Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

[Gudi]

And what...laws can't be flawed? You never question any laws that the EU passes? You never question the laws of the United States? Of course you do.

No, I don't question our laws. There are so many people and parties in so many countries and languages checking and refining every bit of EU legislation. I couldn't write better regulations myself. It could be quicker, we still need an EU-wide ban on added sugar, for example. But when a new market regulation comes, it's always sound and necessary. In Europe we trust!

 

[OneBar]

The EU is not a bunch of hackers trying to jailbreak into iOS. They are a market regulator and they have the means and the authority to make any corporation comply.

The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets

View attachment 2256908

Not even remotely what we're talking about here. You specifically said you own the device and should be able to do what you want with it. I'm merely pointing out that you in fact do not own the software aspect of the device so you cannot do anything you wish with it.

 

[OneBar]

Customers "purchase" iOS as part of the iPhone in the similar way they can "purchase" Windows as part of the PC. In that sense, they "own" (or don't "own") iOS as much as they "own" (or don't "own") Windows.

Uh, no. I can build a pc and put any pc compatible OS on it via purchasing or downloading in the case of Linux. You cannot purchase iOS. You do not own iOS like you do Windows. You do not purchase an iOS registration.

And yet it is. You may disagree with how the EU defines "dominance" and/or how it defines "anticompetitive behavior" but that doesn't mean the combination of the two isn't coherent.

Whether or not I agree with what they're doing, their definition of anticompetitive behavior is nonsensical from all that I've seen.

It's about the dominance of the major players in the market. The point, again, is that the existence of alternatives doesn't negate antitrust laws.

So then, as I've said many times, it's a money grab and doesn't have anything to do with helping the customer or fostering competition. If the customer base has weeded the competition down to 2 majority holders, why make it an issue? There is no one waiting in the wings for Apple or Google to make a little less money in order for them to break out onto the scene. They're either going to break out or they're not. That's how the market works.

False. Retailers absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufactures may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers have to stick to that price. Note the word SUGGESTED in MSRP as it can be illegal for manufacturers to dictate pricing to third party retailers. This would be known as vertical price fixing.

Nice apples and oranges again. Frito Lay doesn't manufacture chips for Walmart. Chevy manufactures Silverados for CHEVY dealers. They do not sell Silverados through FORD dealers. And no lot sells brand new vehicles from an assortment of manufacturers. Which is what Walmart does. They sell Frito Lay, Doritos, Takis, etc. They're not a Frito Lay retailer. They are a market where anyone may contract with them to be the middle man for their product. Which is what the App Stores are. And as such, they do not set or control the pricing of any apps they do not themselves develop. Just like Walmart does not set the pricing or control it on Fritos.

 

[OneBar]

Which only highlights that even for the puniest little settings the legislative regulator of each country has the full authority to tell Apple how "their" software is supposed to work in our country. It doesn't matter that the shutter sound isn't a gatekeeper technology. A law, is a law, is a law.

Again you side step the point in favor of a non sequitur. Your initial point was that EU law wouldn't affect phones in the US. It will. It's a core function of the OS that will be rebuilt if they go forward with this. There won't be multiple versions of the OS running around. They would have to make the company even bigger so that they could have a UK team and an everyone else that doesn't use the UK iOS team. Or they just change the whole thing for everyone. That shutter toggle exists within the base code of iOS worldwide. It just only toggles for Japan. That won't be possible for sideloading and external stores.

 

[El Szomorito]

Great. Free installation of apps on iOS won’t make it so you have to fight your device any more than you have to fight your Mac.

Yeah, fundamentally redesigning something on laymen's instructions never broke anything. Look what a great job they did with those cookie warnings.

 

[El Szomorito]

No, I don't question our laws. There are so many people and parties in so many countries and languages checking and refining every bit of EU legislation. I couldn't write better regulations myself. It could be quicker, we still need an EU-wide ban on added sugar, for example. But when a new market regulation comes, it's always sound and necessary. In Europe we trust!

Holy f*ck, I'm out of downvotes when I need it the most.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

You shouldn't make any assumptions given the state of the American education system these days. After all, in Florida kids are now learning about how slaves actually benefited from being enslaved! Pretty soon we'll be watering our lawns with Gatorade...

