EU Competition Chief all but confirmed Apple to be forced to allow 2nd App Store(patentlyapple.com)
patentlyapple.com
EU Competition Chief all but confirmed Apple to be forced to allow 2nd App Store
https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2021/06/eu-competition-chief-vestager-all-but-confirmed-that-apple-will-be-forced-to-allow-a-second-app-store-on-its-platform.html
11 comments
I like your solution better.
Another App Store protects commerce. But a lot of the arguments are about protecting consumers. Your solution empowers consumers to truly do what they want. Instead of doing what an arbitrary App Store allows.
Another App Store protects commerce. But a lot of the arguments are about protecting consumers. Your solution empowers consumers to truly do what they want. Instead of doing what an arbitrary App Store allows.
I don't think both are incompatible. The EU competition chief talks about preserving competition, digital rights are also defended by EU and may reach that point as well.
I would rather Apple just have to abide by some small changes to the current store:
1) Lower commission. I think even 15% would make almost everyone happy - Even Stripe will charge you 3% + 20p which is 23% on a $1 app!
2) No ban on telling customers they can subscribe a different way.
Just that probably solves 99% of objections.
1) Lower commission. I think even 15% would make almost everyone happy - Even Stripe will charge you 3% + 20p which is 23% on a $1 app!
2) No ban on telling customers they can subscribe a different way.
Just that probably solves 99% of objections.
In addition to what you listed, I would have liked to see something about Apple not getting special rules when it comes to their own apps. For example Spotify does not have to pay 30% since Apple has a competing music service.
Assume you are an owner of Apple stock and your networth depends on it.
What should Apple do to minimize your risk?
What should Apple do to minimize your risk?
Exactly what I just suggested.
Surely control of the AppStore (ie. no 2nd store owned by Epic) is massively preferable to Apple long term.
AppStore revenue isn't a massive part of their earnings. But control over their own hardware has to be right up there as a priority.
Surely control of the AppStore (ie. no 2nd store owned by Epic) is massively preferable to Apple long term.
AppStore revenue isn't a massive part of their earnings. But control over their own hardware has to be right up there as a priority.
I feel that only big apps are worth side loading, because only they have enough reputation to evaluate (like Fortnite); it's the small apps which have a credibility problem.
I think small apps will even have a credibility problem on the official Apple app store, because, say, let's just consider an app which tries to be a better calendar. You download the app and you don't like it, but your entire calendar data history has basically been exfiltrated, and could be worth far more than whatever the price of software. This is true for almost all apps which would normally be seen simple and innocuous. Contacts. Mail. Messages.
If we don't solve this credibility and privacy problem, I can't see how small players should compete in a way which is harmonious with user privacy concerns. This makes me only want Apple to have more domination. Domination to force every single app vendor to use Apple Pay. Domination to force every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. Domination to abide by Apple's new demands to inform the user of tracking.
I think small apps will even have a credibility problem on the official Apple app store, because, say, let's just consider an app which tries to be a better calendar. You download the app and you don't like it, but your entire calendar data history has basically been exfiltrated, and could be worth far more than whatever the price of software. This is true for almost all apps which would normally be seen simple and innocuous. Contacts. Mail. Messages.
If we don't solve this credibility and privacy problem, I can't see how small players should compete in a way which is harmonious with user privacy concerns. This makes me only want Apple to have more domination. Domination to force every single app vendor to use Apple Pay. Domination to force every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. Domination to abide by Apple's new demands to inform the user of tracking.
This won’t help small players it would help the big ones like Facebook that would move to their own store in order to avoid Apple’s policies…
I doubt that the EU would allow Apple to impose the same restrictions on the alternatives which means that privacy protections that aren’t enshrined within the OS will be the first ones to go.
I doubt that the EU would allow Apple to impose the same restrictions on the alternatives which means that privacy protections that aren’t enshrined within the OS will be the first ones to go.
I would not even use facebooks apps right now if you cared about your privacy.
Also if you could sideload you could install firefox with its own engine allowing more finegrain control over browser settings in about:config or more privacy focused fork. This means if some reason you need facebook you can lock it down more than iOS does.
Although the best solution is don't use facebook.
Also if you could sideload you could install firefox with its own engine allowing more finegrain control over browser settings in about:config or more privacy focused fork. This means if some reason you need facebook you can lock it down more than iOS does.
