App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline

[NEPOBABY]

Landlords bleeding millions of people to death in tiny badly made fake apartments.

EU silence.

Chinese companies flooding the continent with government subsidised super cheap low quality good made by slaves.

EU silence.

Middle Eastern dictators buying sports teams.

EU silence.

Apple has a secure App Store, gives developers an advanced programming language and SDK.

EU : OMG we need to do something about this!!!!

 

[Samplasion]

Because you linked to investigations and accusations and not court findings?

The other user was talking about findings, not court findings. The word has a clear definition, and it wasn't clear from context that they were specifically talking about court findings.

the DMA isn't a response to actual court findings

I certainly didn't imply so.

It skips due process and imposes regulations justified by accusations.

Being proactive isn't a bad thing. It might be a bit of an extreme example, but you don't have to wait for someone to die to impose decent security standards in a workplace. Similarly, you don't have to wait for someone to go bankrupt and sue Apple in the EU for them to see that their actions aren't competitive enough.

 

[I7guy]

The other user was talking about findings, not court findings. The word has a clear definition, and it wasn't clear from context that they were specifically talking about court findings.

Good to know accusation and innuendo =finding.

I certainly didn't imply so.

Being proactive isn't a bad thing. It might be a bit of an extreme example, but you don't have to wait for someone to die to impose decent security standards in a workplace. Similarly, you don't have to wait for someone to go bankrupt and sue Apple in the EU for them to see that their actions aren't competitive enough.

Government doesn’t always get it right. And it may take some highly publicized cases to show how bad this legislation really is.

 

[BaldiMac]

The other user was talking about findings, not court findings. The word has a clear definition, and it wasn't clear from context that they were specifically talking about court findings.

Good try. But accusation and investigations still aren't findings. The results of the investigations would be.

I certainly didn't imply so.

I didn't say you did.

Being proactive isn't a bad thing. It might be a bit of an extreme example, but you don't have to wait for someone to die to impose decent security standards in a workplace. Similarly, you don't have to wait for someone to go bankrupt and sue Apple in the EU for them to see that their actions aren't competitive enough.

Depriving people of their property rights without due process is a bad thing.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Nope don’t misunderstand at all.

Well you completely deflected the question.

That's just options. That's not competition. Competition would be App Store sells Photo App A for $5 and AppX Store Sells Photo App B for $4 but it does all the same things for the price. Saying I can go to this store and get things I can't at the first store isn't competition.

App Store sells Photo App A for $5 and AppX Store Sells Photo App A( with acces to user generated content and features) for $5.

Same developer, two different versions.

But in AppX Store they allow user generated content to be used, but in the App Store they don’t allow such content.

Good example is steam, thousands of games listed in steam is the superior version compared to the AppStore version simply because some content and software features aren’t allowed to be included if it’s to be made available on the macappstore.

So your assumption is that alternative app stores will offer apps that don’t appear in the original App Store? Do we have any evidence thatll be the case?

Well considering how limited the AppStore Rules are we know that will happen.

Mac AppStore vs steam
One allows user made stuff (steam workshop) while the other doesn’t.

Cydia as a source for illegal applications/software could be disallowed as an app store because of the illegal content.

Wrong, it contains only legal applications and software. But Users have the ability to provide 3rd party sources that might contain illegal content.

Well we're talking mac versus iOS now. Releasing valve games on ARM and not M would be anticompetitive behavior according to everything I've seen on these forums.

There not a single rule or statement that supports that assertion

I mean unacceptable legally.

Not even legally.

Again the refining process happens during the research. I only go on the App Store to download what I've chosen. App Store, any of them, aren't going to give me the amount of detail I want prior to getting an app.
Lists can be kept on your phone 🤷

That detail is perfectly available in steam. The AppStore have on the other hand lost more of that data.

Would you not rather be able to find it in the AppStore?

Yeah because FID is more secure and all your financials are linked to your Apple device. You'd have to probably input payment details as well as a passcode to purchase off of an Apple or iCloud linked account.

When I do online payments on my computer I always must use my phone to verify the transaction details and approve the payments using eID locked with my iPhones faceID. Such as 3DS2 authentication or PSD2.

Strong Customer Authentication is mandatory in EU.

 

[I7guy]

Well you completely deflected the question.

There was no question.(at least not a good one) saying I misunderstood the point means you misunderstood the point also.

App Store sells Photo App A for $5 and AppX Store Sells Photo App A( with acces to user generated content and features) for $5.

Same developer, two different versions.

But in AppX Store they allow user generated content to be used, but in the App Store they don’t allow such content.

