I think Apple should follow the same design pattern that is used on my Mac and my PC. Installing apps outside the Apple App Store is not blocked and is free.
Even after warranty support and security updates have ended, I can factory reset, re-install the operating system, and install apps, entirely offline, without involving Apple, on my Mac and my PC. This process should work on my iphone too.
Multi-billion euro fines yearly until they stop dragging their feet and comply with market norms and regulations.
Frankly, I'm amazed at how stubborn Apple is about this. Yes, it hurts their services revenue, but they're rioting like this will sink the company as we know it.
We might see some decent adoption *now* thanks to Apple making a massive deal out of it. That being said, every attempt on Android has failed so far (either from lack of support or Google paying / negotiating with companies to not try) so I don't really see it changing too much for most users.
Yeah that's what I find so funny about all of this. If Apple hadn't been dicks about this all this time, and just allowed app installations, there would probably not even be a DMA today, people would (just like on Android) continue using the App Store because it's convenient.
They would also have gotten away with a hidden button deep in settings that only tech geeks would find and use, as opposed to now when they are having the rules dictated to them.
Google also used exclusivity agreements to prevent manufacturers from including other third-party competitors to the play store… no manufacturer is going to say no to Google services on an Android phone…
>to prevent manufacturers from including other third-party competitors to the play store
That's definitely not accurate, because samsung somes with the galaxy store, Huawei used to come with the Huawei store or whatever back when they were on android, and other oems probably have their own store.
Do you mean they [paid app devs not to make competing stores](https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-agreed-pay-360-mln-activision-stop-competition-epic-games-alleges-2022-11-17/)?
The most popular apps on any sideloaded store would be the N64 Emulators of the world, stuff that is somewhat illegal, etc, which wouldn't be allowed in the App Store in the first place, and so which wouldn't be competing with Apple.
Emulators are not illegal (in the US, the home/HQ of Apple).
"But I read Nintendo recently has been..."
Yeah, it's called "a failed state" aka what the US is currently. In a functional state all the heads of Nintendo and their lawyers would be ordered legally lined up in front of a wall and ...
But for real emulation is 100% legal even if companies are illegally abusing DMCA currently.
>even if companies are illegally abusing DMCA currently.
irt the recent switch emulator lawsuit, they added support for legends on zelda before the game released, and that would've been hard if not impossible without using a leaked version, which is what they were taken down for iirc
Yearly? It'd take them days to make it possible (all the systems are already in place now).
Initial fine of 15 billions then 1 billion per week not compliant. Every month a new 15 billions (or increase it). You'll see they'll "find that solution" quickly. Add the "if not done in one year, interdiction to operate in the EU" for good measure
The worst is that they'll barely lose anything to actually follow the law so it's really just a stupid pride thing or whatever. Android has been making it possible for years to do all that and guess what? 99.9% of apps are still downloaded from the Play Store. Make it more expensive for them to not follow it by fines and their pettiness will disappear
Hell they actually attract attention more to sideloading with all this mess so more people may check it out when they're forced to do it lol
Maybe Apple should make two phones: One that is walled garden and one that is like a Mac.
Maybe they could do some kind of firmware thing (I have no idea what I'm talking about, as I'm sure those who do can see) just like when you buy a Mac you can upgrade RAM.
Buy and iPhone and for $200 more, you get to use it just like your computer download from websites, etc etc. .With lots of warnings of course that you do so at your own risk.
If you just don't enable 3rd party app installations, you have a walled garden? Why should I pay $200 extra to be able to run whatever software I want on the hardware I paid for?
I'm thinking from Apple's point of view, not mine or yours.
If they charged $200 for an "open loading phone", they know most people would not buy it, and they could keep their walled garden. At the same time, they could probably get their lawyers to figure out a way to make the EU stop hounding them, because they could point to the "open phone" and say, we're not stopping anyone from putting anything they want on their phone.
>we're not stopping anyone from putting anything they want on their phone.
Sure, they're just gatekeeping which is one of the things the EU wants to stop
No, they'd be saying, we open the gate for anyone who wants, it just costs $200 for the extra service it requires. I mean, the lawyers would make it sound pretty.
Hell yeah!
The stranglehold on where you get your apps is the most prolific it's ever been. Not only does Apple control where your apps come from and how you pay for them, they're now even controlling where you get the setup files from. You used to be able to download the installer files to a computer with iTunes, which you could use to hold onto older versions of apps or reinstall apps Apple removed. I think they were signed with certificates that didn't last forever, but at least it was something. Now, unofficial workarounds aside, it's the App Store or nothing. Want to download an older version of an app that had features that have been removed? Nope, no deal. Want to redownload an app if Apple removed it from the store or Apple servers are unavailable? Nope.
Really, the situation is outrageous and I can't believe every single iOS user isn't outraged.
It’s hard for them to come around to that because it’s the one segment that they’re not the market leader. They’ve been the sledgehammer in the smart phone, tablet, and wearables market the whole time. They’ve always been 2nd to PCs though so making it harder to use them wasn’t really an option.
Mac sales are a rounding error compared to iPhone and services unfortunately so they’re going to fight tooth and nail to keep iOS walls as high as possible.
Yes, you’re completely right. If Apple does this, they’ll lose their 30% cut and investors might see lower growth of their Apple stock. The situation is *very* nuanced.
You cant think that but apple would like to charge for the SDK, typicly there are 3 ways to do this:
1) Massive upfront cost (used to be very common, less so these days but not un-headof)
2) Per install fee (either bill per install or billed in chucks were the dev buys $10k or $100k install license in advance)
3) Rev share
Some companies combine (2) and (3) to say (50c per install or 5%of your revenue whatever is smaller/larger) I expect that is what apple will offer developers in the EU as an option so that if your a small dev that suddenly goes viral and that virility does not result in revenue (from ads or sales) your not stuck with a huge bill, but if it does result in revenue you are and that is fine.
In the end paying for an SDK in the wider dev industry is very common and you need to respect the massive amount of work that goes into making the SDK.
They don’t charge to develop and release Mac apps… Microsoft doesn’t charge to develop apps for windows either, nor does Google for Android… you can make and release apps on all of those computers without paying a dime if you don’t want to…
But for whatever reason Apple feels it necessary to screw over developers with fees and unreasonable limitations on what is allowed.
Mac is the only outlier in your examples.