Although the best solution is don't use facebook.
Yes and how many users would actually do that vs how many would be even further exploited by apps that bypass Apple’s policies?
For example you can’t release an app right now that requires location services access including background or it won’t start not because you can’t develop one but because it won’t pass Apple’s store policies.
Facebook might be shite for privacy in general but it can be much much worse if they are allowed to do w/e they want and they have a large enough userbase that it really doesn’t fucking matter if their EULA would force you to donate your first born to Zuck most people would still use it out of sheer peer pressure.
For example you can’t release an app right now that requires location services access including background or it won’t start not because you can’t develop one but because it won’t pass Apple’s store policies.
Facebook might be shite for privacy in general but it can be much much worse if they are allowed to do w/e they want and they have a large enough userbase that it really doesn’t fucking matter if their EULA would force you to donate your first born to Zuck most people would still use it out of sheer peer pressure.
That issue surprisingly only is tangentially related to side-loading. We should not be relaying on an other company to protect people from other from an other companies predatory data collection policies. The problem is we allow companies like facebook to exist. It still is a problem on iOS and a problem outside iOS. Like the default safari settings are not strong enough in my opinion let alone on other systems. Also what about users who would like to really lock down things, but can't because apple has tied their own hands? Should they also suffer because majority of people lack self control. Like it's your device at the end of the day. There comes a point where if you install junk it's a matter of personal responsibility too (although large number of people sadly don't understand what they are getting into).
However regarding that point in parenthesis, we can't expect everyone to be technically inclined so we honestly need something stronger than GDPR in my opinion. Again apple can't protect everyone here and even their current set of privacy focused features don't go far enough.
Moreover, the way apple locks down the device from the owners has a bunch of other negative aspects. I would hardly call it the best way to achieve what your mentioning. Like not only is it impeding on property rights of device owners. Apple is effectively using to bludgeon other companies to pay a large portion of their revenue. It also makes it difficult for GPL licensed software to be published for iDevices, as apple will modify submitted binaries to the app store, among other things which makes it difficult to publish said software without breaking a GPL license. So open source developers don't even bother or have to come up with some workaround.
However regarding that point in parenthesis, we can't expect everyone to be technically inclined so we honestly need something stronger than GDPR in my opinion. Again apple can't protect everyone here and even their current set of privacy focused features don't go far enough.
Moreover, the way apple locks down the device from the owners has a bunch of other negative aspects. I would hardly call it the best way to achieve what your mentioning. Like not only is it impeding on property rights of device owners. Apple is effectively using to bludgeon other companies to pay a large portion of their revenue. It also makes it difficult for GPL licensed software to be published for iDevices, as apple will modify submitted binaries to the app store, among other things which makes it difficult to publish said software without breaking a GPL license. So open source developers don't even bother or have to come up with some workaround.
Sideload open source software. Also if apple allowed side loading it gets rid of the the need for workarounds for GPL licensed software.
> but your entire calendar data history has basically been exfiltrated, and could be worth far more than whatever the price of software
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27476030
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27476030
[deleted]
It is about the reputation of the store and why you need competition between the stores. Give me a store scrutinized by the Firefox team, I'll go there in a heartbeat.
I really wish their "2nd App Store" could just be the web. If they had some easy way to search for PWAs (on par with the App Store), and had better support for PWAs (on par with Android), PWAs could finally take off as the "write once, run anywhere" solution for apps instead of things like Flutter/React Native.
The elephant in the room here is that apple controls the browser and app store and therefore dictates limitations/experience pwa gives to developers/users.
Not to mention that PWAs are kludgy and provide significantly worse user experiences.
Not having the ability to side load apps and having only one store is why I buy an iPhone in the first place.
No one will force you to use the other store, no one will make you side load apps. You can even voluntarily continue paying a higher commission, just post Apple cheques.
Me maybe not, my peers would surely be forced when the big apps move away from the AppStore not because of the commission but because they can get away with shit that Apple doesn’t allow.
Facebook, Google, TikTok w/eTok would move to their own store or to some shell they’ll set up and then move out of the App Store eventually you’ll be surprised how easy it would be for them to move their user base.
