New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[PinkyMacGodess]

Totally agree with everything else you said, however Apple ****ed up by keeping the lightning connector proprietary. It is physically superior to USB-C and physics-wise could support 40 Gbps and all of the other USB specs. But some ******* decided that it needed to be locked down, and now we’re left with the USBIF’s bizarre guidance that leaves consumers to roll the dice every time they buy a peripheral.

The EU’s push for “fairness” is going to result in the same damn thing: a fractured system where everything a consumer does is a gamble. It’s pushing everything toward lack of confidence, a la grotesque misinformation campaigns and miring us all in FUD— for those unfamiliar, that stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Every single person in the world needs to choose a new timeline, cause this one sucks.

And, I haven’t even addressed the security implications of such policies. Those dominoes falling are grim.

On Lightning, I disagree. It's been a minor disaster for Apple, and they should have designed it better. But thinking back to the non-propriety connectors active at the time, Lightning was 'better', but that's compared to Micro-B. My first experience with Micro-B USB involved a device that had a really sloppy connector, and I was able to plug it in upside down, thus obliterating the connector. It kinda worked, but a flea could sneeze and the cable would fall out..

Lightning's problems have been due to the inability to handle larger amperage devices. Scorched and burned out connector contacts is a thing, and that signifies bad design, or at least subpar design. Connector contacts aren't supposed to burn out like that. They did something wrong with the deign. One electrical engineer said the problem was they connect all of the contacts at once, encouraging arcing and heat. They should have designed it so that the grounds connect first. I'm no electrical engineer, but I have had to toss dozens of Lightning cables and no USB cables because the contacts are burned out. That is why the ground pin in US power plugs is longer. Get that ground quicker...

Your second paragraph just mystifies me. It seems like it is the FUD that you seem to decry. And security implications? You can be compliant AND still be secure. The EU isn't saying stand on a street corner with your pants down. More FUD...

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Dragging everyone down to the same level has its charm, but good grief, getting into how software works seems a huge reach to me. There has to be some differentiation to distinguish one brand from another. To me Android is the 'Wild Wild West', you are mostly on your own, and iOS is the city, things just work. It's safer, less abusive, more dependable. Hearing about people losing their address books and other data on droid systems seems less an issue, but wow, when I lost both on the device and my computer, I was so pissed and left high and dry. Not a good feeling. PLUS depending on Google/whomever to stay out of my stuff is a concern (COINTELPRO) so that is a big issue for me. Sure, trusting ANY corporation is an ask, but Google has abused their users way more than Apple. (Getting a free U2 album doesn't count as abuse in my book)

So should the EU stay out of the software part of the business? I think so. I mean, as long as they aren't openly (or covertly) spying on users, having standards on what apps can be loaded is not a bad thing. Limiting users ability to hurt themselves is NOT A BAD THING. Being in the business for so long, people that are hacked usually (mostly) hack themselves! They unwittingly do themselves... Sure, Apple hasn't been 100%, but I also don't download apps that I don't need, and stay away from those most likely to be suspect. *shrug* It's software, and it can drive hardware into a brick wall. I feel that the Android market could benefit from what Apple does. Instead of dragging Apple down to the droid level, why not drag Google up to the level of Apple! Bring things UP, not beat them down. I mean, I like USB-C for everything, should have happened earlier for Apple, the smattering of USB-C devices is frustrating, but Apple at least tries very hard to protect their users.

Just thinking this morning, the droid and iOS phones will never be able to share the same apps. So what people are fighting over is the distribution of those apps. Apple, I feel (obviously) has a motive to protect their users, and ensure that malware doesn't make it into their ecosystem (as best as they can). By the EU's logic, stretched a little, anything/anyone that tries to separate people (or regulate trade) through membership or association is 'illegal' and should be regulated away. Costco memberships? *GONE* Country club memberships? *GONE* Regulation of defective devices? *GONE* All can be seen as a 'restraint of trade', and barring people from enjoying the benefits. Sure, it's a stretch, but so is dictating that a corporation should throw their customers to the wolves. Hacking is real, malware is real, phishing is real, the attacks on users is just growing by leaps and bounds. Lowering the field is not a great sounding solution in my mind. Just a random thought.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because this is a legacy system. Macs are not as safe and is not tethered to you all day and at constant threat from attacks in the wild or simple theft. Someone snatching your phone mid sentence to gain access to it

It's as if you don't know that things have degrees. Apple will tell you MacOS is secure (as desktop OS's go), but that iOS/iPadOS is more secure. So this change, though it would be good for me personally, would in turn make iOS/iPadOS less secure.