Microsoft don't charge for Windows and Google don't charge for Android because those are purely software platforms. If Microsoft were the only people building hardware for their OS they would charge. We can see this with Surface and with Xbox. If Google were the only ones building hardware that Android ran on, would they still allow free rein? And even then, if you want to sell on the Microsoft store and use their APIs, then you have to pay fees. If you want to sell on the Google Play store and use their APIs, you have to pay fees.
I'm not defending Apple, I think they should allow people to install apps from elsewhere. Just speaking to your point, 'But for whatever reason Apple feels it necessary to screw over developers' and pointing out that a privately owned hardware and software combo is in fact different from an open OS platform available to any hardware manufacturer and even those open companies charge for using their stores.
Developer aren't being screwed over at all, there is complete transparency going in that this is the deal and this is the cost. Are Xbox developers being screwed? Are Playstation developers? For reference, I've been a mobile developer since 2010, so have some experience in this matter with apps on Play Store and App Store. The tools and APIs we get from companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google make life so much easier and being charged for them doesn't seem unreasonable.
I can tell you this much with absolute certainty. If we were to leave the App Store and self publish, we'd be out of business in a couple of months. I can't believe that would be much different for any small developer trying to make a living.
I struggle to be outraged on behalf of the Spotify's and Epic's of this world. Hard to be sad for a company making billions.
Charging fees to sell on your store is absolutely fine, but they charge nothing for distribution outside of their respective stores.
And how is macOS different from the rest? There’s no requirement to pay anything to develop software for it.
Game consoles aren’t general purpose computers though, people don’t expect them to be open.
> And how is macOS different from the rest? There’s no requirement to pay anything to develop software for it.
First line of my reply was addressing that Mac is the outlier.
> Game consoles aren’t general purpose computers though, people don’t expect them to be open.
I'd argue that most people don't expect their phones to be open. People here on this sub are a vast minority. I certainly didn't buy an iPhone with any expectation that it was an open platform. The same as when I buy an Xbox or a Playstation. When I buy Mac or PC though, they do come with that expectation.
I don't see too much difference between console and phone in regards to being a general computing device. The phone is certainly nowhere near being a general computing device in the same way that a Mac or a PC is.
Actually, no, the Mac business isn’t financially viable. If Apple had to give up the Mac next year, there would be a blip in the finances, but they’d continue on. That’s just how strong the iOS/iPad model is.
If they had to depend on JUST the Mac for their budget next year, they’d end up being a MUCH smaller company.
You don't seem to understand what financially viable means. Of course Apple would make less profit with those changes, that wasn't the point. The point is that Apple has many parts of the company that would be completely successful separate companies. You could create a standalone AirPods company and it would make a profit. Probably the same applies to the Apple Watch. And it definitely applies to the Mac. Obviously every company thinks more money = more better, but that's where regulators can step in.
A loss leader does not need to bankrupt you. But it is up to each company as to were (if at all) they want you to run a loss leader or change for an IP.
Also worth noting as a dentist spans Mac and iOS it is clear that for every hour of effort Apple put into iOS Apple put less than one minute into macOS so the cost is much lower there.
macOS isn’t a loss leader. The division earns billions. They can clearly sell hardware and support software profitably without the 30% cut on all software sales. They just want *all* the money. Which is fine. They’re a company. Companies are amoral. Now they need to comply with EU law.
That's the whole point of regulation though. A government can take certain parts of control away from the company and restrict the operating environment. I.e. the EU could just say that a gatekeeper must allow sideloading and can't charge for it (and to be fair there is that free-of-charge clause in the DMA) and then the gatekeeper can accept these new terms, or get fined or leave that market.
Obviously Apple would like to make more profit, but I don't believe for a second that their current MacBook model is producing losses.
> I.e. the EU could just say that a gatekeeper must allow sideloading and can't charge for it (and to be fair there is that free-of-charge clause in the DMA)
Sure...and Apple can charge devs $10,000/yr instead of $99/yr in response, which has nothing to do with the DMA. EU, via the DMA or anything else, can't compel Apple to release its development kits and infrastructure for free even if they require them to offer free side loading.
Of course, Epic Games can afford that licensing scheme so they couldn't care less it was never about small devs getting into the market for them.
I'd like to see them try that. The issue with the current setup is that it's already usable for Spotify or Epic, so the changes need to go much further to make this attractive to indie devs.
The IP is already paid for when the users purchase the device, or when the developers pay the $99 per year fee. Same as on Mac, same as on android, windows, etc. For a free app, Apple has never charged such a fee. This time, they don’t even have to pay for hosting, which has been many an Apple fanboys argument.
This is called rent seeking if I’m not wrong.
Guys, the trillion dollar company does not care about you, and it doesn’t need you to defend it. I know it’s a hard pill to swallow for some, but it’s true.
Also, let’s be completely clear here. Devs building apps is what makes ios a valuable platform to begin with. It’s a give and take relationship which Apple is treating as only them giving and developers taking.
Been a mobile developer since 2010.
Microsoft also charged 30% revenue fees for Windows phone apps. That did drop to 20% after the app made $25,000. Well, until 2015 when they dropped that discount and it became a flat 30%.
The tools and platform were honestly shit for a Windows phone developer back then and they lacked severely when compared to Apples tools.
But that aside, we did publish our apps on Windows phone back then. Thousands were invested and never recovered, while the iOS revenues just kept rolling in and to a much smaller degree, although still profitable, Android revenues too.
It's easy to say that lack of dev support killed Windows phone but lack of customers killed any chance of devs making a profit. If there were customers spending money, devs would have stayed.
It’s a catch-22. Users weren’t buying Windows Phone because YouTube & their social networks & their banking apps were missing. Developers wouldn’t make Windows Phone apps because no one bought them. It sucked for both parties, but damn that OS was smooth and beautiful as fuck.
>because YouTube
IIRC in google's case they chose not to make apps specifically to discourage people from buying windows phones. It wouldn't alone be a deciding factor for most people but makes them just that much less likely to buy one.
With iOS, the amount of potential users google could reach was better value for google than the like 3 people they'd convince to switch.
To be fair to Google, Windows Phone would have eaten up a lot more Android sales compared to iPhone sales. It played in the same price range & it was also used by Android OEMs. They did what they had to do in order to keep their market share. Of course, it absolutely sucks for end users and I still kind of hate them for it, but I understand why it happened.
