But they are allowed to stay on the old terms and still
| offer "real" Firefox. In this case they pay nothing.
|
| From https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/apples_plans_for_
| the_dma:
|
| "Stay in App Store under the current (pre-DMA) rules,
| exclusively. Developers that take this option: Are not
| permitted to use any of the new business terms available
| in the EU, but new iOS platform options for the EU, such
| as alternate browser engines, are allowed. (Because they
| are required to be allowed.)"
| zeta0134 wrote:
| The inability to run a real web browser (with extensions!) has
| been holding me back on the switch to iOS for a long time now.
| Reviewing Apple's behavior in the EU, I'm not really expecting
| that to change any time soon. Android is annoying in a lot of
| its own ways, but at the very least I can run whatever software
| I want on the thing, and that's too valuable to give up.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| What's also really annoying is that copying non-image files
| to your phone is extremely limited. Apple's hardware is
| amazing and iOS is generally good and well maintained, but
| all these little ways they dictate what you can do with your
| own device make it unbearable.
| franczesko wrote:
| EU needs to address this as it is still gatekeeping
| amne wrote:
| Why isn't making the iPhone unavailable for sale in Europe not an
| option?
| PavleMiha wrote:
| I guess it is? No one can force Apple to sell iPhones in
| Europe.
| przemub wrote:
| And no one is forcing them.
| sneak wrote:
| Their shareholders can, and will.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| lol. Shareholders won't care if Apple pulls out of Europe
| if Europe makes it impossible to make a profit.
|
| Another comment claims that the App Store represents
| something like 40% of Apple's profit. If you chop a
| company's profit in half and lay on a bunch of regulatory
| costs, pulling out of the market starts to look appealing.
|
| And, who is to say that the EC will stop here? What happens
| when all the alternative app stores fail because they fail
| to enforce the same developer-hostile, user-friendly
| features as Apple (like request to track). You think the EC
| will just roll over and let that happen? Or will they take
| even stronger measures?
|
| Continuing the humor the EC is just throwing good money
| after bad at this point. Shareholders can see that just as
| well as anyone else.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > if Europe makes it impossible to make a profit.
|
| Unless they stop them from shipping iPhone hardware or
| tax the MSRP beyond 40%, I think it's quite literally
| impossible for that to happen.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| It's nice you think that. Maybe you should buy some Apple
| stock.
|
| Here in reality, it is a very real possibility.
| summerlight wrote:
| Shareholders will be very angry and none of their C-suites
| will keep their jobs.
| p_l wrote:
| Because locking yourself from 1/6th of global economy is a non-
| starter when chasing returns and stock price, which are also
| the reasons why Apple is pulling such moves in the first place.
| Dobbs wrote:
| They can, and that is the alternative to complying. Apple wants
| their EUREUREUR and to eat it too.
| layer8 wrote:
| Because Europe constitutes a quarter of Apples revenue, a large
| part of which is iPhones and related services.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| As much as I like to joke about Apple starting a nuclear
| weapons division and tattooing "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" on Tim
| Cook's forehead, the reality is that corporations are not
| actually sovereign nations, they just cosplay as such. Apple's
| investors will not tolerate Apple abandoning a huge chunk of
| their iPhone revenue over what is effectively a religious
| precept.
| totaldude87 wrote:
| An interesting analogy and a thought experiment , replace Walmart
| instead of Apple, how would this play out? you cant force Walmart
| to sell stuff (nor) ask them to open up a small space inside
| their stores for others to open up their shop. If they wont, how
| is this different for Apple? just becuase they are a software
| company? or just because they allowed this all on a mac and not
| on an iPhone?
|
| P.S
|
| As long as the regular Joe doesn't bother about walled gardens,
| apple is on the green.
|
| How many developers actually have a problem with apple's "My Way
| or highway" approach when it comes to walled garden tax or
| others, and how much are them from EU..
| user_7832 wrote:
| It's closer to Ford forcing you to drive only on Ford(tm) roads
| or charge your Ford EV at a Ford(tm) certified $$$ charging
| station.
| m_a_g wrote:
| I wonder why the EU is pushing Apple this hard, and not the other
| gatekeepers. For example, Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo
| consoles should now support an external store.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| They're not general purpose computers, even if architecturally
| they could be.
|
| Apple amply touted the iPhone's capacities ("there's an app for
| that") and smartphones are defacto a core component of our
| lives. The Switch isn't.
| ggreer wrote:
| What applications are necessary to call it a general purpose
| computer? A web browser? A self-hosted development
| environment? I don't think there's a bright line between what
| applications a Playstation or Xbox has versus what a phone
| has.
|
| And it's not like the iPhone is the only phone you can get.
| If Apple is restricting such a core component of our lives,
| you can simply buy non-Apple products.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Games consoles are designed, marketed and used to play
| games and for similar entertainment purposes.
|
| You are not going to do your online banking on an Xbox, or
| write a letter on a PlayStation, even if the hardware is
| theoretically capable of that, it's just not what it's
| _for_.
| weberer wrote:
| That's what people said about phones at first too. The
| Nintendo Switch has the same capabilities with its
| touchscreen. Its more than capable of taking the place of
| an iPad.
| asadotzler wrote:
| That's what people said about phones and cell phones, not
| about smartphones and there's a meaningful difference.
| "Phones" include analog devices that send voltage over
| copper wires to make sound at each end and they were
| never nor will ever be capable of use as a general
| purpose computer, so care with product categories must be
| taken. The thing my grandfather used first as a child to
| call across town to his uncle is not the same thing our
| children are carrying in their pockets to watch TikToks,
| and any more than a carrier pigeon is a 747.
| stale2002 wrote:
| That is a great question which is answered by the Digital
| Markets Act.
|
| > I don't think there's a bright line
|
| Well there is one. The bright line would be the services
| that the DMA applies to or doesn't. That is a bright line.
| bloppe wrote:
| It's not about how you might use the device. it's about how
| people actually use them. Maybe a dozen ppl have ever used
| the browser on a PlayStation. When you lose your phone, on
| the other hand, it literally feels weird to go about your
| day without one.
|
| Right now you have a "Hobson's choice", but if you could
| ditch the iPhone while still keeping access to iMessage and
| iCloud, wouldn't you?
| ggreer wrote:
| I don't really care about iMessage or iCloud. Yes the
| blue text looks nicer and the quality of images in
| messages is a little better, but it's not a deal breaker
| if I'm messaging an Android user. I have less than a
| gigabyte of stuff in iCloud and I don't know how it got
| there.
|
| I use iPhones because they're smaller than Android
| phones. Would I like it if Apple still made phones in the
| form factor of the iPhone 4 or 5? Absolutely. Should the
| government force Apple to do that? Probably not.
| ncruces wrote:
| On my smartphone I have:
|
| - an app that's used by pharmacies to handle prescriptions
| from the public health system;
|
| - an app I can legally show a police officer so they can
| determine that I have a valid driver's license;
|
| - an app I can use to pay my taxes;
|
| - an app I can use to pay parking meters to the local
| authorities;
|
| - apps used to register consumption (kWh, m3, etc) with the
| local utilities.
|
| Some of these are published by the government itself,
| others by public companies. A smartphone is not a
| Playstation or an Xbox. We have Androids and iPhones,
| that's it. And significant portions of our lives are tied
| to having Androids and iPhones.
|
| PS: I also remember having an app that used an API
| purportedly developed with amazing good will to help public
| health systems trace COVID exposure. Remember that one? How
| everyone having a smartphone was going to help get us back
| to the subway safely?
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| So your argument for why we don't need to open up game
| consoles is because they are not already open? Isn't that
| circular reasoning?
| ncruces wrote:
| My argument is we regulate these companies and not others
| because these are important to society, yes. Same as we
| regulate phone companies or the internet.
|
| We can't allow two global multinationals to gatekeep this
| much of our modern lives and simply do nothing about it.
| Or we could, but we don't want to.
|
| Apple and Google can leave the market if they don't like
| the rules.
| kube-system wrote:
| It's really a lot more simple than you're making it out to
| be. The word 'purpose' refers to intent, not capability.
| Xbox is a gaming console because that's what it was meant
| to be. The iPhone is intended to run many different
| categories of applications, because that's what it was
| designed to do.
| ggreer wrote:
| In that case, why is the EU forcing Apple to support
| alternative app stores for watchOS and tvOS, not just iOS
| and iPadOS? The Apple Watch and Apple TV aren't designed
| to be general purpose.
| kube-system wrote:
| Because they're interconnected enough that the EU lumps
| them in with the rest of the ecosystem for
| anticompetitive purposes? I wasn't necessarily agreeing
| with the rationale above, just commenting on what a
| 'special purpose computer' is.
| ggreer wrote:
| But Microsoft has a single store for both Windows and
| Xbox apps. So why isn't the EU forcing Microsoft to open
| up the Xbox?
| asadotzler wrote:
| Because they don't have the numbers to matter, that's
| why. I know it can be hard to keep several distinct
| conditions in the head at once, but it's important to
| remember that just because one can satisfy a single
| condition does not mean a law which requires several
| conditions to be true will necessarily apply.
| ggreer wrote:
| I think you misread my comment. The EU _is_ forcing Apple
| to support alternative app stores for watchOS and tvOS.
| These are not general purpose devices and they have
| comparable or lower sales than game consoles.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I also misread your point. Is watchOs and tvOS targeted
| by this ? I thought they were exempt, the same way macOS
| is exempt.
