EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[jameslmoser]

But you don't have to go to Disneyland, at least not in the US. You can visit Six Flags, Universal Studios, or several other different theme parks.

If you want multiple app stores and sideloading, Android is available. Indeed, that is what most EU customers choose.

Whoosh!! right over your head. You can visit Six Flags, etc, because they don't have to use Disney, a potential competitor, for anything.

If you already were locked into Apple's ecosystem, which is another anti-consumer thing they do, then you actually have to repay for any apps, etc, that you already bought that works for iOS. This choice of android is an illusion, not to mention that if Google had their way they would remove that now. They are trying to do the same thing Apple is doing.

Why do you think Apple removed the ability to purchase/rent shows on their Android AppleTV+ app recently? They don't want to pay Google their commission. Complete hypocrisy on Apple's part.

 

[UBS28]

Exactly, lots of theme parks. Only two mobile OS's. You're so close to getting it.

BS. Those apps work also in browsers. Or you think Youtube is only available on Android and iOS?

 

[jameslmoser]

BS. Those apps work also in browsers. Or you think Youtube is only available on Android and iOS?

Oh.. yeah... because we all now webapps are just as good as native ones, with all the same resources available...

 

[vipergts2207]

BS. Those apps work also in browsers. Or you think Youtube is only available on Android and iOS?

Are you under the impression that a webpage and a native app are the same thing?

 

[Bonte]

Interoperability doesn't mean that at all. All cars share same roads, all TVs receive same channels - yet somehow able to compete and innovate.

All networked devices share the same internet and use the same GSM networks. This is like demanding Ford to install alternative assisted driving software to choose from, it doesn't make sense.

 

[jameslmoser]

All networked devices share the same internet and use the same GSM networks. This is like demanding Ford to install alternative assisted driving software to choose from, it doesn't make sense.

This is a terrible analogy in so many ways...

If you mean anyone can make their own mobile device platform, the last thing we need is a million different mobile OS platforms developers have to support. They won't and we will all loose out.

And if you think there isn't a lot of regulations that Ford has to follow for everything including its software I got news for you. Also, those same rules apply equally to all auto mobile manufacturers.

 

[Bonte]

Apple should quit the EU and let scalpers provide the hardware, it's going to be cheaper than paying 10% of global revenue each year. The EU has lost its marbles.

 

[vipergts2207]

All networked devices share the same internet and use the same GSM networks. This is like demanding Ford to install alternative assisted driving software to choose from, it doesn't make sense.

No it's not. It's more like demanding that some futuristic autonomous driving software be able to communicate with other autonomous driving software in order to allow for better operation on the highways for the wide variety of vehicles from various manufacturers. A proactive system where a car can tell the one behind it that it's going to begin braking in 3 seconds, is superior to one that simply brakes while other vehicles just react to the braking having already occured.

 

[robco74]

Whoosh!! right over your head. You can visit Six Flags, etc, because they don't have to use Disney, a potential competitor, for anything.

If you already were locked into Apple's ecosystem, which is another anti-consumer thing they do, then you actually have to repay for any apps, etc, that you already bought that works for iOS. This choice of android is an illusion, not to mention that if Google had their way they would remove that now. They are trying to do the same thing Apple is doing.

Why do you think Apple removed the ability to purchase/rent shows on their Android AppleTV+ app recently? They don't want to pay Google their commission. Complete hypocrisy on Apple's part.

Android is a valid option. Symbian used to be, but Nokia couldn't keep up. Blackberry used to be, but they couldn't keep up either. Nor could Microsoft. This was because they couldn't compete. Competition means actually competing, it means some options get driven out of the market. Competition !== Collaboration.

You can subscribe through other services using a browser. Apple puts TV+ on Android, and competing smart TVs. They have Music for Android as well. You can even access many of their services on the web now. I can use Google services on my iOS devices, no problem.

If the EU wants more competitors, then they should make it easier for small businesses to be founded and thrive in the EU. There are reasons why people come from the EU to start companies or work for companies in the US, rather than the other way around.

 

[I7guy]

Are you under the impression that a webpage and a native app are the same thing?

I'm under the impression that for many functionalities, a webpage and app can provide the same function. e.g. I can read the WSJ from the website or the WSJ IOS app...I can navigate using google maps either from the website or from the app...etc.

 

[Bonte]

This is a terrible analogy in so many ways...

And if you think there isn't a lot of regulations that Ford has to follow for everything including its software I got news for you. Also, those same rules apply equally to all auto mobile manufacturers.

And Apple has to abide by the same rules as other companies for privacy, warranty etc. The EU is demanding Apple to allow other companies to break Apple's privacy barriers (with alternative app stores) but at the same time force Apple to comply with the privacy regulations. This does not compute!

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm under the impression that for many functionalities, a webpage and app can provide the same function. e.g. I can read the WSJ from the website or the WSJ IOS app...I can navigate using google maps either from the website or from the app...etc.

For some functionalities sure, but not even close to all.

 

[CarlJ]

... I’m really interested how on earth the message interoperability should work. I use Signal and iMessage. How can Signal still be secure and end to end encrypted if it has to be able to work with WhatsApp?

My reading is that these rules only apply to what they are calling "gatekeepers" - basically Apple and Google, who have various levels of control of the platform - not to individual developers.

On the Apple side of this, it means that Messages.app has to have basic (their word) levels of interoperability with other services - it has always has this: it will cheerfully handle sending and receiving SMS messages. If services like Signal and WhatsApp (from developers not gatekeepers) choose not to implement SMS interoperability, that's on them.