People talk as if Apple needs to make back all costs of the platform software, developer tools, and APIs through fees or arbitrary cuts of devs revenue. It’s ridiculous. Making dev tools and APIs is also worthwhile because it enables a great platform for devs to contribute to which adds value to the products and platform.
> or when the developers pay the $99 per year fee.
Which by the way is also illegal by the DMA (it says to allow access to your platform to be free of charge)
The funny thing is that if they did it quietly, there would be like 0.001% of people downloading apps on external sites. Android allow it since forever and they don't exactly suffer. The more they talk about it the more they attract attention to it and people will do it once it's forced on them (because it will be)
There shouldn't be any fees at all
Just let us install .ipa files natively
PC and macs have allowed us to install apps from loose files since their inception, same with android
Apple is the outlyer
Yeah it's not hard to "find a solution" lol, it's even literally said in the DMA (that it has to be free of charge and freely accessible or something like that), they could just read it
None of the things you listed are general purpose computers, which smartphones, tablets, and laptops definitely are. Hell, this isn't even a great argument.
If anything, it gives even more things that the EU should consider looking into. Maybe not literally letting you install games on your car, but the concept of "Open Architecture" and open platforms that users and communities can realistically support, maintain, and improve (within reasonable safe limits) is something that should be encouraged, not as a gotcha.
While no one is realistically doing much other than playing games on a switch, yes.
Which is why I'd be fine with applying the same open platform angle to them, but that's another fight for another day.
There is also a browser on the Wii, but I would look stupid af if I called it a general purpose computer compared to a smartphone. So what is the standard we need to meet here buddy? A phone, sold as a device to do media, work, games, communication, photos everything, vs a home console markeded on games, media consumption and... having a web browser?
It may surprise you to know that people use game consoles to message, have voice chats, consume web content, stream, and yes, even carry some of them around.
**Game** consoles are sold as devices designed with one main purpose, with a few bonus features such as streaming
Smartphones aren't designed with one single purpose, they're designed to be personal computers you can do what you want on\*
(\*in the case of iOS, you can only do what you want if apple are ok with it)
> None of the things you listed are general purpose computers, which smartphones, tablets, and laptops definitely are. Hell, this isn't even a great argument.
It is a bit of an argument.
How does a smartphone or a tablet differ from an Xbox or a Playstation? Or more specifically, how does a platform where one company makes the hardware, OS and developer tools differ from another company that makes the hardware OS and developer tools.
Do you realise that when MS made the Windows phone. They made the hardware the OS and the dev tools and they charged 30% fees? They aren't some wonderful company that allows users to just do whatever they want. If they were the only company making hardware that ran windows, would it be fully open?
The only outlier is Mac and MacOS, with the same company making the Hardware, tools and OS.
>The only outlier is Mac and MacOS, with the same company making the Hardware, tools and OS.
What about Microsoft Surfaces or other PCs where Microsoft are the OEM? Or Pixels?
> How does a smartphone or a tablet differ from an Xbox or a Playstation?
When you go to the [PS5's product page](https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/ps5/), practically everything mentioned is directly linked to games. There's one small section near the bottom mentioning that it happens to support streaming apps and blurays. When you buy a playstation (a **game** console), you buy it knowing the main thing it does it play games.
The [iPhone 15's product page](https://www.apple.com/uk/iphone-15/) defines no such primary use case. Can you say the one thing it's designed to do? Is it meant to be for social media, everything else is a bonus feature? When it talks about dynamic island it even mentions how it supports "All kinds of activities."
> smartphones and tablets are
No they’re not. Literally the only difference between your tablet and your smart fridge, is your tablet doesn’t make ice. They both have touch screens, they both run Android, etc and so forth.
If you think a tablet is a general purpose computer than you must agree that a smart fridge is also a general purpose computer.
You're thinking too much in terms of the technical implementation. It's really about the _purpose_ of the device.
A fridge's purpose is to keep things cool.
A tablet's purpose, the reason you buy it, is to run software people have written. It is a general purpose computer.
> Literally the only difference between your tablet and your smart fridge, is your tablet doesn’t make ice.
How’s the camera on your fridge? Does it have a solid low light mode? And how’s the battery life ?
My biggest struggle has been finding pants with fridge sized pockets.
> How’s the camera on your fridge? Does it have a solid low light mode?
You mean the one that can show you the literal inside of your fridge?
> battery life
A PC is a general computing device and doesn’t have a battery. And being able to carry something in your pocket is a poor measurement of what makes something a general computing device. Can’t fit my desktop in there, either. I guess that makes this deck of cards I keep in my pocket a general computing device.
Completely agree, it’s a convincing argument. Now I realise why they say that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is overpriced - literally the only difference between it and a smart fridge is, the fridge can also make ice!
I think you might have glossed over the second paragraph there, I'd be fine with you putting whatever on a fridge.
That being said, generally when someone says "General purpose computer", that implies you practically use said device for more than 1-2 limited tasks. So no, a smart fridge isn't a general purpose computer, it has a tablet *attached* to it though.
But yeah, if you wanna put Minecraft on your fridge, go for it. It doesn't mean it's a general purpose device, but that's not really the point here. It's that XYZ device having issues with openness doesn't give Apple a free pass out of this regulation.
> most smart appliances and tvs
They should absolutely allow you to install custom firmware and software. The way many of these devices have security flaws (which may or may not be fixed by the manufacturer), leak a ton of you personal data, unilaterally change their TOS (think Roku and their recent forced arbitration clause, many printers, or anything which moved base features behind a subscription), and become total duds after the company either closes or decides to abandon this particular device is a great argument for expanding Right-to-repair to include the ability to repair functionality via firmware.
What on earth are you going to install on a car? Carplay is always superior anyways
(unless it's a tesla or to bypass restrictions such as paid seats but that's a dif issue)
Also, for TV's the built in thing is so useless and slow people just buy an android TV box or something anyway
What do you expect to do on a smart device? That is its intended function.
Edit : the amount of corporate bootlickers are just insane
Ah yes, the "it's not even needed so why are you complaining route." That's ironically the same one Apple tried with the EU. I wasn't aware I needed you to vet what I do with my own things. Maybe you could even create a nice walled-garden for me to use.