If they’ll be able to pull off shit like requiring you to allow location sharing in the background all the time to use the app or force you to share contacts for the app to load which they would definitely be able to do as there would be no policies in place to prevent that that alone would be worth the cost of migrating to their own store even if they’ll lose a few customers…
If you want to side load apps already then just buy a dev account and or use TestFlight there are ways to getting FOSS apps on your phone, it’s just has a buy in cost right now.
Allowing users to do that for free by having to register for a dev account and registering their device might be a good compromise if you really only want to allow side loading for FOSS uses.
Facebook, Google, TikTok w/eTok would move to their own store or to some shell they’ll set up and then move out of the App Store eventually you’ll be surprised how easy it would be for them to move their user base.
If they’ll be able to pull off shit like requiring you to allow location sharing in the background all the time to use the app or force you to share contacts for the app to load which they would definitely be able to do as there would be no policies in place to prevent that that alone would be worth the cost of migrating to their own store even if they’ll lose a few customers…
If you want to side load apps already then just buy a dev account and or use TestFlight there are ways to getting FOSS apps on your phone, it’s just has a buy in cost right now.
Allowing users to do that for free by having to register for a dev account and registering their device might be a good compromise if you really only want to allow side loading for FOSS uses.
>Me maybe not, my peers would surely be forced when the big apps move away from the AppStore not because of the commission but because they can get away with shit that Apple doesn’t allow.
Yeah, because that is what totally happened with Android which has 72% market share. Or is it? In actuality there were some alternative stores like Opera or Yandex store and all of them die out on some point. Amazon has an android store but you can't find a lot of apps there. There are vendor stores like samsung's or huawei's stores and my favorite f-droid, for OSS apps. But you can find EVEERYTHING in google play store and you'll have a hard time to live without it, like on Chinese devices or if you want to have de-googled android you'll need to find APKs on some weird mirrors. So no I don't buy it.
Yeah, because that is what totally happened with Android which has 72% market share. Or is it? In actuality there were some alternative stores like Opera or Yandex store and all of them die out on some point. Amazon has an android store but you can't find a lot of apps there. There are vendor stores like samsung's or huawei's stores and my favorite f-droid, for OSS apps. But you can find EVEERYTHING in google play store and you'll have a hard time to live without it, like on Chinese devices or if you want to have de-googled android you'll need to find APKs on some weird mirrors. So no I don't buy it.
Until the only way to get <app/game> that is either necessary or useful is via another store. e.g.: a transportation app, or something used to interact with family.
I really dislike this constant refrain, because as soon as more stores can be integrated, all bets are off. Everybody who says this gives off the impression they aren't thinking more than 5 minutes into the future and we start seeing stuff like Epic having exclusive games, or Origin, or whatever else. And you better believe someone like Facebook and/or Amazon is going to take advantage of being able to build their own store.
I really dislike this constant refrain, because as soon as more stores can be integrated, all bets are off. Everybody who says this gives off the impression they aren't thinking more than 5 minutes into the future and we start seeing stuff like Epic having exclusive games, or Origin, or whatever else. And you better believe someone like Facebook and/or Amazon is going to take advantage of being able to build their own store.
So worst case scenario we end up with walled gardens, which is where we are now.
Which, in my opinion, multiple walled gardens is categorically worse than a single walled garden.
It does depend, though. If you look at regulation and market type on a 2x2 grid, as you slide towards the scale of perfectly competitive markets, the requirement to regulate drops to zero. As you go to monopoly, regulation becomes a larger requirement.
So, in the net, a heavily regulated walled garden provides the same utility as a perfectly competitive market. I think Apple can keep their one-store model so long as they abide by comprehensive regulations up-to-and-including lowering commissions and allowing apps to advertise other ways to subscribe outside of IAP.
It does depend, though. If you look at regulation and market type on a 2x2 grid, as you slide towards the scale of perfectly competitive markets, the requirement to regulate drops to zero. As you go to monopoly, regulation becomes a larger requirement.
So, in the net, a heavily regulated walled garden provides the same utility as a perfectly competitive market. I think Apple can keep their one-store model so long as they abide by comprehensive regulations up-to-and-including lowering commissions and allowing apps to advertise other ways to subscribe outside of IAP.
This is already a problem. Apple banned WhatsApp for ages just because. So you are no worse off than before. Of course, with a competing store Apple will be less likely to ban things arbitrarily...