|
| As I read it they're subject to the anti steering and
| alternative PSP ruling, but not app downloads nor
| alternative app stores.
|
| That's two limitations the other platforms don't have.
| mthoms wrote:
| Access to gaming is not critical to participation in a modern
| economy. Whereas a phone gives you access to banking,
| government services, medical services, emergency services,
| education, information, news, wayfinding(GPS), shopping
| (especially if you live somewhere remote) are just _some_
| examples of things people do with their phones. And that 's not
| just _some_ people, like 80-90% of all people.
|
| It's not the same.
| sjm wrote:
| Are any of those things impossible without sideloading or the
| DMA? Those things will only be riskier on your phone with all
| the malware that will undoubtedly spread throughout fully
| open marketplaces. I really do not want my mom accidentally
| installing her "Chase Bank" app from www.chazebank.cc.
| asadotzler wrote:
| those things are all made prohibitively difficult without a
| smartphone. there are people in the US getting kicked off
| their insurance plans for not having a required smartphone.
| this isn't some goddamn game here, peoples lives and
| livelihoods are on the line and you're wondering if it
| might not be such a big deal clearly never having put more
| than a moment's thought into it.
|
| And your malware claims are total BS There's been
| alternative stores on Android for years and the malware
| situation remains stable to slightly improving thanks to
| hardening of the OS that Google did resulting from the goal
| of supporting multiple stores. Far more people in the world
| use Android and bank on it than iOS so the idea that the
| sky will fall if Apple opens up is pure ridiculousness,
| utter silliness.
| weberer wrote:
| That would be cool if they did. And lets extend it to all
| devices. Once I pay for a device, I should be able to do
| whatever I want with it.
| darknavi wrote:
| Just be ready for Xbox and Sony to stop subsidizing their
| console prices then. That may be the future anyways as Xbox
| (and Sony really recently) push towards cross-plat gaming.
| weberer wrote:
| Well Nintendo has been able to outsell both of them
| combined without subsidization, so it shouldn't be too big
| of a problem.
| ggreer wrote:
| That may be true in terms of number of devices sold, but
| it's definitely not true in terms of revenue. In the
| seven years since the launch of the Switch, Nintendo has
| made almost $60 billion in revenue, or $8.5 billion per
| year. The Playstation and Xbox platforms make $12-16
| billion a year.
| asadotzler wrote:
| I care about their revenues about as much as I care about
| the consistency of squirrel droppings. They can all take
| a haircut and still be eminently sustainable, even quite
| profitable, as Nintendo has amply demonstrated.
| ggreer wrote:
| Umm, ok. I'm just saying that the parent comment is
| incorrect. Loss leader consoles make more money.
|
| Also "Console manufacturers can endure being forced to
| sell products at cost." is a different argument than
| "Console manufacturers are more successful when they sell
| products at cost.", which is what I was addressing.
| TillE wrote:
| > other gatekeepers
|
| Because they are not "gatekeepers", a term defined by the DMA
| which focuses on specific sectors.
|
| Also the video game ecosystem is pretty healthy these days,
| with nearly every major game available on Windows at launch or
| a few months later. As a matter of _market competition_ ,
| letting you hack your game console or smart TV or whatever just
| isn't that relevant.
| arminluschin wrote:
| Following your line of argument, isn't the app ecosystem the
| healthiest of all, with nearly every major app available on
| Android and iOS?
| skydhash wrote:
| It could be, but with Apple's overseeing has turned into a
| Damocles sword hanging over everyone. The rules has been ok
| (and that's why most business didn't care about the 30%
| fee), but lately the rules has been only in Apple's favor.
| And with their ubiquity today, it's more rent seeking than
| curation.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Don't divide your firepower between multiple targets at once.
| Instead, line them up and knock them down.
| summerlight wrote:
| Because none of those businesses are considered as "gatekeeper"
| in DMA.
| layer8 wrote:
| Because smartphones have become an ubiquitous and essential
| part of everyday life (communication, information access, and
| services) for large parts of the population, which is not true
| for gaming consoles.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| It seems disingenuous to compare video game consoles with
| smartphones
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Existing law surrounding anticircumvention already singles out
| game consoles as deserving special protection. i.e. the
| Copyright Office made it explicitly legal to circumvent the
| iPhone's DRM in order to install otherwise legal software, but
| they refused to extend this to game consoles. While you are
| technically correct that we should be treating game consoles
| the same as smartphones, in practice the industry treats game
| consoles as a locked down box to handcuff users with while
| smartphones are not.
|
| I suspect if half the console market was unlocked ala the Steam
| Deck, the EU would be pushing for the other half to also be
| unlocked, too.
|
| We also have to keep in mind that Epic sued Apple, not
| Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo. A lot of monopoly maintenance
| involves obfuscating the business relationships that make the
| monopoly work. i.e. Apple doesn't report how much money they
| make from the App Store[0] because that information would be
| very useful to regulators looking to undo their monopoly. The
| discovery on the Apple lawsuit published a lot of this
| previously hidden information. In other words, the EU had Apple
| land on their plate ready to cook and serve.
|
| Epic will _not_ sue their console partners. The damage to their
| business would actually be a lot worse: instead of merely
| seeing Fortnite taken off the various console stores, the
| console manufacturers would be sending repo men to take away
| all the devkits Epic uses to test Unreal Engine, demanding they
| delete the console ports of the engine, and refusing to cert
| any new games using Unreal Engine, forcing all their partners
| to license different technology and rebuild their games from
| the ground up. It would be immediate and total financial
| suicide.
|
| In other words, the console manufacturers are "getting away
| with it" because they had way more control over their niche
| than Apple did.
|
| [0] Related note: there's an unenforced SEC rule that
| specifically forbids not reporting this information, to prevent
| monopolies from obfuscating their profit centers like this.
| kowbell wrote:
| > take away all the devkits Epic uses to test Unreal Engine,
| demanding they delete the console ports of the engine, and
| refusing to cert any new games using Unreal Engine, forcing
| all their partners to license different technology and
| rebuild their games
|
| I think this is a lil extreme. Even if Epic had some reason
| to sue the console makers, there are too many high profile
| and high grossing games (e.g. the next Witcher and Cyberpunk,
| Hogwarts Legacy, Star Wars Jedi series) for Sony/Microsoft to
| choose to completely ban Unreal. Imagine too: if one of them
| announces they will prohibit Unreal games, why won't the
| other swallow their pride and become the console-exclusive
| platform for that title? Not even Apple has banned Unreal,
| and I can't think of any big games on their store that use
| it.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > why won't the other swallow their pride and become the
| console-exclusive platform for that title?
|
| It depends on who's being sued and who isn't. Microsoft
| absolutely would swallow their pride here if it meant
| getting one up on Sony, if only because the Xbox is already
| partially open anyway[0] and the Xbox business is
| significantly hurting right now. Reverse the roles,
| however, with Microsoft being sued, and they absolutely
| would respond by trying to disable Epic's access to the
| Xbox platform _and to other Xbox developers_. Sony would
| not do Epic any favors here either and probably would stand
| in solidarity with Microsoft - because they have nothing to
| gain and everything to lose.
|
| Remember: the console business is about handcuffing users
| and developers; Epic's lawsuit goes against that. We
| actually know a lot about Epic's communications _with the
| console manufacturers_ as a result of the Epic v. Apple
| lawsuit[1]. They were worried that the "direct payments"
| stunt was going to eat into microtransaction profits,
| because Epic had applied the discount you got on V-Bucks to
| consoles as well as iOS. Epic also kept the both the
| lawsuit and their lobbying from including videogame
| consoles, because of the possibility that it would impact
| the Unreal business.
|
| For what it's worth, Apple actually did try to get Epic's
| Unreal division banned from iOS, but was stopped by the
| judge in the Epic v. Apple case. Apple also has tried to
| regulate what frameworks app developers are allowed to use
| in the past. Back a decade and change ago, Adobe shipped
| Flash Packager for iPhone to allow Flash developers to ship
| SWFs as iPhone apps. Apple changed their developer
| agreements to specifically require all apps be "originally
| written" in Objective-C, C/C++, or JavaScript; so they'd
| have cover to reject Flash apps. They backed down a few
| months later only because the Obama-era DOJ actually
| threatened to sue, which is why you've probably used a ton
| of Flash games on your iPhone without even knowing.
|
| [0] To be clear, you can get access to the Shared partition
| to run software on but you cannot access the Exclusive
| partition without a devkit.
|
| [1] Because Apple was trying to prove that the lawsuit was
| a stunt and that Epic was suing over a very normal business
| practice everyone else in the business embraced
| wholeheartedly
| ho_schi wrote:
| Apple isn't considering that they are the baddies?
|
| I suggest strong regulation of the complete _BigIT_ and two
| chairs for public observers at minimum. In addition they are not
| allowed to enter any new market.
|
| Why? Because it worked well with _AT &T_. Results:
| * UNIX * C * Open-Source * Public
| Documentation
|
| Sounds good? Until the Reagan administration appeared, allowed
| them to split up (Baby Bells), the UNIX-Wars followed, law-suits
| against BSD and broad incompatibility. And despite this horrible
| changes we still got: * POSIX * GNU
| (immediate reaction by FSF - they recognized the situation)
| * Linux (which caused itself Git) * BSD (TCP/IP)
|
| Our information technology builds upon the regulation of AT&T.