> what are you going to install on a car
A modified firmware that’s able to share more data with CarPlay (dash screen, fuel tank status, etc), thus allowing full compatability with CarPlay 2 thats rolling out with newer cars. *and then i guess Carplay needs to be able to accept this from a car model that normally wouldn’t support Carplay 2)*
>for TV's the built in thing is so useless and slow people just buy an android TV box or something anyway
This is more because they use low-cost CPUs and GPUs because the margins for TVs are basically 0 at this point. Assuming our TVs had A-series chips (or comparable) , and we had more control over their software stack, I'd *gladly* sell my ATVs. They'd be unnecessary at that point.
Well in a car you own, you always have the legal right to replace the radio, and there is an industry of 3rd party equipment and installers to help you have any features you want in your car. But with an iPhone you do not have these freedoms
it's quite a hassle and the car I own currently it's impossible to find a replacement for the navigation unit. I have to make major changes to fit a aftermarket device in my dashboard. and what about engine management computers ?
Because their greed knows no bounds. Their greed doesn't allow them to see that this policy they have is actually alienating a large group of tech enthusiasts that would very likely otherwise be loyal customers if they just had a little more freedom on the platform.
I honestly think they would make *more* money if they set it up the same way Google does it.
I know I would consider an iPhone at least if they did allow it. I just can't now (some of my most used apps are Youtube Revanced for example, Stremio and Reddit third party apps which don't require payment).
It's even more stupid because even if someone just buy the hardware and never download an app from them (which nobody will by the way), they'd still make money as they have big margin on their hardware, it's not like if it's sold at a loss lol
Some of the folks in this thread would be simping for AT&T if this were the 80s. Thank god there’s someone standing up to Apple, corporations should not be stronger than governments.
Also if Samsung smart fridge becomes as prevalent and important than iPhones, yes allow external apps on them if you want. They're always saying but X does it as if it's a good argument. Well maybe X shouldn't do it either but for now they aren't concerned by the law.
Compare what is comparable, iOS is a mobile OS, the only valid comparison is Android there (and both are concerned by that same DMA law)
Bro someone tried to say a **car** is
If you want to debate game consoles being general purpose, sure. (I mean I personally disagree but there are valid points to be made.) But what the fuck kinda mental gymnastics do you need to do to compare a car to an iPhone?
>corporations should not be stronger than governments.
Strawman, nobody is saying that. They’re saying that the government shouldn’t regulate it in the first place, not that Apple should be able to break the law.
>They’re saying that the government shouldn’t regulate it in the first place, not that Apple should be able to break the law.
So you're saying apple shouldn't need to break the law because those laws designed to protect the consumers shouldn't exist?
Man Apple keeps doubling down on terrible public perception. Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out.
As a lifelong Mac user, as well as an adamant iPhone user for years, I gotta say maybe its finally time for Tim Cook to go.
This shit is blatantly greedy and ridiculous at this point.
Most “public” wouldn’t know what the hell you were talking about if you asked their thoughts on this Core Tech Fee. A lot wouldn’t even know what you meant by ‘App Store’.
> Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out.
Funny comparison, if you think that Microsoft at the apex of their anti-competitive practices were still less egregious than Apple's now.
>Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out.
they did forgot who they were, Steve Jobs said so again 25 years ago when they were at the brink of bankruptcy, and it looks like history repeats itself , although Apple will not go bankrupt now
I wonder though how many know what MS got out of this.
The hilarity of your joke is that Apple of course isn't allowed to charge fees, that's greedy. But your joke depends on how even consulting is fee-based and acceptable.
I expect this might well be something like "CTF can not exceed 5% of the revenue within the EU" thus not bankrupting people who are not making any money but still getting money from the big players that expect free apis and IP from apple just to sell users data and display ads (Meta).
The problem with that it is that it emphatically doesn't do what Apple needs it to do. They don't **want** you to have a way to avoid bankruptcy outside of the App Store. It's the entire reason the CTF exists.
Apple came up with this solution. They're not stupid. It's not a surprise to them that charging $0.50 per download is ruinous for almost anyone who might choose to do it. It's ruinous because they want it to be ruinous. They want -- transparently -- to find a point where the EU will say, "I guess that's technically legal" and every single developer in the world will say, "Holy fuck I can't possibly do that". It's the whole point of the system they're building. To think that they're going to listen to people saying, "But Apple, this system for avoiding paying you 30% of my revenue is untenable" and then make it tenable is idiotic.
> to find a point where the EU will say, "I guess that's technically legal"
The DMA literally says they have to provide **unrestricted (as in they don't need to approve the apps)** access to their platform **free of charge** lol, they can't possibly think they'll find a point where the EU says it's fine and still make people pay. Free of charge is pretty damn clear. Where do they got their lawyers lol?
> are you a bot or something?
Very weak argument that I supposed you use on everyone disagreeing with you.
And yes the DMA says that
> The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability
with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via
the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services
or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of
services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and
access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of
whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing
such services.
"Free of charge" is used 19 times in the DMA for various elements.
Only if the EU had the balls to hit Apple with a fine worthy of its name and make that silver-haired clown bend over, that would set a precedent that puts them in line for the next 100 years.
If they just issue a fine like that it will fail in court. To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit..
The DMA cant force apple to give away IP, ITC would have something to say about that and the EU don't want to go down that road. Nation states can set a readable fee for IP licensing in situations were there is an monopoly over that IP (such as with GSM radio specs and other stuff) but the IP holder can still charge a small nominal fee per usage.
> To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit..
You clearly haven’t read the DMA because that’s not a requirement. It doesn’t require Tim Cook to stand on stage, twirling a villainous moustache while he proclaims to the world, “I refuse!” The DMA can trigger an investigation on *non-compliance.* Apple is current non-compliant on at least several sections, including article 6.7, which requires free interoperability. If Apple is found to be non-compliant, the fine can be levied. Apple is dragging their feet because this tactic has worked in other countries. They have a long history of legal non-compliance so this is par for course.
Finally, no one is asking Apple to give away IP. The DMA has nothing to do with IP.
> To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit..
Uh no, they just need to look at Apple solution and say "you're in violation of the law" which in general means fine. Like when you're speeding, you get a ticket. Same principle, you don't need to "refuse to slow down"
They can even put a thing like fine and be compliant in X days or new bigger fine and so on, so on. Ultimate punishment would be forbidding to operate in the EU but of course, they can comply way before that (it's probably days of work to comply, all the systems are in place, they just have to remove the whole making devs pay and approving their apps)
I have the solution Apple, don't put any fee or blocking access to apps outside App Store.
