iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[djphat2000]

Thank you for helping me get that vital piece of information. I wouldn't know where else to find it outside from MR.

Glad I can help. You can learn something new everyday from anywhere.

Usually you bring up a more stark situation to make some evasive minds understand a concept. Apparently it was not a strong enough. Hint: You said a thing was running for some time and concluding that it can't be wrong, and I wanted to check in with you that we're on the same page that lasting things do not equal good things. There should be no way to not understand this basic concept but apparently it does not compute with some wires.

But slavery? I mean really dude.

Jesus surely has sinned for some posts here.

He's sin free, but you knew that of course.

Doesn't matter. Facebook is less years old yet they trespassed on a number of things, too. Doesn't make it more right to do things just because you do them briefly, or long.

This is a rule change targeting gatekeepers. This rule didn't exist when Apple created the iPhone. At a time when there was many other handset makers (like today), running a variety of software. With and or without stores or means of which to install applications. The people of the world settled on iOS and Android of their own free will. Other companies failed or changed. That generally is how it works.

I don't think it's up to you to decide what a company can do in a country or not, and certainly not one that isn't even yours to begin with.

Oh contraire it IS up to me and other like me as we VOTE for our governments representatives in this country. And if they want to make rules like this. We can VOTE. That isn't to say we will always get representatives that would want to make a change pro or con for this issue. As there are MANY other things more important. However, being of voting age I can make my voice heard on this or any other topic if I and others so choose to.

As for the company, I can decide with my purchasing power. Again, if I and others don't want this feature we can stop purchasing the product.

Honestly we don't, and that's the point. If you think you can compare Android to iOS then I wonder what you've been doing here all work long.

Honestly you do. Can you run your apps? Pretty sure 99% of them are available on both platforms. This isn't Windows OS vs MacOS differences here. Plus, one lets you do what you want. Darn near however you want. One doesn't. And that's the one you want to change.

Not even talking about the App Store but a company cannot tell you what content to run on their OS, or force you to websites instead of natives apps. It's also auto-competitive, and restrictive.

If you bake a cake and sell it in a store. Can I as a customer tell you to make changes to that cake? You made the cake not the customer. If the customer doesn't want the cake as you made it, they don't have to buy it from you. When there are other places to purchase a cake from. And some places that will customize the cake to your liking.
You have this same level of options in the EU. You want a mobile phone. You can pick an iPhone. Does it have everything you need and want to the point you're willing to make the purchase? No, then you have a number of Android devices to pick from. Some more gamer orientated. Some more basic and inexpensive. Some more business and serious while others more for camera and entertainment use cases. All running an operating system that lets you do YOU!

You want Apple to get the message that you want more from them. Don't buy the product till they do, maybe?
A company can design the product THEY produced however they want within the rules of any country they choose to sell a product in. They don't have to make the product AT ALL. Period. They choose to, the way they want to or within laws they are willing to abide by. Apple could just as easily say, "You know what, I'm no longer interested in the EU market as it is today. I'll figure out another way to make a profit some place else." In this case, as far as we know they are going to comply within the EU. I think you're in for a wild ride, good luck.

It would be a different story if the App Store review was a technical one instead of a content-related curation.

Does every greocery store in the EU sell ALL products available in the EU? In the US, each store (even chains) don't all carry the same exact items other stores do. While they carry the most common stuff. They may have more options at one store than the other. Some may cater to one brand more than another or offer the same items for less or more than another store. No one is forcing them to carry everything the same as the other. For the same prices either.

 

[makitango]

This is a rule change targeting gatekeepers. This rule didn't exist when Apple created the iPhone. At a time when there was many other handset makers (like today), running a variety of software. With and or without stores or means of which to install applications. The people of the world settled on iOS and Android of their own free will. Other companies failed or changed. That generally is how it works.

This is not a rule targeting so-called gatekeepers. It is also not just a rule but also a law. You can set a fancy rule in your funny shop but that rule cannot undermine a federal law, and that's the point here: Apple can't.
This company is f***ing the environment with their MFI madness and customers and developers alike.

And your so-called gatekeeper is nothing more than a bouncer because there is, oh surprise, no security audit but instead a moral police. You're just riding on the dead horse of scaring strangers when the ship has already sailed. You lost this already, and even you look funny with your Mo-Fr postings during Pacific time.

Oh contraire it IS up to me and other like me as we VOTE for our governments representatives in this country. And if they want to make rules like this. We can VOTE. That isn't to say we will always get representatives that would want to make a change pro or con for this issue. As there are MANY other things more important. However, being of voting age I can make my voice heard on this or any other topic if I and others so choose to.

It is not since you're not an EU citizen. I am and I voted for this. Not sorry to ruin your scare tactics. I am very happy this is happening, the same with Lightning going away and EU reps already threatening Apple to lock them out if they think they can sh** in the EU for free.

As for the company, I can decide with my purchasing power. Again, if I and others don't want this feature we can stop purchasing the product.

Just because you can purchase it doesn't mean it's good. Ever heard about cigarettes?

Honestly you do. Can you run your apps? Pretty sure 99% of them are available on both platforms. This isn't Windows OS vs MacOS differences here. Plus, one lets you do what you want. Darn near however you want. One doesn't. And that's the one you want to change.

Steam games make for less than 1%? Are you mad?

If you bake a cake and sell it in a store. Can I as a customer tell you to make changes to that cake? You made the cake not the customer. If the customer doesn't want the cake as you made it, they don't have to buy it from you. When there are other places to purchase a cake from. And some places that will customize the cake to your liking.

Even in your fancy US, companies cannot sell food every way they want. There are screenings and rules, and laws. If you fail them, you can't sell. If your cake has stuff that makes people get cancer, you cannot sell it even if people liked it. Same with the iPhone. Very easy to understand and follow.

You have this same level of options in the EU. You want a mobile phone. You can pick an iPhone. Does it have everything you need and want to the point you're willing to make the purchase? No, then you have a number of Android devices to pick from. Some more gamer orientated. Some more basic and inexpensive. Some more business and serious while others more for camera and entertainment use cases. All running an operating system that lets you do YOU!

We have more options in the EU because we can choose the platform without being restricted to the App Store. Running an OS that, as you say, lets me "do" me, or they them.

You want Apple to get the message that you want more from them. Don't buy the product till they do, maybe?
A company can design the product THEY produced however they want within the rules of any country they choose to sell a product in. They don't have to make the product AT ALL.

You're too sentimental about your employer. We don't have to wait until they follow the laws, and that's the point quite again.
We don't want more of them, we want them to do the bare minimum which is to follow the law. If they won't do it, so be it.

In this case, as far as we know they are going to comply within the EU. I think you're in for a wild ride, good luck.

They better be. Also, my wild ride means having to carry or own less devices because I can do more with them what I was forced to do on a maximum amount of devices. Which is also what Apple wants, for each of us to own as many devices as possible, and upgrade them as frequently as possible.

Does every greocery store in the EU sell ALL products available in the EU? In the US, each store (even chains) don't all carry the same exact items other stores do. While they carry the most common stuff. They may have more options at one store than the other. Some may cater to one brand more than another or offer the same items for less or more than another store. No one is forcing them to carry everything the same as the other. For the same prices either.

You compare the grocery store with the OS while it is in fact the App Store, but you already knew that, didn't you?
Apple can do all they want in their App Store but outside of it, they got to f*** off.

 

[djphat2000]

This is not a rule targeting so-called gatekeepers. It is also not just a rule but also a law. You can set a fancy rule in your funny shop but that rule cannot undermine a federal law, and that's the point here: Apple can't.
This company is f***ing the environment with their MFI madness and customers and developers alike.

And your so-called gatekeeper is nothing more than a bouncer because there is, oh surprise, no security audit but instead a moral police. You're just riding on the dead horse of scaring strangers when the ship has already sailed. You lost this already, and even you look funny with your Mo-Fr postings during Pacific time.

It is not since you're not an EU citizen. I am and I voted for this. Not sorry to ruin your scare tactics. I am very happy this is happening, the same with Lightning going away and EU reps already threatening Apple to lock them out if they think they can sh** in the EU for free.

Just because you can purchase it doesn't mean it's good. Ever heard about cigarettes?

Steam games make for less than 1%? Are you mad?

Even in your fancy US, companies cannot sell food every way they want. There are screenings and rules, and laws. If you fail them, you can't sell. If your cake has stuff that makes people get cancer, you cannot sell it even if people liked it. Same with the iPhone. Very easy to understand and follow.

We have more options in the EU because we can choose the platform without being restricted to the App Store. Running an OS that, as you say, lets me "do" me, or they them.

You're too sentimental about your employer. We don't have to wait until they follow the laws, and that's the point quite again.
We don't want more of them, we want them to do the bare minimum which is to follow the law. If they won't do it, so be it.

They better be. Also, my wild ride means having to carry or own less devices because I can do more with them what I was forced to do on a maximum amount of devices. Which is also what Apple wants, for each of us to own as many devices as possible, and upgrade them as frequently as possible.

You compare the grocery store with the OS while it is in fact the App Store, but you already knew that, didn't you?
Apple can do all they want in their App Store but outside of it, they got to f*** off.

1) Apple complies with the laws. This is a new law.
2) They do more to protect the environment than most any other company.
3) A bouncer? https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/16/apple-app-store-security-features/
4) Lost what? I still have my choice in the US, where I am from.
5) Postings during Pacific time? I'm in Eastern.
6) Your right about me not being an EU citizen.
7) Enjoy the new rules, glad you're not scared. Stay strong!
8) Apple pays taxes in the EU, and is an employer there too. I doubt they do anything for free.
9) You have the option to smoke and do things that are arguably not good for you. Not everyone has to partake.
10) I'm beginning to think the EU is filled with gamers. I mean that is cool and all.
11) I never said they can sell food without following the laws for safety. iPhone has broken no laws I am aware of.
12) Exactly, which is why there is no need for this law. You have a choice already.
13) No sentiment, and yeah you do have to wait. I don't see a 3rd party App Store on iOS in the EU yet do you?
14) If they won't do it then you have the same option you had as before. Which is a lot of options.
15) You could do what you want before this rule change. Within the law of course.
16) Apple offers many device options that work well together. You don't have to purchase any of them. Options!
17) A store that doesn't have to sell everything from every vendor. They can sell what they want, within the law.