You both are completely wrong. Apple say it's less secure, but there exist zero data to prove it. Apple have refused to show public data supporting this assertion.

A crap bank is one that requires a phone to transfer money.

A crap bank is that allows fraud to happen so easily with no security.
You can log in with a digit pass or electronic banking identification. Who uses a password today?

In the end they will make Apple disappear from the European market.

The European Union lately the only thing it does is to prohibit, demand, demand, demand and continue prohibiting. Everything is excessively bureaucratized, everything imposed, laws and more laws, some with more sense than others.

The truth is that having Android in Europe a significantly higher share than Apple, having such operating system that allows everything you want, I do not understand that those who use iOS in Europe, is around 25/30%, and we know the existing limitations, but still use it because we value other things, do not want to allow us. For tinkering there are already a thousand Android phones and thousands of Windows computers, Apple offers a closed system, with other advantages and disadvantages compared to its competition, but manufactures 4/5 products of each line. There is enough variety and supply for those who want to use other app stores, do it.

However, it is true that in this issue there are Apple policies that I do not understand, for example, the issue of xCloud, Steam or other gaming platforms to which they put a thousand obstacles, it seems that all they want is to enhance their Apple Arcade, when this service is quite disappointing and I do not think it is one of the best performing among its various subscription services. In this sense I think Apple is holding back the competition and perhaps this should be seen, not as an opening of the operating system to different platforms, but to be able to use different monetization services or to be able to play "cloud" game services.

It is not an easy issue, but the raison d'être of iOS is its "closed" system. If you like it fine, if you don't like it, you have Android with lots and lots of variety of brands and handsets and customization layers, ROMs, etc.

With what the EU is proposing, the only thing they seem to want is to open security holes in a more closed and secure system for the average user.

Same mistake as everyone else. It's not a question of open or closed. iOS can still be closed, but the question is of influence of the broader business market of other enterprises. And in this apple quite literally makes or breaks a lot of companies, and they have passed the threshold, and it's harmful to the wider market

The problem, as always, is the lack of competing operating systems and ecosystems.

This EU regulation does nothing to address that core problem.

Your mistake is the fact Eu have never said it's a problem to fix. You think it's a problem, they do not. They care about influence, not market share.

The operating system isn't of interest as it's only few actors, the biggest interest is the millions of businesses who rely on this OS that they impact. Small businesses are the lifeblood of nations, not individual mega corporations

 

[BaldiMac]

The operating system isn't of interest as it's only few actors, the biggest interest is the millions of businesses who rely on this OS that they impact. Small businesses are the lifeblood of nations, not individual mega corporations

And yet this legislation will primarily benefit mega corporations and not small businesses.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Small businesses are the lifeblood of nations, not individual mega corporations

But 'mega corporations' have gotten mega-enough to warp politics. Having run my own business for decades, I got a look at the favoritism paid to those 'mega corporations'. Some are good, but many aren't.

The biggest thing I ran into was everyone was saying 'get involved in the education and state government market' People making statements that there was 'lots of money to be made'. Except the first 5 projects we bid on, that were earmarked for 'small businesses' were won by 'arms length' divisions of major 'mega corporations'. I was getting 'special pricing' from vendors that figured out a way to outbid me even thought they were anything but a 'small business'. Disgusting, crazy, unethical, permitted if not actually approved...

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

And yet this legislation will primarily benefit mega corporations and not small businesses.

