Apple Rivals Unite to Promote Open Ecosystems Using EU Law

[Velli]

Then keep doing that. Absolutely nothing in this article is suggesting otherwise.

Just because something is available doesn't mean you have to use it.

Except, if Apple opens up like people want them to, things like payments and especially subscriptions is going to be fragmented all over the place, and I can no longer choose to do all of my purchasing through one store.

I may be a minority, but I have services that I subscribe to through the app store even though it sometimes costs extra, simply because I find it easier, especially when you want to unsubscribe. And, it's easier to get an overview on what I am currently subscribed to.

It will NOT be possible to simply ignore third party app stores and carry on like nothing happened. It will change iPhone into the same sorry mess that is Android and Windows. This is the last thing I want.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

So, you think it's somehow conceivable that every 'individual' customer could have equal right to dictate to Apple how it operates? Yeah, that's going to work.

You're right, it's not the case and that wouldn't work, so customers (and non-customers) collectively elect or push their governments to do it for them. All companies operate under the privilege of the governments and markets in which they reside. It's an offered privilege; it's not a right, and can be rescinded.

 

[Velli]

I bought my iPhones expecting that those rules would eventually be relaxed, yes, and was prepared to wait because the platform and hardware is so much better than the competition. It took some time, and didn't arrive in the manner I expected, but here it finally is (I think, we'll know for sure in march 2024 whether Apple tries to exploit some loophole to get out of it).

Let me get this straight: So you bought a device based on your own assumptions on future changes to that device, assumptions that weren't founded in promises made by the manufacturer. And now you're angry that your assumptions were wrong?

But yes, you are right, I'm arguing as though I have a right as the devices owner to run whatever code I want on it. I believe I should have that right on any device I own that claims to be a general purpose computing device, which the iPhone unequivocally is.

Please point me to an example of Apple claiming that iPhone is a "general purpose computing device". I believe it was launched as "an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator". Nowhere since did they say that iPhone was designed to let you re-program it into being a garage door opener. That's why they still sell Macs.

Should you also be able to re-program your car? Your watch? Your washing machine? Should every product in the world be a programming tool?

I don't care if Apple delivers that in the form of an unlocked bootloader telling me "do it yourself then", that's fine for me, but I 100% believe that buying a device means it's mine and I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Elbow grease required or not.

If you disagree with that, then I would like to hear clear arguments as to why you believe some corporation has the right to sell you a device and then tell you what you can and can't do with it.

What gives you the right to make demands on how a manufacturer designs their device? You can buy it or not, but whoever made the product should be free to design it in whichever way they see fit to serve their customers. Or not serve their customers, if they can find the business case in that. It's even totally legal to make stupid business decisions.

Why can't I go swimming with my Lenovo? Lenovo should totally make all computers waterproof, so that I can use it in my pool.

 

[Velli]

You're right, it's not the case and that wouldn't work, so customers (and non-customers) collectively elect or push their governments to do it for them. All companies operate under the privilege of the governments and markets in which they reside. It's an offered privilege; it's not a right, and can be rescinded.

Governments do not represent solely the consumer. They also represent the companies, and the employees that work for them.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Governments do not represent solely the consumer. They also represent the companies, and the employees that work for them.

That's where I disagree. Corporations aren't a person and shouldn't have representation. The individual employers and leadership should, but not the company as a whole. They shouldn't be able to donate to political parties or politicians since they don't have the right to vote.

Corporations are not people, and shouldn't be treated as people, ethically, legally, morally, or otherwise.

 

[PassiveSmoking]

So, if Google are a part of this group does that mean that Google want the EU to investigate Google for its near monopoly of the browser market among other things? Because if so Google should be applauded for its efforts to limit Google's undue influence over what's supposed to be an open platform before Google started to dominate it. Well done, Google! I'm glad somebody finally spoke out about Google!

 

[sleeptodream]

If Apple refuses, and it looks they are, I'll push for regulation.

I'm the customer, I decide, and I'll use all venues available to me, including pushing for government regulation.

This is a somewhat selfish take, wanting the government to regulate things based on your desires. By pushing for regulation you’re taking away choice from others that don’t want this. Android already exists for people that do. No one is forcing us to buy iPhones.

If this was macOS we were talking about I’d be all for it, but this is a mobile operating system, and security is much more of an issue for a device that tracks your location every moment of every day with cameras facing every direction and capable of seeing and hearing everything you do.

I don’t want my phone to be the same ******** that every other OS is, I want it to be simple, fast, convenient, secure, and reliable with 100% uptime. Windows and Android aren’t, neither is macOS. iOS is as close to that as is possible these days.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

hahaha...you have a very interesting notion of what a customer is.

By your own admission, you're no longer a customer of Apple.

I bought, own and use an iPhone. I bought, own and use a MacBook. I bought, own and use an Apple Watch... and two sets of Airpods, and an Apple TV.

I'm very much a customer.

 

[koil]

Let me get this straight: So you bought a device based on your own assumptions on future changes to that device, assumptions that weren't founded in promises made by the manufacturer. And now you're angry that your assumptions were wrong?