Well with this WhatsApp would be on the Facebook store along with Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and anything else they devour along the way. Which will all harvest an infinite number of things from your phone, and you will have zero choice in the matter.
The issues with Apple arbitrarily banning things is a real issue, among others, and I acknowledge that and that these things need to be fixed. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water and make everyone's life who uses iOS more miserable along the way.
The issues with Apple arbitrarily banning things is a real issue, among others, and I acknowledge that and that these things need to be fixed. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water and make everyone's life who uses iOS more miserable along the way.
Android doesn't have a Facebook store don't see a reason why they'll have to make one for ios.
Huh? What does iOS have permissions and access control for?
Imagine if nobody stopped companies like Facebook from just digging into and using things like private APIs or doing stuff that bypassed silly things like public/standard APIs that would normally prevent that or ask for permission from the user. It's not like they've done anything like that in the past for things like Android, clearly an upstanding company like Facebook or Amazon would never do that kind of thing in order to gain access to more stuff that normally they would be prevented from.
And no, some researcher finding out about that happening wouldn't really cause them to change their behavior. And even IF somebody outside of the HN bubble found out about it, I doubt the vast majority of people would change their own behavior and get rid of the apps or anything.
Apple is never going to build a perfect OS with no security holes and they'll never be able to 100% guarantee that an app isn't doing something like that. But the threat of having that activity discovered and Apple straight up removing everything from the App Store is enough to kind of force them into being a better actor than they would be if they controlled their own store. (see the incident where Apple found out about something Facebook was doing with their enterprise certificate and then revoked it, crippling tons of internal apps on top of their user-facing stuff)
And no, some researcher finding out about that happening wouldn't really cause them to change their behavior. And even IF somebody outside of the HN bubble found out about it, I doubt the vast majority of people would change their own behavior and get rid of the apps or anything.
Apple is never going to build a perfect OS with no security holes and they'll never be able to 100% guarantee that an app isn't doing something like that. But the threat of having that activity discovered and Apple straight up removing everything from the App Store is enough to kind of force them into being a better actor than they would be if they controlled their own store. (see the incident where Apple found out about something Facebook was doing with their enterprise certificate and then revoked it, crippling tons of internal apps on top of their user-facing stuff)
I don't think they would abuse undocumented APIs or security bugs in the OS for critical functionality:
1. OS patches would break apps making app users unhappy.
2. Patched OS could warn users of exploit attempts, damaging app reputation.
1. OS patches would break apps making app users unhappy.
2. Patched OS could warn users of exploit attempts, damaging app reputation.
The app store is so well established at this point, do you think it’ll matter if there are more ways to get apps?
Google doesn’t have a problem with it and they’ve allowed it forever.
Google doesn’t have a problem with it and they’ve allowed it forever.
Google doesn’t enforce nearly as many constraints as Apple does. Do you think the same restrictions that Apple currently enforces on app developers would remain in place?
Why not? You reach far more people through the stores.
Just check the PC gamedev scene. There is basically zero constraints on getting an app installed and users are used to it, yet devs jump through hoops to be published on Steam because it gives visibility and access to many desirable features.
If only the abilities to use Apple Pay in-app or to use Apple's advertisement distribution system are probably a good enough reason for 80% of the existing apps to continue being on the store.
Just check the PC gamedev scene. There is basically zero constraints on getting an app installed and users are used to it, yet devs jump through hoops to be published on Steam because it gives visibility and access to many desirable features.
If only the abilities to use Apple Pay in-app or to use Apple's advertisement distribution system are probably a good enough reason for 80% of the existing apps to continue being on the store.
Small devs yes, Facebook no.
Not having the ability to side load apps and having only one store is why I buy DON'T buy an iPhone in the first place.
I'm curious on a technical level where Apple would go if forced to allow third party stores. Presumably they would still control the keys for notarization and entitlements used by apps, and still require developers to purchase Apple Developer Program accounts. Would we see the APIs be restricted to only allow 'App Store' apps to use things like iCloud and Apple Pay, as it is on the Mac? Would more APIs be partitioned between first- and third-party access?
Actually excited at the prospect of Steam for the iPad. The new iPad is powerful enough to be a game console controlled by wireless keyboards, etc.
It won’t be Steam, it would be Google and Facebook and the CCP who would have their own stores on day one.