 

[dk001]

Nice reply.
Not sure about the accuracy on #'s 2, 12, and 14.
Number 17 is disingenuous. Within the law but filtered by their internal moral "code".

 

[djphat2000]

Nice reply.
Not sure about the accuracy on #'s 2, 12, and 14.
Number 17 is disingenuous. Within the law but filtered by their internal moral "code".

2) They are looking to be carbon neutral by 2030

Apple commits to be 100 percent carbon neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030

Already carbon neutral for its operations, Apple is unveiling a roadmap to achieve zero carbon for its supply chain and products by 2030.

www.apple.com

Environment

Apple 2030 is our plan to bring our net emissions to zero through recycled and renewable materials, clean electricity, and lower-carbon shipping.

www.apple.com

I mean, if we are saying because they made a lightning cable/connection and did not use USB-C all those years ago when moving from the 30 pin connector, is waste. Then I guess I can't argue with that. Except to say that everyone else was using Micro/Mini or whatever USB type connection during that time (and still do, Jabra looking at you!). And when USB-C was more ubiquitous. Maybe Apple should have just jumped on that as soon as possible. Never-mind all the connections that already used lightning. And when they stopped shipping the iPhone with a power brick. More complaints. Can't win.

12, if you already believe that their isn't choice and you are gaining choice. Then you can totally disagree with 12 &14.

17, They have a moral code. And they are not alone in that regard, as other companies have it too. Should they not have that right? We have companies that don't care and we have companies that do care.

 

[inuragon]

I mean, if we are saying because they made a lightning cable/connection and did not use USB-C all those years ago when moving from the 30 pin connector, is waste. Then I guess I can't argue with that.

USB-C did not exist when lightning connector launched, or am i totally misremembering that?

Maybe Apple should have just jumped on that as soon as possible. Never-mind all the connections that already used lightning.

While i would have loved if they had done that i kinda get why they didn't considering all the lightning accessories sold, some of which were pretty expensive even.
But having a different connector in my iPhone and iPad is annoying, luckily that problem will be gone in 3-4 years.

 

[dk001]

2) They are looking to be carbon neutral by 2030

Apple commits to be 100 percent carbon neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030

Already carbon neutral for its operations, Apple is unveiling a roadmap to achieve zero carbon for its supply chain and products by 2030.

www.apple.com

Environment

Apple 2030 is our plan to bring our net emissions to zero through recycled and renewable materials, clean electricity, and lower-carbon shipping.

www.apple.com

I mean, if we are saying because they made a lightning cable/connection and did not use USB-C all those years ago when moving from the 30 pin connector, is waste. Then I guess I can't argue with that. Except to say that everyone else was using Micro/Mini or whatever USB type connection during that time (and still do, Jabra looking at you!). And when USB-C was more ubiquitous. Maybe Apple should have just jumped on that as soon as possible. Never-mind all the connections that already used lightning. And when they stopped shipping the iPhone with a power brick. More complaints. Can't win.

12, if you already believe that their isn't choice and you are gaining choice. Then you can totally disagree with 12 &14.

17, They have a moral code. And they are not alone in that regard, as other companies have it too. Should they not have that right? We have companies that don't care and we have companies that do care.

Carbon neutral is a calculated number dollar term.
Kind of like California claiming they are green when they "offshore" energy production.

For 12, if I want an iDevice I have only one choice. There is no alternative Apple idevice. Android? I already have those.

17 I am not disagreeing in statement, rather in fact. There are a lot of great dev's who make great apps that Apple does not allow or allowed then later changed their mind. Apple cares about Apple. Perception and Apple has been great at marketing it.

 

[djphat2000]

Carbon neutral is a calculated number dollar term.
Kind of like California claiming they are green when they "offshore" energy production.

I guess I'm reading it differently. Looks to me that they are using recycled materials (especially rare earths). Using renewable energy and investing carbon neutral manufacturing. And additional off-sets of carbon capture namely planting trees.

For 12, if I want an iDevice I have only one choice. There is no alternative Apple idevice. Android? I already have those.

This is a bigger issue to unpack in short sentences. But, I'll try.
1) Should there be alternatives within the same (I'm guessing here) ecosystem as Apple and iDevices?
2) Should Apple's patents and trademarks and so on be protected? Or should anyone else be able to imitate them?

Google took the Microsoft approach. Partner with hardware manufactures and provide them an OS they can use on their hardware. Apple is the whole widget approach. OS and Hardware from the same manufacture. Both approaches will inevitably produce products that don't provide everything everyone wants. I just argue that both should be allowed to exist as they are. So long as neither become a monopoly. Or break laws or harm people, etc.

17 I am not disagreeing in statement, rather in fact. There are a lot of great dev's who make great apps that Apple does not allow or allowed then later changed their mind.

Should Apple be free to do that? Again, Apple is the whole widget company. If they are allowed to be a whole widget company. Should they be allowed to control what is or what isn't on their platform? I would use an example of Disney. They don't film or produce pornography. Should it be up to them to make that decision? They make movies, and distribute them. I'm a customer, and maybe I want some x rated cartoons with Disney characters. All of which is perfectly legal to do if Disney wanted it. Not asking for anything illegal. I'm sure there are many artists that would be willing to do the work for Disney to make that happen.

Take it another way. Name any store you visit (physical or virtual). Do they carry everything? Even just the things relevant to the store. If it's a grocery store, do they carry all the brands of pasta or sauce? Ice Cream or coffee? Do they source their dairy from all over the world, or just locally? Same for poultry and other meats. Say an electronics store. Which is a bit easier for them to carry MANY brands but generally not "in" the physical store. Can you get any dishwasher or stove or laundry machine you want? Or is it limited to specific brands and models?

Many of which we will never know why they only stock specific brand A or B and not C or D. But they are not required to either. Now with side-loading and 3rd party stores. Yeah, you can now get anything from anyone. Good or bad. But, i tend to buy my food from reputable stores not someone on the street corner. And my electronics from reputable stores and I can deal with if something breaks or I need help. Not the guy selling it out of his van after it fell off a truck. But that is me.

Apple cares about Apple. Perception and Apple has been great at marketing it.

I would hope so. But, they do care about other things. Because they care about themselves and how they are perceived. Image matters and so to actions. Environmentalist may look at Apple and like them MORE because of these efforts. Or they may say like you, it's just numbers and money. And they don't care about the people or the planet. They care about Apple. But, if Apple cares about Apple, and Apple wants to sell a product to the most people possible. They "may" want to give people many reasons to purchase from them. Which helps Apple.

 

[makitango]

1) Apple complies with the laws. This is a new law.
2) They do more to protect the environment than most any other company.
3) A bouncer? https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/16/apple-app-store-security-features/
4) Lost what? I still have my choice in the US, where I am from.
5) Postings during Pacific time? I'm in Eastern.
6) Your right about me not being an EU citizen.
7) Enjoy the new rules, glad you're not scared. Stay strong!
8) Apple pays taxes in the EU, and is an employer there too. I doubt they do anything for free.
9) You have the option to smoke and do things that are arguably not good for you. Not everyone has to partake.
10) I'm beginning to think the EU is filled with gamers. I mean that is cool and all.
11) I never said they can sell food without following the laws for safety. iPhone has broken no laws I am aware of.
12) Exactly, which is why there is no need for this law. You have a choice already.
13) No sentiment, and yeah you do have to wait. I don't see a 3rd party App Store on iOS in the EU yet do you?
14) If they won't do it then you have the same option you had as before. Which is a lot of options.
15) You could do what you want before this rule change. Within the law of course.
16) Apple offers many device options that work well together. You don't have to purchase any of them. Options!
17) A store that doesn't have to sell everything from every vendor. They can sell what they want, within the law.

1) They don't which is why Apple lawyers are busy and there are many settlements. They themselves violate a lot of intellectual properties.
2) They do more to make it look like they do. They use a lot of finite resources and the added consumerism is a rather downwards spiral for the environment. They do some aspects carbon-friendly and try to focus each eye oto that plane. That is not environmental-friendly behaviour, it's hypocricy.
3) Nothing about that requires an App Store review team. A lot of these "fraudulant" developers are comanies like Epic or developers who program emulators and sell device certificates to people so they can download them. That is, yes, fraud, but not harmful. Only harmful for APple's pockets.
4) Exactly. Lost "what"?
5) You can still be in Eastern time but work during Pacific. You know what I mean. You're in the timezone of Apple's Social media squad.
6) Quite obvious because we have yet to find an EU citizen who's against it while not being affiliated with Apple.
7) No need to be strong anymore because that law takes care of that.
8) Apple pays taxes in Ireland for a non-Irish tax quota because of a private and exclusive deal which is conflicting with tax laws, which is why there were many maneuvers against Apple in that area. Totally understandable because there should never be preferential taxes, it's very close to corruption.
In addition to that, Apple sells its services and products at retail prices to its other EU sub organizations so these make zero profit and Apple Ireland makes it all with little to none taxes. That is tax evasion on a scale that it's an insult to justice systems.
9) You didn't get my point. My point was that if a thing is widespread and loved, it is not necessarily good.
10) Indeed we are. So is the US and other areas.
11) We only know when we know.
12) Death or death by exile is also a choice I suppose.
13) A few months from now, yeah. We can wait that bit.
14) If who won't do what?
15) We can't, and that's the point.
16) Of course we have to buy them if said function is artificially made unavailable on one platform.
17) No, but things they sell must follow regulations. Plus, we are not talking about the store. We are talking about outside the store, which Apple is blocking.
To your analogy: Your shop wants to sell oranges which you tell your customers they can only eat in your shop, but the law says that you can take those oranges outside and do with them as you please.
Your shop keeps saying that you make the best orange juice with them but we here keep telling you that it's up to the world to decide what's the best orange juice, and I can give this orange to my aunt which I know makes the best orange juice.
I want the right to use that orange in the best way for me and this law allows you to compete with my aunt for the best orange juice.

