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

[nicolas_s]

They don’t need to. The reason America has such crushing debt is because the republicans keep cutting taxes for their 1% backers but are still finding they need to spend a shedload of money in keeping the state functional.

The EU is actually a better system than the USA because each country is still its own separate jurisdiction of laws, taxes and so on. The EU is just a large area of some common laws (eg don’t destroy the environment) with freedom of movement of capital, trade and people across borders.

It’s not as federalised as the USA by a long shot.

In theory.

But in practice, the EU laws can be used by some countries for their own benefits and create a disadvantage to other countries.

For example, the price of electricity is indexed to price of gas.

When the gas price rose, electricity providers in France were forced to sell the cheap electricity they produced and buy back at a high price. French citizens had to pay huge electricity bills even though France has plenty of nuclear power plants that produce cheap electricity.

The EU is not just an agreement for trade between countries. EU laws are hierarchically superior to national laws.

Every country in the Euro zone is forced to follow ECB policy even if it doesn't benefit to them. This raises questions about sovereignty.

 

[aParkerMusic]

The problem is:

• App distribution on iOS/iPadOS locked to a single app store that Apple controls with no other way to get apps, which under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) marks them as a gatekeeper and they must rectify this by allowing alternatives to the Apple App Store on iOS, similarly to how they do on macOS
• WebKit being the only web engine allowed on iOS. (Chrome and FireFox on iOS are just UI skins, as they're still forced to use WebKit which defeats the entire point of using Chrome or FireFox, as people want Chromium and FireFox Quantum, not WebKit) Remember when Microsoft got in trouble for pulling that stunt back in the 90s with United States of America vs Microsoft?

So the solution for both is simple: Just allow alternatives like they do on macOS. That's it. That's all they gotta do. A simple problem with a simple solution that Apple does not want to do as it means their app store monopoly is a *little* bit smaller.



It's not just the EU. Japan also approved similar measures and they will be forcing Apple to allow alternative app distribution as well, and in Japan Apple has a landslide dominance over any other competitor there of almost 70%. Like it's not even close. You gonna tell Apple to stop selling their products there too when they have overwhelming market dominance?



Why? This change benefits consumers as now iOS would have competition in app distribution, and competition breeds innovation. The only people this doesn't benefit...is Apple. Curious. 🤔



You can just choose not to sideload you know. Just like on Android, sideloading is completely optional and can be turned on and off with a toggle in settings. You can stay with the Apple App Store and never touch any alternatives should you so choose to.



Yes adding alternatives to app distribution and other web engines on iOS and other proconsumer measures is a "power grab by the elites." I guess forcing Apple to switch to USB-C on the iPhone, a move millions have begged for, was also a power grab?

No consumer is forced to purchase apps through the App Store because no consumer is forced to purchase an iPhone. There are countless other options. You may be able to give your view the force of law, but you will never be correct in your assertion that the App Store consists a monopoly, etc.

 

[contacos]

Since the deadline to implement the required changes ends by March 2024, I expect a huge iOS 17.5 update!

 

[deebinem]

Godzilla can't arrive soon enough.

Fantasy creature? GTFOH. Earthquakes and fires seem more likely.

 

[coredev]

It's just the usual power-grab of the EU. EU wants their own apps, so they have more control over who can spy on their users and monetize the data.

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

A back door still remains and creates risk for new security issues even if turned off.

My guy sideloaded apps are still sandboxed, and you'd still have to turn it on. Literally any update can create security issues. iOS last year alone had over a dozen zero day vulnerabilities (one of them related to AirTags no less) that Apple ignored until a security analyst went public with the vulnerabilities. Any website can be a potential security risk, even Instagram and Discord DMs can be a security risk

That does not make it okay to limit app distribution, as the Mac has proven that you can still have a secure operating system while still allowing users to install whatever they wanted. You paid for the phone, so you deserve everything that is on that phone. This is the same argument I gotta make in regards to Right to Repair.

 

[0339327]

If Apple allows sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS, it will open the door for potentially lower cost selling alternatives for app developers which could open the door for lower cost apps/in-app purchasers, etc.

The EU is not saying Apple has to do anything for "free" bur rather that Apple (as well as Google) has to allow for more of a free and open market on its dominant mobile OS. Many app developers and users may still choose to use the App Store but at least the open market decided and it wasn't so much controlled/dictated by Apple.