No worries! Thanks to the general diminishment of the US educational system, spread of corporate-first propaganda disguised as ‘news’ and ‘analysis,’ regulatory and legislative capture by oligarchs and multinationals…[and now the entirely uncontrolled disinformation bombardment by agents of chaos(?)], I don’t think our civilization will survive long enough to reach that point of complete moronization and the resultant Idiocracy.

Most of humanity will have broiled away in the ‘wet bulb’ extremecore environment that is coming [since we just…can’t…stop with the fossil fuels, nor start with real mitigation measures], long before a Gatorade farming moment.

 

[Ctrlos]

Holy f*ck, I'm out of downvotes when I need it the most.

Gudi isn’t wrong. The EU represents what happens when you have laws made in favour of the people instead of those made in favour of the 1%.

You only have to look at the sewage situation that has popped up in the UK after it left the EU and lost its clean water protection laws. The increasingly further-right Tory government is now threatening to leave the European Court of Human Rights (set up post WW2 to ensure no state could just do what it wants to its citizens) so it can house asylum seekers in concentration camps.

The EU was a peace project designed to prevent the destructive wars that had plagued the continent for centuries prior and it worked.

 

[Ctrlos]

That doesn't mean that incompetent bureaucrats meddling with them will improve consumer experience and/or results in lower costs. Just look at those bloody cookie warnings. Or how they "saved me" from keep using my already owned cables instead of buying new ones.

The USB-C thing is entirely different. Apple was dragging its feet in the name of pure profit and not putting the consumer first.

It’s bad enough iPhones still have USB2 transfer speeds but when even their TV remote uses USB-C they have no leg to stand on not adopting an industry standard.

I doubt you’ll have to buy new cables because if you’re on this forum you likely already own several other Apple products that all charge using USB-C

 

[El Szomorito]

It’s bad enough iPhones still have USB2 transfer speeds but when even their TV remote uses USB-C they have no leg to stand on not adopting an industry standard.

Thinking about cable transfer speeds for mobile devices is so 2010s.

I doubt you’ll have to buy new cables because if you’re on this forum you likely already own several other Apple products that all charge using USB-C

That's not helping much. The macbook charger is plugged in all the time because of clamshell mode, so that's like it's not even there. I have two other chargers at home, one usb-c for the BeatsX, the powerbank plus xbox controller. One other for iphone and ipad. A third cable plugged into the monitor used for either charging the pencil or the magic keyboard. I need the ability to charge more devices at once. That's one cable to replace.

I have a charger at my parent's house. That's two cables.

I have a charger at work. That's three cables.

With the power bank, I either lose the current functionality to simultaniously charge my iphone and headset, or buy a fourth cable.

If EU cares about the environment, they should be banning wireless charging, not meddling with ports.

 

[Zest28]

This is a nonsense argument. Apple does not own my device. I do. I paid for it. Apple isn't entitled to a lifetime revenue stream because I bought one of their hardware products. No other computing platform works this way and we should not tolerate it.

It is in the best interest of society to have open platforms, not gatekeepers and bridge trolls, which has sadly become Apple's business model. What they're doing is just a digital spin on the old "company store" model where you had to see the company doctor, send your kids to the company school, and shop at the company store. This model is anti-freedom, anti-consumer, and is designed only to further enrich and entrench the bridge troll.

If you want an open platform, there is Linux. Else you go with Apple.

And since Linux is not used by consumers alot, seems it is quite clear people prefer a closed platform where Apple ensures high quality standards.

Do you think you can paint “my little pony“ on your Ferrari that you just bought? Ferrari will sue you, blacklist you and demand the car back. Ferrari is known to do this if their customers don‘t treat their cars with respect.

 

[El Szomorito]

Gudi isn’t wrong. The EU represents what happens when you have laws made in favour of the people instead of those made in favour of the 1%.

You only have to look at the sewage situation that has popped up in the UK after it left the EU and lost its clean water protection laws. The increasingly further-right Tory government is now threatening to leave the European Court of Human Rights (set up post WW2 to ensure no state could just do what it wants to its citizens) so it can house asylum seekers in concentration camps.

The EU was a peace project designed to prevent the destructive wars that had plagued the continent for centuries prior and it worked.

The EU is a good idea, with a very flawed implementation.