 

[makitango]

I guess I'm reading it differently. Looks to me that they are using recycled materials (especially rare earths). Using renewable energy and investing carbon neutral manufacturing. And additional off-sets of carbon capture namely planting trees.

If company A drills into the Earth to collect rare minerals and recycles them, are they truly better than a company which doesn't drill into the Earth and recycles none?
His point is exactly that, and Apple is responsible for this with planned obsolescence. The planet is paying for Apple's greed, not just our wallets.

Apple is the whole widget approach. OS and Hardware from the same manufacture. Both approaches will inevitably produce products that don't provide everything everyone wants. I just argue that both should be allowed to exist as they are. So long as neither become a monopoly. Or break laws or harm people, etc.

That is their PR playbook, the truth is different. A stark minority of components are actually designed by Apple with the only thing known to be the main processor which has an embedded GPU.
Also, OS and hardware from the same manufacturer is fine. What is not fine is to block apps based on the content.

I would use an example of Disney. They don't film or produce pornography. Should it be up to them to make that decision? They make movies, and distribute them. I'm a customer, and maybe I want some x rated cartoons with Disney characters. All of which is perfectly legal to do if Disney wanted it. Not asking for anything illegal. I'm sure there are many artists that would be willing to do the work for Disney to make that happen.

Disney is not a company that produces personal computers but a solely content company. The talk here is to stop blocking people from installing content on their devices

Name any store you visit (physical or virtual). Do they carry everything? Even just the things relevant to the store. If it's a grocery store, do they carry all the brands of pasta or sauce? Ice Cream or coffee? Do they source their dairy from all over the world, or just locally? Same for poultry and other meats. Say an electronics store. Which is a bit easier for them to carry MANY brands but generally not "in" the physical store. Can you get any dishwasher or stove or laundry machine you want? Or is it limited to specific brands and models?

Very easy. Whatever they carry, that stuff needs to have a European power adapter, not a British one and not a US one.
But again, we are not talking about a store (which is the App Store). We are talking about customers going to a different store.
But just to follow your example for once, just following order: Imagine I bought a huge bottle at your store and you tell me that I can only fill it with drinks from your store. The law says I can fill it with anything I want.
Apple's language says "Don't fill it elsewhere, they will just je** off in it, we know it and it's for your own protection" and I say "I want to go hiking with it and put water in it", and you keep saying "You have the option to buy a bottle elsewhere".

But, i tend to buy my food from reputable stores not someone on the street corner. And my electronics from reputable stores and I can deal with if something breaks or I need help. Not the guy selling it out of his van after it fell off a truck. But that is me.

Your App Store is nothing else than a BestBuy, yet I want my vegetables from the market, yes. When I want games, I go to GameStop. When I want fast food, I go to McDonalds. When i want good Italian pizza, I go to a good Italian restaurant. Not BestBuy.
Sure, the BestBuy uses the same terminal across the building but it does not give me the best experience for when I truly want to buy the best-in-slot items, nor does it offer them. And if they offer them, they are hamstrung in functionality. The scooter caps at 20 km/h (and even costs more) and the soda selection is only Coke.

 

[djphat2000]

17) No, but things they sell must follow regulations. Plus, we are not talking about the store. We are talking about outside the store, which Apple is blocking.

There is no outside the store (YET). There has been only one store. And just like any store there are rules like "no outside food or drink". Or "No shirt no shoes no service". You're talking as if the new law existed BEFORE Apple or anyone else made a mobile phone. Also, if you didn't want to use the store, you could and still can write a WebAPP.

To your analogy: Your shop wants to sell oranges which you tell your customers they can only eat in your shop, but the law says that you can take those oranges outside and do with them as you please.

Again, law did not exist when the store was made. As this example is a bit far fetched. Even sticking with it, if the law allowed it then it is what it is. Just like when the law changes to not allow it, it is what it is. We as people can agree or disagree with that law one way or another, for or against at any point before or after the law existed. So long as the store followed the law as it was through to what it was, is, and will become. And through our votes for or against politicians that promote for or against this law.

Your shop keeps saying that you make the best orange juice with them but we here keep telling you that it's up to the world to decide what's the best orange juice

And the world decided that Apple made some darn good orange juice and so too does Google. Even with the restrictions Apple put in place (if you so wish to call it restrictions, limitations, cash grabby greed, whatever). People still purchase it. Not in the same numbers as Android, but more than enough to justify its existence. Let it be the alternative to the open platform of Android. Not make it another type of Android.

, and I can give this orange to my aunt which I know makes the best orange juice.
I want the right to use that orange in the best way for me and this law allows you to compete with my aunt for the best orange juice.

It allows it on the platform of Tropicana (For those of you in EU, that is a brand of Orange Juice in the US if you don't get this brand). Which is what I am arguing against. I don't want a 3rd party store selling Apps on Apple's platform. I want Apple to sell Apps on Apple's platform. Which is how it is today, and has been since the beginning of the iPhone.

No one is stopping your Aunt from selling her home made juice to any other place she wishes, and they wish to purchase from her. And or starting up her own store to sell it out of directly. Android is a competitor platform. They also (Google) sell a combined Hardware/OS device (Pixel). To provide as close to Apple-ish an experience as one can get while being on a competitor platform. Of which, they let you create your own store and or side-load (sell on the street corner your Lemonade, Fresh squezed OS, Ice Water, whatever).

As for the rest of the comments, I'll get to them at some point when I get a break from washing Tim Cooks feet.
By the way, I "live" in the eastern time zone. I don't work for Apple. I enjoy MANY of the products they make, but not all. I'm sure just like many folks here.

 

[inuragon]

I'm a customer, and maybe I want some x rated cartoons with Disney characters. All of which is perfectly legal to do if Disney wanted it. Not asking for anything illegal. I'm sure there are many artists that would be willing to do the work for Disney to make that happen.

Pretty sure porn parodies fall under fair use in US which is why they are sold.
And if you wan't porn of disney characters you just need to google... trust me i know.

 

[dk001]

I guess I'm reading it differently. Looks to me that they are using recycled materials (especially rare earths). Using renewable energy and investing carbon neutral manufacturing. And additional off-sets of carbon capture namely planting trees.

How much is really recycled? When I look at their supply chain I'm not seeing the connection in any decent amount. Maybe in a few years?

This is a bigger issue to unpack in short sentences. But, I'll try.
1) Should there be alternatives within the same (I'm guessing here) ecosystem as Apple and iDevices?
2) Should Apple's patents and trademarks and so on be protected? Or should anyone else be able to imitate them?

Not saying imitate forsaking patents. Though China is one of the worst at using others work. For ecosystem we are talking apps and access to them.

Google took the Microsoft approach. Partner with hardware manufactures and provide them an OS they can use on their hardware. Apple is the whole widget approach. OS and Hardware from the same manufacture. Both approaches will inevitably produce products that don't provide everything everyone wants. I just argue that both should be allowed to exist as they are. So long as neither become a monopoly. Or break laws or harm people, etc.

Should Apple be free to do that? Again, Apple is the whole widget company. If they are allowed to be a whole widget company. Should they be allowed to control what is or what isn't on their platform? I would use an example of Disney. They don't film or produce pornography. Should it be up to them to make that decision? They make movies, and distribute them. I'm a customer, and maybe I want some x rated cartoons with Disney characters. All of which is perfectly legal to do if Disney wanted it. Not asking for anything illegal. I'm sure there are many artists that would be willing to do the work for Disney to make that happen.

Take it another way. Name any store you visit (physical or virtual). Do they carry everything? Even just the things relevant to the store. If it's a grocery store, do they carry all the brands of pasta or sauce? Ice Cream or coffee? Do they source their dairy from all over the world, or just locally? Same for poultry and other meats. Say an electronics store. Which is a bit easier for them to carry MANY brands but generally not "in" the physical store. Can you get any dishwasher or stove or laundry machine you want? Or is it limited to specific brands and models?

Many of which we will never know why they only stock specific brand A or B and not C or D. But they are not required to either. Now with side-loading and 3rd party stores. Yeah, you can now get anything from anyone. Good or bad. But, i tend to buy my food from reputable stores not someone on the street corner. And my electronics from reputable stores and I can deal with if something breaks or I need help. Not the guy selling it out of his van after it fell off a truck. But that is me.

I would hope so. But, they do care about other things. Because they care about themselves and how they are perceived. Image matters and so to actions. Environmentalist may look at Apple and like them MORE because of these efforts. Or they may say like you, it's just numbers and money. And they don't care about the people or the planet. They care about Apple. But, if Apple cares about Apple, and Apple wants to sell a product to the most people possible. They "may" want to give people many reasons to purchase from them. Which helps Apple.

Once again, you are pulling in items other than apps and the app ecosystem. You are conveniently forgetting that the App Store like many other "outlets" does not carry everything however Apple forbids the sale from any other source which we don't see in the outside world. It isn't an apple and orange world however you are trying to make it as such.

Stop shoveling compost and lets focus on this singular issue.
Looks like Apple is getting some form of this in the EU with iOS17
It exists for most of the Android world and every other mobile OS.

btw, in the US I can get a washing machine from pretty much anywhere.
My neat and poultry come from all over the world.
I even looked and I could get a Russian Washing Machine. Wow. Pretty easy turns out.
etc....

 

[dk001]

Pretty sure porn parodies fall under fair use in US which is why they are sold.
And if you wan't porn of disney characters you just need to google... trust me i know.

