What Time are we living in? 2001? So in your mind, what constitutes a right for citizen today, if smartphone apparently is not one of them?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Legal Challenge Against EU Law as Sideloading Requirement Looms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope. Each smartphone vendor forks their own version of the android open source project. The choice exists and it’s relatively cheap for new competitors to enter the market.
But if you’re complaining that there is only two basic choices, then the focus on competition should in the 70% of the market controlled by Google through their anticompetitive agreements with their horizontal competitors to install Google Play Services. Otherwise, it’s not really about competition, it’s just that you don’t like Apple’s business model.
Life, liberty, the freedom to own private property, persuit of happiness, and equal judgment under the law.
Last edited:
A lot of things can be shoved into “life” “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness”, not to mention “equal judgment under the law” doesn’t exist in pretty much any country once you dig deep into immunity and privileges.
I get it. You staunchly defend Apple‘s Business Model, while also ignoring the main complaints we raise is about the limited choice of mobile operating system on main stream mobile devices. No matter how many flavors of Android exist, they are still Android, not iOS. Apple heavy fisting walled garden is no different from Google applying as much of horizontal as possible through their agreements. Both Apple and Google funnels nearly all developers into either iOS or Android, or most of the time, both, to try to get maximum profit for those devs to survive.
I get it. You prefer to argue a strawman instead of the points I raised.
i directly responded to the posts I quoted. A fork of an open source project competes with other forks. Just like they do in web browsers. Chrome competes with Safari and Brave.
What makes Android homogeneous is not the OS, but the Google Play Services licensed on top of the OS. And, of course, there is absolutely a difference between controlling the features of your own product and making anticompetitive agreements with your own horizontal competitors.
But, again, it’s disingenuous to argue that Apple needs to change because there are only two choices while ignoring that there are only two choices because Google enters into agreements specifically to limit competition across 70% of the market.
But you do ignore the fact that the US government in particular is failing miserably at its job, because of willful neglect and under-regulation. Gun control, food safety, aircraft safety. This dangerous American that corporations should control themselves shows itself everywhere.
But it should become a right, because of how necessary it is for participation in society. Isn’t it curious that "Corporations are People", but people can’t even have a smartphone that works?
Sure, let’s ignore Microsoft’s attempt to monopolize web browsing by integrating the Internet Explorer into Windows and making it incompatible with http standards. Web developers were forced to design webpages that looked good on the most prevalent browser and didn’t work on any other. The EU had to step in and regulate that market too.
Nothing that requires the labor of another person is a fundamental right.
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said. How does that change the fact that forks compete with each other?
Housing, Clothing, Food? Do people who are too old to go hunting, don’t have the right to eat.
If you’d only think for a second about your convictions, all of America would fall apart. Instead we all require the work of millions of other people simply to survive in a modern society.
And because this dependency is somewhat uncomfortable to radical individualists, we get all this prepper and survivor lifestyle. Americans biggest flex is to prove that they don’t need anybody.
I never said that reliance on others is never needed. You misunderstood my point. My point is that you do not have an entitlement to the fruit of the labor of others.
Do you remember that the AppStore had a rule that you couldn’t compete with one of Apple’s own apps? Up until iOS 14 you couldn’t change your default browser anyway. So as a user you were stuck to what your phone shipped with. Now imagine all phone makers are doing the same and then they begin to divert from web standards. In the end the internet would bend to Samsung or whomever is the market share leader at that time. People hate Microsoft for a reason. The answer is not to replace them with another monopoly, but to regulate the abusive power of monopolies.
But what you say has implications. If you agree that people have a right to food, then they are (quite literally) entitled to the fruit of the labor of others. Even though fruits grow on trees, they have to be picked, transported, cooled and cooked. And somebody’s got to do the dishes too. 🍉 🍎 🍌
People have a right to be able to purchase and grow food, yes. But you are still not entitled to get someone else’s food for free.
Again. Nothing to do with what I said.
It’s like you are quoting me and then responding to a completely different argument. I have no problem with regulation. We need more of it. Apple specifically should be prevented from favoring their own services like they do in the TV app, for example.
I just think that specific regulations in the DMA are bad because the fail to solve problems while propping up the market leader.
There’s just one argument to have. How the world works and how to best navigate in it? Literally everything that affects the outcome is worth to be considered. Most solutions fail, because they don’t look at all parameters. And almost everything can be viewed as a solution to a problem, if you ignore all the unwanted side effects.