First, let me tell you who goes to the European Parliament. The politicians who are washed out from domestic politics, or had a scandal and have to be tucked away, but still have friends within the party. It's a collection of rejects and corrupt career politicians, even more than domestic politics. It's essentially what the US uses their less important embassies: to tuck away the problems with a good paying job which might even look like a promotion.

Sometimes even the voters use it to punish the ruling parties instead of actually voting for the ones representing their values.

What they essentially do is pick up popular subjects to repair their image, and the initial ideas might even be good, but then spectacularly f**k up the implementation. Because they can't actually do anything like creating/funding programs, they resort to forcing down regulations on the throats of the member states. And since they are the lowest of the low, those regulations are idiotic and sometimes even contraproductive.

Cookie warnings, the bloody plastic ban, production quotas devastating entire industries, how they've implemented the European rail card, energy policy, and the list goes on.

Btw, the refugee situation is the prime example where they've never actually asked what people want, and the only meaningful thing they've actually achived with their policies is the strengthening of radical parties.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

@Mrkevinfinnerty The part about paying the worst royalties is true.

Apple PR nonsense about streaming royalties misrepresents how royalties are paid from streaming platforms.

Serveral sources suggest both Amazon and Youtube pay artists less than Spotify.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Apples anticompetitive practices anyway.

HTH.

 

[webkit]

Sure...but "gatekeeper" is a newly coined term that your political system invented. But you keep using it like it's the same thing as "monopoly" which it isn't. That's fine, your political system can invent whichever laws you want. But you should at least acknowledge that it's different.

That doesn’t make it any less valid (at least for EU countries) than the term "monopoly" was when it was first coined.

I haven't been using it to mean the same as monopoly. I've been using it as a way the EU identifies a “dominant” company.

For example, you keep comparing it to the Microsoft case in the 90's, which had nothing to do with what you're calling a "gatekeeper." That's all we're saying. You can't compare two completely different standards and argue they're the same thing. They're not.

I reference Microsoft as an example of "anticompetitive behavior" not because its "monopoly" label was the same as the EU's "gatekeeper" label.

The open markets HAS already had a chance to decide, and it simply hasn't done what you think it will do in this case. I guess I don't understand why you won't even consider this point. You want X to happen here, but X could happen, in exactly the same way, on the Android side, but hasn't. It's the same thing. And the market hasn't done anything close to what you somehow think is going to happen here.

That's like saying the open market decided that Windows was by far the best operating system and therefore no antitrust suits can or should've been able to be brought against MS. Therefore, Microsoft should've been allowed to do things like "discourage" competitor products being loaded on Windows because the market decided they want Windows. That’s incorrect and it’s incorrect to say Apple should essentially be able to do whatever they want regarding iOS.

That makes me suspicious of motives. Because it's obvious the predicted outcome won't happen. But you just seem to refuse to acknowledge that.

That makes me suspicious of motives. Because it's not about whether or not a predicted outcome will happen. But you just seem to refuse to acknowledge that. Again, a purpose of antitrust laws is to promote open competition in markets controlled by only one or a few "dominant" players. It's not to guarantee a particular outcome but rather make an outcome (more open competitive) possible.

 

[webkit]

Uh, no. I can build a pc and put any pc compatible OS on it via purchasing or downloading in the case of Linux. You cannot purchase iOS. You do not own iOS like you do Windows. You do not purchase an iOS registration.

It doesn't necessarily matter if it's sold separately, together/bundled or both ways. When you buy a PC from Dell, HP, etc. you are buying the operating system (Windows) bundled with the hardware. When you buy an iPhone from Apple, AT&T, Best Buy, etc. you are buying the operating system (iOS) bundled with the hardware. Some of Microsoft's bigger DOJ issues was regarding the sale of Windows with PCs (software and hardware together) to consumers and that’s how iPhones are sold (software and hardware together) to consumers.

Whether or not I agree with what they're doing, their definition of anticompetitive behavior is nonsensical from all that I've seen.

It's not nonsensical. Microsoft's "anticompetitive behavior" was restricting competitor software like browsers on Windows (at least when sold as part of the hardware/PC) just as Apple's "anticompetitive behavior" is restricting competitor software like browser engines, app stores, etc. on iOS. Apple is even worse as they go one step further and restrict end users form installing alternative browser engines, app stores, etc.