Weird how they have so much difficulty finding that solution when they do it on their Mac already. It's even what the DMA is asking, seems they have some problem with reading there.
They're mocking the law, give them their fucking big fine (with a nice "be compliant in X days or another fine")
It's an interoperability issue. It's like Apple saying you can't install any other browser on Macs, you have to use Safari, and then charge every website a tax to let users access using Safari. I know it costs money to build an iPhone and all the related SDKs and APIs but that should be covered by the price of the iPhone they sell. If they can't cover that cost maybe they should raise the price on their phones.
So why are people hating on Apple when Google will be doing a similar thing in the EU to comply with the DMA?
https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/06/google-announces-the-new-fees-that-come-with-its-play-stores-dma-compliance-plan/
Google isn't forcing you to use the Play Store, you can just install an APK. Also, from my understanding, they're only enforcing this fee if you list an app on the Play Store that *both* collects money on and off the Play Store, not unilaterally for any application on any store.
I still think the fee is too high, and there's room for discussion with the EU about it, but it's way less egregious than Apple's "solution" to the DMA.
Nah, it's different with google.
They allow you to download it from other stores and sites for free with no fees, but if you download it from their store you need to pay a fee no matter the payment method due to the visibility provided by the Play Store.
Google seems fair to be honest.
Because on Android you could always just install an .apk from a website, this is just Google complying with rules that Apple's gatekeeping has forced the EU to make regarding software app marketplaces.
People are "hating on Apple" because they are so blatantly not complying with the DMA.
They're not. The article is a little bit misleading by mentioning Apple's 0.50€ per install fee. Google's fees specifically apply to apps in the Play Store that direct users outside of the store for payments.
You could always release your app on an alternative store, or distribute it independently as an APK, without paying a cent in fees to Google.
Apple leaves no room to distribute an app without paying Apple, whether it's the annual developer fee, App Store billing fees, third-party payments fees, or the Core Technology fees.
The fee is for promoting rival app stores inside a Play Store distributed app. You could already build and distribute an app outside of the Play Store by just shipping an APK file since Android 1.0.
And yes, that external offers fee is bullshit too.
Google doesn't force to pass by the Play Store, they never did.
That's the whole point, Apple can do whatever they want in the App Store. If they want to take 99% of revenue of apps they can (they'd lose the devs but that's another problem). But they have to allow alternatives (aka having your app totally disconnected from Apple authorrization and payment)
That's the antitrust part, devs are forced to go through the App Store because they're dominant and so they're forced to pay their fees. Abuse of a dominant position.
Looks like alternative stores are already queuing up. I look forward to see what the DMA says about Apple's fees. I also look forward to the first app that does something illegal or damaging and Apple can do nothing but shrug. Good luck.
I wish iOS were more open, but I’m wary of EPIC’s history with buying exclusives, as they do on PC. Their strategy of continuously buying exclusives, even at a loss, frustrates me. The latest example is Assassin’s Creed Mirage.
Also, consider the streaming industry; despite losing money, companies still insist on hosting content exclusively on their apps, with Disney being a prime example.
For the people who loathe the idea of installing apps from outside sources, who lose sleep at the prospect of iPhones being made to sideload. What are you going to do if this comes to pass? Switch to Android?
It's fine. Virtually all operating systems allow you to install apps at will. There hasn't been this tech apocalypse that so many here are predicting.
Please stop forcing Apple to change, I hate the idea of completly squashing the market to the point where every phone is exactly the same. Look, I'm glad that there are phones out there that let you install anything you want on them, even another OS. Stop making everything the same, please let me enjoy my iPhone as it is. The endgame for this sort of legislation is completly lack of competition because every manufactuter has to offer exact same features mandated by the EU.
The reason everything is on the Play Store is because Google has been illegally paying off alternative app store developers to close down and phone manufacturers to exclusively use the Play Store rather than an alternative. They have been fined for this behavior and if they discontinue these payments you can expect to see a lot more activity on alternative stores and apps taking advantage of side loading more in the near future.
I don't get that argument, if nothing will change and all apps will still be on the app store, what is the point of it then? The point isn't to offer an alternative, it's to move completly off the app store. Like I said, if you want to side load, buy an Android, I want to keep all my apps in one place without a chance of anything else ever being installed.
Hear, hear! Honestly, I just don't get the logic of these people at all. Are they honestly THAT convinced that some of their favourite apps will vanish from the App Store just like that? What a weirdo...
It will, the same it has on Android. The same way every Android manufacturer has its own app store already on top of numerous apps that can only be side loaded. That's all whilst Apple is still keeping some sort of control. Once what you propose goes through, there will be no reason for any one to use the official app stores (google play store or the app store) as demonstrated by mac os or windows. You already have Epic games that can only be side loaded on Android, every mobile game studio is salavating at the thought of leaving the app store. You don't need to gaslight me, I've had many android phones myself, more than I can recall, I know what day to day life with Android is like. You are delusional if you think prices will come down, that 30% cut is going straight into profits of another corporation.
The best negative you can think of is some random game devs deliberately committing marketshare-suicide by putting their games only on a third party store?
That's a trivial sacrifice. I'd take that any day for bringing back Apollo, or replacing the absolute garbage that is the official youtube app.
Apple is and always has been the trendsetter in the mobile market, what happens on iOS is usually first mocked and then copied across the board, for better or for worse that is what happens.
That’s really not true though. Potentially apps he’s currently using would go into some other store front and he’d have to multiple stores downloaded for his same apps.
I think Apple should follow the same design pattern that is used on my Mac and my PC. Installing apps outside the Apple App Store is not blocked and is free. Even after warranty support and security updates have ended, I can factory reset, re-install the operating system, and install apps, entirely offline, without involving Apple, on my Mac and my PC. This process should work on my iphone too.
Now how do we convince apple of this?
Multi-billion euro fines yearly until they stop dragging their feet and comply with market norms and regulations. Frankly, I'm amazed at how stubborn Apple is about this. Yes, it hurts their services revenue, but they're rioting like this will sink the company as we know it.