Here we agree.
They solve other problems than those you’re focused on. Market leader by what − revenue, profit, units sold? You’ve got to be way more specific. Nonetheless I can rebuttal that. Someone will always be the biggest. Holding back the market leader will only create another market leader and subvert the free choice of customers. Instead you regulate the legal frame in which market actors may move freely. The DMA is simply not meant to topple the market leader.
You would’ve made a great English landlord in Ireland anno 1845-49. But the history of the next 200 years in particular would’ve taught you, why (most of) Europe has moved on from such sentiments of the early industrial age.
You’re correct. Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone and Honda has a monopoly on the accord and water (h2o) is wet.
You still haven't told me, who the market leader even is? Is it Samsung who sold the most phones? Is it Apple who makes the most profit? Or is it Android who has the most OS users? Or maybe TSMC?
And then you've got to explain to me, how message interoperability and side-loading (which used to be called installing software) is affecting their business to a point that they can't sell as much product anymore!
I'm waiting.
The DMA threaded the needle by regulating companies if a certain size with closed ecosystems. This taking away a company’s ip and attempting to topple a market leader.
You still didn't say who the market leader is? And yes, most laws are directed at companies of a certain size, because it would be too cumbersome to burden every burger flipping business with the same bureaucracy. But how does the company lose its intellectual property? Did anyone force iOS or Android to publish their source code?
Influential companies regardless of unit volume can be market leaders. Making a companies op into a public utility is taking away their ip.
Doesn’t make it any less of a right. Also, you are proving my point of not trusting the state. Many countries can’t even do that right.
Last edited:
Stop buying the darn product then? You know it's been known for a long time this is not an area Apple caters to. They shouldn't have to when there are so many others that do cater to that. They want to make the whole widget. Let them. If they are not good at it, they will fail and go away. Someone else will buy up the patents and trademarks and whatever is left over and rebuild it so that it is more of what you say. But, I personally doubt that will happen. As there are enough people out there that like it as is.
This isn't a failure to understand. The point you are making just is not correct. This is a minority of users that want this feature. Whatever they want to use it for is almost irrelevant as it has to do with cost. Should Apple spend time and money to cater to (Potentially) 5% of the market? Should they punch holes into iOS and iPhone so that 5% can do whatever they want? OR, just follow me here. OR, should Apple cater to what IS actually working best for the lion share of customers? Not that there are not any companies out there that don't cater to a wickedly small share of customers for whatever goods and services they may offer. But, those tend to be just as wickedly expensive to purchase. Because it is such a small % of those that shop for said item. I and many others would rather Apple do what they are doing the way they are doing it. It works for the majority. For those that fall along the side of not enough to too much, well as the old saying goes. You can't please everyone all the time. Face the fact that you want something Apple doesn't offer and move on. You certainly can ask, or suggest or wish or whatever for it. Heck, you can even hack the device/iOS yourself and do with it as you please if you're able. Apple shouldn't have to make that easy for you to do. And they should protect their product so that someone or some nefarious groups don't break into my device.
Like I said above. You can't please everyone all the time. If you personally ran Apple the way you want them to function. You might very well find your company failing. I can prove it by pointing you and anyone else to the current share price and market value of Apple for the past, I don't know 10+ years. Clearly they are doing this correctly. Maybe not for Europeans. But, globally it's working out pretty well.
How about this point to chew on. Apple's Mac platform since moving to intel (and before M1) has never been more open. During that time you could almost do whatever you wanted. EVEN run Windows OS native. You "could" even put in an assortment of GPU's, anyones RAM and or Storage. You "Could" even update the CPU on some models. The OS is WIDE open to do with as you wish.
Did ANY of that increase Apple's market penetration to any meaningful levels above G3/4/5 based Macs?
OR, again stay with me. OR was it the iPhone, iPad, and its closed iOS/iPadOS that drove them to higher and higher levels?
This isn't about an unwillingness to do "everything" you and a few others want. It's about reality. It simply is not worth it, it comes with risks. There are too few customers that actually want it and will pay for it. And more importantly. There is already an alternative that offers all of that at prices Apple will not compete with. If you and others don't "like" it. I'll be the first to say "sorry" with a "but" it's not that bad. You can buy an iPhone SE for all your Apple based needs. And any Android phone to take care of all your tinkering. Or you can spend some time hacking an iPhone to make it do what you want. And if you live in the EU, just wait a year or less and get exactly what you're asking for.