| That was lucky, yes. But you need to prepare luck.
|
| The politicians instead opted for Microsoft, Apple, Google,
| Facebook and Amazon with near to no regulation at all. Despite we
| learned that software immediately tends to monopolize due to
| Vendor Lock-in and mass-effect.
|
| What are my benefits of a low billion fine ten years after on of
| this companies hurt us again? None.
|
| Splitting up? See again Vendor Lock-in and mass-effect.
| eppp wrote:
| Ironically AT&T is bigger now than it was when it was broken
| apart.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| And AT&T is now just a drop in the ocean of gigantic
| businesses.
| kortilla wrote:
| Size wasn't the issue, it was being a monopoly. AT&T today
| has big and small competitors in every space.
|
| They used to own the phone in your house.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In wireless internet, ATT competes with Verizon and
| T-Mobile.
|
| But for fiber internet to the home, ATT is still a monopoly
| for its customers since there are never 2 fiber ISPs.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| > there are never 2 fiber ISPs.
|
| There are often zero!
| oogali wrote:
| The AT&T you see today is a completely different company. For
| all intents and purposes, it is SBC (Southwestern Bell
| Communications).
|
| In 1996, Bell Labs, Western Electric, and AT&T Technologies
| were spun out to create Lucent.
|
| Lucent merged with Alcatel to form Alcatel-Lucent in 2006.
|
| Alcatel-Lucent was purchased by Nokia in 2016.
|
| AT&T Wireless was purchased by Cingular in 2004 (joint
| venture between BellSouth and SBC).
|
| The original AT&T was purchased by SBC in 2005.
|
| The new AT&T (SBC) bought BellSouth in 2006.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| What regulations are you referring to wrt AT&T? Are you saying
| that UNIX and C were a result of regulations? If so do you have
| a source?
| callalex wrote:
| Anti-trust regulation enforcement against Bell Corporation.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| The very short is, that AT&T between 1974 and 1982, due to
| the telephony monopoly rulings, wasn't allowed to sell
| software. Thus they gave their research results to
| universities, like Berkely.
| nindalf wrote:
| How different is that from tech giants using their monopoly
| profits to develop software that they give away for free?
| You say AT&T gave away some software to universities.
| Similarly Google gives away Go (among many other projects)
| as FOSS for anyone to use. If Google didn't have to worry
| about money, they might not develop these things to give
| away for free.
| Sammi wrote:
| AT&T were forced to because of regulations.
| WWLink wrote:
| > If Google didn't have to worry about money, they might
| not develop these things to give away for free.
|
| I get the impression Google has no intent to give things
| away for free anymore lol
| robertlagrant wrote:
| But regardless of your impression, they give loads of
| stuff away.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It would be fine if they didn't.
| arter4 wrote:
| Mapreduce, Go, Kubernetes, Istio, Tensorflow,...
|
| I'm not a Googler but there's no denying that, despite
| all their faults, Google has contributed a lot.
| scubbo wrote:
| TIL that Istio was a Google product!
| kaliqt wrote:
| Wrong. Meta is the same, no ML. We wouldn't even have
| modern ML without Google publishing that paper.
|
| Regulation creates a problem and then creates a solution,
| skimming off the top every time.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Because they can use the gifts to facilitate lock-in or
| because they want to share development with other
| companies or individuals. They give nothing away without
| it bringing something of equal or more value to them, or
| they're tossing it over the wall for dead. Any
| misconception you have that it's because they're super
| swell people should be slapped right outta you if it's
| there.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Any misconception you have that it's because they're
| super swell people should be slapped right outta you if
| it's there.
|
| The idea that businesses have to be super swell people is
| what should be removed. Businesses doing things for money
| is good. Just as employees don't work for them because
| _they 're_ super swell people. You just shouldn't be
| thinking this way.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| I think the point of releasing Go (they were already
| using it internally before) was just to get free labor to
| help expand and improve it. They simply had nothing to
| gain from keeping it private.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Google is "giving away" Go in order to get en ecosystem,
| which means they can offload training to a community and
| maybe even get code from external.
|
| They give away Chrome for spreading it and giving them
| control over web standards.
|
| AT&T gives UNIX away as they have no revenue stream on
| top of it and it being research.
|
| Google isn't giving out their research work.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 1913 Kingsbury Commitment
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
|
| 1956 Consent Decree https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/
| files/how_antitrust...
|
| In both, ATT essentially traded government blessing of
| monopoly in core markets (long distance telecommunications)
| for agreeing not to expand into other markets (e.g. Western
| Union money transfers and telecom equipment).
|
| And side point, ATT R&D (~1910 to 1925, later named Bell
| Labs) was originally funded after the company almost imploded
| due to short-sighted profit maximization at the expense of
| customer satisfaction / service quality.
|
| I think it's interesting to imagine what a Google-thats-only-
| search or a Meta-thats-only-social look like, similarly
| plowing their profits into independent research labs, but
| without funneling them throughout the for-profit octopus
| conglomerates they are now.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| Thanks for that. It should be noted that these two cases
| you provided and the third case that split up AT&T are all
| not true regulations but were either consent agreements
| which is a court facilitated settlement or fully out of
| court settlements. I was only aware of the last case that
| split up AT&T so I thought GGP was referring to a real
| regulation that was later removed which I had never heard
| of.
| dpe82 wrote:
| That's a distinction without a difference; the consent
| agreements and cases arose _as a result of_ antitrust
| regulations.
|
| What has changed since then are the legal theories of
| when and how to apply antitrust regulations. The law as
| written has not changed, but the way it's enforced (or
| not) certainly has.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| The consent agreements are agreements between the
| government and AT&T. They arose because neither side
| wanted to find out if AT&T was breaking antitrust law. So
| that the consent agreements and cases arose as a result
| of antitrust regulations is true. But when you say "the
| legal theories of when and how to apply antitrust
| regulations" has changed, that is not supported by the
| consent agreement because those agreements are not
| enforcements of antitrust regulations. Similarly when you
| say "the law as written has not changed, but the way it's
| enforced" has, that is also not correct in this case
| because the consent agreements/settlements are not
| enforcements of laws. I suppose you can argue that if the
| AT&T case happened today that AT&T would be more likely
| not to settle because they would feel that they are more
| likely to win because legal theories have changed. That
| is in any event it is a different matter than your claim
| about the enforcement of antitrust laws which did not
| occur in the case of AT&T. Also note that Kodak was
| decided in 1992 and is still considered good law. In that
| case the court found that Kodak was in violation of
| antitrust law. And that case is still essentially the
| basis for most (all?) antitrust cases that have been
| brought to court since then. For example the recent Epic
| vs. Apple case was just about how to define the
| foremarket and aftermarket for the variously tied
| products in the iPhone (like Appstores and operating
| systems). Nobody has argued that Kodak itself is invalid
| due to a change in legal theory. You may see a difference
| in that the government sued a large company in the past
| but hasn't done so recently and I think that is true. But
| your claim that it is due to a change in legal theory or
| enforcement of law is not necessarily true. None of the
| large tech companies today are nearly as dominant in
| their markets as AT&T was. The company which most closely
| resembles AT&T in market control is probably Google in
| ads but even then it's not even close to what AT&T was
| doing which was complete control over all US telephone
| lines _and_ on the phones themselves with explicit
| contractual agreements that you could not try to make
| your own phone and use their existing network. I imagine
| that would violate the law that came out of Kodak by a
| large margin and had AT &T existed in the same way today
| it would certainly be sued by the US government _and
| lose_.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > So that the consent agreements and cases arose as a
| result of antitrust regulations is true. But when you say
| "the legal theories of when and how to apply antitrust
| regulations" has changed, that is not supported by the
| consent agreement because those agreements are not
| enforcements of antitrust regulations.
|
| You seem to be implying complete independence between
| something being _the results of_ antitrust regulations,
| _the results of the enforcement_ of antitrust
| regulations, or _the consequences of theories of how when
| to enforce_ antitrust regulations. For people who
| speculate that these three things might be related to
| each other, your argument will not work.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| It was the result of antitrust regulations only inasmuch
| as it caused the government to begin legal proceedings
| against AT&T. It isn't the result of antitrust
| regulations in the legal sense, just the result of those
| antitrust regulations existing because had they not
| existed then there would be no case against AT&T and
| therefore no settlement. But those results were not an
| instance of antitrust regulation legally occurring.
| Certainly not within the sense I initially referred to it
| which was a regulation such that it could still be used
| today ("I thought GGP was referring to a real regulation
| that was later removed"). We can call the AT&T case a
| "one time regulation" in that it is not a law but was
| still carried out by the government even if technically
| optionally accepted by AT&T. But this is certainly
| different from a "real" regulation which is a written
| rule that takes affect every time the conditions of the
| rule are met, which was not the case in AT&T.
| adamlett wrote:
| Thank you for taking the time to write such a long and
| informative reply. I found it enlightening.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| What technologies are we expecting to be open sourced from
| those companies?
| AnarchismIsCool wrote:
| IOS would be cool...
|
| IMessage?
|
| Basically everything?
|
| That would be a strict improvement for humanity over the
| current state of affairs.
| adventured wrote:
| > Basically everything?
|
| Anything large and successful in the US economy should be
| forced into the public domain. /s
|
| When do we break up ASML and Taiwan Semiconductor and force
| them to give all of their technology to the US with no
| compensation? They're large, successful, de facto
| monopolies. All of their IP should be forced into the
| public domain across the board.