That's not so clear, but it is clear that the users will take the hit...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And yet this legislation will primarily benefit mega corporations and not small businesses.

there is nothing in this legislation that benefits Mega corporations. it quite literary forces big players to cater to smaller players.

it prevents the gatekeeping effect big companies generally

tries to enforce to trap their users in their ecosystem

But 'mega corporations' have gotten mega-enough to warp politics. Having run my own business for decades, I got a look at the favoritism paid to those 'mega corporations'. Some are good, but many aren't.

The biggest thing I ran into was everyone was saying 'get involved in the education and state government market' People making statements that there was 'lots of money to be made'. Except the first 5 projects we bid on, that were earmarked for 'small businesses' were won by 'arms length' divisions of major 'mega corporations'. I was getting 'special pricing' from vendors that figured out a way to outbid me even thought they were anything but a 'small business'. Disgusting, crazy, unethical, permitted if not actually approved...

hence why Mega companies are being targeted by EU legislation for their disproportionate influence.

That is why the legislation do not care about market share, but influence. Number of business partners and customers you have every year

 

[BaldiMac]

there is nothing in this legislation that benefits Mega corporations. it quite literary forces big players to cater to smaller players.

I disagree. It simply forces super mega corporations to cater to mega corporations. Small businesses already have a great deal with the current app stores. It's the mega corporations that are able to step in with alternate app stores and their own payment solutions to funnel revenue from Apple. Small businesses don't have the infrastructure and exposure to take advantage of that.

 

[bluecoast]

The problem, as always, is the lack of competing operating systems and ecosystems.

This EU regulation does nothing to address that core problem.

True. But I read once that Bill Gates analysed the mobile market and said that there was only room for 2 major OSs as devs simply wouldn't be able to spare the resources for any more (which is why he was so scathing of Steve Ballmer for not grasping that opportunity from the moment that the iPhone become a hit).

The antitrust measures seem to be less about ensuring that we have a diversity of platforms, but more about having a diversity of apps and services on that platform and that companies don't get onerously 'taxed' by the platform owners, or have their work blocked by the platform services if they suddenly decide that they want to get into that space too etc.

I don't own a business, but most businesses are lucky if they get to run on margins of 30% as far as I understand. However, that is exactly the cut that Apple expects to have on any purchase going through app payments on their platform.

You don't need to be an experienced entrepreneur to work out that if you need to develop your company for the web, iOS and Android plus any backend cloud infrastructure plus pay the platform tax on the latter two - well, good luck with growing that into a viable business.

Obviously this is where the browser choice & third party payment mechanism provisions come in.

If we can get to a point where every platform can have browsers that support the same web technologies, the need to having to have an app for many businesses starts to decline, as you could just make a great web app and use the payment backend of your choice.

To sum up, I think that the EU wants a return to the 10 years before the smartphone era, where the open nature of the web and competing payment systems, search engines, ad providers etc. all provided a healthy competitive environment where people could grow businesses with very little capital (compared to having to lease retail space etc.) and create more value.

I think that that is a good thing.

 

[BaldiMac]

True. But I read once that Bill Gates analysed the mobile market and said that there was only room for 2 major OSs as devs simply wouldn't be able to spare the resources for any more (which is why he was so scathing of Steve Ballmer for not grasping that opportunity from the moment that the iPhone become a hit).

The antitrust measures seem to be less about ensuring that we have a diversity of platforms, but more about having a diversity of apps and services on that platform and that companies don't get onerously 'taxed' by the platform owners, or have their work blocked by the platform services if they suddenly decide that they want to get into that space too etc.

That all makes sense. I just think that the EU has vastly overstepped these goals with the DMA. A law that they were aware will have a global impact should have been much more targeted.

We already have a unprecedented diversity of app and services on the platform. I think the focus of the EU should have been limited to ensuring fair competition with Apple's own services. For example, stop allowing Apple to promote Apple Music within the OS and provide equal access to all APIs for competing services.

I don't own a business, but most businesses are lucky if they get to run on margins of 30% as far as I understand. However, that is exactly the cut that Apple expects to have on any purchase going through app payments on their platform.

To be fair, less than 2% of iOS developer pay the 30%. For most it's 15% or nothing. Seems like reasonable margins to me. Especially compared to the situation before app stores.