A well know Disney fav is Snow White and the Dwarves 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

[djphat2000]

If company A drills into the Earth to collect rare minerals and recycles them, are they truly better than a company which doesn't drill into the Earth and recycles none?

How do you propose making the technology we have today without it? If you can come up with a solution to that, bravo.

His point is exactly that, and Apple is responsible for this with planned obsolescence. The planet is paying for Apple's greed, not just our wallets.

I would blame the people of planet earth for wanting new things year in and year out.
The Planet is going to be perfectly fine. It cares not what we do it it. Every planet and moon we have discovered so far are lifeless & and or mostly hostel to it. It is WE the living beings on the planet that will pay for it.

That is their PR playbook, the truth is different. A stark minority of components are actually designed by Apple with the only thing known to be the main processor which has an embedded GPU.

Which is literally called a SoC (System on Chip) that Apple designed. Everything is in that SoC except like the 5G modem (for now anyway) and maybe some other bits and pieces. The case everything sits in is designed by Apple, and I am sure other things too.

Also, OS and hardware from the same manufacturer is fine. What is not fine is to block apps based on the content.

Apple doesn't want to be associated with those apps. Which is their right too in the store they made. You will get to install your wares soon enough.

Disney is not a company that produces personal computers but a solely content company. The talk here is to stop blocking people from installing content on their devices.

As an example. They choose to not produce certain content. Even though they could if they wanted to. As a customer I could argue same as you that they are blocking content that I want their characters in. And while supporting with my dollars the movies they do produce and sell and distribute. I'm not happy that they don't produce additional content that I feel they should and could.

Very easy. Whatever they carry, that stuff needs to have a European power adapter, not a British one and not a US one.
But again, we are not talking about a store (which is the App Store). We are talking about customers going to a different store.
But just to follow your example for once, just following order: Imagine I bought a huge bottle at your store and you tell me that I can only fill it with drinks from your store. The law says I can fill it with anything I want.

If that is the law, that that is the law. But if it isn't the law (which is the point we all started from). Your option then is to not buy the bottle and go to another store and buy a bottle that functions the way you want. The EU in this example is acting as if there are no other stores. When there are. Are there other stores on Apples platform? Not at present. However, they are also NOT a monopoly. Meaning the only store and the only place to fill your bottle.
Why can't Apple have a product they produced to function the way they want WHILE you have other options in other products that function in other ways AT the same time? Why or how are you being harmed?

Apple's language says "Don't fill it elsewhere, they will just je** off in it, we know it and it's for your own protection" and I say "I want to go hiking with it and put water in it", and you keep saying "You have the option to buy a bottle elsewhere".

You do have the option to buy the bottle elsewhere do you not? Is Apple the only company you can buy the bottle from? No. Is Apple the only place you can get water and a bottle from? NO. Do you not fully like other brands bottles? Clearly, but that isn't preventing you from getting a bottle and filling it with water. You want what you want, and that is fine. But Apple should have a right to make the bottle and its functions as it sees fit under the laws. So long as they are not the only option for such a critical function. Which they are not.

I get it, you don't like Android. Neither do I. But, if I felt restricted as you seem to describe in this situation. I would have already bought an Android. Hacked it to make it look and feel as close to iOS as possible and moved on.

Your App Store is nothing else than a BestBuy, yet I want my vegetables from the market, yes. When I want games, I go to GameStop. When I want fast food, I go to McDonalds. When i want good Italian pizza, I go to a good Italian restaurant. Not BestBuy.

And while at Best Buy can you purchase an item from Target or Walmart "within" Best Buy? Can you get a Whopper from McDonalds? Or better yet, can I get a flame broiled Quarter Pounder With cheese instead of on the griddle? That might be a special burger right there.

Sure, the BestBuy uses the same terminal across the building but it does not give me the best experience for when I truly want to buy the best-in-slot items, nor does it offer them. And if they offer them, they are hamstrung in functionality. The scooter caps at 20 km/h (and even costs more) and the soda selection is only Coke.

Limitations. Are they artificial or done to piss off the customer? Is it out of greed they don't provide you and me with more? Or is it what they think is the best way to serve as many people as possible? They like any other company can't please everyone. They all try to please as many as they can. Sometimes you're on the wrong side of it. Or just partially in it but somewhat out. Or all in.

These new rules/laws are just the same. It will work for some people, not for others, and some in-between.

How much is really recycled? When I look at their supply chain I'm not seeing the connection in any decent amount. Maybe in a few years?

Since we are on the 16th or 17 version of the iPhone. I'm going to take a guess this has been in place for at least the last 5 years or so. Whenever that robot they made to break apart the phone at the least. Collecting trade-in's and from older phones getting recycled. Clearly this will take a few more years to maybe have a closed cycle. Most of the phone is just Aluminum, rare earths, glass. Fairly non-toxic stuff. The battery I'm going to guess is recyclable. That one I have a question on.

Not saying imitate forsaking patents. Though China is one of the worst at using others work. For ecosystem we are talking apps and access to them.

Since everything gets made in China (at least for the time being). Again, I don't see the need to open it up. I don't agree in forcing them to either. But the EU has made its choice.

Once again, you are pulling in items other than apps and the app ecosystem. You are conveniently forgetting that the App Store like many other "outlets" does not carry everything however Apple forbids the sale from any other source which we don't see in the outside world. It isn't an apple and orange world however you are trying to make it as such.

It is such because of other options. You would be correct "IF" there was no Android and it being an Open architecture where you can do what you want. On top of it being the more popular option in the region already.
Why can't Apple do what they have been doing so long as there is an option? Why must be force them to provide more of the same set of features as another competitor and simply not let the market decide? If everyone in the EU wants an open device/OS. They can pick the many flavors of Android. If they like Apple the way it is, they can buy that. And if you're somewhat or kinda stuck inbetween the features of one over the lack of them in another. Well, join the rest of us in the pool of never being happy with everything in life.

Stop shoveling compost and lets focus on this singular issue.
Looks like Apple is getting some form of this in the EU with iOS17
It exists for most of the Android world and every other mobile OS.

You're still proving my point of having a choice in products and services with a competitive product. This must be some kind of European thing where you treat business as a lesser entity. I'm completely not familiar with that concept. As it makes no sense to me. If I had a business, I would want it to be successful and to be able to produce a product that maybe other people will like and buy. I'd want to produce something unique and not imitated or copied. And as long as I don't break any laws, or hurt anyone. I'd like to think I'm safe in the fact that my local government will not force me to change my product in ways I don't agree with when I get lucky and my product is doing well. I took a risk, and no one said it was illegal or wrong or unfair or why you keeping it closed or why you don't let people do what they want with the product I produced the way I wanted. If you don't want it don't buy it.

But that is my opinion.

btw, in the US I can get a washing machine from pretty much anywhere.

Yes, but specifically can you get any brand from any store? Generally this is no. Not every store carries all brands. Some carry many, some carry few. Some even carry just the high end ones, some just the mid to low end ones. It varies.

My neat and poultry come from all over the world.

Is it in every grocer? You have Australian Wagu and Argentinian Picana, and Japanese Tuna or US Mahi Mahi in each store you visit? More than likely, you have stores that carry some of this, and some of that from this region or that region. At various price points.

I even looked and I could get a Russian Washing Machine. Wow. Pretty easy turns out.
etc....

From all your local stores? Sanctions must not be working very well in the EU. But, even before the war started.

 

[makitango]

There is no outside the store (YET). There has been only one store. And just like any store there are rules like "no outside food or drink". Or "No shirt no shoes no service". You're talking as if the new law existed BEFORE Apple or anyone else made a mobile phone. Also, if you didn't want to use the store, you could and still can write a WebAPP.

The law is the result of consumer and developer complaints. Try to find a petition to keep it like it is, there is none. Tells you everything about what people really want, whic his not what you are suggesting.
Plus, the issue is that there are no outside stores which this is all about. The owner of one store cannot forbid other stores not to exist.

Again, law did not exist when the store was made. As this example is a bit far fetched. Even sticking with it, if the law allowed it then it is what it is. Just like when the law changes to not allow it, it is what it is. We as people can agree or disagree with that law one way or another, for or against at any point before or after the law existed. So long as the store followed the law as it was through to what it was, is, and will become. And through our votes for or against politicians that promote for or against this law.

There have been similar ones such as anti-browser-binding laws. Plus, it doesn't matter if a law existed before or not. The law is good for consumers and developers and it allows them to run the software of their choice on the platform of their choice.

And the world decided that Apple made some darn good orange juice and so too does Google. Even with the restrictions Apple put in place (if you so wish to call it restrictions, limitations, cash grabby greed, whatever). People still purchase it. Not in the same numbers as Android, but more than enough to justify its existence. Let it be the alternative to the open platform of Android. Not make it another type of Android.

The world decided that Apple sells good oranges, just not good orange juice - ftfy. If you think iOS is the same like Android just because sideloading is allowed, you have no idea about OS' and certainly not iOS. A choice is the sum of coefficients, and sideloading is just one.
You can also keep your system "closed" by not leaving the App Store and continue trusting your fancy App Store review team to protect you from the evil emulator developers, while the adults are out and have some fun (or work).

I don't want a 3rd party store selling Apps on Apple's platform. I want Apple to sell Apps on Apple's platform. Which is how it is today, and has been since the beginning of the iPhone.

Apple can continue to do that, but others may have a go at it, too. May the best one win.

As for the rest of the comments, I'll get to them at some point when I get a break from washing Tim Cooks feet.
By the way, I "live" in the eastern time zone. I don't work for Apple. I enjoy MANY of the products they make, but not all. I'm sure just like many folks here.

Maybe work for a contractor or a company affiliated with Apple?

How do you propose making the technology we have today without it? If you can come up with a solution to that, bravo.