|
| The US needs to start hitting ASML with massive fines. 1/4
| of their earnings perpetually should be a good start.
|
| We should also very clearly be allowed to utilize all
| trademarks for any purpose and at any time, since we're
| obliterating intellectual property. I should be free to use
| the BMW and Mercedes names for anything I like, including
| in the auto sector to compete with them. They should not be
| allowed to have a monopoly over those brands, it restricts
| competition.
| restalis wrote:
| Well, the U.S. _did_ intervened (through the Dutch
| government) in the ASML business, hurting their sales
| already, with no (disclosed) compensation.
| hgomersall wrote:
| All IP is a deal with society. If it's not serving
| society, the rules should be changed. In trademarks, the
| benefit is very clear - consumers do no do well from an
| entity passing off their product as someone else's.
| verticalscaler wrote:
| I like this story. Nay, I love this story. But it is a just-so
| story.
|
| None of the regulators had a clue it would go this way, it is a
| lot of magical historical accidents, and there is no reason to
| think interference _guarantees_ positive outcomes.
|
| For example, HN seems to bristle at the subject of AI
| regulation as a game incumbents play that hews towards
| regulatory capture.
|
| Apple is clearly in the wrong here but how to best untangle
| things is not trivial.
| asddubs wrote:
| in this case the market is already captured anyway, though.
| Even microsoft couldn't pierce it.
| CharlesW wrote:
| The market was considered captured when Apple and Google
| entered the market in 2007-2008, too.
|
| The reality is that nothing prevents a new entrant from
| gaining marketshare, especially considering that the vast
| majority of apps people use every day are associated with
| services not created by Apple. I wouldn't want to, but I
| could move to Android tomorrow with relatively little
| friction.
| realusername wrote:
| > The reality is that nothing prevents a new entrant from
| gaining marketshare
|
| Nothing except banking apps, messaging apps and
| government apps...
|
| You either support the only semi open standard of apps
| being Android or your phone cannot succeed outside of
| some developer tool.
| verticalscaler wrote:
| Exactly. But if we suddenly transition to a "recompile to
| webassembly and ship it as web app" world I assure you
| $99 ($0 profit) phones will suffice for 90%+ of users.
|
| It will take a very long time but that will be the
| inevitable result.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _You either support the only semi open standard of apps
| being Android or your phone cannot succeed outside of
| some developer tool._
|
| (1) iPhone and Android had exactly the same problem when
| they launched. (2) Web apps are a thing. (3) This problem
| would still exist if iOS didn't exist.
|
| Again, in 2006 "smartphone" meant Nokia, Blackberry, and
| Palm. There's simply no such thing as a "captured" market
| when it comes to consumer goods.
| realusername wrote:
| > (1) iPhone and Android had exactly the same problem
| when they launched.
|
| Sure, competitors could have started in 2009, too bad
| it's 2024 though now.
|
| Anyway, the proof is in the pudding, there's no
| competitor in the past 10 years despite a big revenue
| potential, that's the reason.
|
| > (2) Web apps are a thing.
|
| They aren't good enough, and if they were don't worry
| every company would try to avoid paying the high store
| tax. (Hence why it's not going to happen)
|
| > (3) This problem would still exist if iOS didn't exist.
|
| Yes, that's why we need open standards to lower the
| barrier of competition.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Sure, competitors could have started in 2009, too bad
| it 's 2024 though now._
|
| You may be missing the point, which is that today's Apple
| and Google are as "permanently" entrenched as Nokia,
| Blackberry, and Palm were back in the day. That is to
| say, not at all.
|
| > _Yes, that 's why we need open standards to lower the
| barrier of competition._
|
| Many open-source alternatives to iOS and Android have
| tried and failed to compete. For better or worse, this
| doesn't appear to matter to mainstream buyers.
| realusername wrote:
| You're going in circles, we don't need to speculate, we
| know that no competitor can emerge because they don't
| despite a huge revenue potential in this sector.
|
| The proof is in the pudding as I said anyways, I'll
| believe there's competition in the mobile space when I'll
| see it. For now it all looks like it's impossible due to
| blockers like the apps and others.
|
| And yeah maybe smartphones will become obsolete but I'm
| not going to count on it.
| paganel wrote:
| Splitting up needs to happen for big and monopolistic US
| companies, no ifs, no buts. That is if they still want to keep
| a technological edge in the next 10-15 years.
|
| I personally don't think that the forced split-up will happen,
| the direct interests involved are too big for that to have any
| chance of success, but it's the only way forward for the US as
| a whole (when it comes to IT).
| gwright wrote:
| Any particular reason you are picking on US companies? or big
| companies?
|
| Most, if not all, monopolies are sustained by government via
| laws, regulations, and so on. So let's get specific, which
| monopolies do you think should be forced to split up and we
| can test that theory and see if we can identify what
| government actions sustain the monopoly.
| tmccrary55 wrote:
| The three big app stores are based on the west coast US.
| toyg wrote:
| Apple, Google, and... ?
|
| If you include Steam, we need to include XBox, Nintendo,
| and Playstation too; I would expect they're not too
| different in size.
|
| But yes, the status quo needs shaking up unless we really
| want to live in digital neofeudalism.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Microsoft? They have a billion users.
|
| Or maybe Amazon which has a decent sized Android app
| store.
| WWLink wrote:
| Having the OS, the hardware, and the app store, along with
| a lot of the (almost mandatory) cloud services AND the most
| popular apps, all made by the same company.
| khazhoux wrote:
| iCloud is in no way mandatory
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Then why does my phone constantly scream at me like it
| is?
| urda wrote:
| - It literally does not scream at you.
|
| - No, iCloud is not required to use an iPhone, this is
| fact.
| khazhoux wrote:
| All I know is that I have it disabled on my phone except
| for the couple of services I do want (like Find My), and
| it works fine. My photos get backed up using Google
| Photos app, etc
| harkinian wrote:
| I think if you turn it off entirely, it'll ask you once
| for each OS update if you want to sign in, which isn't
| too bad.
|
| When it really screams is if you log into iCloud then
| forget your password and it keeps asking you to input it.
| Like with every elderly member of my extended family.
| harkinian wrote:
| For a smartphone, I can pick between 2-3 (depending how
| you count) major OSes, tons of different hardware vendors
| for the non-Apple ones, one app store if it's Apple or
| any source if it's not, whichever cloud any third-party
| app uses or no cloud if I desire, and a lot of popular
| third-party alternatives to the native apps.
|
| All that choice is already there, just for a phone.
| Previously you'd choose a flip-phone and have it all
| locked together, including with the carrier.
| crotchfire wrote:
| > _allowed_ them to split up (Baby Bells)
|
| That's some pretty baldfaced revisionism you've got going on
| there.
|
| They were _ordered_ to do this by a court:
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=120938923478579...
| adventured wrote:
| It's particularly egregious given AT&T fought an infamously
| protracted legal battle against the United States Government
| to try to avoid being forced to be broken up (entirely
| against their will). They exhausted a lot of money and time
| trying to avoid the scenario the op is claiming they were
| trying to intentionally execute.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I thought it was pretty obvious that they weren't taking
| AT&T's side in that comment.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The comments you are responding to aren't referencing
| AT&T as egregious, but the misrepresentation of AT&T's
| intentions, given that AT&T desired the polar opposite of
| what the court ordered them to do, which was to split up.
| The above commenter was trying to portray AT&T as getting
| their way by splitting up, as if that was their devious
| intention all along.
| satellite2 wrote:
| I have a hard time parsing the position of the comment in
| question. As if _allowed_ was just an unfortunate choice
| of word.
| ho_schi wrote:
| Thanks for your comment. Maybe I'm wrong in that part. Your
| link sadly doesn't work and shows an 404. I'm a little
| confused because the Wikipedia says: AT&T
| itself recommended a divestiture structure in which it would
| be broken up into regional subsidiaries.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T_(1982)
| alacritas0 wrote:
| the link is working for me. it's showing a court opinion
| ho_schi wrote:
| Still :( Google Scholar 404.
| That's an error. Sorry, no content found
| for this URL That's all we know.
| bdcravens wrote:
| This is getting caught by your parents and responding when
| they ask you to name your punishment. It was hardly
| voluntary.
| harkinian wrote:
| I don't think the smartphone market is that consequential
| either way. It's a mature and played out end-user product
| already, not comparable to the early AT&T. If Apple could
| somehow be forced to properly support third-party app stores
| then so what. Forcing full PWA support would be much better,
| but still. I don't think it'd usher in some tech boom or
| meaningfully help consumers.
|
| Personally, I don't fw apps anyway so whatever. Even if the
| govt wants to force iPhones to be like shitty Android then
| that's alright, I'll keep my old iPhone then deal with it when
| needed.
| factormeta wrote:
| >Forcing full PWA support would be much better, but still.
|
| Yup. Allow index db persistence, and push notification for
| PWA + WASAM support in mobile safari should do it.
| harkinian wrote:
| Probably just a more visible "install" button would
| eliminate the need for half of native apps. I've tried
| doing a PWA before, and despite iPhones having all the
| right capabilities for it (they even support push now),
| users were totally confused installing a PWA in the first
| place.