Good example is steam, thousands of games listed in steam is the superior version compared to the AppStore version simply because some content and software features aren’t allowed to be included if it’s to be made available on the macappstore.

Well considering how limited the AppStore Rules are we know that will happen.

Mac AppStore vs steam
One allows user made stuff (steam workshop) while the other doesn’t.

Wrong, it contains only legal applications and software. But Users have the ability to provide 3rd party sources that might contain illegal content.

There not a single rule or statement that supports that assertion

Not even legally.

That detail is perfectly available in steam. The AppStore have on the other hand lost more of that data.

Would you not rather be able to find it in the AppStore?

When I do online payments on my computer I always must use my phone to verify the transaction details and approve the payments using eID locked with my iPhones faceID. Such as 3DS2 authentication or PSD2.

Strong Customer Authentication is mandatory in EU.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There was no question.(at least not a good one) saying I misunderstood the point means you misunderstood the point also.

The question waso you think this is a bad thing?👇 it’s not the market forcing them.

The Digital Market Act is making facebook forcefully separate their services and not use the user data.

 

[BaldiMac]

The question waso you think this is a bad thing?👇 it’s not the market forcing them.

The Digital Market Act is making facebook forcefully separate their services and not use the user data.

This regulation is the positive side of the DMA. It is everything that the poorly thought out parts are not. Protecting user and business data with clear benefits and responsibilities. If only it weren't limited to gatekeepers.

 

[j26]

Because you linked to investigations and accusations and not court findings?

Not to say that there hasn't been any findings, because their certainly are. Japanese and Dutch cases if I remember correctly. But my point would be that the DMA isn't a response to actual court findings. It skips due process and imposes regulations justified by accusations.

It doesn't need a Court - it's a body tasked with promoting competition, it has investigated and come to the conclusion that the market is anti-competitive, and it has taken steps to remedy that. "Due process" has been served by the investigation that it has done.

 

[BaldiMac]

It doesn't need a Court - it's a body tasked with promoting competition, it has investigated and come to the conclusion that the market is anti-competitive, and it has taken steps to remedy that.

They certainly don't need to. I just think that it's wrong to deprive an individual company of it's property rights without the courts deciding that they are violating the law.

"Due process" has been served by the investigation that it has done.

I completely disagree that politicians are a substitute for due process in a court of law.

 

[j26]

They certainly don't need to. I just think that it's wrong to deprive an individual company of it's property rights without the courts deciding that they are violating the law.


I completely disagree that politicians are a substitute for due process in a court of law.

Then you're presumably not in favour of the democratic process, or parliamentary democracy.

Basic separation of Powers

• Legislature makes the law
• Executive implements the law
• Judiciary interprets the law.

We don't live in a Judge led system of government here in the EU. Irish judges, in particular, are loathe to stray into judicial lawmaking.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then you're presumably not in favour of the democratic process, or parliamentary democracy.

Basic separation of Powers

• Legislature makes the law
• Executive implements the law
• Judiciary interprets the law.

We don't live in a Judge led system of government here in the EU. Irish judges, in particular, are loathe to stray into judicial lawmaking.

That's all nonsense. I'm in favor of the democratic process. I can still believe that some laws are unjust.

If the government passed a law saying anyone at your specific address must relinquish all their property because they are breaking the law, would you consider that just?

 

[j26]

If the government passed a law saying anyone at your specific address must relinquish all their property because they are breaking the law, would you consider that just?

No - that's what the democratic process is for. Preventing unjust laws, and changing laws when circumstances change.

The government sets the ground rules - it's up to companies if they want to operate in that environment. The ground rules have been changed, Apple has to decide whether it still wants to trade in that environment, and if so, take steps to ensure it complies with the new rules. It is that simple. ALL companies are subject to the same rules, so it's not anything like the example you give above.


Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe corporations should have unbridled freedom to do whatever they want, even if it harms others,. They already benefit from all of the other privileges we grant to the legal construct that we call a company - separate legal personality from its owners, limited liability etc.

 

[BaldiMac]

No - that's what the democratic process is for. Preventing unjust laws, and changing laws when circumstances change.

Exactly! So we should petition the government when we think the laws are unjust.

The government sets the ground rules - it's up to companies if they want to operate in that environment. The ground rules have been changed, Apple has to decide whether it still wants to trade in that environment, and if so, take steps to ensure it complies with the new rules.

Yep.

It is that simple. ALL companies are subject to the same rules, so it's not anything like the example you give above.

Except that's not true. Exactly one company was forced to allow sideloading against its own wishes. Which is very much like the example.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe corporations should have unbridled freedom to do whatever they want, even if it harms others,. They already benefit from all of the other privileges we grant to the legal construct that we call a company - separate legal personality from its owners, limited liability etc.

