FYI It’s already like that! Countries with no official physical Apple Store, don’t get AppleCare…
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really wish the EU (and others) would stop hyping up sideloading.
First, Google can probably write a biography on you. Second, what’s the difference between messages routed through Google servers and it being routed through Apple servers? Everything encrypted has a master key. Pretty sure if Apple
wanted to, they can read your messages. Naive to think otherwise. Thirdly, stop doing fishy stuff in your device. ?
If security and privacy is that much of a concern, unplug/disconnect from the internet. Sad that some believe they are international spies or something. ?
Last edited:
"Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
How about all the other non-EU citizens of the world who don't like the way this is going? Do we get a say?
BTW, I live in a democracy too. Every four years, we get to choose between one really unlikeable party, and a second slightly less unlikeable party. But hey, it could be a LOT worse.
Yes, this is a reasonable concern. To clarify, I do not actually agree with what the EU is proposing. What I would like to see, is Apple and Google work together to create one default secure messaging platform that works on both iOS and Android.
There is no technical reason why they could not do this if they wanted to. (That's the real issue.) The consumer would benefit immensely. Friends and family would all be able to communicate freely, with non of this 'us and them', 'blue and green' differentiation. And there would be nothing stopping users from choosing other third-party messaging apps if they prefer a particular product for whatever reason.
And here I was thinking that democratic principles extended to my right to disagree with the decisions of a political power. Thank you for setting me straight!
No that is patently false. Customers seemingly love apple; except for the usual cadre of critics. The people who sell their wares on apples platforms want less of apple controlling them. This bill unfortunately will wrest control of apples assets from them. It’s a socialist move…
How about before we do the above government force the telecom companies to lower their rates, provide better service, eliminate all sorts of nasty fees and make it easier to move from one telecom provider to another. There is much that needs addressing rather than legislation that forced apple to open up iMessage.
Maybe force coke next to give away its recipe?
The EU did address part of it - roaming fees. Of course, now the UK is no longer part of the EU, reintroducing roaming fees is back on the table.
Probably, but here is my issue with such an action is you're taking away user coice. If I want my phone to be locked down, why can't I make that choice? If you want it wide open, you have that choice as well. That would be real user choice. If you think users should have a choice, then part of it is making a choice that is different from yours.
Except you'd get a lowest common denominator approach, with apps still having features to differentiate themselves. You want E2E encryption? Chances are that won't be in the standard. Which is good because if it is there has to be a way to share keys, which means anyone that wants access to messages can create an app and demand the encryption algorithms and keys in name of interoperability. Even if you didn't use their app, if they can gain access to your messages they have information needed to develop the ability to decrypt them.
They made a business decision to forgo options that generate revenue in order to comply with Google's rules; just as any company can on the App Store. You may not like their cut; but hypocrisy would be to sue Google over the cut while charging it themselves.
iMessage is controlled by Apple and they can use it to differentiate the iPhone; which is what supports innovation to make it more attractive than alternatives. But to your question:
A small company creates an app with a killer feature. To get people to use it, they need it to work with the other messaging service, which means revealing how it works and letting the major players incorporate the feature into their app. What incentive is there for a user to switch to the new app if their existing one has the same feature. No need to buy the company since you get their ideas for free if they want access to a large user base. If they don't, the situation is no different than today.
It will be interesting to see how the EU deals with Android, since while it is a Google product there are a lot of variants. Will any company that uses Android be a gatekeeper since Android, as an OS , meets the threshold? Honor, OPPO, and Hauwei seem to meet the user threshold. It will be interesting to see how the EU defines gatekeeper.
Last edited:
Is anyone forcing you to side load or install apps that you don't want?
You'd totally love Windows RT then
Sort of. IIRC, they still can cap data usage when roaming and charge for excess data based on your plan; in addition you can't have say a German number and use it mostly in Portugal for calls and SMS. Which doesn't make sense. For example, if you have a Vodaphone account in Germany, why should it be an issue if I live in Portugal but want a German number? Does Vodaphone let you do that with no caps, ignoring where you are physically located?
If I recall correctly, (it's been a while since I've looked at this), I had both a Norwegian number and a UK number - a phone call to the operator to explain my situation was all that was needed to ensure I wasn't charged in excess of the rules. This was before the 2016 statement which read "there should be no limits in terms of timing or volume imposed on consumers when using their mobile devices abroad in the EU". My situation has since changed so I'm not fully up to date with what the EU has achieve vs what the UK is currently doing
The EU regulators know precisely that these "laws" will be impossible for Apple (or Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc) to comply within 6 months.... because it would require an in-depth revision of their software, plus many months of bug testing to make sure "everything works openly with everything else".
So the companies cannot possibly comply within the deadlines. Which means that fines in the millions of euros will start coming in and lining the pockets of these regulators and politicians.
Interesting. Never would understand the Saudi aversion to FaceTime.
Maybe peer-to-peer video-conferencing is a "thing of the Devil"? Who knows. ?♂️
Since been rescinded: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/21/facetime-saudi-arabia/
If they offer both no one is forcing you to lock down your phone - which was my point that then represents real consumer choice. I want to control what data an app can collect and when it can collect it. I want to prevent users of phone I own from sideloading or using some random messaging app they may not be secure. If you don't, I have no problem with that, just don't force me into allowing the same things you want.
Adding choices to allow or disallow would be a good thing. Real choice, not simply replacing one POV with another.
Come on, you're better than a cheap shot in a reply.
I like Apple's approach with iOS and see no reason why it can't be a choice even if they do everything the EU says they must. From what I read in the EU announcement, nothing says gatekeepers can't offer a choice. That way, both camps are happy and consumers get to decide what is the better approach. If more chose to be wide open then the market will move that way, if more don't then it will be more like today. Either way, the consumer gets to make the choice, not Apple or Google or governments. Isn't that real freedom of choice?
It's six months from when it comes in force. The EU can codify it into EU law but allow a grace period for companies to comply; which is, IIRC, how such mandates are rolled out. I suspect if they simply said 6 months the issue would wind up in the EU courts since they clearly cannot comply with such a law in any reasonable manner.
When will folks begin receiving their checks?
You’ll find the answer to your question here:
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
Again, final implementation remains to be seen. You're asking questions nobody has the answer to yet. This is just fear mongering. Why not take it a step further? "It remains to be seen if smartphones are regulated out of existence due to interoperability." See, it's not hard to come up with...
forums.macrumors.com
Do you seriously believe this? That fines don’t go to some general fund, but actually into the pockets of individual’s??
Just don’t shop outside of the App Store? People keep bringing this up like they’re going to be forced to shop in sketchy stores. You won’t be.