|
| Beyond that, in theory, very few things _need_ to be native
| apps if OS-makers really wanted to embrace PWAs. WASM and
| all that, and equally importantly, access to more native
| APIs.
| saurik wrote:
| I think people could have said the same thing about the phone
| network, because it wasn't obvious what they were missing:
| everyone already had a phone, after all, and they worked just
| fine; I guess we could open it up so more people could make
| phones but do you really think that is going to change the
| world? Turns out it did, and it shouldn't be lost that Apple
| is a beneficiary of this... imagine if they, at best, had to
| pay AT&T a 30% "core technology fee" on their sales of
| iPhones because the iPhone was using the phone network or, at
| worst, were simply never allowed to make a phone at all.
| Apple controlling what is viable to release and then making
| it 30% more expensive is absolutely having massive effects on
| the market and is slowing down innovation, whether you see it
| or not (and even if it somehow in a crazy turn of events
| actually didn't, we should still want our price break from
| real competition).
| gigatexal wrote:
| I dunno. Do you really fault Apple for wanting to hold onto
| their vice grip of the AppStore that gives them license to
| print money at ridiculous margins? I mean, their better angels
| would have them be so confident in the value of their own store
| that they'd allow other stores to compete on the merits but
| honestly ... if we were Tim Cook or in charge of Apple I think
| we'd all fight tooth-and-nail to keep this cash cow.
| robocat wrote:
| > license to print money
|
| They don't split out their profitability for the App store.
| Last time I tried to calculate it it was less than you might
| assume.
|
| Anyone have a good article/analysis of what % of Apple's
| profit comes from the App store tax? Ideally also with
| foremarket versus aftermarket?
| capitainenemo wrote:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-
| gross-s... "There are some exceptions to Apple's 30% cut of
| digital sales, and Apple's figures are rough, which means
| that Apple's App Store total sales is likely even higher.
| Sensor Tower, an app analytics firm, estimates that the App
| Store did $72.3 billion in sales 2020."
|
| So... 72 billion in 2020.. probably even more now.
| kennywinker wrote:
| $72.3B in sales, but given they get less than 30% of
| that, their cut is less than 21.7B. Put that in
| perspective of their total revenue of 294B that year the
| app store represents only ~7% of their total revenue. And
| I suspect the app store is actually a fairly costly
| business to run - a lot of effort goes into the decor of
| the walls around garden. I'm thinking app review, even
| content serving.
|
| Not arguing that it's not a profit center - but in
| perspective, I suspect apple's reasons for defending it
| are not primarily the direct financial benefits of it -
| it's probably mostly about the indirect benefits.
| gigatexal wrote:
| hmm yeah that's not a lot... maybe it is more about
| control than anything else
| gigatexal wrote:
| But according to my math it was 10> of their profits for
| that year. 7% of revenue for 10% of net income is pretty
| good imo.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| True... although hardware probably has far higher costs.
| I found a site giving apple's net profits for 2020 at $64
| billion. If their gross was $294B, that means their
| profit margin on average was 21% for their sales. If the
| app store is almost pure rent, and you are overestimating
| the costs of things like reviewing and it is only a few
| billion dollars to run, then it could have a far higher
| profit margin than everything else. Perhaps even 80 or
| 90%? If so, that $21.7 billion gross is almost pure
| profit and becomes something like a third of all their
| profits...
| capitainenemo wrote:
| oh... also the article does try to take into account the
| varying rates apple charges and notes that despite the
| exceptions the true figure is likely much closer to 30%
| than the lower rates.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > $72.3B in sales, but given they get less than 30% of
| that, their cut is less than 21.7B. Put that in
| perspective of their total revenue of 294B that year the
| app store represents only ~7% of their total revenue.
|
| If you have a company with a single line of business and
| they were to lose 7% of revenue that is going to be a
| large hit. There are many industries where that exceeds
| the entire profit margin of the company.
|
| But more than that, they don't have a single line of
| business. Suppose that a conglomerate the size of Apple
| had totally monopolized the world market for lithium
| mining. Well, that's a $350M/year industry -- it's barely
| 0.1% of Apple's revenue! Why should they even bother to
| monopolize it? The answer is, for the same reason anybody
| else would. Maybe the CEO of the conglomerate doesn't
| much care, but the head of the mining division cares
| about it a lot, and so do all of the customers in that
| industry. And antitrust violations in service of
| maintaining the monopoly are just as illegal and just as
| harmful whether it's a subsidiary of a conglomerate or an
| independent monopolist.
|
| Or to put it another way, 20 billion dollars is 20
| billion dollars. It motivates putting in 20 billion
| dollars worth of effort to hold onto it, regardless of
| what you're doing on the other side of the building.
|
| > And I suspect the app store is actually a fairly costly
| business to run - a lot of effort goes into the decor of
| the walls around garden. I'm thinking app review, even
| content serving.
|
| Content serving cost is negligible. Review could be
| arbitrarily expensive, but the experience of developers
| seems to imply that they're not spending a lot of
| resources being diligent about it -- policies applied
| inconsistently, updates often denied for indiscernible
| reasons etc. Reviewers seem to be only making a cursory
| inspection or relying on some kind of inadequate
| automated scanning tools.
|
| Moreover, they have each developer paying $100/year,
| which should cover that level of review on its own, if
| the goal was funding the reviews and not extracting
| rents. Their policies imply the reverse. If the goal was
| to cover reviews then apps with more downloads should
| have lower per-download fees, since the fixed cost of
| reviewing the app can be amortized over more units. And
| yet "subsidizing" small developers doesn't fit either,
| because if that was your goal the first thing you'd do is
| stop charging $100/year to hobbyists and side projects
| with little or no revenue.
|
| What they appear to be doing is providing a "discount" to
| hardly anyone. They continue extracting $100/year from
| the long tail of small timers who aren't making any
| money, continue extracting 30% from anyone who actually
| succeeds, but get to put "15%" in their PR knowing that
| the eligible people only represent a tiny proportion of
| their collections.
|
| > I suspect apple's reasons for defending it are not
| primarily the direct financial benefits of it - it's
| probably mostly about the indirect benefits.
|
| Which are also an issue, e.g. by thwarting competition
| between browser engines.
| gigatexal wrote:
| 30% on in-game tokens has got to be > 90% margins...
| jprd wrote:
| ..no? I guess that means I'll never be Tim Cook and might
| have morals, but it just reeks of craven profiteering.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| The benefit of the app store isn't money. It's the security
| of the ecosystem. 3rd party apps will begin a race to the
| bottom of fly-by-night iOS developers in it for a fast buck
| with no qualms about advertising and data trafficking. Before
| long we end up with what is seen in the Android system.
| malermeister wrote:
| Despite all the FUD, Android is just fine. I've been using
| it for more than a decade now and rarely ever had issues.
| It's all just Apple propaganda.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I mean...is the situation on Android you describe anything
| to do with third-party app stores and sideloading? Because
| my understanding was that, despite there being very few
| hoops to jump through, the only time the vast majority of
| users even consider stepping out of the Play Store is to
| install apps to let them stream pirated movies.
|
| Moreover, Apple's App Store is _already_ filled with race-
| to-the-bottom, shady shit. Apps with bait weekly
| subscriptions and bald-faced knock-offs are highlighted in
| tech news and on social media all the time. That 's what
| makes their attitude and arguments all the more galling
| here: they are doing a really lousy job keeping their own
| store a safe and reputable place.
|
| The only thing they seem to do a good job with is
| legitimate malware, and I suspect that's mostly because the
| OS is so locked down and because they scan for use of non-
| public APIs.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Developers outside the official store will price undercut
| those within the store. Legit developers will be forced
| to leave, fold, and/or adopt the shady data practices of
| the fly-by-nighters. Eventually the official store will
| be shadow of its former self.
|
| Well heeled consumers will respond by being reluctant to
| put sensitive personal information on their phones. The
| entire ecosystem suffers, and phones, instead of becoming
| trusted personal devices, remain the purview of games,
| emails, and fart apps. Everyone suffers, especially
| developers.
|
| You guys, above all others, want people to put more
| personal info on their phones, not less.
| 1317 wrote:
| sounds like an ideal outcome, honestly
| j4hdufd8 wrote:
| > Before long we end up with what is seen in the Android
| system.
|
| Please elaborate what is seen in the Android system.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| What is seen in the Android system? What's wrong with it?
| Been using Android phones for about 8 years with no
| problems.
| dang wrote:
| (We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39679103)
| bilekas wrote:
| > We're providing more flexibility for developers who distribute
| apps in the European Union (EU), including introducing a new way
| to distribute apps directly from a developer's website.
|
| They make it sounds like they're being super generous and they've
| gone out of their way to provide this 'cool new innovation' for
| us out of their own desire to give back to their customers.
|
| You have to really appreciate the spin and shamelessness of some
| of the large companies. It's genuinely humorous.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| "We're happy to announce the door lock we built now accepts
| coins"
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| or
|
| "We made available for succesful developers a new multi stage
| door lock. Don't worry, it accepts coins, as the "more secure
| branded door"
| pndy wrote:
| The dichotomy of how real world looks and functions and how it
| does according to the big corpos is astonishing and terrifying.
| And this is the yet another example - there's no failure in
| this rose-tinted corporate world, just a minor difficulty which
| will be portrayed as a success.
|
| Honestly, I'm surprised Apple didn't come up with the overused
| standard reply #1: " _We are excited to announce (...)_ ", or
| the standard reply #2: " _We 've been working hard making XYZ
| experience better for you (...)_"
| coolspot wrote:
| Ok folks, how can we get copy of this DMA thing in the USA?
|
| P.S. Apple stockholders downvoting me, lol
| weberer wrote:
| Step 1 would be to identify those in government who accept
| lobbying from Apple.
