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