So then, as I've said many times, it's a money grab and doesn't have anything to do with helping the customer or fostering competition. If the customer base has weeded the competition down to 2 majority holders, why make it an issue? There is no one waiting in the wings for Apple or Google to make a little less money in order for them to break out onto the scene. They're either going to break out or they're not. That's how the market works.

So then, no it's not a money grab. It's about regulating "dominant" players in a market who engage in "anticompetitive behavior."

Nice apples and oranges again. Frito Lay doesn't manufacture chips for Walmart. Chevy manufactures Silverados for CHEVY dealers. They do not sell Silverados through FORD dealers. And no lot sells brand new vehicles from an assortment of manufacturers. Which is what Walmart does. They sell Frito Lay, Doritos, Takis, etc. They're not a Frito Lay retailer. They are a market where anyone may contract with them to be the middle man for their product. Which is what the App Stores are. And as such, they do not set or control the pricing of any apps they do not themselves develop. Just like Walmart does not set the pricing or control it on Fritos.

It doesn't necessarily matter if a product is manufactured "for" a particular store or many stores or manufactured to be sold through/by a particular store or many different stores. Once again, retailers like Walmart absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufacturers of all kinds may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers have to stick to that price. Note the word SUGGESTED in MSRP as it can be illegal for manufacturers to dictate pricing to third party retailers. This would be known as vertical price fixing.

As far as app stores go, they absolutely could work with developers regarding sales, discounts, etc. to entice people to use their store.

 

[unrigestered]

just shipping an OS with "vital" tools isn't, at least as far as i am concerned, gatekeeping though.
it's a service to make a better product.
would you prefer if MS and Apple shipped their OS without file browsers, system utilities and window management stuff too, so others are not in a disadvantage and more people will need to buy add-ons in order to get your system working in the first place?

and how would you download that stuff if your system didn't come with a web browser, or app store pre-installed?

or better yet: buy your Kernel of choice and assemble the rest of your OS yourself by handpicking between hundreds of system utility categories required to make an actual OS.
sounds like fun and super convenience for the end user

actually preventing others from installing alternatives, or making that a nuisance, of course is gatekeeping and could be punished... but then again... if someone is not happy with the pre-installed selection of something, look for alternatives... there is plenty of hardware and software to choose from

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

So…

What’s going to prevent apple from charging for the SDKs? For the iOS App Store, you can use Xcode and such for free since they can recoup the Investments through their App Store fees.

Don’t you already have to pay $100 a year for an App Store developer account and the ability to test your apps on actual devices?

But if we’re considering third party app stores, are they expected to give away the SDKs for free?

If I was apple, I would at least charge a reasonable subscription fee/revshare for Xcode and such that is waived if the user publishes exclusively in the App Store.

Like what Epic Games is doing 😄

That is a horrible idea that will get developers to leave the platform. Other SDKs do not charge developers to use them and only charge for the licensing of the SDK when the app is being published for sale.

Pretty much every SDK is free with enterprise versions. Microsoft Visual Studio is free but has a paid enterprise version. Unreal Engine is free to use where you just gotta pay licensing if you’re publishing your game to sell. XCode does not need to become paid, just do what they already do on the Mac which is charge for app signatures so any sideloaded apps that don’t have an app signature have to go through extra security steps before launching, just like on Mac

 

[JamesHolden]

If you want an open platform, there is Linux. Else you go with Apple.

The Mac is an open platform.

And since Linux is not used by consumers alot, seems it is quite clear people prefer a closed platform where Apple ensures high quality standards.

Again, the Mac is an open platform. Are you saying the Mac is not quality?

Do you think you can paint “my little pony“ on your Ferrari that you just bought? Ferrari will sue you, blacklist you and demand the car back. Ferrari is known to do this if their customers don‘t treat their cars with respect.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Gudi]

Holy f*ck, I'm out of downvotes when I need it the most.

I know exactly what you mean. All those people who said: "the next Apple Watch doesn't need to get any faster". WTF? 🤯

 

[erikkfi]

Yeah, fundamentally redesigning something on laymen's instructions never broke anything. Look what a great job they did with those cookie warnings.

Apple’s a big boy. I’m confident they can implement a common-sense regulation like this without fundamentally breaking the platform.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Nor should they require developers to release apps in Apple's App Store. In that case, what' the point of opening up access to the platform?