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/summary?id=D00002...
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| You misspelled bribes
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| 50 cents an install over 1 million downloads? Every year?
|
| Is Apple trying to get fined? They're not even hiding the fact
| they're maliciously complying.
|
| For one, this makes deploying a free app on an alternative store
| (that becomes popular) simply impossible? I highly doubt that was
| the EU's intent.
|
| Usually with malicious compliance you can at least see the logic
| for a future legal case. Here, if they were trying to lose a
| future case I don't think you could do worse.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >For one, this makes deploying a free app on an alternative
| store (that becomes popular) simply impossible?
|
| You can monetize it with in app payments or ads such that
| wealthy people subsidize other users.
|
| If the app is from a nonprofit they can get the fee waived.
| fsniper wrote:
| This is asking some wealthier users to subsidize Apple, not
| other users.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| Or, and hear me out on this, maybe I want to make useful apps
| that don't data mine their users and I also would like not to
| take donations. This is a valid want to have (and I honestly
| can't believe you would suggest to 'just' sell out your
| users) and it would take a single app getting popular (or
| apple just straight up lying, I would have no way of
| verifying their count) to wipe out all of my capital.
|
| It's 'nice' that there exists options to pay for the fee, but
| realistically the fee shouldn't exist, and it is also
| illegal.
| its_ethan wrote:
| Lucky for you, you are still able to distribute your free
| app for free on the Apple App Store. No surprise costs if
| your app becomes incredibly popular, and better still-
| that's where the vast majority of people will continue to
| go for getting new apps (regardless of this legislation) so
| it's free exposure for you as well.
| conradfr wrote:
| It was never free as it's 99EUR per year anyway.
| hexfish wrote:
| Aren't you still going to be paying that Core Technology
| fee once your FOSS non-profit app gets popular? I guess
| you would have to get that waiver but that's far from
| trivial[1], especially for an individual that just likes
| to publish an FOSS/free-as-in-beer app out of kindness.
|
| [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-waiver/
| its_ethan wrote:
| If you're distributing your free app through the Apple
| App Store, no you wouldn't ever pay a core technology
| fee, even if you had a billion downloads.. it's a fee
| only for apps distributed by third party app stores.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Not every app needs monetization. And it's not exactly like
| 'just publish on the regular app store' is a fantastic
| option, since that still requires you to pay a developer fee.
|
| I shouldn't have to register as a non profit so I can release
| a hacker news reader app for free...
| arminluschin wrote:
| Genuinely curious: people throw around the term ,,malicious
| compliance" a lot. It seems the platform fee is explicitly
| allowed by the DMA, so Apple demands it. Again, I am not trying
| to troll but what would ,,benevolent compliance" look like and
| what would Apple's incentive be to give up the fee?
| internetter wrote:
| > It seems the platform fee is explicitly allowed by the DMA,
| so Apple demands it.
|
| What's your source on this?
| user_7832 wrote:
| Not sure where you're getting the info on platform fees
| (copilot didn't know either) but I'd assume you need to offer
| at least one way to install your apps without this fee.
| zilti wrote:
| At this point, I want to see a responsible person at Apple
| getting a literal fucking slap in the face for all that shit
| this company pulls off.
| lawlessone wrote:
| >Web Distribution, available with a software update later this
| spring, will let authorized developers distribute their iOS apps
| to EU users directly from a website owned by the developer.
|
| Hmmmm, these feels like its still just apple controlling it.
| rchaud wrote:
| Apple policies sound more and more like those of a Homeowners'
| Association with each passing day.
| yashu wrote:
| Yashu
| justinclift wrote:
| Sounds like a start. Now, get rid of the damn per-install fee.
| sidcool wrote:
| People like to crap on EU for decel and regulation. But it's
| needed in some aspects.
| justinclift wrote:
| What's "decel"?
| user_7832 wrote:
| "decelerationist" apparently.
|
| > "Decel" is a derogatory slang word used by the e/acc
| community.
|
| From https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/dont-be-a-decel
| justinclift wrote:
| Thanks. :)
| tr33house wrote:
| Wow! Apple does Apple again. Just carved the exception to the EU
| market. I was hoping these pushes would stir changes across the
| globe but I guess the market size is too big especially the US
| market
| solarkraft wrote:
| Looks like the DMA is a complete failure considering that the
| gatekeeper is still involved in the distribution process at all.
|
| You see what they'll do when they're allowed to do that.
|
| Apple's compliance will always be malicious, so the law may under
| no circumstance allow them to do that.
| risho wrote:
| if the eu hits them with enough billion dollar fines eventually
| they will comply. apple can avoid this by complying the first
| time, but if they want to give away 10 billion dollars before
| coming into compliance i'm more than okay with that.
| latexr wrote:
| That "complete failure" has already made Apple backtrack on
| their plans multiple times. It's absurd, given what has
| happened in the last few weeks, to think everything is going to
| stay exactly as is.
| isodev wrote:
| Tell me you don't want to comply with the DMA without saying you
| don't want to comply with the DMA.
| tombert wrote:
| It baffles the mind that having exactly one marketplace with
| rent-seeking level fees that neither users nor developers can opt
| out of doesn't violate some kind of antitrust law in the United
| States.
|
| Though it looks like the EU iPhone users are only in a marginally
| better position.
| Terretta wrote:
| Tell your mind it's an appliance/console.* Still baffled?
| Because nobody seems baffled they can't run arbitrary software
| on their Amazon Echo Show, AppleTV, Xbox, Playstation, or
| Switch.
|
| * If your mind is struggling with this, you might need a
| _bicycle for the mind_ to help. ;-) But seriously, Apple 's
| brand and value prop since original Mac has been to toasterize
| compute and make it friendly approachable and non-fiddly for
| normals. If you're bent about this, it's a values alignment
| issue. And Apple should have a right to have a brand
| proposition that sets them apart from the majority of PDAs,
| STBs, and PCs.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't really know that I agree with the analogy.
|
| Yes, you're kind of right, I don't really have a problem with
| not being able to easily sideload stuff on my oven or
| dishwasher, despite the fact that they technically have
| computers in them. They are highly specific, single-purpose
| things and sideloading Doom on there doesn't really make
| sense.
|
| Even a game console is still more or less single purpose
| (though that line is being blurred). Historically I don't do
| much on my console _other than playing games_ , though now
| I'd argue that that's not necessarily true, since people
| install a lot of apps in the marketplace (e.g. Netflix). I
| _do_ have a problem with Apple TV 's being locked down, which
| is why I didn't purchase one. I use Nvidia Shield TVs,
| largely so that I could sideload ScummVM without any kind of
| jailbreaking nonsense.
|
| However, I'd argue that a smartphone/tablet is different.
| This isn't the 90's; you use your "phone" for a lot more than
| taking calls. I have an SSH client, a git client, word
| processing, web browsing, nearly everything that a 90's-era
| computer could do on my iPhone; if we're going to say that
| Microsoft Windows is "general purpose", then iOS/iPadOS
| qualifies as well. We took Microsoft to court for
| anticompetitive practices, particularly in regards to the
| inability to install third-party browsers.
|
| You can't really install third party browsers on iOS either.
| You can install Firefox or Chrome on there (and I do), but
| they're just frontends for iOS's internal Webkit engine.
|
| So I don't know that the appliance comparison works. iPhones
| are (purposefully) not single-purpose. They're computers.
| its_ethan wrote:
| The way that an iPhone is different from a Nintendo Switch
| is arbitrary though.
|
| If you're talking about changing laws it'd be nice to have
| more of a defense than "this computer we call a phone
| should be treated differently than the computer we call a
| Gameboy".
|
| Without some clear and useable definitions, there's no
| precedents that can be set and leveraged. You will also, by
| necessity, require bureaucratic bloat to decide what counts
| and what doesn't for every device moving forward. At best,
| this is a slow process that delays innovation and reduces
| availability for users.
| tombert wrote:
| Sure, but we draw distinctions like that all the time.
| There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and
| "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally
| pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered
| transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone
| lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both
| carry electric current. We draw distinctions between
| "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are
| made the same way.
|
| I'd argue that while there isn't a hard line in the sand,
| we more or less define "computer" as something that's
| "general purpose". I don't consider my oven a "computer",
| I don't consider my digital COVID test a computer, I
| don't consider my key fob a computer. I _do_ consider my
| Macbook a computer, because I do a lot of dissimilar
| things with it; I write documents, I watch videos, I
| listen to music, I play games, I log into servers, I VoIP
| chat with friends, I edit video, etc. I don 't think
| anyone disputes that a Macbook is a "computer"; if
| nothing else all of that applies to Linux and Windows as
| well.
|
| You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all
| those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of
| those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy.
|
| Of course, admittedly I'm kind of moving the goalpost,
| because of course the line of "general purpose" is kind
| of arbitrary; the Gameboy _did_ have a camera, the
| Gameboy Advance had a TV Tuner and MP3 player, so you 're
| absolutely right that it would require some kind of
| bureaucratic overhead to define what "general purpose"
| even means, and moreover the second that they have a
| definition the companies will use that as a guide to
| narrowly skirt it and therefore avoid regulation.