To sum up, I think that the EU wants a return to the 10 years before the smartphone era, where the open nature of the web and competing payment systems, search engines, ad providers etc. all provided a healthy competitive environment where people could grow businesses with very little capital (compared to having to lease retail space etc.) and create more value.

I think that that is a good thing.

I think that the 10 years before the App Store were awful! Smartphone apps were horrible and sold through the phone companies. You had to enter your credit card info all the time. Shareware and smaller software companies were spammed with fake download sites. Credit card leaks were regular. You didn't know what software was available or if it was any good if you found it. Discount codes. Ugh.

 

[Toratek]

Similar changes potentially in the US too, though. As per the article:

"Apple is also facing similar legislation in the United States, with U.S. House lawmakers in June introducing antitrust bills that would result in major changes to the tech industry if passed..."

"If passed". Watch what happens next Tuesday and get back to us on that.

 

[Manzanito]

The EU is not in a position to negotiate anything.

Too bad people in charge think otherwise, isn’t it?

 

[Vazor]

Oh God, Apple just can’t catch a break from all this. I feel like the EU is the reason we got to see the new not-so-good iPads and MacBook Pros are delayed till next year. No November Apple event!

Poor Apple, a trillion dollar company, can’t catch a break! I refuse to believe this account is not managed by a bot or iJustine.

 

[Sir_Macs_A_Lot]

First the EU forces Apple to give us iPhone USB-C ports and now this. I can't wait to see what's next.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple's going to have to figure out a new way to make money. That's not snark, just a fact. They give away the development tools, give away software upgrades, and monetize all that work via the apps themselves. Expect XCode to have a price tag if this passes.

I suspect Apple may change it's fee structure to result in higher upfront costs, hurting smaller developers.

There are legitimate security issues with other app stores, and I really wonder if the EU realizes that the first thing facebook and other data-privacy invading companies do will be to leave the apple app store and their restrictions and launch their own 'ad and data selling friendly' store. Apple loses the ability to be the privacy gatekeeper. Left hand meet right hand.

Not sure if Apple will lose the privacy side as long as they do not collect the data they need not turn it over; and still can enforce restrictions.

On iMessage, sorry. There are plenty of competing systems, and forcing apple to open theirs up (aka stealing their IP) is bogus. If google had picked a strategy and stayed with it, they'd have a similar app. Just because they blew it, doesn't mean apple should have to give them a second chance.

The question will be what qualifies as interoperability. Using SMS as a fall back allows that; or will Apple be able to force those that want to interoperate to use their encryption standards, which would potentially break their messaging systems when trying to connect to Apple?

Well, who is saying the Digital Markets Act won’t affect others?
We are in an Apple forum, so we are discussing Apple topics.

Once Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo & Co. falls into the Gatekeeper definitions, they will be affected, too.
Totally okay that way!

Don't stop there, include Facebook, Epic, Spotify, etc. This could be an interesting fight. Grab some popcorn.

That will probably fall into gatekeeping, simply because Apple does not have to pay 27% for their own Apps, a unfair advantage and anticompetitive.
I’m sure Apple will try, but risky try and fail.

Apple may need to spin off the App Side to a separate, independent but wholly owned company, much like Claris. Then they would also have to pay the same 30% without violating the directive concerning app stores.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I disagree. It simply forces super mega corporations to cater to mega corporations. Small businesses already have a great deal with the current app stores. It's the mega corporations that are able to step in with alternate app stores and their own payment solutions to funnel revenue from Apple. Small businesses don't have the infrastructure and exposure to take advantage of that.

Not at all. Now a small developer can put their app on one or multiple storefronts for any price they want. They can multihome as they wish.

And now they have the option to not pay a platform fee. And just implement Apple Pay and keep 100% of the revenue instead.

Developers are the customers and the AppStore are the providers.


Every small developer is incentivized to pay apple as little as possible. And 15% is a hearty price to pay when you have no option.


Example now apple AppStore is forced to compete with Epic store with both price and functionality.

Apple demand 15-30% fee.
Epic allow you to pay 0% in fee and use your own solution if you want.

