So does this mean at some point we can get kodi and syncler real debrid etc ?if so then absolutely no point buying android
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We saved europe, twice, and this is how they repay us.
forcing a company to open up their own software and intellectual property to other companies is another step into a dictatorship.
So, it's ok for Apple to "dictate" how it markets/sells iOS related products and how customers can use those products but it's not ok for the EU (or other countries/regions) to "dictate" how those types of products are marketed/sold in their member countries?
In the end, no one is forcing Apple to allow sideloading or alternative app stores. They can choose to comply, fight it, or pull their iOS business out of EU countries.
Yep, the EU is just that. I was there and certain TV channels and streaming channels are banned also.
It's not just an EU thing. The U.S. sued Microsoft in the 1990s regarding competitor product restrictions with Windows and MS wasn't even restricting end users from installing competitor products like Netscape Navigator. Apple has competitor product restriction with iOS not just on what they sell but also what retailers like AT&T Best Buy, etc. can sell AND what end users are able to do.
The U.S. DOJ is currently in legal battles with Google over a variety of things including its default search contracts with companies like Apple, Android MDAs versus RSAs (a similar situation as the 1990s MS case), their ad business, etc.
The U.S. DOJ has also been investigating Apple for antitrust violations alleging that they abuse their market power to stifle smaller tech companies, including app developers and competing hardware makers, etc.
Governments around the world have laws and regulations when it comes to business, competition, etc.
Not really. The idea is to give people the ability to do what they want with their own hardware. Apple is still getting paid for their product, they just don't get to dictate what the end user can or cannot run on it.
It's the same deal with John Deere putting software on tractors to make it harder for farmers to repair their own equipment. When you own something, you should own it completely, and be able to do what you want with it. The EU is absolutely in the right on this one.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would hope Apple extends the users the ability to control what 3rd party apps can access once side loading becomes possible; allowing users to limit access to any and all data was well as preventing tracking. Periodic rereques requirements or reminders of what the app had access to would be nice. Requiring users to give permission for any access will allow them to control their hardware, not 3rd party app developers who may want to harvest data for sale. That would be similar to the cookie popups on EU websites, where you get to decide what info they get, if any.
Actually Microsoft was being monopolistic in the 90s. It wasn’t just Netscape but Sun Java too. The way they treated it and coerced OEMs to not install Netscape and how they made Java more difficult.
Just one example of the scummy attitude at Microsoft and glad they got in trouble.
Being a monopoly was/is not itself illegal, it was that plus the "anticompetitive behavior" that created the legal issues for Microsoft. Similar is true in the EU where it's not just about the "gatekeeper" designation Apple and others fall under but that plus the "anticompetitive behavior."
Again, governments around the world have ("dictate") laws and regulations when it comes to business, competition, etc. It's not just an EU thing.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, I feel they were being much less restrictive than Apple when it came to competitor products. For example, computer OEMs could still choose to install Netscape Navigator on Windows machines they sold and end users certainly could. Apple not only restricts retailers (AT&T, Best Buy, etc. ) from installing things like alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. on iOS devices they sell but even restricts end users from doing so.
I find that Apple's dominance in mobile OS (as part of a duopoly with Android) combined with their anticompetitive behavior warrants legal actions but it's up to each country, region, etc. to decide (or "dictate") and litigate. This article/topic is about the EU but it appears that the U.S. will likely be coming after Apple in a similar fashion soon as well.
It’s not just about Netscape. And what gives Microsoft the right to try to convince another company to abandon their product. That combined with the coercion with OEMs regarding Netscape. And how they treated Sun Java code. It all adds up. Microsoft was far worse in the 90s than Apple’s widely known walled garden from day one.
From a consumer standpoint especially, I think Apple's restrictions are worse than what Microsoft's were in the 1990s. End users had more flexibility when it came to installing competitor software on Windows than they do with iOS. I feel the EU is justified to go after Apple for their anticompetitive behavior regarding iOS but it's up to each country/region to decide.
No not really. Apple talks about the walled garden a lot. Potential buyers are aware of the locked down nature. They can make an informed decision. Compare this to Microsoft shady business in the 90s it’s not even close.
Unless it gets decided that walled gardens are illegal ( and also needs to apply to game consoles since they are going all digital) Apple isn’t doing anything wrong.
Yep. By doing everyone a massive favour. See also USB-C.
Besides, you guys were late to the party on both occasions.
Sorry but the same old rhetoric.
An iPhone is not a game console.
Most folks don't buy because of the "walled garden".
Most folks do not make an informed decision. They tend to be either locked into an ecosystem or impulse buy.
Anyway. Let's see when this rolls out in the EU. Should be interesting no matter how it turns out.
Talking about a "walled garden" doesn't make Apple immune from antitrust regulations. Apple's walled garden became more of an issue as the mobile OS market started to be controlled/dominated by just two players, Apple being one of them. Again, it's the "dominance" combined with "anticompetitive behavior" that creates the legal issues.
As far as game consoles are concerned, there are typically many different places and ways people can buy games for PlayStation, Xbox, etc. including buying used. By comparison, Apple is much more restrictive with iOS app access.
If a region, country, etc. like the EU or U.S. identifies Apple as a "dominant" company and has laws that make it illegal for "dominant" companies to engage in "anticompetitive behavior" such as restricting alternative app stores, browser engines, sideloading, etc. then Apple absolutely would be doing something wrong.
Not really, little Jimmy gets an iPhone for Christmas and is instantly disappointed he can’t run a super Mario emulator on it like little Johnny next door on his Samsung.
Apple only has itself to blame by being overly stingy protecting their garden. Now it will be a free for all.
Last edited:
You must have missed what I wrote that they are going all digital. Xbox leak showed no more disc based consoles
google play has the emulators and less content censorship.
so apple has over done it and now will be forced to be free for all.