I'm not angry, I've been mildly annoyed, but mostly content. And no, I didn't buy my phone based on assumptions. I had assumptions when I bought my phone, but they weren't the reason I bought it.

Please point me to an example of Apple claiming that iPhone is a "general purpose computing device". I believe it was launched as "an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator". Nowhere since did they say that iPhone was designed to let you re-program it into being a garage door opener. That's why they still sell Macs.

They don't have to say it, but it is based on its functions. I would have no problems if it didn't have an App Store, but when Apple decided to make it possible for users to extend the functionality it became a general purpose computing device.

Should you also be able to re-program your car? Your watch? Your washing machine? Should every product in the world be a programming tool?

Sure, when car manufacturers feel it's acceptable to put software-locked hardware in a car I own I'm allowed to unlock it, it's my hardware. My Apple Watch is arguably also a general purpose computing device, so yes. My washing machine isn't smart, but yeah I'll modify it if I damn well please.

What gives you the right to make demands on how a manufacturer designs their device? You can buy it or not, but whoever made the product should be free to design it in whichever way they see fit to serve their customers. Or not serve their customers, if they can find the business case in that. It's even totally legal to make stupid business decisions.

But it is illegal to act monopolistically, and honestly, a duopoly is barely better. Apple taking money from e.g. music services while also being a music service themselves is a problem. The same goes for Google. That's the reason these laws are being written.

 

[Velli]

That's where I disagree. Corporations aren't a person and shouldn't have representation. The individual employers and leadership should, but not the company as a whole. They shouldn't be able to donate to political parties or politicians since they don't have the right to vote.

Corporations are not people, and shouldn't be treated as people, ethically, legally, morally, or otherwise.

Agree to disagree. Of course corporations should not be treated as people, but that does not mean that corporations shouldn't have rights. And of course the corporation doesn't have voting rights, that's silly. But the owner of a corporation does.

Governments must provide an environment that allows corporations to function in sustainable ways, so that people have jobs, so they can afford to be consumers. Without corporations, there are no consumers. Only farmers and hunters.

I already had posts deleted for political content, so I'm not going to comment on how the US political system and donations from corporations works.

 

[Velli]

They don't have to say it, but it is based on its functions. I would have no problems if it didn't have an App Store, but when Apple decided to make it possible for users to extend the functionality it became a general purpose computing device.

That doesn't mean they have to open it up for you to do whatever you want with it. That's your personal idea of what a general purpose computing device should do, because you're a programmer. Newsflash; The majority is not a programmer, and don't care whether you can run your own code on it.

Sure, when car manufacturers feel it's acceptable to put software-locked hardware in a car I own I'm allowed to unlock it, it's my hardware. My Apple Watch is arguably also a general purpose computing device, so yes. My washing machine isn't smart, but yeah I'll modify it if I damn well please.

Again, there is a difference between modifying something in whichever way you are capable of, and enforcing a rule that the company must provide support for your modifications.

I manufacture hardware products where it's relatively common to modify certain components, for "personalization". I'm fine with that, they can do what they want, but I am not and should not be obliged to provide support on how to disassemble parts that are not designed to be user-serviceable.

But it is illegal to act monopolistically, and honestly, a duopoly is barely better. Apple taking money from e.g. music services while also being a music service themselves is a problem. The same goes for Google. That's the reason these laws are being written.

I fail to see what that has to do with you wanting to modify your device.

 

[I7guy]

If Apple refuses, and it looks they are, I'll push for regulation.

I'm the customer, I decide, and I'll use all venues available to me, including pushing for government regulation.

Same. I'll vote with my votes at the ballot box to show my support for less government regulation.

 

[Realityck]

Google, Meta, Qualcomm, Nothing, Lenovo, Opera and several other tech companies have announced a collaborative effort to push for "open digital ecosystems" in what appears to be a pointed move against Apple (via Reuters). CODE plans to work with companies, legislators, and academics to promote digital openness and present pathways for this to be achieved in Europe using the DMA and future EU legislation. Members have discussed how digital ecosystems should work in Europe and what positively impacts competitiveness and openness. The organisation aims to open up major digital ecosystems using cross-industry collaboration to promote seamless connectivity and interoperability between systems

One could argue against PC/Android marketplace related businesses utilizing the EU to leverage against Apple alternatives as pending monopolies that are not satisfied with growing their own business on their own? Using an open digital ecosystem as the only permitted scheme obliterates creativity. Just because something is free and open at the start doesn't mean it can't turn into the opposite as Google has accomplished previously. Facebook, Meta is another example. Qualcomm is no saint either. Consumers need choice, let them decide what they like, not what some government decides is best.

 

[koil]

This is a somewhat selfish take, wanting the government to regulate things based on your desires. By pushing for regulation you’re taking away choice from others that don’t want this. Android already exists for people that do. No one is forcing us to buy iPhones.

If this was macOS we were talking about I’d be all for it, but this is a mobile operating system, and security is much more of an issue for a device that tracks your location every moment of every day with cameras facing every direction and capable of seeing and hearing everything you do.

