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

[vipergts2207]

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.

Your statement indicated that you think millennials and gen-z broadly have a belief that capitalism is evil. That’s simply not the case. Just because younger folks think real constraints should be placed on major and powerful companies (FAANG, etc.) and that certain things are better left to socialist paradigms (public education and healthcare) doesn’t mean those same folks think capitalism is “evil.” Capitalism can very much be a force for good and it obviously has been in many cases, but as it typically goes, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

 

[B4U]

Seeing as how no one actually IN the European Union makes smartphones, Apple ought to tell the EU to get bent.

cough...cough...
Nokia of Finland running android.
cough...cough...

 

[MysticCow]

The enormous hole in this argument is that this isn't a problem on macOS or Windows, both operating systems where you've been able to use alternative app stores since the dawn of the internet - since before there was such a thing as official app stores, in fact.

The enormous hole in this reply is that the system is just beginning. This is the perfect time for any spoof, scam, or outright steal.

If you don't understand how the initial stages will be gamed by bad actors, then you don't understand how humanity works...at all. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Down the road, this hole will be paved. Initially, though, this hole is a pothole able to eat the entire LA 5 PM rush hour.

 

[duffman9000]

Pretty simple to comply on paper: on first boot allow users to pick full iOS or a custom, stripped-down Darwin kernel with no security provisions. Third parties can feel free to build their own window manager, file system, App Store, browsers, services for it. Philosophically something akin to AOSP - with great freedom comes great responsibility to build your own everything (to install apps users clone a git repo, modify the source themselves if they wish and make the binaries using gcc or clang on device for the ultimate In customizability)

But some people want all that for free! Next up: Apple must provide all that for free in the name of competition.

 

[gregohb]

As usual, a complete overreach by the EU. Aren't most of the third-party browsers these days built upon Chromium (or whatever)? All this would result in is a different company gaining a monopoly over the internet. First it was Microsoft (Internet Explorer) and now it'll be Google (Chrome/whatever). Brilliant legislation!

Also, why cripple iMessage. I agree Apple should support the Google SMS model with a different text colour maybe, green, blue and red? But to make platforms interoperate when they've built a product themselves that works great is absurd. You're basically saying, innovate until you're amazing, and then we'll destroy your product because you're too amazing. Are they going to target Adobe? They've got a stranglehold on the market with their software.

I can totally see where they're coming from, but this is going to essentially lead to hacked iPhones... maybe the plan?

What I would hope is that Apple allows a toggle on iPhones if this comes into law, basically to say you accept Apple's model, or you're on your own. If you toggle to sideload and whatever else and you get hacked, it's not technically an Apple device anymore, it's an EU-compromised device. Wait for the growing issues to arise as I'm sure they will and then make loads of lovely ads showing just what the EU has done to a once great a secure eco-system. The EU wont care of course, and will probably fine Apple for pointing out the problems the EU created, but this whole thing is ridiculous.

And I'm sure there are many more long established industries that haven't been subjected to this control.

Millions of people just died of Covid - and at least part of that is related to obesity - and EU produces a lot of pasta, tartes, wines tiramisus - and they could leglslate their own house that all foods need to be more healthy - and that would affect their own people in a much more positive way. Or they could demand that auto air filters work on all EU cars from Mercedes to Fiats, so customers don't have to buy different parts for different cars. But they have time on their hands to get involved with tech.

 

[gregohb]

Xcode used to be part of the paid Apple Developer Program, no free downloads for everyone.
And it could go back to that, or even licenses being required for the tools.
Personally, I like the current approach better, with a low barrier to enter the App development arena, lower fees for small developers starting to make money, and taking a bigger cut from the big players.

You can use Xcode for free but you had to annual pay the fee if you wanted to sell. I think Apple might have loosened up a bit in the past year because of the lawsuit by that 3d graphics company that didn't want to pay any royalties but use all of Apple's tools.

 

[gregohb]

If the pendulum hadn't swung so far in Apple's favor for such a long time, NONE of this would be necessary !

Apple simply should have "significantly" reduced their cut when the "Race to the Bottom" occurred, just a few AFTER their App Store went live !

I still think they might, as a compromise solution !

Ebay seemed to have jacked their rates up, and now no one uses Ebay. Apple does deserve some kind of royalties to provide the development tools - which are constantly being upgraded - and the app police gatekeepers to make sure everything on the App Store is not a scam. I heard some statistic that the main use of the open internet is port - imagine if almost every app was porn or put out by a prince from Nigeria who just needs a $1000 to get his family inheritance and will repay you 100 fold. In fact, there have been some scam apps that got past Apple and got onto the App Store - not sure if Apple took any responsibility.

 

[gregohb]

My guess is that Apple would have "Authorized Apps" which come through the App Store - like there are authorized repair companies - but you are free to download crapware or get your phone fixed from a guy working out of a van down by the river. Maybe Apple could build some stuff into Xcode so that you an only access certain functions if it goes through App Store - this would cheapen many of the off brand apps. Maybe they could do this by having the app ping the App Store when its run to get an authentication.

 

[nt5672]

Yea. Not much else really needs to be said. It appears that the good ol US of A is losing in the freedom to own and use your stuff category.

 

[NapoleonIV]

This is great. It is not going to lead to a massive rise in malware. People will have to actively choose to instal a different App Store and they will have to actively choose to install apps which may be malware. There isn’t a massive scourge of android malware so there is no reason to think that it will be worse on the iPhone. This will lead to more competition which will be good for consumers and small businesses.

 

[I7guy]

This is great. It is not going to lead to a massive rise in malware. People will have to actively choose to instal a different App Store and they will have to actively choose to install apps which may be malware. There isn’t a massive scourge of android malware so there is no reason to think that it will be worse on the iPhone. This will lead to more competition which will be good for consumers and small businesses.