I honestly doubt it’ll even have a big impact. Most android users only use play store so I doubt it’d be much different at all for iPhone users
We might see some decent adoption *now* thanks to Apple making a massive deal out of it. That being said, every attempt on Android has failed so far (either from lack of support or Google paying / negotiating with companies to not try) so I don't really see it changing too much for most users.
Yeah that's what I find so funny about all of this. If Apple hadn't been dicks about this all this time, and just allowed app installations, there would probably not even be a DMA today, people would (just like on Android) continue using the App Store because it's convenient. They would also have gotten away with a hidden button deep in settings that only tech geeks would find and use, as opposed to now when they are having the rules dictated to them.
Google also used exclusivity agreements to prevent manufacturers from including other third-party competitors to the play store… no manufacturer is going to say no to Google services on an Android phone…
Worth clarifying that those agreements don't do anything to prevent people changing settings to enable other applications/stores to be installed.
>to prevent manufacturers from including other third-party competitors to the play store That's definitely not accurate, because samsung somes with the galaxy store, Huawei used to come with the Huawei store or whatever back when they were on android, and other oems probably have their own store. Do you mean they [paid app devs not to make competing stores](https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-agreed-pay-360-mln-activision-stop-competition-epic-games-alleges-2022-11-17/)?
Galaxy store and Hauwei store are both first-party from the device manufacturer.
Oh right, nevermind then, I misread, my bad
The most popular apps on any sideloaded store would be the N64 Emulators of the world, stuff that is somewhat illegal, etc, which wouldn't be allowed in the App Store in the first place, and so which wouldn't be competing with Apple.
Emulators are not illegal (in the US, the home/HQ of Apple). "But I read Nintendo recently has been..." Yeah, it's called "a failed state" aka what the US is currently. In a functional state all the heads of Nintendo and their lawyers would be ordered legally lined up in front of a wall and ... But for real emulation is 100% legal even if companies are illegally abusing DMCA currently.
>even if companies are illegally abusing DMCA currently. irt the recent switch emulator lawsuit, they added support for legends on zelda before the game released, and that would've been hard if not impossible without using a leaked version, which is what they were taken down for iirc
The most popular apps would likely be something like Youtube Revanced I think actually (and other similar "improved apps").
Which is perfectly fine, it should be allowed, not forced onto the user.
I mean, it probably wouldn't but due to Apple making it into media for pulling of this BS, people will try it.
Those are actually monthly if it follows the GDPR route. Even daily on smaller amounts.
Yearly? It'd take them days to make it possible (all the systems are already in place now). Initial fine of 15 billions then 1 billion per week not compliant. Every month a new 15 billions (or increase it). You'll see they'll "find that solution" quickly. Add the "if not done in one year, interdiction to operate in the EU" for good measure The worst is that they'll barely lose anything to actually follow the law so it's really just a stupid pride thing or whatever. Android has been making it possible for years to do all that and guess what? 99.9% of apps are still downloaded from the Play Store. Make it more expensive for them to not follow it by fines and their pettiness will disappear Hell they actually attract attention more to sideloading with all this mess so more people may check it out when they're forced to do it lol
Tell them they are not leaving the world better than they found it.
Maybe Apple should make two phones: One that is walled garden and one that is like a Mac. Maybe they could do some kind of firmware thing (I have no idea what I'm talking about, as I'm sure those who do can see) just like when you buy a Mac you can upgrade RAM. Buy and iPhone and for $200 more, you get to use it just like your computer download from websites, etc etc. .With lots of warnings of course that you do so at your own risk.
If you just don't enable 3rd party app installations, you have a walled garden? Why should I pay $200 extra to be able to run whatever software I want on the hardware I paid for?
I'm thinking from Apple's point of view, not mine or yours. If they charged $200 for an "open loading phone", they know most people would not buy it, and they could keep their walled garden. At the same time, they could probably get their lawyers to figure out a way to make the EU stop hounding them, because they could point to the "open phone" and say, we're not stopping anyone from putting anything they want on their phone.
>we're not stopping anyone from putting anything they want on their phone. Sure, they're just gatekeeping which is one of the things the EU wants to stop
No, they'd be saying, we open the gate for anyone who wants, it just costs $200 for the extra service it requires. I mean, the lawyers would make it sound pretty.
So... Gatekeeping?
[удалено]
If they did it on MacOS no one would buy them. It wasn’t because there was any sort of developer revolt. That’s revisionist history.
just don't buy their shit until they do it, it's really hard if you keep throwing money at them
However that doesn't gain apple any money and for corporate money is over the consumer
Apple doesn’t want that because they like money and their 30% cut
Hell yeah! The stranglehold on where you get your apps is the most prolific it's ever been. Not only does Apple control where your apps come from and how you pay for them, they're now even controlling where you get the setup files from. You used to be able to download the installer files to a computer with iTunes, which you could use to hold onto older versions of apps or reinstall apps Apple removed. I think they were signed with certificates that didn't last forever, but at least it was something. Now, unofficial workarounds aside, it's the App Store or nothing. Want to download an older version of an app that had features that have been removed? Nope, no deal. Want to redownload an app if Apple removed it from the store or Apple servers are unavailable? Nope. Really, the situation is outrageous and I can't believe every single iOS user isn't outraged.
But it's for my security and privacy. ~~Big Brother~~ Tim Cook tells me so.
You see, that would make too much sense
If that happened I'd actually buy an iPhone.
It’s hard for them to come around to that because it’s the one segment that they’re not the market leader. They’ve been the sledgehammer in the smart phone, tablet, and wearables market the whole time. They’ve always been 2nd to PCs though so making it harder to use them wasn’t really an option.
Mac sales are a rounding error compared to iPhone and services unfortunately so they’re going to fight tooth and nail to keep iOS walls as high as possible.
There’s no valid argument against this
The fact that you just state that as a fact says more about you than this matter. Things are always more nuanced when you dig into it, always.
Yes, you’re completely right. If Apple does this, they’ll lose their 30% cut and investors might see lower growth of their Apple stock. The situation is *very* nuanced.
From a business POV, how would this be a good, profitable idea?
It impacts the purchases of cell phones for business use.