I don’t want my phone to be the same ******** that every other OS is, I want it to be simple, fast, convenient, secure, and reliable with 100% uptime. Windows and Android aren’t, neither is macOS. iOS is as close to that as is possible these days.

It's so weird hearing people make this argument, you actually seriously want fewer options? Can't you just not utilise those options?

The sandbox will still be there protecting you from apps that try to access your location, apps installed from 3rd party app stores can't bypass it without entitlements they won't be able to get.

And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but iOS has had quite a few zero-click-to-RCE chains in recent years. These changes will actually be a benefit to security on iOS as more researchers will have easier access to play with the OS.

 

[BaldiMac]

And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but iOS has had more zero-click-to-RCE chains than any other mobile OS in recent years.

I'd like to see how this is determined. What's the source?

 

[webkit]

That is 100% completely false. I know several college kids that have iPhones yet live paycheck to paycheck for food and other necessities. You do know you don’t pay $1,000+ up front when you buy from a carrier right?

100% completely false? There have been studies done over the years that have reported the average income of iPhone owners being a fair amount higher than average income of Android phone owners. It would not be a stretch to conclude that a reason iPhone users on average purchase more apps is because iPhone users on average have higher income and therefore more money to be able to do so. This is about averages.

 

[koil]

I'd like to see how this is determined. What's the source?

Thanks for keeping me honest. It's just a feeling, I've changed the wording above to be less gossipy hehe.

 

[webkit]

So..correct me if I am wrong... The company (Apple) who makes their own devices, processor that runs the OS, developed the OS that the device, owns and operates the App Store that is on the device isn't blocking competition.

I think they ARE blocking competition by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS.

All of the companies listed only makes up to a certain point and then they sell/license the product to someone else. Even Google as discovered in their recent court loss with Epic Games, as shown that although Android allows sideloading, basically everything is ran through Google Services...you get cut off from Google Services (which Google has done to several companies) and you are basically cut off from your phone being a smartphone. Unless you are like China and have a separate (government controlled) App Store which is severely limited in apps.

You go right ahead and drink the kool-aid that Google and the other companies are pitching about "open"

Edit: Adding, also in that recent court loss, it has been shown/proven that Google has made secret deals with other developers to keep them from opening a new app store and further promoting them like Spotify...so who is the one restricting? So much for open am i right?

My issue is not that Google wasn’t being anticompetitive by some of their actions, my issue is that Apple is ALSO being anticompetitive and I feel even more so than Google. At least Google still allows for the possibility of app access competition on Android. Apple doesn't allow it on iOS.

 

[Velli]

It's so weird hearing people make this argument, you actually seriously want fewer options?

I can only speak for myself, but yes, in many scenarios I actively want fewer options. Simplicity is also a value.

 

[webkit]

What are the players? Apple, oppo, huawei. How do you want to define your universe? By manufacturer or by licensed o/s (the same way the EU threaded the needle). The same thing Epic tried, but didn't quite get what they were after.

The two major mobile app store players are the App Store (Apple) and Google Play (Google). The two major mobile OS players are Google (Android) and Apple (iOS). Ideally, the "universe" should be based on the country/region where the law is being applied.

 

[Velli]

That is 100% completely false. I know several college kids that have iPhones yet live paycheck to paycheck for food and other necessities. You do know you don’t pay $1,000+ up front when you buy from a carrier right?

Please look up "average".

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Apple doesn't have the leverage, investors do, and they could single-handedly sink the company for doing something like this.

Over 60% of the company is owned for institutional investors, and they wouldn't be on the side of losing $100 billion/year

They wouldn't lose anything, though, because the EU would back down. That's what I'm talking about. Apple has all the leverage, not the EU. The EU is just bluffing. The people who vote these crooks into office would be on Apple's side faster than you could type a sentence. It would be a massive protest. The EU would lose.

 

[koil]

I can only speak for myself, but yes, in many scenarios I actively want fewer options. Simplicity is also a value.

I get that I guess, but enabling access to 3rd party app installation will not detract from simplicity, it's gonna be a well-hidden slider in settings which will be about as annoying to enable as they are allowed to make it.

 

[webkit]

Apple aren’t forced to be closed, it’s a choice. Customers aren’t forced to buy Apple products, that’s also a choice.

Some like the closed environment and it’s a selling point for them.

If you want the ability to sideload, go to android. By forcing this they’re taking away choice from those who don’t want such an open ecosystem.

It’s forced in the sense that they are not giving iOS app developers or users a CHOICE to sideload or use alternative app stores on iOS.

Just because there may be another choice (or choices) in a market doesn't give a company a right to violate antitrust laws. Coke is an alternative to Pepsi and vice versa yet both have dealt with antitrust matters over the years. There were desktop OS alternatives to Windows in the 1990s (e.g., Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.) yet Microsoft/Windows dealt with years of antitrust related activities.

 

[SpotOnT]

Privacy online has been gone since the inception of internet.

That is what people who don’t want to take the time to think about internet privacy say.

“There is no privacy! It is a lost cause!” Now you don’t have to put in the work to care right? Hey, whatever helps you sleep better at night I guess.