 

[SactoGuy18]

The multiple App Store idea can be done if everyone who plans an app store on iOS agree on a single set of rules for the app store. That way, when you start up the App Store app, you can choose the specific app store to use on a tabbed top menu.

 

[BaldiMac]

Not at all. Now a small developer can put their app on one or multiple storefronts for any price they want.

They can do that now.

They can multihome as they wish.

I have no idea what that means.

And now they have the option to not pay a platform fee. And just implement Apple Pay and keep 100% of the revenue instead.

There is nothing in the law preventing a platform fee. And they wouldn't be able to keep 100% of the revenue anyway. They still have costs associated with the sale.

Developers are the customers and the AppStore are the providers.

What does that mean?

Every small developer is incentivized to pay apple as little as possible. And 15% is a hearty price to pay when you have no option.

Compared to what? It's completely reasonable for what you get in return. I paid more than that to retailers in the before times and still had to worry about all the distribution expenses.

Example now apple AppStore is forced to compete with Epic store with both price and functionality.

Apple demand 15-30% fee.
Epic allow you to pay 0% in fee and use your own solution if you want.

Made up numbers are made up.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That all makes sense. I just think that the EU has vastly overstepped these goals with the DMA. A law that they were aware will have a global impact should have been much more targeted.

It makes absolutely no sense to have a more targeted law. As it’s not apple doing something wrong, but a systemic correction they try to implement. They do not care if the law has global impact as it’s about EU and not the world.

We already have an unprecedented diversity of app and services on the platform. I think the focus of the EU should have been limited to ensuring fair competition with Apple's own services. For example, stop allowing Apple to promote Apple Music within the OS and provide equal access to all APIs for competing services.

Why? Apple isn’t the only game in town. This targets anyone who does what apple does.

This will target google, Facebook and dozens of companies including apple. Laws aren’t designed to be targeted, that’s how you end up with extreme consequences you didn’t predict.

To be fair, less than 2% of iOS developer pay the 30%. For most it's 15% or nothing. Seems like reasonable margins to me. Especially compared to the situation before app stores.

It isn’t because you don’t have a choice. We have multiple companies and services that offers what apple does but for a cheaper and better price than apple does. They are just stopped from competing.

I think that the 10 years before the App Store were awful! Smartphone apps were horrible and sold through the phone companies. You had to enter your credit card info all the time. Shareware and smaller software companies were spammed with fake download sites. Credit card leaks were regular. You didn't know what software was available or if it was any good if you found it. Discount codes. Ugh.

Today we have vastly improved security and options for payment solutions.

Why should Apple demand what applications users can use? Why should google demand everyone pays 27% fee to them? Why should Amazon demand no competing product is sold? Etc etc.

Give back the competition and options for consumers who wants it. Not everyone needs to ab treated like a child

 

[1557750]

Poor Apple, a trillion dollar company, can’t catch a break! I refuse to believe this account is not managed by a bot or iJustine.

You do realize that you’re not on Twitter, right? And I’ve never known a bot to have full conversation like “iJustine”, here.

👊🙄👍

 

[1557750]

No front, back or side loading for me. Everything works just fine as is.

Buy an Android, unlock the boot loader, root, load custom roms and sideload all the corrupt apps you want till your hearts content.

Don’t like Android? Then don’t update your iPhone for a year and a half and pray that an untethered jailbreak comes along and have at it.

👊😙👍

 

[BaldiMac]

It makes absolutely no sense to have a more targeted law. As it’s not apple doing something wrong, but a systemic correction they try to implement. They do not care if the law has global impact as it’s about EU and not the world.

I'm not talking about targeting individual companies, but more specifically targeting areas where competition is actually being hurt.

Why? Apple isn’t the only game in town. This targets anyone who does what apple does.

Apple was just an example.

This will target google, Facebook and dozens of companies including apple. Laws aren’t designed to be targeted, that’s how you end up with extreme consequences you didn’t predict.

Again, I'm not talking about targeting companies.

It isn’t because you don’t have a choice. We have multiple companies and services that offers what apple does but for a cheaper and better price than apple does. They are just stopped from competing.