I'd be just as happy if Signal continued to only talk with Signal (I presume it's still like that, I haven't looked in a while) - it's the only messaging app I'd trust for super secret communication. And WhatsApp is owned by Facebook - I don't give a flying **** if they don't work with anything.

 

[Bonte]

No it's not. It's more like demanding that some futuristic autonomous driving software be able to communicate with other autonomous driving software in order to allow for better operation on the highways for the wide variety of vehicles from various manufacturers. A proactive system where a car can tell the one behind it that it's going to begin braking in 3 seconds, is superior to one that simply brakes while other vehicles just react to the braking having already occured.

I agree this is an analogy for the iMessage thing but not for alternative app stores

 

[nwcs]

I think the easiest/best way to handle the iMessage situation is to incorporate RCS. Then it would share plenty of interoperability while still allowing iMessage to be end to end encrypted when not using the network. It wouldn't be as secure but that's not what this legislation is concerned about.

Allowing access to the NFC chip and such I think will have to happen. While it can lead to various minor issues I think there's no reason to keep it so locked down.

I think with some flexibility and nuance in how this is "administered" it wouldn't be too bad. However, I do think this will ultimately come with some higher costs and reduced privacy/security. Those of us who are tech savvy can navigate it just fine but others will likely find it confusing and sacrificing user experience for government regulation.

 

[GalileoSeven]

There goes the security of 'Apple Pay' then. The idiots at the EU should go pound sand.

 

[Appleman3546]

Apple had a chance to compromise and accomplish this in an Apple way, but instead they got distracted with the cash flow or the lawsuits and now they have to play by regulator rules ...

 

[vipergts2207]

Apple had a chance to compromise and accomplish this in an Apple way, but instead they got distracted with the cash flow or the lawsuits and now they have to play by regulator rules ...

I've said before, Apple could either make the system more fair on their own terms or on regulator's terms. They chose poorly.

 

[bn-7bc]

You mean using the free, 90-day Let’s Encrypt TLS certificate that allows anyone to spin up a Secure HTTP server? Yeah, super secure. Way to go!

Yea well it's up to the briwser developer, if setup a corrent tlsa reccird rhst inly alliws certificates from the ca they use, and use anything other than lets encrypt. Iirc mist browsers would thriw rather nasry errors/warnings if the ca is not listed in the tlsa. Fine it's noot fool prrof if the havkers can spoof the tlsa response... but then you have comoromised dns and all the orobkems that come along with thst

 

[sherwinzadeh]

What's odd is that Apple is not even close to being a monopoly in Europe.... it's only at 34% last time I checked. Seems like a case of just buying American companies. Not the first time for Europe.

 

[maxoakland]

Some stuff here I don’t personally agree with but I do agree with the basic principles. I am unsure how the UK will react, we have lost so many of the consumer protections from the EU already and are moving more and more isolationist.

That’s how I think too. For one thing, I don’t think forcing iMessage interoperability really makes sense but it can’t hurt anyone

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

On the Apple side of this, it means that Messages.app has to have basic (their word) levels of interoperability with other services - it has always has this: it will cheerfully handle sending and receiving SMS messages. If services like Signal and WhatsApp (from developers not gatekeepers) choose not to implement SMS interoperability, that's on them.

Apple currently doesn't allow apps other than iMessage to have SMS functionality. If this law forces them to change that to satisfy the requirements, that would actually be pretty pro-consumer and would help everyone, since no matter which chat app you use, iOS or Android, you could always know it will go through no matter what app the person on the other end is using, via the SMS protocol. If this law means that the iMessage protocol itself must be replaced by some designed by a committee, no E2EE "standard" (*cough* RCS *cough*) or that iMessage must support every other app's proprietary standard, that's insanely stupid.

Also, I find it interesting that this is being described as a sideloading bill, when technically none of the requirements include sideloading. Although, in practice, it probably will mean Apple must allow third parties to also make app stores. But that's not a forgone conclusion yet.

 

[d686546s]

The last part - not true.
But in a way iMessage already is compatible with any phone. Whatever contact I have in my address book (with a mobile phone number that is) I can text to with iMessage. Cannot say the same thing for WA or Signal.

You can't text everyone with iMessage though. Your phone supports two independent messaging protocols (three, actually, including MMS) within the same app on your iPhone, but that does not mean that you can use iMessage with a non-Apple contact. You can't. That may matter very little if the content of all your messages is text within a single country, but becomes apparent quite quickly when communicating across borders or sharing non-text content.

I have no idea how for this proposed interoperability will go or how much systems will need to open up, but I doubt that relying on a separate protocol that users incur charges for using will cut it.

 

[Thebrochure]

Just because capitalism produces awesome things doesn't mean it doesn't also produce garbage. But nice cherry-picking though. Unfettered capitalism can lead to a version of dystopia not all that different from communism, it just tends to look shinier. Instead of governments controlling every aspect of your life, corporations do. Government needs to be able to reign in the excesses of corporate control and greed.

I didn't cheery pick. I just used Apple because this is an Apple forum and we're talking about Apple. If you want, I can provide a freakin' tome of the things this world has as a result of capitalism, if you want. But I'll warn you right now, you'll be reading for awhile.

And who said anything about "unfettered" capitalism? I certainly didn't. Every system needs checks and balances.

 

[Stevez67]

This is just a wrong-headed decision by individuals who don't understand the technology. What the EU is describing is a generic mobile phone modified to txt message across all messaging platforms.