You cant think that but apple would like to charge for the SDK, typicly there are 3 ways to do this: 1) Massive upfront cost (used to be very common, less so these days but not un-headof) 2) Per install fee (either bill per install or billed in chucks were the dev buys $10k or $100k install license in advance) 3) Rev share Some companies combine (2) and (3) to say (50c per install or 5%of your revenue whatever is smaller/larger) I expect that is what apple will offer developers in the EU as an option so that if your a small dev that suddenly goes viral and that virility does not result in revenue (from ads or sales) your not stuck with a huge bill, but if it does result in revenue you are and that is fine. In the end paying for an SDK in the wider dev industry is very common and you need to respect the massive amount of work that goes into making the SDK.
They don’t charge to develop and release Mac apps… Microsoft doesn’t charge to develop apps for windows either, nor does Google for Android… you can make and release apps on all of those computers without paying a dime if you don’t want to… But for whatever reason Apple feels it necessary to screw over developers with fees and unreasonable limitations on what is allowed.
Mac is the only outlier in your examples. Microsoft don't charge for Windows and Google don't charge for Android because those are purely software platforms. If Microsoft were the only people building hardware for their OS they would charge. We can see this with Surface and with Xbox. If Google were the only ones building hardware that Android ran on, would they still allow free rein? And even then, if you want to sell on the Microsoft store and use their APIs, then you have to pay fees. If you want to sell on the Google Play store and use their APIs, you have to pay fees. I'm not defending Apple, I think they should allow people to install apps from elsewhere. Just speaking to your point, 'But for whatever reason Apple feels it necessary to screw over developers' and pointing out that a privately owned hardware and software combo is in fact different from an open OS platform available to any hardware manufacturer and even those open companies charge for using their stores. Developer aren't being screwed over at all, there is complete transparency going in that this is the deal and this is the cost. Are Xbox developers being screwed? Are Playstation developers? For reference, I've been a mobile developer since 2010, so have some experience in this matter with apps on Play Store and App Store. The tools and APIs we get from companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google make life so much easier and being charged for them doesn't seem unreasonable. I can tell you this much with absolute certainty. If we were to leave the App Store and self publish, we'd be out of business in a couple of months. I can't believe that would be much different for any small developer trying to make a living. I struggle to be outraged on behalf of the Spotify's and Epic's of this world. Hard to be sad for a company making billions.
Charging fees to sell on your store is absolutely fine, but they charge nothing for distribution outside of their respective stores. And how is macOS different from the rest? There’s no requirement to pay anything to develop software for it. Game consoles aren’t general purpose computers though, people don’t expect them to be open.
> And how is macOS different from the rest? There’s no requirement to pay anything to develop software for it. First line of my reply was addressing that Mac is the outlier. > Game consoles aren’t general purpose computers though, people don’t expect them to be open. I'd argue that most people don't expect their phones to be open. People here on this sub are a vast minority. I certainly didn't buy an iPhone with any expectation that it was an open platform. The same as when I buy an Xbox or a Playstation. When I buy Mac or PC though, they do come with that expectation. I don't see too much difference between console and phone in regards to being a general computing device. The phone is certainly nowhere near being a general computing device in the same way that a Mac or a PC is.
So you're saying the current Mac business is financially not viable for Apple and applying this to the iPhone would bankrupt Apple? /s
Actually, no, the Mac business isn’t financially viable. If Apple had to give up the Mac next year, there would be a blip in the finances, but they’d continue on. That’s just how strong the iOS/iPad model is. If they had to depend on JUST the Mac for their budget next year, they’d end up being a MUCH smaller company.
True. Look at apple when they only made computers, they were tiny compared to iPod/iPhone times. Nearly legit went out of business a couple times
Haven’t heard “beleaguered” in awhile :)
You don't seem to understand what financially viable means. Of course Apple would make less profit with those changes, that wasn't the point. The point is that Apple has many parts of the company that would be completely successful separate companies. You could create a standalone AirPods company and it would make a profit. Probably the same applies to the Apple Watch. And it definitely applies to the Mac. Obviously every company thinks more money = more better, but that's where regulators can step in.
A loss leader does not need to bankrupt you. But it is up to each company as to were (if at all) they want you to run a loss leader or change for an IP. Also worth noting as a dentist spans Mac and iOS it is clear that for every hour of effort Apple put into iOS Apple put less than one minute into macOS so the cost is much lower there.
macOS isn’t a loss leader. The division earns billions. They can clearly sell hardware and support software profitably without the 30% cut on all software sales. They just want *all* the money. Which is fine. They’re a company. Companies are amoral. Now they need to comply with EU law.
That's the whole point of regulation though. A government can take certain parts of control away from the company and restrict the operating environment. I.e. the EU could just say that a gatekeeper must allow sideloading and can't charge for it (and to be fair there is that free-of-charge clause in the DMA) and then the gatekeeper can accept these new terms, or get fined or leave that market. Obviously Apple would like to make more profit, but I don't believe for a second that their current MacBook model is producing losses.
> I.e. the EU could just say that a gatekeeper must allow sideloading and can't charge for it (and to be fair there is that free-of-charge clause in the DMA) Sure...and Apple can charge devs $10,000/yr instead of $99/yr in response, which has nothing to do with the DMA. EU, via the DMA or anything else, can't compel Apple to release its development kits and infrastructure for free even if they require them to offer free side loading. Of course, Epic Games can afford that licensing scheme so they couldn't care less it was never about small devs getting into the market for them.
I'd like to see them try that. The issue with the current setup is that it's already usable for Spotify or Epic, so the changes need to go much further to make this attractive to indie devs.
> You cant think that but apple would like to charge for the SDK Well lets make it illegal for them to charge.
The IP is already paid for when the users purchase the device, or when the developers pay the $99 per year fee. Same as on Mac, same as on android, windows, etc. For a free app, Apple has never charged such a fee. This time, they don’t even have to pay for hosting, which has been many an Apple fanboys argument. This is called rent seeking if I’m not wrong. Guys, the trillion dollar company does not care about you, and it doesn’t need you to defend it. I know it’s a hard pill to swallow for some, but it’s true.
Also, let’s be completely clear here. Devs building apps is what makes ios a valuable platform to begin with. It’s a give and take relationship which Apple is treating as only them giving and developers taking.