I'm going to get downvoted to oblivion for this, and I say: bring it on, destroy my karma. I will not squelch my opinion when I care greatly about this. So:
I legitimately hate this. I use an iPhone because I don't have the attention span (I'm ADHD) to manage things being fiddly with a ton of different choices. Because it's set up in such a way that it's much easier to live my daily life due to how Apple forces things to be done in general. (and don't get me wrong, I KNOW the App Store has problems that NEED to be solved) All this is going to do is make my phone into the nightmare that Android is for me. I've tried to use Android multiple times, and it ALWAYS ends up with me extremely frustrated.
Get the heck away from my iPhone legislators. And people who literally constantly go on about "you don't have to side load an app" or "I should be able to do anything with my phone" PLEASE stop for 5 minutes to consider how a bullheaded move like this is going to massively disrupt not only my own life, but a lot of people's lives and make them more confusing and harder to manage. For example: People who don't know much about using a phone/tablet are going to have a harder time when Facebook becomes more hostile when they have their own store. Or if utility apps such as for parking put themselves in something like Facebook's store, suddenly you have NO CHOICE but to use that store and their app if you want to park somewhere with a meter. Such as when you're visiting another state for a vacation. Subscriptions are going to become a potential nightmare, and those scam apps that you can currently easily unsubscribe from their thing might become WAY HARDER to do because they're in some other store that doesn't tightly control that with an easy UI.
I hate this. So much. Maybe I'll just go back to everything being on paper and use a flip phone for calls/texts if this garbage goes through and the doom scenario becomes real. It would have been a good run of having something usable.
I legitimately hate this. I use an iPhone because I don't have the attention span (I'm ADHD) to manage things being fiddly with a ton of different choices. Because it's set up in such a way that it's much easier to live my daily life due to how Apple forces things to be done in general. (and don't get me wrong, I KNOW the App Store has problems that NEED to be solved) All this is going to do is make my phone into the nightmare that Android is for me. I've tried to use Android multiple times, and it ALWAYS ends up with me extremely frustrated.
Get the heck away from my iPhone legislators. And people who literally constantly go on about "you don't have to side load an app" or "I should be able to do anything with my phone" PLEASE stop for 5 minutes to consider how a bullheaded move like this is going to massively disrupt not only my own life, but a lot of people's lives and make them more confusing and harder to manage. For example: People who don't know much about using a phone/tablet are going to have a harder time when Facebook becomes more hostile when they have their own store. Or if utility apps such as for parking put themselves in something like Facebook's store, suddenly you have NO CHOICE but to use that store and their app if you want to park somewhere with a meter. Such as when you're visiting another state for a vacation. Subscriptions are going to become a potential nightmare, and those scam apps that you can currently easily unsubscribe from their thing might become WAY HARDER to do because they're in some other store that doesn't tightly control that with an easy UI.
I hate this. So much. Maybe I'll just go back to everything being on paper and use a flip phone for calls/texts if this garbage goes through and the doom scenario becomes real. It would have been a good run of having something usable.
I also want a phone which is deliberately locked down for the folks in my family who don't care to exercise freedoms that takes nuance and confidence to navigate between the pros and the cons.
If FB wants people to go outside the app store they will. FB has the power.
I want every single app vendor to support Apple Pay because it's much safer and reveals far less private information. I want every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. I want every single app vendor to have to be approved to track users. I want every app to make recurring subscriptions easy to find.
If this could happen without the side effect of Apple bullying companies into giving up revenue, that'd be great.
If FB wants people to go outside the app store they will. FB has the power.
I want every single app vendor to support Apple Pay because it's much safer and reveals far less private information. I want every single app vendor to support Apple's anonymous account registration process. I want every single app vendor to have to be approved to track users. I want every app to make recurring subscriptions easy to find.
If this could happen without the side effect of Apple bullying companies into giving up revenue, that'd be great.
I agree with you. I assume your disappointment comes from the fact that most HN commenters don’t understand/empathise with the needs of the general public, and continue to demand their way of things. There are options like Android, Linux phones, etc. These might not be perfect for the things HN commenters are demanding, but they exist as options. Yet, instead of going with an attitude of “iPhones are the way they are, they are not for me, so I will use something else”, they seem to demand that even iPhones become open, adopt alternative stores, etc.