|
| I don't know the solution, but I do know that it feels a
| bit dirty for Apple to feel entitled to so much money
| when they're not even the ones distributing the apps at
| that point. People gave so much shit to Unity for their
| idiotic "install fee", but people have become bizarrely
| defensive of Apple for doing basically the same thing.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes"
| and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're
| nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered
| transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone
| lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both
| carry electric current. We draw distinctions between
| "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are
| made the same way.
|
| But there a _technical differences_ between those classes
| of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily. A
| motorcycle has more than a certain amount of power. A
| "power line" carries a voltage which is too high to be
| considered "intrinsically safe". Alcohol has intoxicating
| effects, while bread does not.
|
| What is the difference between an iPhone and a Switch? We
| _call_ one a phone and the other a game. If I made an
| Android phone with less computing power than a switch,
| can I call it a game? Or is it still a phone?
|
| > You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do
| all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of
| those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy.
|
| But that is only because Nintendo doesn't allow it.
| There's no technical reason a Switch can't be a phone.
| Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just
| "dirty vibes"? That's not how the law is supposed to
| work.
| tombert wrote:
| > But there a technical differences between those classes
| of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily.
|
| Sure, but that's a matter of degree, not kind. We're kind
| of arbitrarily (as you stated) decided "what horsepower
| constitutes a motorcyle?"
|
| Similarly, I don't know that there's a definite line of
| "intrinsically safe" for electricty; I've been shocked by
| my 120V AC in my house and lived to tell the tale, so
| does that imply it's safe? I don't think so, people die
| from 120VAC shocks all the time; It's still a somewhat
| arbitrary line.
|
| I'll admit that the bread analogy does break down,
| because bread doesn't make you drunk, there actually is
| small amounts of alcohol in bread [0], though I'm not
| sure that you could actually get drunk from it no matter
| how much you ate.
|
| > But that is only because Nintendo doesn't allow it.
| There's no technical reason a Switch can't be a phone.
| Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just
| "dirty vibes"? That's not how the law is supposed to
| work.
|
| I did caveat in a previous post that game consoles kind
| of blur the line for me. You could probably convince me
| that they should allow alternative app stores. At least
| with video games, I feel there's a bit more competition
| than "smartphones", since you have large offerings from
| around six platforms instead of two (Nintendo, Microsoft
| Xbox, Microsoft Windows (which requires no license!),
| Sony PlayStation, iOS, Android (plus all the other
| rebrands of Android that are independently run)).
|
| We do have legal precedent for this in some capacity [1].
| The courts felt that Microsoft was abusing its power by
| making it difficult/impossible to install alternative
| browsers inside Microsoft Windows. The initial ruling
| ended up with Microsoft being ordered to split up, but
| this was admittedly overturned.
|
| I realize it's not apples to apples; iOS doesn't have the
| monopoly on the ARM that Windows had on x86 in the 90's
| (you are, after all, perfectly free to buy an Android
| phone instead of an iPhone and your life probably won't
| be appreciably hindered), but it does seem like the
| courts do have some issues with operating systems
| companies abusing power.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1709087/
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micros
| oft_Cor....
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > We're kind of arbitrarily (as you stated) decided "what
| horsepower constitutes a motorcyle?"
|
| Ok, let's apply that definition. Why is an iPhone SE (17
| TFLOPS) a general purpose computer, but an PS5 (20
| TFLOPS) isn't?
|
| > Similarly, I don't know that there's a definite line of
| "intrinsically safe" for electricty
|
| Less than 50 volts in every jurisdiction I'm aware of.
| Now you do.
|
| > there actually is small amounts of alcohol in bread
|
| Doesn't matter. You will get sick and puke before you
| consume enough alcohol from bread to make you drunk. You
| cannot get drunk from bread.
|
| > You could probably convince me that they should allow
| alternative app stores. At least with video games, I feel
| there's a bit more competition than "smartphones
|
| So there's nothing intrinsic to a switch that makes it a
| game and not a phone.
|
| > The courts felt that Microsoft was abusing its power
|
| Microsoft had over 90% market share (real, global market
| share, not bullshit "market share of computers running
| windows") when that determination was made. Apple has
| about 30% in Europe.
| smoldesu wrote:
| With fairness to the Nintendo Switch, you can currently
| load LineageOS on it just fine using Nvidia-provided
| drivers:
| https://wiki.switchroot.org/wiki/android/11-r-setup-guide
|
| Nintendo might not be happy about it, but the only person
| stopping you from using a Switch like a phone is you.
| You're absolutely correct, besides the lack of WWAN modem
| the Switch is indeed technically capable of being a
| phone.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| No one cares about these devices. If you care, feel free to
| lobby for some regulation to address this. I doubt you'll
| face much opposition from people who want to install
| arbitrary software on their iPhone.
| Ringz wrote:
| We need Linux for smartphones.
| dang wrote:
| Related: https://developer.apple.com/news/ (via
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39678555, but we merged that
| thread hither)
| taylorbuley wrote:
| Finally something to level the playing field for the little
| guys... of over 1M annual downloads.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Whats most annoying is that Apple pioneered the idea of PWAs
| going all the way back to Steve Jobs. I have said many times Tim
| Cook is a good COO but Apple needs a visionary who wants to
| innovate. It feels like Apples innovations are not where they
| could be. They are making some amazing things here and there, but
| I can only imagine they would be far more innovative with a
| different CEO.
| henry2023 wrote:
| At this point the only entente that could make our devices more
| repairable is the EU. Easy Screen, Battery, and SSD replacements
| should be mandatory for every desktop computer, laptop, and phone
| goblin89 wrote:
| As a user, I cannot recommend iPhone to my older relatives if
| there is a way to run arbitrary code beyond Safari's JS sandbox.
| Simple as that.
|
| It is a nuanced question with a computer[0], but for a phone
| (increasingly used for more important transactions and sensitive
| private data by people more naive when it comes to security) it
| is simply a no-brainer.
|
| Unless cyber crime is prosecuted as robustly as robberies, I
| _want_ this kind of jail to constrain the device. Believe it or
| not, it is a feature.
|
| [0] I do run arbitrary code on my MBP, but then _I am a dev_ who
| writes code. And, being that, I recently re-enabled the warning
| for running non-app-store apps on my Mac--I consider myself
| proficient enough, but perhaps that is exactly why I prefer
| having to go through an extra warning dialog if it helps reduce
| the attack surface.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I work across the street from a well-known security research
| group who has been on HN front page before.
|
| Every one of them uses iPhones because they cannot be rooted
| and are encrypted by default.
|
| Venn of old people and at least one group of security
| professionals.
| ianlevesque wrote:
| If you need to infantilize your relatives because they cannot
| be trusted with their devices, then MDM them, or even have that
| be the default. But we do not need to surrender in the war on
| general purpose computing for it.
| goblin89 wrote:
| > MDM them
|
| Many of us cannot afford the luxury of working overtime as
| tech support for relatives. I personally do not even think I
| can do a good enough job at that for myself, in fact--I would
| have to be a professional information security researcher.
|
| Furthermore, I am sure if there is enough misplaced outrage,
| MDM will be unable to restrict this.
|
| > But we do not need to surrender in the war on general
| purpose computing for it.
|
| Where is that war? General purpose computing is everywhere,
| with all of its associated benefits and liabilities[0].
|
| iOS has more or less been the only island where it is
| reliably not an option, that making it preferred for the
| reasons I mention.
|
| [0] How many of us literally airgap machines that run
| unvetted code (at least once you realize that all
| vitalization and containerization is circumventable), not
| letting any personal data on them? How feasible is that with
| a phone, and by an average person that is not exactly
| infosec-savvy but who is obligated to have a phone to simply
| get on with daily life?
| miggol wrote:
| What is your opinion on S-mode in Windows?
|
| I don't agree with the hyperbole of the person you're
| replying to. But I also don't think the possibility of fair
| competition is mutually excusive with the security of the
| vulnerable few.
|
| That's assuming that something like an opt-in lockdown mode
| is compatible with the DMA.
| badwolf wrote:
| Folks on this site vastly overestimate how much people who
| actually buy and use these devices care about literally any
| of the stuff being talked about in this thread.
|
| Apple's schtick was "It just works." that's what people like
| and want. They don't want to have to go thru and make
| choices, dig thru settings, install other app stores, explain
| to meemaw that the nice man cold-calling her telling her to
| install this special app isn't actually from the IRS coming
| to arrest her, etc...
|
| They just want it to work.
| ianlevesque wrote:
| Oh I agree that they don't care, but that doesn't mean that
| Apple isn't distorting the market in a way that some of us,
| the very technologists building the next round of
| innovation, find abhorrent. This is a case where the public
| can have it all. The defaults can be "it just works"
| without also ceding all control over who wins and loses and
| a significant chunk of revenue to Apple.
| aa_is_op wrote:
| Another case of malicious compliance from a big US corp that is
| accustomed to literally owning US lawmakers. Good bye! Another
| company I won't touch anymore.
| codedokode wrote:
| DMA is absolutely unfair. Why it doesn't include consoles? Why
| manufacturers are allowed to prevent users from running their
| software? And Apple isn't. Some animals are more equal than
| others?
|
| Also, it is notable how free market fails to solve the problem:
| almost 100% of consumers seem to not care about freedom to
| install any software on their devices.