If a developer chooses to move to a different app store, he or she risks losing customers. If the developer makes the move, customers will have to decide if Apple's walled garden is important enough to stop using the app (and find an alternative in the App Store). That's freedom (for the consumer, not the corporation). That's how things work on every other computing platform.

I'm not against Apple making money from the App Store. My objection to the App Store monopoly has nothing to do with what Apple charges, percentages, etc. I object to a platform gatekeeper who, at the flick of a switch, can disable an app and silence people, cut them off from services, etc. For me it's not about Apple, but the obvious, inherent dangers of such a system and allowing such a model to become accepted (and replicated in other industries). That's a sure fire path to the dystopian future we see depicted all too often these days.

On the one hand, Apple fans sing Apple's praises when it comes to security and privacy, yet they think so little of Apple that they believe the entire iOS platform will become a wasteland of malware if third party app stores are allowed. How can both be true? And why isn't the Mac a wasteland of malware?

I’m somewhere between these two concerns. While on the one hand, I do believe that Apple has too much control on what software I am allowed to install on my own computer —my iphone—I think I should have as much freedom to do as I please with my phone as I do my desktop and laptop computers. But I do think that opening the platform to all and unvetted software will increase security risk for every iphone user, whether we install poorly chosen software/malware or not. The platform itself will be more permeable. If apps are given access to system resources (outside the sandbox) in a way which they aren’t now, doesn’t that pose a greater risk to all of us?
I also think that this is a modality which our governments and other state actors can use to better infiltrate and spy on the masses (and on targets).

 

[redbeard331]

I just want to be able to jailbreak my phone that I own and pay for. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Crowbot]

I just want to be able to jailbreak my phone that I own and pay for. Is that too much to ask?

Unfortunately for you, it is. To unlock your phone Apple would have to unlock everyone's phone. Sorry.

 

[JamesHolden]

I’m somewhere between these two concerns. While on the one hand, I do believe that Apple has too much control on what software I am allowed to install on my own computer —my iphone—I think I should have as much freedom to do as I please with my phone as I do my desktop and laptop computers. But I do think that opening the platform to all and unvetted software will increase security risk for every iphone user, whether we install poorly chosen software/malware or not. The platform itself will be more permeable. If apps are given access to system resources (outside the sandbox) in a way which they aren’t now, doesn’t that pose a greater risk to all of us?

I don't see how it does. We need only look to the Mac. What someone else does on his or her iOS device won't impact yours anymore than what someone else does on his or her Mac impacts mine. The Mac isn't "more permeable", nor does it have an increased security risk because it is more open.

In my opinion, the "all of your eggs in one basket" approach is a bigger threat for the reasons I outlined. Allowing a single corporation to have a kill switch for the electronic device an individual relies upon for communication, commerce, etc, is much more dangerous, especially when that company kowtows to governments who do not share the company's stated values.

I also think that this is a modality which our governments and other state actors can use to better infiltrate and spy on the masses (and on targets).

I disagree. This is where a distributed approach is much safer for the individual. The gatekeeper model lets one company have near-total control of your device. If Apple wanted to track every iPhone user's location in real time, they easily could. It's not hard to conceive of a "national security" scenario where Apple is forced to do so and, at the same time, prohibited by law from revealing it. Apple hides behind the excuse that it obeys local laws, even if those laws mean pulling thousands of apps from the App Store because some government didn't like them. That's a very slippery slope.

The gatekeeper model is an Orwellian fantasy come true. It's much easier for a government or state actor to exert control over a single entity than it is an open platform. Throw "national security" into the mix and there's a very good chance the public will never be informed of what is happening and the gatekeeper will go on spinning whatever marketing propaganda it wants.

 

[Gudi]

So, here's my latest hope for Apple. Create an EU-Only version of iOS, and wall off the EU from the rest of the world. Don't change anything about iOS for the rest of the world. This would have the effect of cutting any efforts at implementing a 3rd Party App store, because the market is only EU.

You forgot that the EU is a beacon of hope for mankind. Right at this moment people all over the world are reading EU laws with the intend to introduce similar regulations in their countries. Not even Americans are immune against the promise of freedom to install apps from wherever they want on their iPhones. The dispute with Fortnite developer Epic Games has alarmed every gamer on the planet about the dangers of Apple's app despotism. The company should consider itself lucky, that this monopoly lasted that long. Just like the galactic empire, its fall was ultimately unavoidable. All we can do is shorten the darkness.