I am not clear where the entitlement comes from, but it does bother me too when I see tone deaf comments like those.
I am not clear where the entitlement comes from, but it does bother me too when I see tone deaf comments like those.
Your inability to pick your subscriptions is hardly a justification for limiting me to enduring 2x slower phone CPUs because the app I need is not allowed in Apple app store by an arbitrary rule, that violates anti-monopoly laws.
> Your inability to pick your subscriptions
It's the ability to easily stop a subscription. And considering the amount of stuff out there that makes it as hard as humanly possible to cancel a subscription (there's an entire Bojack episode making fun of this with newspaper subscriptions) I appreciate this quite a lot. Because it's VERY hard for me to do something simple for a lot of people like make a phone call and wade through an absurd phone tree to get to the actual way to stop someone from taking money from me. Or potentially other stuff like that.
> hardly a justification
It's more than just Apple's UI around subscriptions like you pointed out. It's just one example of something that I really appreciate. I also appreciate their work on privacy, that apps from their store are generally safe to download and open, that apps from their store will work well on my phone and interact with my device in the manner that I expect, that I can do things like control notifications, prevent access to my contact list, etc. There's a lot of stuff that "just works", that I can prevent from messing with me if I don't want it to, and it's often only a single step to do so, which helps me function on a day-to-day basis.
> enduring 2x slower phone CPUs because the app I need is not allowed in Apple app
Are you saying that you have to use an Android device which is slower because something you need to function is not allowed in the Apple App Store? If so: I am legitimately sorry that you are forced into that position. This is something I would viciously advocate to be fixed. But not by opening up the floodgates for bad actors to do even WORSE things because there isn't a behemoth standing behind them, threatening them with destruction if they don't follow the rules. (and there are still issues even there as scam apps show, and I desperately want those to be fixed as well for the sake of everyone)
> that violates anti-monopoly laws.
I cannot say whether or not Apple's App Store violates anti-monopoly laws. And unless you're a lawyer, and if you are then I will defer to your judgment, I don't know if you can legitimately claim to know that either. People on HN love to sling around the "monopoly" word a lot when it comes to Apple, but it could very easily be the case that by and large people who say that are just armchair lawyering and have not studied enough of law/case law to say anything about whether or not that's actually true.
It's the ability to easily stop a subscription. And considering the amount of stuff out there that makes it as hard as humanly possible to cancel a subscription (there's an entire Bojack episode making fun of this with newspaper subscriptions) I appreciate this quite a lot. Because it's VERY hard for me to do something simple for a lot of people like make a phone call and wade through an absurd phone tree to get to the actual way to stop someone from taking money from me. Or potentially other stuff like that.
> hardly a justification
It's more than just Apple's UI around subscriptions like you pointed out. It's just one example of something that I really appreciate. I also appreciate their work on privacy, that apps from their store are generally safe to download and open, that apps from their store will work well on my phone and interact with my device in the manner that I expect, that I can do things like control notifications, prevent access to my contact list, etc. There's a lot of stuff that "just works", that I can prevent from messing with me if I don't want it to, and it's often only a single step to do so, which helps me function on a day-to-day basis.
> enduring 2x slower phone CPUs because the app I need is not allowed in Apple app
Are you saying that you have to use an Android device which is slower because something you need to function is not allowed in the Apple App Store? If so: I am legitimately sorry that you are forced into that position. This is something I would viciously advocate to be fixed. But not by opening up the floodgates for bad actors to do even WORSE things because there isn't a behemoth standing behind them, threatening them with destruction if they don't follow the rules. (and there are still issues even there as scam apps show, and I desperately want those to be fixed as well for the sake of everyone)
> that violates anti-monopoly laws.
I cannot say whether or not Apple's App Store violates anti-monopoly laws. And unless you're a lawyer, and if you are then I will defer to your judgment, I don't know if you can legitimately claim to know that either. People on HN love to sling around the "monopoly" word a lot when it comes to Apple, but it could very easily be the case that by and large people who say that are just armchair lawyering and have not studied enough of law/case law to say anything about whether or not that's actually true.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sounds fair
Same rules for game consoles as well?
Definitely yes. They’re just desktop hardware anyway.
A new PlayStation or Xbox is all the more PC most people ever need. We could reduce e-waste by reducing the need for multiple, specialized machines.