| runjake wrote:
| One prerequisite is:
|
| "Be a member of good standing in the Apple Developer Program for
| two continuous years or more, and have an app that had more than
| one million first annual installs on iOS in the EU in the prior
| calendar year."
|
| The realistic part of me thinks this sounds like more resistance
| to the DMA.
|
| Another part of me thinks this will be good for security. Some
| random can't get a dev account and publish malware payloads on a
| hidden URL that will happily run on iOS devices, and are
| installed via a Safari zero day.
| ThouYS wrote:
| these zero days are already the status quo?!
| iamleppert wrote:
| At this point the EU just needs to shut them down completely, or
| make their business completely unviable.
| somat wrote:
| The whole app ecosystem(android and apple) is carefully
| constructed for maximum market owner value extraction, user value
| is a secondary consideration.
|
| Basically, it is what the web would look like if it were
| developed by corporate interests, conversely "apps" could have
| been a better designed web[1], but instead are this comparatively
| clunky gated process where you have to explicitly install the app
| first only then can you use it.
|
| 1. The web was designed to deliver pages, this was well designed,
| application like functionally grew organically afterwards and is
| quite the mess.
| cosmojg wrote:
| Oh, the tragedy of what could have been:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
| fsflover wrote:
| Mobian, PureOS and pmOS are here today. Sent from my Librem
| 5.
| umeshunni wrote:
| But that would have required someone other than Mozilla to
| run Firefox
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| To be fair, this evolved naturally.
|
| The TI calculators were progamable, my brother used those.
|
| Then the pocket pcs (windows ce) had 3rd party programs, those
| were distributed as files by the publisher. Program stores were
| webpages were people sold their files. I used the skyscape
| medical books; you installed the program as usual, then you
| bought a code specific for your version and file. All that done
| through a webpage
|
| Then we have android. Google had the Marketplace (now
| playstore) as we know it today, except packages didnt use
| google services to validate licenses, Many times it was just a
| package (a file) The main progress was ease of use.
|
| Then comes iOS and their extreme BS of not being able to
| "sideload" "apps" The store is no longer a convenience, it is a
| requirement. For your safety, of course. The main "progress"
| here is that they convinced many "Americans" that a commodity
| affordable phone with a painted cartoon of a bitten apple is
| "Exclusive", as VIP only. I compare it to the NFT phenomena,
| except the fruit cartoon did stick.
| redundantly wrote:
| > For your safety, of course.
|
| I know they have ulterior motives for their walled garden,
| but this is a product of said garden. The App Store is by far
| much safer to use than Google's Play Store. Plus the parental
| controls on android are essentially non-existent.
|
| I'm happy in this walled garden.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The premise of a walled garden is to keep unwanted things
| out, not to imprison you inside. Apple maintaining a store
| where they've vetted everything in it is fine, and if you
| like you can refuse to install anything from outside of it.
|
| That doesn't justify them _prohibiting_ you from installing
| anything from outside of it. It should be up to you.
|
| If you wanted to, you could even configure your phone to
| not add any new stores without a factory wipe. But maybe
| first you want to add in the repositories that have only
| free and open source software, or the stores of some
| respected game publishers who offer lower prices if you use
| their own stores for their games. And maybe the existence
| of these stores would encourage Apple to charge lower fees,
| and then you benefit from the lower fees even if you choose
| never to install anything from those stores, since your
| _option_ to exerts competitive pressure on the stores(s)
| you are willing to use.
| redundantly wrote:
| I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be opened up. I'm just
| stating that by being a walled garden it is safer.
|
| When things eventually open up, when Apple is finally
| forced to permit other app stores on their mobile
| devices, I'll take a hard pass on them.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Consider these two statements:
|
| 1) I happy having a walled garden, I feel safe
|
| 2) I am happy being imprisoned in a walled garden with no
| door, I feel safe
| beeboobaa wrote:
| > The App Store is by far much safer to use than Google's
| Play Store
|
| By what metric? The warm fuzzy in your stomach because you
| believe apple's bullshit? Have you actually used the play
| store? They are identical.
| celticninja wrote:
| Have you tried parental controls on Android or are you just
| taking out of the side of your mouth? I have parental
| controls for my kids android devices and it works
| exceptionally well. I am not dissing the apple version
| because I have not used it, and based on your comment I
| have to assume you have not used the android parent
| controls and are just needing to convince yourself that
| apple are better and the apple premium you are paying is
| worth it.
|
| Spoiler: it isn't.
| redundantly wrote:
| I have tried it. More than one phone from different
| carriers. The parental controls are lacking.
|
| It's been a couple of years since I've last tried, but
| given Google's history regarding subpar controls I doubt
| it has gotten appreciably better.
| celticninja wrote:
| What were the subpar controls? I use it daily for my kids
| so would genuinely like to know what you feel
| didn't/doesn't work because for the last 4 or 5 years I
| have never had one issue using it.
| celticninja wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
|
| So safe in this walled garden where Apple reviews all apps
| for user safety and security.
| redundantly wrote:
| I didn't claim that it's perfect, just that it's safer.
|
| Regarding smartphone safety, the only truly safe thing to
| do is not not use one at all.
| megous wrote:
| Based on something "real" like scam/fraud metrics, or just
| "this is what Tim Cook wants me to think"?
|
| Both stores are walled gardens.
|
| One onboarding experience:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 :-D
| MetaverseClub wrote:
| EU to take security risks on their own?
| noiseinvacuum wrote:
| Malicious compliance attempt number 2 from Apple. This is clearly
| not complaint with DMA and there's no way that Apple doesn't know
| that.
|
| The core issue is that Apple doesn't want to give away the
| absolute god-like control over how apps are distributed on iPhone
| and they can't be compliant until they let go. I am guessing this
| is going to get dragged on with 3rd version of Apple policies
| coming out soon after they get sent back to drawing board by EU.
| mrkramer wrote:
| This is win for Open Web.
| yungporko wrote:
| so there are zero situations where this could possibly be useful
| to anybody, nice. so glad we traded PWAs for this.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| PWA's were taken away as punishment.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| The amount of US attitude for the European market is staggering,
| and I'll be curious to see how many more fines they get for
| clearly and intentionally only doing the bare minimum required to
| be able to claim they're following regulations, with as many
| roadblocks as possible in place to make sure _just_ enough
| content passes the bar to go "see? we've done the thing".
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| It's so fucking embarrassing to be an Apple fan right now.
|
| At least Apple Silicon is amazing! Too bad about everything else!
| simonCGN wrote:
| That is a joke and not different than downloading it from an
| alternative App Store. Still has to go though Apple notorisation
| and pay the Apple Tech Fee/tax. No small dev can do that.
| causality0 wrote:
| Root access on personally owned devices in exchange for
| termination of warranty coverage should be a human right.
| grishka wrote:
| Why even terminate the warranty? It's is for the hardware. It's
| a law in many countries that the warranty still applies unless
| the manufacturer can prove that you yourself broke the device.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I'm willing to make a new phone that only runs code i approve,
| since iPhones can no longer support this maximum security use
| case. You must be a journalist or have production access to a
| F500 company's database (containing PII/PHI) to qualify to
| purchase the device; I'm sorry if you don't qualify, but I fear
| the EU might come and force me to break the device security
| simply if 'too many people' begin to use my device.
| askonomm wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get it either. All the Android fanboys seem to be
| wanting iOS to turn into Android for some reason (what, the
| blue bubble is so bad?) and I also don't understand how a
| company that isn't a monopoly (because there is in fact choice
| in the market) can be dictated to how they run their app
| distribution. That's akin to telling me, a software consultant,
| how I should do my software consulting. Maybe the EU will soon
| tell me what IDE I have to use or I will get fined. Maybe I
| have to start offering my services on some public forum where
| everybody can bid on my time equally.
| ghusto wrote:
| The EU shouldn't even bother reacting to this. Just wait out the
| clock, and start fining day by day for non-compliance. We'll see
| how many attempts it takes them then.
| TheArcane wrote:
| How does someone not in the EU get this?
|
| I wonder what Apple's line is to justify not making this open for
| everyone
| fstanis wrote:
| something something security
| okanat wrote:
| I think the main point is the theft protection and protection
| from state. The US and the UK's democratic systems are
| broken.
|
| In the US the social structure is slowly collapsing which
| increases theft and other petty crimes, at the same time the
| federal state has a huge surveillance power.
|
| Solving the societal and political problems so there is less
| incentive having your iPhone stolen is hard. Expecting a
| state-like company to benevolently save you is the way they
| cope.
|
| TBH without the EU, legislation like DMA would also be hard
| to come up with. The independent countries have less power to
| exert over American behemoths. This is the nice thing about
| EU.
| nightshadetrie wrote:
| I feel Apple is on panic mode trying to find a way to avoid
| opening up.
|
| They will most likely lose.
| ben_w wrote:
| So now we can apparently have arbitrary 3rd party malware on yet
| another platform (it's not going to get _less frequent_ by virtue
| of not being on the Apple App Store, is it?), who should I look
| to for decent, preferably also not battery killing, anti-virus
| software for iOS?
| brianwawok wrote:
| Why can't you pay your 30% for the App Store?
| ben_w wrote:
| Why do you think that response has anything to do with my
| question?
| j45 wrote:
| Oh wow. This would be great to have in North America because I
| own my phone and stuff.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-12 23:00 UTC)