Apple releases products with incremental and staged upgrades instead of making bug jumps, they artificially cripple older hardware by locking out software features from them and trying to blame the hardware while developers flawlessly implement said technologies on their own. This is an example how to do it and I'm not even an expert. An expert can come up with even better ideas.

I would blame the people of planet earth for wanting new things year in and year out.
The Planet is going to be perfectly fine. It cares not what we do it it. Every planet and moon we have discovered so far are lifeless & and or mostly hostel to it. It is WE the living beings on the planet that will pay for it.

I would blame the dealer, not the addict.
Plus, we are only one species and all the species are paying for all the sh** we do.

Which is literally called a SoC (System on Chip) that Apple designed. Everything is in that SoC except like the 5G modem (for now anyway) and maybe some other bits and pieces. The case everything sits in is designed by Apple, and I am sure other things too.

You clearly have no idea how many components are in a phone, and who manufactured them. Screaming the only hardware piece engineered by Apple does not change that fact. Apple has as many self-"owned" hardware in their phone as Google and Samsung do. Actually, Samsung owns more self-developed hardware from their own phone (RAM, screen, CPU/GPU, SSD, camera, etc). You are just repeating empty marketing claims which are simply not true.

Apple doesn't want to be associated with those apps.

If a human makes an accident in a Ford, is Ford assciated with them? Hint: No, their aren't.

As an example. They choose to not produce certain content. Even though they could if they wanted to. As a customer I could argue same as you that they are blocking content that I want their characters in. And while supporting with my dollars the movies they do produce and sell and distribute. I'm not happy that they don't produce additional content that I feel they should and could.

You are once again talking about a storefront, we however are still talking about an operating system, which is somethign very different to a store. A store can sell whatever they like, but it cannot force its neighbors to not open up stores of their own.

If that is the law, that that is the law. But if it isn't the law (which is the point we all started from). Your option then is to not buy the bottle and go to another store and buy a bottle that functions the way you want. The EU in this example is acting as if there are no other stores. When there are. Are there other stores on Apples platform? Not at present. However, they are also NOT a monopoly. Meaning the only store and the only place to fill your bottle.
Why can't Apple have a product they produced to function the way they want WHILE you have other options in other products that function in other ways AT the same time? Why or how are you being harmed?

My option is and always has been to be free to buy any bottle I like and put into it anythign I want. This law removes any leverage of ambiguation from monopolies that digital platforms can evade these laws.
At present, Apple's App Store has a monopoly, and it ends now, which is good.
"Why can't Apple do what they want?" Because it's illegal. And as everyone has been telling you here, the harm is the artificial crippling of devices by disallowing apps get into the hands of customers just because Apple wants iToys to be underage devices.

You do have the option to buy the bottle elsewhere do you not? Is Apple the only company you can buy the bottle from? No. Is Apple the only place you can get water and a bottle from? NO. Do you not fully like other brands bottles? Clearly, but that isn't preventing you from getting a bottle and filling it with water. You want what you want, and that is fine. But Apple should have a right to make the bottle and its functions as it sees fit under the laws. So long as they are not the only option for such a critical function. Which they are not.

I want the best bottle for my best juice. Apple telling me to not fill the bottle with anything I want is wrong in every way thinkable. We are not children. The argument that I can get other bottles at other places does not change the fact that Apple is simply lying why they don't want me to fill their bottle at other places.

I get it, you don't like Android. Neither do I. But, if I felt restricted as you seem to describe in this situation. I would have already bought an Android. Hacked it to make it look and feel as close to iOS as possible and moved on.

It's simply the choice between two platforms and where the most pros win. Come Fall, nothing will make me jealous of Android anymore. And I have no choice because I cannot trust the OS foundation which in Android's case is fragile in every aspect.

And while at Best Buy can you purchase an item from Target or Walmart "within" Best Buy? Can you get a Whopper from McDonalds? Or better yet, can I get a flame broiled Quarter Pounder With cheese instead of on the griddle? That might be a special burger right there.

Indeed that might be a special burger. Loads of apps on the MAS are crippled compared to their website downloads, starting with simple apps like Slack.

Limitations. Are they artificial or done to piss off the customer? Is it out of greed they don't provide you and me with more? Or is it what they think is the best way to serve as many people as possible? They like any other company can't please everyone. They all try to please as many as they can. Sometimes you're on the wrong side of it. Or just partially in it but somewhat out. Or all in.

They don't try to please as many as they can. If you think they did, you did not pass business 101.

Since we are on the 16th or 17 version of the iPhone. I'm going to take a guess this has been in place for at least the last 5 years or so. Whenever that robot they made to break apart the phone at the least. Collecting trade-in's and from older phones getting recycled. Clearly this will take a few more years to maybe have a closed cycle. Most of the phone is just Aluminum, rare earths, glass. Fairly non-toxic stuff. The battery I'm going to guess is recyclable. That one I have a question on.

Jesus, you've been drinking their kool-aid 24/7 or what? Even referencing that PR video with the robot taking apart iPhones is ridiculous.
Their Trade-In programs sell the phones to Brightstar and other firms, who either resell them at a surplus (after Apple got their surplus) or recycle them when no party got any value. Those do not get back in the cycle with Apple.

It is such because of other options. You would be correct "IF" there was no Android and it being an Open architecture where you can do what you want.

It doesn't need any other platforms to say that their platform ties apps to their own store. It's a monopoly and nothing what you say can oppose that fact.
A criminal is no less a criminal just becuase no one else committed a crime that day.

Why can't Apple do what they have been doing so long as there is an option? Why must be force them to provide more of the same set of features as another competitor and simply not let the market decide? If everyone in the EU wants an open device/OS. They can pick the many flavors of Android. If they like Apple the way it is, they can buy that. And if you're somewhat or kinda stuck inbetween the features of one over the lack of them in another. Well, join the rest of us in the pool of never being happy with everything in life.

Because it's illegal. If we would have let the markets decide, slavery would still dominate the world. You can see that by the number of Germans preferring cheaper gas over the lives of Ukrainians.

If everyone in the EU wants an open device/OS. They can pick the many flavors of Android. If they like Apple the way it is, they can buy that. And if you're somewhat or kinda stuck inbetween the features of one over the lack of them in another. Well, join the rest of us in the pool of never being happy with everything in life.

The point is that every OS for a general computer device is required to be open, simple as that. Has got nothing to do with your Android. You are expected to pay taxes independently from your neighbor following that practice or not.
And I am perfectly happy with iOS after that, so I am not in your pool. And your pool doesn't exist btw becuase no real consumers are for that. there are no petitions for that because everyone knows that the signees can be verified, and they will be exposed as employees, contractors, bought people.

You're still proving my point of having a choice in products and services with a competitive product. This must be some kind of European thing where you treat business as a lesser entity. I'm completely not familiar with that concept. As it makes no sense to me. If I had a business, I would want it to be successful and to be able to produce a product that maybe other people will like and buy. I'd want to produce something unique and not imitated or copied. And as long as I don't break any laws, or hurt anyone. I'd like to think I'm safe in the fact that my local government will not force me to change my product in ways I don't agree with when I get lucky and my product is doing well. I took a risk, and no one said it was illegal or wrong or unfair or why you keeping it closed or why you don't let people do what they want with the product I produced the way I wanted. If you don't want it don't buy it.

We are not treating our businesses as a lesser entity, we are simply not allowing them to be above the law. A business cannot do everything they ant, just as regular citizens can't.
If you make products which use a monopoly to control the software market, you're out. Simple as that. I could also be Nestle and privatize water in developing countries, and call myself successful.
Both cases have their own levels of distasteful behaviour.

Yes, but specifically can you get any brand from any store? Generally this is no. Not every store carries all brands. Some carry many, some carry few. Some even carry just the high end ones, some just the mid to low end ones. It varies.

I don't need every store to carry all brands, I just need to be able to get them. Big difference. Again, this is about stores, and we are not talking about the policies of one store. We are talking about the policies outside of the stores, which is not to disallow other stores.

Is it in every grocer? You have Australian Wagu and Argentinian Picana, and Japanese Tuna or US Mahi Mahi in each store you visit? More than likely, you have stores that carry some of this, and some of that from this region or that region. At various price points.

Same. You try to keep everyone in the store-thinking universe, but this law is about things outside of stores.

 

[djphat2000]

The law is the result of consumer and developer complaints. Try to find a petition to keep it like it is, there is none. Tells you everything about what people really want, whic his not what you are suggesting.
Plus, the issue is that there are no outside stores which this is all about. The owner of one store cannot forbid other stores not to exist.

There have been similar ones such as anti-browser-binding laws. Plus, it doesn't matter if a law existed before or not. The law is good for consumers and developers and it allows them to run the software of their choice on the platform of their choice.

The world decided that Apple sells good oranges, just not good orange juice - ftfy. If you think iOS is the same like Android just because sideloading is allowed, you have no idea about OS' and certainly not iOS. A choice is the sum of coefficients, and sideloading is just one.
You can also keep your system "closed" by not leaving the App Store and continue trusting your fancy App Store review team to protect you from the evil emulator developers, while the adults are out and have some fun (or work).

Apple can continue to do that, but others may have a go at it, too. May the best one win.

Maybe work for a contractor or a company affiliated with Apple?

Apple releases products with incremental and staged upgrades instead of making bug jumps, they artificially cripple older hardware by locking out software features from them and trying to blame the hardware while developers flawlessly implement said technologies on their own. This is an example how to do it and I'm not even an expert. An expert can come up with even better ideas.

I would blame the dealer, not the addict.
Plus, we are only one species and all the species are paying for all the sh** we do.

You clearly have no idea how many components are in a phone, and who manufactured them. Screaming the only hardware piece engineered by Apple does not change that fact. Apple has as many self-"owned" hardware in their phone as Google and Samsung do. Actually, Samsung owns more self-developed hardware from their own phone (RAM, screen, CPU/GPU, SSD, camera, etc). You are just repeating empty marketing claims which are simply not true.