You're speaking hypothetically. I'm making comparison to reality.

Today we have vastly improved security and options for payment solutions.

Great! That doesn't change my point.

Why should Apple demand what applications users can use?

Because users choose a platform where Apple curates the available applications.

Why should google demand everyone pays 27% fee to them? Why should Amazon demand no competing product is sold? Etc etc.

Good question. Why do people pay Google 27% when they have the option of alternative app stores and sideloading? That completely undermines your point.

Give back the competition and options for consumers who wants it. Not everyone needs to ab treated like a child

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that some people prefer a platform with a curated app store. Again, consumers aren't the primary beneficiary of this legislation. Prices are already low and there is an extremely diverse selection of apps. We don't need new middle men to suck the value from the system.

 

[code-m]

Makes one wonder how much Apple spends on legal issues every year.

Some of its legal defence is warranted while others not. I am more curious how many cases Apple fought just because it was being stubborn due to financial incentives i.e. Lightening Connector and Accessories, etc compared to focusing on legitimate legal cases pertaining to Human Rights, Privacy, Labour Conditions, etc.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They can do that now.

No they can’t. iOS apps can only be sold at apple AppStore.

I have no idea what that means.

Miltihoming means you must exist on multiple platforms to conduct a business. Example tinder isn’t looking for iOS users. But it’s a platform for people to find other people. iOS users, android users and windows users etc. removing iOS users makes the business worse.

This would allow a business to target iOS users on multiple storefronts instead of one.

There is nothing in the law preventing a platform fee. And they wouldn't be able to keep 100% of the revenue anyway. They still have costs associated with the sale.

There is, if you can side load apps or rather use other stores without apple’s consent apple can’t take a fee.

What does that mean?

It means that this is targeted at developers not consumers.

Compared to what? It's completely reasonable for what you get in return. I paid more than that to retailers in the before times and still had to worry about all the distribution expenses.

Compared to steam, epic store, Amazon store, etc etc. it’s not reasonably.

Steam takes 30% but allow you to sell any game that is legal.
Epic store allows you to sell with custom in app solutions or alternative stores.

Microsoft takes 5% of applications that aren’t games if it’s on your own website.

Made up numbers are made up.

They aren’t made up.

Epic store allows you to sell apps with your own payment system and keeping 100% of it. 12% if you use their payment system or 0% if you use your own.

They allow you to use their developer’s software and only pay after you earn millions. Etc

This is heathy competition apple prevents as they can’t compete or rather wants to rent seek

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm not talking about targeting individual companies, but more specifically targeting areas where competition is actually being hurt.

Well they are. Not sure if you have read the DMA and all the areas it covers.

Apple was just an example.
Again, I'm not talking about targeting companies.

Fair point

You're speaking hypothetically. I'm making comparison to reality.

Not sure I’m speaking hypothetically when we have options available that are blocked for arbitrary reasons.

Because users choose a platform where Apple curates the available applications.

You still can. Apple can curate their content to their hearts content. Those who chooses to go outside the AppStore will do so.

Good question. Why do people pay Google 27% when they have the option of alternative app stores and sideloading? That completely undermines your point.

Not at all, it’s the point that google demands you pay percentage when you don’t use their services.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that some people prefer a platform with a curated app store. Again, consumers aren't the primary beneficiary of this legislation. Prices are already low and there is an extremely diverse selection of apps. We don't need new middle men to suck the value from the system.

I’m fully a knowledge this point.

The think you seem to refuse to recognize is that both can exist at the same time.

There aren’t new middlemen. They are alternatives to apple.

And yes consumer’s aren’t the primary beneficiary, developers are. And we as consumers benefits if developers have it better.
More competition between service providers.

Why shouldn’t steam, epic store, Amazon store and Apple Store compete if that’s what users want?

Steam would offer a vastly superior market of games than apple could ever provide as they have different requirements on allowed content. Steam allows political, violent and sexual content to a much higher degree than apple does, but for the same cut.

While epic allows about the same but for a lower price.

You are just content with what we have now even tho it can be better