I completely agree.

 

[j26]

Exactly! So we should petition the government when we think the laws are unjust.

Are you an EU citizen?

If not, you have no say in our laws - the same way EU citizens have no say in US laws.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Except that's not true. Exactly one company was forced to allow sideloading against its own wishes. Which is very much like the example.

They are for everyone. This rule applies to dominant companies. This is based in 30 year old anti competitive laws.

Or would you say US anti trust laws are unjustifiable because they only impact few companies?

This regulation is the positive side of the DMA. It is everything that the poorly thought out parts are not. Protecting user and business data with clear benefits and responsibilities. If only it weren't limited to gatekeepers.

It does. Privacy is a constitutionally protected protection.

1: Landlords bleeding millions of people to death in tiny badly made fake apartments.

EU silence.

2: Chinese companies flooding the continent with government subsidised super cheap low quality good made by slaves.

EU silence.

3: Middle Eastern dictators buying sports teams.

EU silence.

4: Apple has a secure App Store, gives developers an advanced programming language and SDK.

EU : OMG we need to do something about this!!!!

lol kind of funny.

1. That’s a state issue (and illegal already)
2. Imported goods can’t have lower quality than the EU single market standards.( low quality goods failing to need the criteria is illegal)
3. That’s a state issue, and not up to EU
4. Apple must compete on the merits of their services.

So two are a state issues, and two are already dealt with

 

[dk001]

You can set default mail and browser apps.

Browser if all weren’t webkit and Mail has been hit or miss.
Was a nice teaser from Apple but wish they would allow us set defaults for all Apple apps we desire.

 

[BaldiMac]

Are you an EU citizen?

If not, you have no say in our laws - the same way EU citizens have no say in US laws.

None of your business. I don't care where you're from either. You're just trying to set up an ad hominem fallacy anyway.

They are for everyone. This rule applies to dominant companies.

No, they're not. The DMA only applies to companies that make certain business and consumer user thresholds among other metrics in specific markets. But you know that already. There are dominant companies that don't meet the threshold.

The specific clause of the DMA that we were discussing forces exactly one company to give up its property rights.

This is based in 30 year old anti competitive laws.

No, it's not. It's based on the DMA. Why do you keep making stuff up?

It does. Privacy is a constitutionally protected protection.

No, it doesn't. The specific clauses in the DMA that we were discussing only apply to gatekeepers. Again, you know this. Why do you keep making stuff up?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No, they're not. The DMA only applies to companies that make certain business and consumer user thresholds among other metrics in specific markets. But you know that already. There are dominant companies that don't meet the threshold.

Because it describes abusive practices, being dominant isn’t illegal. Any company that meets the threshold can defend themselves. Samsung successfully argued against it, and so did Microsoft.

The specific clause of the DMA that we were discussing forces exactly one company to give up its property rights.

Google is also impacted but harder than Apple.

No, it's not. It's based on the DMA. Why do you keep making stuff up?

As it states multiple times in the document it references The founding treaty of EU article 101, 102 and article 114. Go ahead and read the anti competitive laws and you will se it’s what it’s built on

No, it doesn't. The specific clauses in the DMA that we were discussing only apply to gatekeepers. Again, you know this. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Do you understand the concept of ex anti and ex post laws?

The DMA seeks to provide a framework to regulate gatekeepers’ behavior and prevent these failures before they become a reality. Such ex-ante regulation is unlike ordinary competition law, which normally allows only ex-post investigations and remedies.

The most important difference between the DMA and the competition law rules regarding dominant companies is the fact that under the DMA, the authority does not have to prove dominance for the rules to apply – it is sufficient that the companies meet the gatekeeper criteria set out in the DMA.

The EU competition regulation is based on case-by-case evaluation, and proving dominance generally requires an extensive investigation and definition of the relevant markets, which in turn means that the court proceedings are usually long and not an agile way to react to market distortions.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because it describes abusive practices, being dominant isn’t illegal. Any company that meets the threshold can defend themselves. Samsung successfully argued against it, and so did Microsoft.

All of that has nothing to do with what I said. Going from 44 million to 45 million users (or whatever the threshold is) doesn't make you abusive.

Google is also impacted but harder than Apple.

Google is impacted by other parts of the regulation. They already allow sideloading.

As it states multiple times in the document it references The founding treaty of EU article 101, 102 and article 114. Go ahead and read the anti competitive laws and you will se it’s what it’s built on

Do you understand the concept of ex anti and ex post laws?