If a human makes an accident in a Ford, is Ford assciated with them? Hint: No, their aren't.

You are once again talking about a storefront, we however are still talking about an operating system, which is somethign very different to a store. A store can sell whatever they like, but it cannot force its neighbors to not open up stores of their own.

My option is and always has been to be free to buy any bottle I like and put into it anythign I want. This law removes any leverage of ambiguation from monopolies that digital platforms can evade these laws.
At present, Apple's App Store has a monopoly, and it ends now, which is good.
"Why can't Apple do what they want?" Because it's illegal. And as everyone has been telling you here, the harm is the artificial crippling of devices by disallowing apps get into the hands of customers just because Apple wants iToys to be underage devices.

I want the best bottle for my best juice. Apple telling me to not fill the bottle with anything I want is wrong in every way thinkable. We are not children. The argument that I can get other bottles at other places does not change the fact that Apple is simply lying why they don't want me to fill their bottle at other places.

It's simply the choice between two platforms and where the most pros win. Come Fall, nothing will make me jealous of Android anymore. And I have no choice because I cannot trust the OS foundation which in Android's case is fragile in every aspect.

Indeed that might be a special burger. Loads of apps on the MAS are crippled compared to their website downloads, starting with simple apps like Slack.

They don't try to please as many as they can. If you think they did, you did not pass business 101.

Jesus, you've been drinking their kool-aid 24/7 or what? Even referencing that PR video with the robot taking apart iPhones is ridiculous.
Their Trade-In programs sell the phones to Brightstar and other firms, who either resell them at a surplus (after Apple got their surplus) or recycle them when no party got any value. Those do not get back in the cycle with Apple.

It doesn't need any other platforms to say that their platform ties apps to their own store. It's a monopoly and nothing what you say can oppose that fact.
A criminal is no less a criminal just becuase no one else committed a crime that day.

Because it's illegal. If we would have let the markets decide, slavery would still dominate the world. You can see that by the number of Germans preferring cheaper gas over the lives of Ukrainians.

The point is that every OS for a general computer device is required to be open, simple as that. Has got nothing to do with your Android. You are expected to pay taxes independently from your neighbor following that practice or not.
And I am perfectly happy with iOS after that, so I am not in your pool. And your pool doesn't exist btw becuase no real consumers are for that. there are no petitions for that because everyone knows that the signees can be verified, and they will be exposed as employees, contractors, bought people.

We are not treating our businesses as a lesser entity, we are simply not allowing them to be above the law. A business cannot do everything they ant, just as regular citizens can't.
If you make products which use a monopoly to control the software market, you're out. Simple as that. I could also be Nestle and privatize water in developing countries, and call myself successful.
Both cases have their own levels of distasteful behaviour.

I don't need every store to carry all brands, I just need to be able to get them. Big difference. Again, this is about stores, and we are not talking about the policies of one store. We are talking about the policies outside of the stores, which is not to disallow other stores.

Same. You try to keep everyone in the store-thinking universe, but this law is about things outside of stores.

It will take a week to go through all that. So I'll try and sum it up.

We are talking about a store within Apple's platform. I'm going to stick with my statement that if you want the Apple device, then you want it as it is. They are not selling a device where you can have it your way. They are selling a device "THEY" wanted to produce. Doesn't matter if you don't like ALL or NONE of it. It should be legal to do so provided there are alternatives to the product. Which there are. AND that alternative lets you have it your way. PLUS Apple isn't the biggest in the EU. That would go to the same more open version of Android. So I can't see your point that Apple MUST do things to satisfy anyone in the EU. As if you don't like it the way they sold it. You don't have to buy it or operate at all in the ecosystem they made. You can and should not like it. Which is your right. But, to deny Apple the right to build and sell a product that they made the way they wanted it to which hurts no one BECAUSE there are alternatives that can do all the same things (with a different OS and hardware). AND is the more popular device/OS sold in the region. There should be no issues here at all.

In fact, if the people of the EU didn't like it to the extent you're stating. They should ALL not buy the product UNTIL Apple makes a product that they would like to buy. Since no one or any government can force Apple to exist or to force them to build anything they don't want to do. You must admit Apple does NOT have to do whatever this law is telling them to. They could go plan Z and just walk away. Most likely not going to happen, but it could or can for sure. Would it not be better to not buy the product until they, on their own free will. Decided to make a device more to your liking? I don't think anyone goes into your home and tells you how to sleep in your bed or eat at your table. You clearly don't want Apple or anyone telling you how to use what you purchased. Why should anyone tell Apple how to manipulate the product they made so it functions more like another?

Wouldn't we rather have Apple working harder at making a product worth our money? If you state that Apple makes little incremental innovations and is a greedy corp with no real morals and is just doing this for the money. Then deny them that! You don't believe they are doing anything positive for the environment or the world? Fine, you don't have to believe it. Or anything else they clam to do right for that matter. You have that right. Buy another product to force them to make something you like or go out of business. The EU doesn't need a new law for that.

 

[djphat2000]

Pretty sure porn parodies fall under fair use in US which is why they are sold.
And if you wan't porn of disney characters you just need to google... trust me i know.

It's not on Disney+.

 

[makitango]

We are talking about a store within Apple's platform.

We are not talking about a store within Apple's OS, and that's the key element again. Apple can do with their store as they please (but even there are some rules). The key thing is that they cannot forbid users to have other stores outside of that because it's a regular OS for normal use. Not a gaming console, not a health provider, not a bank. A regular OS. Whether it's intended for mobile or not doesn't matter.
You cannot force a citizen to buy only from one store in a normal OS, and there is no fineprint or ambiguous stuff in there, same as you cannot let a citizen live in a country and never let him leave his city or house, or force them into jobs. It's against human rights principles, and these right here are consumer human rights.

I'm going to stick with my statement that if you want the Apple device, then you want it as it is.

Then you're not listening again. We want the device to abide to laws. Very different concept. Laws that are already in effect and the deadline is zeroing in on Apple.

They are not selling a device where you can have it your way.

They are going to now. And everyone outside of Apple or who's not affiliated financially with them will be happy.

It should be legal to do so provided there are alternatives to the product. Which there are.

1. Whether or not there are alternatives to a product is no indicator for it being legal. There are enough things in circulation with are not legal and them having alternatives or not has never been the subject of its (il)legal designation.
2. There are no alternatives to the product. You keep saying Android is an alternative, but it's not. It simply being another mobile OS doesn't qualify for an alternative. That is like saying we can give someone a choice to live either on Earth or Neptune because both are planets.

AND that alternative lets you have it your way. PLUS Apple isn't the biggest in the EU.

Once again, you call it an alternative. An alternative is defined by the recipient (us), not the sender (you).
Apple not being the biggest player in a given location does not matter for anything. Stop distracting from the issue.

So I can't see your point that Apple MUST do things to satisfy anyone in the EU. As if you don't like it the way they sold it.

If they want to sell in the EU, they have to satisfy our basic laws. And if we don't like it, we can raise it to our lawmakers, which we did. F*** Apple, seriously. It's our money they want, and it's more important to them that the BS reasoning they gave about ohhhh security and ohhh we only care about our customers' wellbeing. You can see that by staying here that all of this is BS PR. Nobody here believes the crap they tell or what you repeat. Not a single petition. Not a single complaint towards the EU commission outside of Apple.

But, to deny Apple the right to build and sell a product that they made the way they wanted it to which hurts no one BECAUSE there are alternatives that can do all the same things (with a different OS and hardware).

Again, whether things are considered alternatives is decided by each consumer, not by one. And we're very sceptical here that you qualify as a consumer. You qualify for working in their social media squad.

AND is the more popular device/OS sold in the region. There should be no issues here at all.

Popularity doesn't matter in front of the law, once again. Whether there are issues is, once again, not to be defined by you but by the recipients. They don't need to have your approval for naming those issues "issues".

In fact, if the people of the EU didn't like it to the extent you're stating. They should ALL not buy the product UNTIL Apple makes a product that they would like to buy.

That's like saying that if we don't like a country or workplace, we should just leave instead of improving it. Or with relationships. Buy new dishes instead of just cleaning them. Or anything else.
This approach wrong in every aspect of every scenario.

You must admit Apple does NOT have to do whatever this law is telling them to. They could go plan Z and just walk away.

Sure they could. But they do everythign for money, just look at the glass unencrypted iCloud in China, and what else they do there which is against their own moral code.

I don't think anyone goes into your home and tells you how to sleep in your bed or eat at your table.

Or hit on your kids or wife for that matter, which is forbidden in most civilized countries. Again, laws. Doesn't matter if you commit a crime in your own walls, it's still a crime.

Why should anyone tell Apple how to manipulate the product they made so it functions more like another?

It's not about functioning like another, it's about functioning in a legal way where the OS developer does not get to raise a monopoly by making any outside app installs impossible.

Wouldn't we rather have Apple working harder at making a product worth our money? If you state that Apple makes little incremental innovations and is a greedy corp with no real morals and is just doing this for the money. Then deny them that!

They have to work harder now given that in the EU there will be a competition between app stores, so your wish comes true.
And we already denied them that without having to invest money. Aww.

You don't believe they are doing anything positive for the environment or the world? Fine, you don't have to believe it. Or anything else they clam to do right for that matter. You have that right.

Never said they did nothing. I said that waving the environment flag and praise themselves after the mass resource consumption is a flawed concept when looking at it from their own moral code, in effect hypocrisy. Even if they "recycle" some stuff.

Buy another product to force them to make something you like or go out of business. The EU doesn't need a new law for that.

I don't need to buy another product becaue the prior product will now reach its deadline on being legal if they don't comply. The EU signed off this law to outlaw any escape ambiguity defense attempts by trolling the legal system.