Capitalism is about open competition. Apple, by restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative browser engines, etc. on its dominant mobile OS, is restricting open competition.

I'm all for competition. Tell Apple they should break off the App Store into another business... no objection from me. But to force a company to run the App Store, with all the associated costs that go with it, for free, is thievery and unethical.

Apple may likely start charging anyone who has an app a fee to list it. Is that really good for consumers? No, it just shifts the scale wherein Apple doesn't make a commission on each charge.

The result being that everyone will pay for the benefits of the few. Or, put another way, everyone suffers equally: socialism defined.

 

[webkit]

The desktop OS market is what the EU wants the mobile market to become. Is the desktop market significantly better? No. The OS competition dynamic is worse and the prices are higher.

The EU is seeking more open and free competition in markets related to mobile OS (and other things).

 

[clayj]

Fantasy creature? GTFOH. Earthquakes and fires seem more likely.

It's a William Gibson reference.

 

[Rogue AI]

I hope something is done about iMessage so we aren’t so stuck with using it here in the US. If we had an effective US government, they would’ve done something about that monopoly already. Instead, they’re investigating a private citizen who never served in any capacity in the US government.

 

[gnipgnop]

The EU is seeking more open and free competition in markets related to mobile OS (and other things).

The EU's idea of open/free competition is the desktop OS market. That's the problem. Historically, the desktop OS market has not proven to be more competitive than the mobile OS market.

 

[Rogue AI]

Apple, Microsoft, and other companies need to stop catering to what Europe wants. They're just as bad as California when it comes to making unreasonable demands.

Well California is the state that has the highest GDP in the US, so…

 

[AndiG]

Again...tell me the benefits of forcing Apple to allow 3rd party appstores and side loading, and then show me how what you're saying is true, as proven by the 3rd party app stores and side loading on Android. I'll wait.

So first tell me what are the benefits of an open economy and a free market. Then argue why the EU and the US must have such a market. Once you understand that, maybe you can go into why that should also apply to the app market.

After that we could continue with whether the app market is a monopo/duopoly right now and why the trade commissions are investigating. But all the arguments have already been exchanged and you will continue to argue that none of this is true ....

Long story short. You have a different opinion and keep fighting for it. But Apple is now considered a gatekeeper and we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Story told.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

No consumer is forced to purchase apps through the App Store because no consumer is forced to purchase an iPhone. There are countless other options. You may be able to give your view the force of law, but you will never be correct in your assertion that the App Store consists a monopoly, etc.

On iOS you are limited to only apps through Apple's App Store. That is a monopoly on app distribution. Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile OSs, they have a duopoly with Google. If there were other mobile OSs besides just iOS and Android you would be right, the App Store wouldn't consist a monopoly in app distribution as iOS would be just one OS among others. However the wild west of smartphones has long ended, in many countries like Japan iOS has overwhelming dominance.

But to reiterate my point, I'd like to harken back in time to the late 90s with the end of the DotCom Bubble with Microsoft being sued by the FTC for antitrust regarding web browsers on Windows 95 and 98. On Windows, Microsoft made it nay impossible to have other web browsers, that you had to go through Internet Explorer, as Microsoft had a monopoly on web engines on their OS as determined through case law in United States of America vs Microsoft. You didn't hear anyone say "well just use NeXTSTEP or Mac OS 8, you're not forced to use Windows 95." No, they cracked down on Microsoft over this, and if they didn't we would not have other web browsers like FireFox or Chrome.

 

[Xano]

Finally, time to put consumers first.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

If the developer only wants to make it available in a single store on a single platform...they can do that.

Yes. So what’s the big deal?

 

[aParkerMusic]

They don’t need to. The reason America has such crushing debt is because the republicans keep cutting taxes for their 1% backers but are still finding they need to spend a shedload of money in keeping the state functional.

The EU is actually a better system than the USA because each country is still its own separate jurisdiction of laws, taxes and so on. The EU is just a large area of some common laws (eg don’t destroy the environment) with freedom of movement of capital, trade and people across borders.

It’s not as federalised as the USA by a long shot.

I think you have a point about it being a healthier system. Of course, that’s the system that the US is actually supposed to have. The federal government has gotten completely out of control and gone beyond its areas of responsibility. It’s a larger topic, but to tie it back to this thread, I’m not sure this is an example of the EU system working. If level of control, or things like “gatekeeper” status, are decided by marketshare/power, how can you make a one-size-fits-all solution to a collection of countries that may experience different realities.