It's a race to the bottom. Innovation is now dead. Companies will not want their ip to be usurped by government. SMS will once again rule.

 

[NapoleonIV]

This messenger interoperability will lead to crippled functions and a least common denominator mentality. As much as the EU always claims to advocate for the customer, I doubt that this is what the customer wants.

All this means is that apple and Google will have to make it possible for developers to build apps which can send iMessages or the Google equivalent. It is possible that they will also have to support each others protocols. It does not mean that they can’t innovate or change their protocols.

 

[NapoleonIV]

In principle, I support governance that restricts the power of big business. But who is going to restrict the power of the EU? This just sounds way too heavy handed to me. Frightening actually.

But can I still say yes please to ‘iMessage interoperability’? ? Would be nice to see the big players work together on this.

The EU is a democracy. The citizens elect the parliament and president. They are who restricts the power of the EU.

 

[robco74]

All this means is that apple and Google will have to make it possible for developers to build apps which can send iMessages or the Google equivalent. It is possible that they will also have to support each others protocols. It does not mean that they can’t innovate or change their protocols.

Why would a company spend the resources to develop and release a new feature if they have to then turn right around and allow every competitor to copy it? How will they be able to differentiate themselves in the market?

What you'll get is everyone supporting the lowest common denominator, and shifting focus to other products where they can innovate.

 

[vagos]

Yes, Yes, Yes. A glorious day for software freedom!

 

[Kierkegaarden]

The European Commission can impose "behavioral or structural remedies”? Didn’t Himmler once propose this?

 

[vipergts2207]

Why would a company spend the resources to develop and release a new feature if they have to then turn right around and allow every competitor to copy it? How will they be able to differentiate themselves in the market?

What you'll get is everyone supporting the lowest common denominator, and shifting focus to other products where they can innovate.

What you don't seem to understand is that interoperability doesn't necessitate feature parity. Interoperability already exists today with iMessage and SMS, does it not? But iMessage doesn't support the same features between the two, as iMessage to iMessage communication is clearly more robust. Clearly the route that makes the most sense here is for interoperability to be based on RCS, while app-specific features remain when not going cross-app. This isn't really much different than how it works today.

 

[dk001]

The enormous hole in this reply is that the system is just beginning. This is the perfect time for any spoof, scam, or outright steal.

If you don't understand how the initial stages will be gamed by bad actors, then you don't understand how humanity works...at all. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Down the road, this hole will be paved. Initially, though, this hole is a pothole able to eat the entire LA 5 PM rush hour.

With no idea what the solution(s) are, nor what the final adopted regulations will be, the claim of "This is the perfect time for any spoof, scam, or outright steal." seems just a wee bit over the top.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

All this means is that apple and Google will have to make it possible for developers to build apps which can send iMessages or the Google equivalent. It is possible that they will also have to support each others protocols. It does not mean that they can’t innovate or change their protocols.

How do you keep interoperability when you change protocols?

The messaging space right now is very competitive. There are numerous options that are feely available for everyone. There is a "standard", interoperable option- SMS. It sucks, which is why we now have numerous proprietary options. Why anyone want to go back to having one s*****y option is beyond me. It's like mandating that all operating systems must support a standard API for portability. But then no one is allowed to build anything better, and any improvements to the standard must go through committee politics, instead of one actor unilaterally moving things forward.

 

[NervousFish2]

This is great news. It guarantees a more competitive marketplace, and will encourage innovation. Everyone who loves Apple should welcome this. Especially the users.

 

[I7guy]

What you don't seem to understand is that interoperability doesn't necessitate feature parity. Interoperability already exists today with iMessage and SMS, does it not? But iMessage doesn't support the same features between the two, as iMessage to iMessage communication is clearly more robust. Clearly the route that makes the most sense here is for interoperability to be based on RCS, while app-specific features remain when not going cross-app. This isn't really much different than how it works today.

Right and you don't understand that companies want value add to their products. If companies make a choice for their platforms to be interoperable, it should be their choice. This "brave new world" where government dictates how tech should operate is going to bring everything down to some lowest common denominator.

 

[DevNull0]

The iMessage interoperability is huge for me, if that goes through, it looks like my next laptop will be a PC. Faster CPU, better GPU and screen, upgradable memory and NVME drive bays at half the price.

I've been planning to hold onto my 2020 i7 MPB as long as it's supported, but at this point the main reason I use a mac over a PC is iMessage, and if that distinction goes away I don't have any reason to own a Mac. Even for a desktop, those Intel NUC boxes give you twice the computing power of a mac mini at half the price with upgradable everything.

I find it funny in a sad way that so many people here want Apple to be able to keep things locked down and anti-consumer.

 

[I7guy]

This is great news. It guarantees a more competitive marketplace, and will encourage innovation. Everyone who loves Apple should welcome this. Especially the users.

No, it discourages innovation.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

I find it funny in a sad way that so many people here want Apple to be able to keep things locked down and anti-consumer.

It's said that so many see government regulation as the white horse. Sure things will normalize after a while, but, imo, not in a great way.

It does appear to be a contentious topic as seen by the posts, responses, likes and hahas. And like death and taxes, it will be what it will be.

 

[NervousFish2]

This messenger interoperability will lead to crippled functions and a least common denominator mentality. As much as the EU always claims to advocate for the customer, I doubt that this is what the customer wants.

Don't you see that the lack of interoperability is already crippling it? I'm sick and tired of friends having to default to use WhatsApp for work and committee group messaging, simply because iMessage won't run on their platforms. Standardization of the platform plus SMS will make it a killer app.