 

[I7guy]

We are not talking about a store within Apple's OS, and that's the key element again. Apple can do with their store as they please (but even there are some rules). The key thing is that they cannot forbid users to have other stores outside of that because it's a regular OS for normal use. Not a gaming console, not a health provider, not a bank. A regular OS. Whether it's intended for mobile or not doesn't matter.
You cannot force a citizen to buy only from one store in a normal OS, and there is no fineprint or ambiguous stuff in there, same as you cannot let a citizen live in a country and never let him leave his city or house, or force them into jobs. It's against human rights principles, and these right here are consumer human rights.

Then you're not listening again. We want the device to abide to laws. Very different concept. Laws that are already in effect and the deadline is zeroing in on Apple.

They are going to now. And everyone outside of Apple or who's not affiliated financially with them will be happy.

1. Whether or not there are alternatives to a product is no indicator for it being legal. There are enough things in circulation with are not legal and them having alternatives or not has never been the subject of its (il)legal designation.
2. There are no alternatives to the product. You keep saying Android is an alternative, but it's not. It simply being another mobile OS doesn't qualify for an alternative. That is like saying we can give someone a choice to live either on Earth or Neptune because both are planets.

Once again, you call it an alternative. An alternative is defined by the recipient (us), not the sender (you).
Apple not being the biggest player in a given location does not matter for anything. Stop distracting from the issue.

If they want to sell in the EU, they have to satisfy our basic laws. And if we don't like it, we can raise it to our lawmakers, which we did. F*** Apple, seriously. It's our money they want, and it's more important to them that the BS reasoning they gave about ohhhh security and ohhh we only care about our customers' wellbeing. You can see that by staying here that all of this is BS PR. Nobody here believes the crap they tell or what you repeat. Not a single petition. Not a single complaint towards the EU commission outside of Apple.

Again, whether things are considered alternatives is decided by each consumer, not by one. And we're very sceptical here that you qualify as a consumer. You qualify for working in their social media squad.

Popularity doesn't matter in front of the law, once again. Whether there are issues is, once again, not to be defined by you but by the recipients. They don't need to have your approval for naming those issues "issues".

That's like saying that if we don't like a country or workplace, we should just leave instead of improving it. Or with relationships. Buy new dishes instead of just cleaning them. Or anything else.
This approach wrong in every aspect of every scenario.

Sure they could. But they do everythign for money, just look at the glass unencrypted iCloud in China, and what else they do there which is against their own moral code.

Or hit on your kids or wife for that matter, which is forbidden in most civilized countries. Again, laws. Doesn't matter if you commit a crime in your own walls, it's still a crime.

It's not about functioning like another, it's about functioning in a legal way where the OS developer does not get to raise a monopoly by making any outside app installs impossible.

They have to work harder now given that in the EU there will be a competition between app stores, so your wish comes true.
And we already denied them that without having to invest money. Aww.

Never said they did nothing. I said that waving the environment flag and praise themselves after the mass resource consumption is a flawed concept when looking at it from their own moral code, in effect hypocrisy. Even if they "recycle" some stuff.

I don't need to buy another product becaue the prior product will now reach its deadline on being legal if they don't comply. The EU signed off this law to outlaw any escape ambiguity defense attempts by trolling the legal system.

All of this hubris and it boils down to you win some and you lose some.

 

[djphat2000]

We are not talking about a store within Apple's OS, and that's the key element again. Apple can do with their store as they please (but even there are some rules). The key thing is that they cannot forbid users to have other stores outside of that because it's a regular OS for normal use. Not a gaming console, not a health provider, not a bank. A regular OS. Whether it's intended for mobile or not doesn't matter.

That sounds like the same thing. We are not talking about a store within Apple's OS? But, we are? And the right to force it onto Apples platform.

You cannot force a citizen to buy only from one store in a normal OS, and there is no fineprint or ambiguous stuff in there, same as you cannot let a citizen live in a country and never let him leave his city or house, or force them into jobs. It's against human rights principles, and these right here are consumer human rights.

No one is forcing any citizen to buy an Apple product. You have a choice to do so or not. It's not a human rights issue. It's a shopping decision. You buy product A you get to deal with X. You buy product B, you get to deal with Y.
Did you not know you couldn't install a 3rd party store on iOS?

Then you're not listening again. We want the device to abide to laws. Very different concept. Laws that are already in effect and the deadline is zeroing in on Apple.

Not so. The device was abiding by the laws as they existed. The law has now changed. And from what we know, Apple will abide by the new laws.
And yes, it is targeting Apple.

They are going to now. And everyone outside of Apple or who's not affiliated financially with them will be happy.

Ok

1. Whether or not there are alternatives to a product is no indicator for it being legal. There are enough things in circulation with are not legal and them having alternatives or not has never been the subject of its (il)legal designation.

But we are not talking about an already illegal product. We are talking about a product that was fully legal and still is. the recently past law will require new adherence as we have gone over. So a fully legal product with fully legal alternatives exist.

2. There are no alternatives to the product. You keep saying Android is an alternative, but it's not. It simply being another mobile OS doesn't qualify for an alternative. That is like saying we can give someone a choice to live either on Earth or Neptune because both are planets.

We then, that's it then. I'm going to tell the people I work with that their Android phones are not alternatives to iOS and iPhones. It's like breathing air on Earth vs Neptune. Your phones are going do you in!

Once again, you call it an alternative. An alternative is defined by the recipient (us), not the sender (you).
Apple not being the biggest player in a given location does not matter for anything. Stop distracting from the issue.

So take them out of the location. Do without.

If they want to sell in the EU, they have to satisfy our basic laws. And if we don't like it, we can raise it to our lawmakers, which we did. F*** Apple, seriously. It's our money they want, and it's more important to them that the BS reasoning they gave about ohhhh security and ohhh we only care about our customers' wellbeing. You can see that by staying here that all of this is BS PR. Nobody here believes the crap they tell or what you repeat. Not a single petition. Not a single complaint towards the EU commission outside of Apple.

Same message as above. Do without. You don't want them to have your money. Don't buy their products. Stop complaining and petitioning to force them to do something they don't want to do. Just don't buy the product. They didn't trick you, or lie to you or mislead you. They didn't cause you any undo harm or break any of your laws. If you don't like the way the do business and or the products they produce. Don't buy it.

Again, whether things are considered alternatives is decided by each consumer, not by one. And we're very sceptical here that you qualify as a consumer. You qualify for working in their social media squad.

Whatever you want to believe. I'm not here to prove to you anything other than my belief that this law is wrong.

Popularity doesn't matter in front of the law, once again. Whether there are issues is, once again, not to be defined by you but by the recipients. They don't need to have your approval for naming those issues "issues".

Yeah sure.

That's like saying that if we don't like a country or workplace, we should just leave instead of improving it. Or with relationships. Buy new dishes instead of just cleaning them. Or anything else.
This approach wrong in every aspect of every scenario.

Every scenario is different. Many people "just" leave their country all the time. Have you seen the news in the US about the southern border? People in Ukraine are leaving due to war, but many stayed to fight to save their country. People quit one job to start their own business or to work someplace else they feel more benefits them. You have a first world problem of which mobile phone to purchase and are complaining that one of them is maybe more to your liking than the other, but this one issue is keeping you from being fully happy.

Sure they could. But they do everythign for money, just look at the glass unencrypted iCloud in China, and what else they do there which is against their own moral code.

Just like it's against the moral code for billions of people to buy devices manufactured in China? With raw materials sourced in countries that have child labor working mines? Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone.

A business exists to make a profit. If they don't by choice, they are non-profits, or charities. Apple has been and for the forceable future will continue to be a business for profit that is publicly traded. And yet, they do a good job building a device that has little to no toxic anything and made from heavily recyclable materials. Even if you don't believe they recycle them back into new devices.

Or hit on your kids or wife for that matter, which is forbidden in most civilized countries. Again, laws. Doesn't matter if you commit a crime in your own walls, it's still a crime.

It's not about functioning like another, it's about functioning in a legal way where the OS developer does not get to raise a monopoly by making any outside app installs impossible.

Apple isn't a monopoly. If it was, you would have a point and I'd be on your side of the argument. But, they are not. And, Android phones functions well enough to make calls, run applications and take pictures so at least on a really good day sun shiny day, running down hill with the wind to your back be a reasonable albeit highly unrecognizable facsimile of an iPhone. We are not talking a difference between a horse and buggy vs a SUV. Both are vehicles and operate similar enough to be of the same likeness. And you will not suffer any harm if Apple went away.

They have to work harder now given that in the EU there will be a competition between app stores, so your wish comes true.

This already exists. Google seems to be doing just fine in regards to their store vs others.

And we already denied them that without having to invest money. Aww.

For sure.

Never said they did nothing. I said that waving the environment flag and praise themselves after the mass resource consumption is a flawed concept when looking at it from their own moral code, in effect hypocrisy. Even if they "recycle" some stuff.

Well we are on the "If" level. That is progress! Again, how else are you proposing to get the materials needed to build the device? Practically every raw material needed is going to come from places we don't agree with and via methods we wouldn't allow in our respective counties. Yet here we are! Unless you live on a farm and source all the materials you need to live locally on your land by your hands.

I don't need to buy another product becaue the prior product will now reach its deadline on being legal if they don't comply. The EU signed off this law to outlaw any escape ambiguity defense attempts by trolling the legal system.

It's a perfect law by perfect people governing the EU.

 

[makitango]

All of this hubris and it boils down to you win some and you lose some.

Where is hubris beyond your empty accusation? No one loses anything because no one is required to install anything outside of the App Store. As we already know from macOS, installing from outside sources is difficult, let alone unsigned code (which no "grandma" is able to do). Obviously it won't be made easier on iOS.
If any to-be-protected US citizen wants to do this, they have to import an EU model.

We are not talking about a store within Apple's OS? But, we are? And the right to force it onto Apples platform.