The DMA seeks to provide a framework to regulate gatekeepers’ behavior and prevent these failures before they become a reality. Such ex-ante regulation is unlike ordinary competition law, which normally allows only ex-post investigations and remedies.

The most important difference between the DMA and the competition law rules regarding dominant companies is the fact that under the DMA, the authority does not have to prove dominance for the rules to apply – it is sufficient that the companies meet the gatekeeper criteria set out in the DMA.

The EU competition regulation is based on case-by-case evaluation, and proving dominance generally requires an extensive investigation and definition of the relevant markets, which in turn means that the court proceedings are usually long and not an agile way to react to market distortions.

Keep shifting those goalposts. We weren't talking about the DMA as a whole.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

All of that has nothing to do with what I said. Going from 44 million to 45 million users (or whatever the threshold is) doesn't make you abusive.

Read the text. You don’t become abusive, you are assumed to have a dominant position and specific actions unless proven otherwise are presumed to be abusive if engaged when in an entrenched market position. You can argue your case and not be included.

Samsung was completely excluded.
Microsoft store, outlook are excluded.
Bing, edge and Microsoft Advertising seems to be excluded.

Apple iMessage seems to be excluded.
Google Gmail is excluded.

Google is impacted by other parts of the regulation. They already allow sideloading.

No they don’t, Google has been judged using anticompetitive actions in regards to their AppStore. Google is heavily impacted by the DmA
General court with the finding

1. Apple AppStore and Google play store aren’t competitors
2. iOS and android isn’t competitors
3. Forcing the use of the play store is anti competitive
4. Putting up unjustifiable barriers to alternative platforms is anti competitive.

Keep shifting those goalposts. We weren't talking about the DMA as a whole.

If you want to talk about how Apple is impacted, then you must understand the case law by the Supreme Court in regards how article 102 and 114 is interpreted.

The DMA is a legal preemptive action, while the traditional anti competitive laws are after the damages have been done.

And the DMA is built upon numerous cases that supports its conclusion.

 

[BaldiMac]

Read the text. You don’t become abusive, you are assumed to have a dominant position and specific actions unless proven otherwise are presumed to be abusive if engaged when in an entrenched market position. You can argue your case and not be included.

Samsung was completely excluded.
Microsoft store, outlook are excluded.
Bing, edge and Microsoft Advertising seems to be excluded.

Apple iMessage seems to be excluded.
Google Gmail is excluded.

No they don’t, Google has been judged using anticompetitive actions in regards to their AppStore. Google is heavily impacted by the DmA
General court with the finding

1. Apple AppStore and Google play store aren’t competitors
2. iOS and android isn’t competitors
3. Forcing the use of the play store is anti competitive
4. Putting up unjustifiable barriers to alternative platforms is anti competitive.

If you want to talk about how Apple is impacted, then you must understand the case law by the Supreme Court in regards how article 102 and 114 is interpreted.

The DMA is a legal preemptive action, while the traditional anti competitive laws are after the damages have been done.

And the DMA is built upon numerous cases that supports its conclusion.

Again, none of that has to do with what I said. We can't have a discussion if you are going to respond to what you imagine I said instead of what I actually said.

Me: Apple is the only company affected by the requirement to allow sideloading because they are the only company that qualifies as a gatekeeper that doesn't allow it.
You: You're wrong because different requirements affect other companies!
Me: ??????

 

[KevinN206]

So your assumption is that alternative app stores will offer apps that don’t appear in the original App Store? Do we have any evidence thatll be the case?

Microsoft and Amazon might release native apps for Xbox Cloud Gaming and Amazon Luna, respectively. These two apps are not on the App Store currently because of streaming gaming fee disputes with Apple. You still use these two services through a fake app with Safari.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again, none of that has to do with what I said. We can't have a discussion if you are going to respond to what you imagine I said instead of what I actually said.

Me: Apple is the only company affected by the requirement to allow sideloading because they are the only company that qualifies as a gatekeeper that doesn't allow it.
You: You're wrong because different requirements affect other companies!
Me: ??????

Google is required to allow side loading, because they currently don’t meet the requirements in the DMA currently.

It’s almost as hard as iOS to side load anything unless you root the android phone or go through a complex process to enable it, or even have to reinstall the OS to enable it.

 

[j26]

It’s almost as hard as iOS to side load anything unless you root the android phone or go through a complex process to enable it, or even have to reinstall the OS to enable it.

In fairness, that's not true. I've downloaded apk's and installed. Yes, there is a setting to allow it in the first place, and a few warnings to dismiss, but it's no major headache. I've downloaded a couple and done it easily enough.