In the same way, I think I should be able to run a desktop by plugging in my phone. If a pi can do it, my iPhone definitely can.
A new PlayStation or Xbox is all the more PC most people ever need. We could reduce e-waste by reducing the need for multiple, specialized machines.
In the same way, I think I should be able to run a desktop by plugging in my phone. If a pi can do it, my iPhone definitely can.
I like it! Also, obviously applies to in-game stores like in Roblox, Fortnite, etc.
I think there is a slight difference because initially the hardware is sold at a loss for consoles. Manufacturers should be able to recoup that. But broadly, yes.
I don't think any of the major consoles are sold at a loss when you look at the entire run of it.
If they are sold at a loss, that could be seen as anti-competitive move that keeps competing consoles out and game prices high. Perhaps the competition chief should look into as well.
If they are sold at a loss, that could be seen as anti-competitive move that keeps competing consoles out and game prices high. Perhaps the competition chief should look into as well.
Why not. Don't see any reason why that equipment shouldn't be free as well.
Apple's greed means that instead of getting 30%, or 10% (probably a reasonable commission for them to voluntarily move to), they will be getting 0%.
Will it? As a former Android user, I never installed third-party app stores because they all sucked — whether it be poor app selection, poor curation, or just trying to shove their apps down my throat (looking at you Amazon Appstore). Likewise, even if Apple does have to open up their platform, I will not install another app store. I will trust Apple over anyone else to run a reputable store. Sure, they're not without fault, but I expect most others to do a far worse job.
I think it'll be a performative action at best. It's good policy to not allow platform monopolies, but I don't think it'll be the downfall of Apple's commission that everyone thinks it will be.
I think it'll be a performative action at best. It's good policy to not allow platform monopolies, but I don't think it'll be the downfall of Apple's commission that everyone thinks it will be.
I also would be really hesitant to install apps from other stores. Sideloaded or alternative store app's will also still be subject to OS's restrictions and available API's. It's not like Apple will allow rooted app's to be installed. The only things the new stores will have to offer is circumvention of the Apple Tax or review guidelines.
The only benefit I see is that it wouldn't cost me $100 to build and sideload my own or open source app's. But in all these years I've never had the need for this (though this might sprawl up a bit with availability ofc). The only things I truly wanted where changes at an OS level so would still require a jailbreak or root. Like how the widget screen is covered for 50% by icons I don't use and can't remove/configure.
The only benefit I see is that it wouldn't cost me $100 to build and sideload my own or open source app's. But in all these years I've never had the need for this (though this might sprawl up a bit with availability ofc). The only things I truly wanted where changes at an OS level so would still require a jailbreak or root. Like how the widget screen is covered for 50% by icons I don't use and can't remove/configure.
It’s free to download Xcode and compile open source apps yourself. You’ll have to resign them (open Xcode, reload on phone) once a week, though, and you can’t distribute the app to other phones. It’s only $100/yr if you want to publish to the App Store.
Even less if you go the route of AltStore/AltServer because they handle the resigning for you via email(?) or something. It's a pretty nifty workaround to sideload.
That depends. I do feel somewhat more comfortable installing apps from the App Store due to their vetting process.
I assume EU regulations apply to all EU persons, not just those in the EU? If so, is there a way for anyone in the world to become an EU person without giving up one's citizenship elsewhere just so I can be a party to GDPR and now this?
These regulations only apply within the EU… Same like GDPR it only applies to services delivered to EU customers within the EU.
A German moving to the US and consuming local services isn’t protected by GDPR.
A German moving to the US and consuming local services isn’t protected by GDPR.
What about an American using a German service? I thought that GDPR applied then?
However I’m not sure you get EU law to apply to a phone, buy unlocked from a German teleco?
However I’m not sure you get EU law to apply to a phone, buy unlocked from a German teleco?
If you want to gain most of the protections of the GDPR, you could just use an EU proxy server, and have a registered email address with a well known European email provider. Your rights would be limited in the ability to file a complaint against a particular data processor, but you would get all the fringe benefits of law-abiding companies estimating that you fall under GDPR regulations.
The fact the boot ROM will only run code signed by apple effectively lets apple retain the right of exclusion even after selling the device.
At the very least a device owner should be able to load their own signing keys for the boot rom to use.