America has crushing debt because the federal government decides to spend more than it takes in. If it raised taxes on the rich (who already pay the vast majority of taxes), it would just spend more, not balance the budget. And if taxes were raised on the non-rich, people would actually start asking why the government is spending so much and what they’re spending it on…that’s what the government is really afraid of.

Again, to tie it back to the topic at hand, this just feels like another example of government making a decision because it sounds good, but not wanting to deal with the consequences. We may or may not see negative results from these policies, but you can be sure that if we see negative results, the government won’t take responsibility for them. Kind of like how they don’t balance their books, and then they blame everyone else for it. Very much like how people are complaining because Apple may limit data transfer and transfer speeds on the USB-C iPhones. USB-C does not require Thunderbolt-level speeds. There is nothing illegal about Apple implementing a lower speed-threshold, as long as it‘s USB-C (in the context of these new laws). But the lawmakers probably don’t even understand the overlap and distinctions between USB-C, Thunderbolt, USB 4, etc. now that they get a result they don’t want, they will attack Apple.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I', all for competition. Tell Apple they should break off the App Store into another business... objection from me. But to force a company to run the App Store, with all the associated costs that go with it, for free, is thievery and unethical.

Apple may likely start charging anyone who has an app a feee to list it. Is that really good for consumers? No, it just shifts the scale wherein Apple doesn't make a commission on each charge.

The result being that everyone will pay for the benefits of the few. Or, put another way, everyone suffers equally: socialism defined.

Apple can always change the business model from the relatively open system that it is currently (nominally a consignment-based sales model) to something else. If Apple completely closed the App Store and instead offered varied subscriptions, like Apple Arcade, how would that work? Since there is no longer a store, how would the rules apply?

 

[mox358]

Would be interesting to see Microsoft/Google/Apple as a group just decide to leave the EU.

Imagine all those services going dark overnight. Obviously this isn’t going to happen, but I wonder if the EU really has all the leverage they think they do. What would be the breaking point where these companies would abandon Europe because regulations become too encumbering.

 

[aParkerMusic]

That is completely wrong. Tax revenue to the Federal government has SOARED. Lowering taxes resulted in increased government tax receipts. The deficits are being caused by insane spending

Try doing some basic research on Google

This is an oft-ignored truth. When tax rates were lowered, tax revenue increased, 100% true and verifiable. The problem is that government spent more.

To tie it back to this thread, it’s another example of government making policy because of optics, because of how people will perceive the action. The irony is that many people “perceive” that the government takes in less money when taxes are lowered, even though the reality is the opposite. By the same token, many people may “perceive” that government is virtuously battling for the consumer, but they may just be entrenching and expanding their own power, for their own purposes. I see much of that in the EU’s approach to Apple these days.

 

[vegetassj4]

delete

 

[gnipgnop]

America has crushing debt because the federal government decides to spend more than it takes in.

America has high levels of debt due to the Bush tax cuts, invasion/occupation of Afghanistan, invasion/occupation of Iraq, the Great Recession and the Trump tax cuts. Debt levels were decreasing in 2000 and would have continued to decrease otherwise.

 

[jlc1978]

Given how rigged the app store is, this is great news for smaller companies. We may well see a ton of innovation which would revitalise the (IMHO) stale store that stands now.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out and if an alternative app store can get the amount of users as Apple’s. Allowing alternative stores in some ways strengthens Apple’s hand as they can refuse to host for free apps that use their own payment system or change to charge to host and download, or restrict app functionality like they do in the Mac app store. Apple can also charge to sign apps and put in place security controls to require apps to ask for permission much as on the Mac if they aren’t signed.

 

[aParkerMusic]

Apparently not the freedom to install any app you want, or to use non-Safari browser engines, or for apps to link to alternative payment methods, etc.

The freedom to invest in the type of experience I want. The experience where this is a sole, trusted App Store, browser, etc. You can have the freedom to invest in a different type of experience.

 

[coredev]

Obviously this isn’t going to happen,

Yes, it will not happen

but I wonder if the EU really has all the leverage they think they do.

and that's why the EU has all the leverage.

The business model of US tech companies depends on the economy of scale. It is not possible anymore to ignore a market as large as the EU. Even the French market is large enough that it justified Apple to make a special version of the iPhone 12 (?) including EarPods - just for the French market.