You are talking about it by distracting from what it really is. A stop to Apple forcing us to use the App Store to get apps, simple as that.
They can have their glorious App Store on it all they want, but others have a right, too. Apple has no right to hide apps from users, at least here in the EU. The digital world is also bigger than app "stores".
As an example, if you want to lock down macOS, you cannot do so without installing Little Snitch. Even if there was a MAS version, it could not do its job and protect the user.

No one is forcing any citizen to buy an Apple product. You have a choice to do so or not. It's not a human rights issue. It's a shopping decision. You buy product A you get to deal with X. You buy product B, you get to deal with Y.
Did you not know you couldn't install a 3rd party store on iOS?

Maybe you should open your eyes and read actual articles about developers getting their app reviews denied until they got media coverage documenting their cases. The whole app review system is flawed and has been from the start, and is only in place as moral police. It has no security check competences and only executes policy metrics.
Also, a customer is a human and hence human rights (and if you read carefully, I wrote customer human rights - but you intentionally removed that, didn't you?). Not global, but national (and in this case, EU-wide).
And again, no one is talking about anyone forcing a customer to buy something. We are talking about a company not being allowed to force people to endure illegal concepts on whatever they sell no matter if they are okay with it or not. I could enjoy getting my fingers chopped off, doesn't mean it should be allowed or considered cool just becuase TC likes it.

Not so. The device was abiding by the laws as they existed. The law has now changed. And from what we know, Apple will abide by the new laws.
And yes, it is targeting Apple.

The device was not abiding laws or else MS would not have been forced to ease the access to other browser options besides IE. All the digital laws were created even before the App Store to prevent monpolistic nature, and Apple just went ahead with it and profited from the fact that people were unaware of its nature.

But we are not talking about an already illegal product. We are talking about a product that was fully legal and still is. the recently past law will require new adherence as we have gone over. So a fully legal product with fully legal alternatives exist.

It is currently not legal, it is only a grace period for illegal products. Do your research.
And again, you are not the one to define what alternatives are for us. That is for each person to decide. My alternative and best possible product is iOS after being compliant under EU law, which has been bolstered to rule out any outlaws by closing any legal lapses that might give Apple room to argue that the App Store is something different here.

We then, that's it then. I'm going to tell the people I work with that their Android phones are not alternatives to iOS and iPhones. It's like breathing air on Earth vs Neptune. Your phones are going do you in!

Factually, the apps which I sideloaded could not breathe on iOS before, so my comparison is sound.

You don't want them to have your money. Don't buy their products. Stop complaining and petitioning to force them to do something they don't want to do. Just don't buy the product. They didn't trick you, or lie to you or mislead you. They didn't cause you any undo harm or break any of your laws. If you don't like the way the do business and or the products they produce. Don't buy it.

I have the right to buy the product which abides to laws, and I do. Don't tell me to buy or not buy anything, it's my choice. Same as it's Apple's choice to abide and stay or not to abide and leave.
And I have the right to petition anything, same as Apple does. We have the right to kick companies out if they play foul. Apple did.

Whatever you want to believe. I'm not here to prove to you anything other than my belief that this law is wrong.

I don't have to believe anything. The numbers are in, and we voted for that both with our constitutional votes and representative action underscored with independent polls and statistics, and petitions from citizens independent from that.
People in the EU can be happy that the governments decided for the people and not for the company.

Every scenario is different. Many people "just" leave their country all the time. Have you seen the news in the US about the southern border? People in Ukraine are leaving due to war, but many stayed to fight to save their country. People quit one job to start their own business or to work someplace else they feel more benefits them. You have a first world problem of which mobile phone to purchase and are complaining that one of them is maybe more to your liking than the other, but this one issue is keeping you from being fully happy.

If people would just do as you suggest, we would not improve anything and would still make fire with rocks. Your example about Ukraine couldn't be more wrong because many would like to leave, but can't. Many would like to fight, but can't either. Many people have things and people to care for, which is a dependency. And it is a known fact that switching is hard as well, because of dependencies and barriers.
You can also quit your job to find a better one, or you can make yours better by fighting for worker rights. Apple themselves would have never raised their retail staff's salaries in I believe it was 2012/2013 unless it was made public and it shamed shareholders and the public, same with other things that happened to their workforce, like how they forced covid-infected people to come to work and then infected a whole team just to sell more iPhones, and hunting down the people who spoke publicly about it.
This is all about Apple's greed infringing on multiple affronts from health, fair salaries, competition & manipulation/monopolism, and more. Your liked company is nothing to be proud of or to admire.

Just like it's against the moral code for billions of people to buy devices manufactured in China? With raw materials sourced in countries that have child labor working mines? Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone.

So how do you justify owning many of their products? The goal is to contribute as less as possible to that consumerism, ideally zero. Apple has the choice to do it elsewhere, yet they opt not to because child labour is profitable. Your white knight in shining armor who is trying to sell you basically the same product every year anew.

A business exists to make a profit. If they don't by choice, they are non-profits, or charities. Apple has been and for the forceable future will continue to be a business for profit that is publicly traded. And yet, they do a good job building a device that has little to no toxic anything and made from heavily recyclable materials. Even if you don't believe they recycle them back into new devices.

If a business has a moral code, it is expected to follow it. If they don't, it's just empty PR.
You can follow down their supply chain with "recycling" partners like Brightstar.
The recycled material is stuff like aluminium from bent phones' back etc, which, if Apple didn't reuse for their own, the end of the trash/recycle chain would have recycled for someone else to reuse. Everything that can be recycled, will be recycled if people and companies follow the laws and put it in the right trash can.

Apple isn't a monopoly. If it was, you would have a point and I'd be on your side of the argument. But, they are not. And, Android phones functions well enough to make calls, run applications and take pictures so at least on a really good day sun shiny day, running down hill with the wind to your back be a reasonable albeit highly unrecognizable facsimile of an iPhone. We are not talking a difference between a horse and buggy vs a SUV. Both are vehicles and operate similar enough to be of the same likeness. And you will not suffer any harm if Apple went away.

Apple itself is not, but their implementation of the App Store on iOS is, because it's the only source for apps for the whole device, and developers and apps which don't fall into Apple's grace are locked out, independently from the user's intent to install them on their device. If it was a leased device, sure, but not okay for an owned one.
Whether that comparison is sound is for each recipient to decide, and for me, yours does not as Android vs iOS doesn't either. You can compare Linux distros with each other, and Android versions from different manufacturers.

This already exists. Google seems to be doing just fine in regards to their store vs others.

And this competition will now also take place on iOS which will enable innovation.

Well we are on the "If" level. That is progress! Again, how else are you proposing to get the materials needed to build the device? Practically every raw material needed is going to come from places we don't agree with and via methods we wouldn't allow in our respective counties. Yet here we are! Unless you live on a farm and source all the materials you need to live locally on your land by your hands.

It is easy. Grind as little as possible off the planet's limited resources and provide an as big as possible upgrade, and not this metered bean-counting mess. We don't need a new device with +1 incremental "upgrades" every year.

It's a perfect law by perfect people governing the EU.

It's a normal law made by normal people following the normal wishes of normal people.

 

[inuragon]

They made the device to work they way they did. You own the device, and can do with it as you

You know this reminds me of a certain music software called logic which was made to be crossplatform.

Taking away my freedom to purchase a locked down device away.

Did you complain when Apple took away the freedom to purchase logic on windows?

I and others choose to purchase a device WITH these limitations. We both are free to pick from it or another device that can accommodate our needs without infringing on the others freedoms.

Choose my own in this case. Which again today I have a choice. You have a choice. Tomorrow my choice was removed.

Just like logic users on windows back in the day.

 

[Bodhitree]

Let’s be honest, this is about providing alternative app-store opportunities for companies that make apps who lose a lot of revenue to Apple’s 30% cut of gross app revenue. My bet would be Steam and Epic would be the first companies to open alternative app stores asking for a lower cut, aiming at Apple’s bulk of the App Store revenues made from gaming. Its fair and competitive, Apple’s walled garden is an unfair barrier to competition.

There will probably be other market segments where big players will try and get a slice of the pie. Porn, gambling (where it isn’t regulated), and so on. The base human desires. It will be a case of buyer beware.

 

[djphat2000]

You know this reminds me of a certain music software called logic which was made to be crossplatform.

And iTunes was SoundJam (I actually found the disk and box not to long ago). Microsoft wants to purchase Activision. Yet the EU just let that go through. So what if buying a small company turns into an amazing business? Isn't that the point? Just like Microsoft buying Activision could become a massive benefit for Microsoft. It just as well could go the other way. They could fail. People could decide to not purchase it as much as they did. Maybe they just move on from the product all together. Anything can happen.

Did you complain when Apple took away the freedom to purchase logic on windows?

I graduated a college for audio engineering and music business. I was very familiar with Mark Of the Unicorn Digital Performer and Protools (AVID). Both on the Mac (system 7 at the time). I never used any audio software on a PC until I saw Cake Walk. And by the time I got around to seeing Logic on a Mac. I tried it for a bit and hated it. It wasn't logical as Protools was to me. I hear good things about it now of course, but it wasn't my cup of tea at the time. Neither was Cake Walk or doing anything on a PC for Audio. I was a DJ before going to college and throughout. As a day job I worked in IT (still do to this day). I can't say I felt anything about it before or after Apple bought it and made it Mac only. I could say the same about Bungie when Microsoft bough them. I loved Oni and when we finally got Halo.

Companies buy other companies all the time. You will never know how it would have worked out if they didn't buy them. It could have gone either way. The exclusiveness of Logic verse it being on both platforms. Maybe it doesn't even exist on the Mac given enough time. Maybe it's a better product on both.

Just like logic users on windows back in the day.

Even so. There was alternatives. I'm not saying they were good, and I didn't even like Windows for Audio work. I literally only saw one person using Cake Walk, and do anything on a PC. Yes, there are plenty of folks out there doing it. But, in my circles that was NOT a thing. You had a Mac for your DAW, in a studio or portable.