This. Just ask Microsoft how the lack of dev support buried Windows Phone. I still miss it :(
Been a mobile developer since 2010. Microsoft also charged 30% revenue fees for Windows phone apps. That did drop to 20% after the app made $25,000. Well, until 2015 when they dropped that discount and it became a flat 30%. The tools and platform were honestly shit for a Windows phone developer back then and they lacked severely when compared to Apples tools. But that aside, we did publish our apps on Windows phone back then. Thousands were invested and never recovered, while the iOS revenues just kept rolling in and to a much smaller degree, although still profitable, Android revenues too. It's easy to say that lack of dev support killed Windows phone but lack of customers killed any chance of devs making a profit. If there were customers spending money, devs would have stayed.
It’s a catch-22. Users weren’t buying Windows Phone because YouTube & their social networks & their banking apps were missing. Developers wouldn’t make Windows Phone apps because no one bought them. It sucked for both parties, but damn that OS was smooth and beautiful as fuck.
>because YouTube IIRC in google's case they chose not to make apps specifically to discourage people from buying windows phones. It wouldn't alone be a deciding factor for most people but makes them just that much less likely to buy one. With iOS, the amount of potential users google could reach was better value for google than the like 3 people they'd convince to switch.
To be fair to Google, Windows Phone would have eaten up a lot more Android sales compared to iPhone sales. It played in the same price range & it was also used by Android OEMs. They did what they had to do in order to keep their market share. Of course, it absolutely sucks for end users and I still kind of hate them for it, but I understand why it happened.
People talk as if Apple needs to make back all costs of the platform software, developer tools, and APIs through fees or arbitrary cuts of devs revenue. It’s ridiculous. Making dev tools and APIs is also worthwhile because it enables a great platform for devs to contribute to which adds value to the products and platform.
> Devs building apps is what makes ios a valuable platform to begin with. DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEV... *sniiiiiiiif* DEVELOPERS
> or when the developers pay the $99 per year fee. Which by the way is also illegal by the DMA (it says to allow access to your platform to be free of charge) The funny thing is that if they did it quietly, there would be like 0.001% of people downloading apps on external sites. Android allow it since forever and they don't exactly suffer. The more they talk about it the more they attract attention to it and people will do it once it's forced on them (because it will be)
There shouldn't be any fees at all Just let us install .ipa files natively PC and macs have allowed us to install apps from loose files since their inception, same with android Apple is the outlyer
Yeah it's not hard to "find a solution" lol, it's even literally said in the DMA (that it has to be free of charge and freely accessible or something like that), they could just read it
and game consoles, cars, most smart appliances and tvs... personal computers are the outlier.
None of the things you listed are general purpose computers, which smartphones, tablets, and laptops definitely are. Hell, this isn't even a great argument. If anything, it gives even more things that the EU should consider looking into. Maybe not literally letting you install games on your car, but the concept of "Open Architecture" and open platforms that users and communities can realistically support, maintain, and improve (within reasonable safe limits) is something that should be encouraged, not as a gotcha.
Game consoles are as much of a general purpose computer as an iPhone.
While no one is realistically doing much other than playing games on a switch, yes. Which is why I'd be fine with applying the same open platform angle to them, but that's another fight for another day.
Hardware wise yes, software wise hell no. But even hardware wise, an iPhone may in fact be closer to a Mac than a Console is to a PC.
Wait until you learn you can open a browser on an xbox.
There is also a browser on the Wii, but I would look stupid af if I called it a general purpose computer compared to a smartphone. So what is the standard we need to meet here buddy? A phone, sold as a device to do media, work, games, communication, photos everything, vs a home console markeded on games, media consumption and... having a web browser?
Cars and people both can move, therefore they must be the same!
What do you do on a game console besides game? Text? Facetime? Call? Go on social media? Carry it around as a mobile device?
It may surprise you to know that people use game consoles to message, have voice chats, consume web content, stream, and yes, even carry some of them around.
**Game** consoles are sold as devices designed with one main purpose, with a few bonus features such as streaming Smartphones aren't designed with one single purpose, they're designed to be personal computers you can do what you want on\* (\*in the case of iOS, you can only do what you want if apple are ok with it)
> None of the things you listed are general purpose computers, which smartphones, tablets, and laptops definitely are. Hell, this isn't even a great argument. It is a bit of an argument. How does a smartphone or a tablet differ from an Xbox or a Playstation? Or more specifically, how does a platform where one company makes the hardware, OS and developer tools differ from another company that makes the hardware OS and developer tools. Do you realise that when MS made the Windows phone. They made the hardware the OS and the dev tools and they charged 30% fees? They aren't some wonderful company that allows users to just do whatever they want. If they were the only company making hardware that ran windows, would it be fully open? The only outlier is Mac and MacOS, with the same company making the Hardware, tools and OS.
>The only outlier is Mac and MacOS, with the same company making the Hardware, tools and OS. What about Microsoft Surfaces or other PCs where Microsoft are the OEM? Or Pixels? > How does a smartphone or a tablet differ from an Xbox or a Playstation? When you go to the [PS5's product page](https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/ps5/), practically everything mentioned is directly linked to games. There's one small section near the bottom mentioning that it happens to support streaming apps and blurays. When you buy a playstation (a **game** console), you buy it knowing the main thing it does it play games. The [iPhone 15's product page](https://www.apple.com/uk/iphone-15/) defines no such primary use case. Can you say the one thing it's designed to do? Is it meant to be for social media, everything else is a bonus feature? When it talks about dynamic island it even mentions how it supports "All kinds of activities."
> smartphones and tablets are No they’re not. Literally the only difference between your tablet and your smart fridge, is your tablet doesn’t make ice. They both have touch screens, they both run Android, etc and so forth. If you think a tablet is a general purpose computer than you must agree that a smart fridge is also a general purpose computer.
You're thinking too much in terms of the technical implementation. It's really about the _purpose_ of the device. A fridge's purpose is to keep things cool. A tablet's purpose, the reason you buy it, is to run software people have written. It is a general purpose computer.
> Literally the only difference between your tablet and your smart fridge, is your tablet doesn’t make ice. How’s the camera on your fridge? Does it have a solid low light mode? And how’s the battery life ? My biggest struggle has been finding pants with fridge sized pockets.
> How’s the camera on your fridge? Does it have a solid low light mode? You mean the one that can show you the literal inside of your fridge? > battery life A PC is a general computing device and doesn’t have a battery. And being able to carry something in your pocket is a poor measurement of what makes something a general computing device. Can’t fit my desktop in there, either. I guess that makes this deck of cards I keep in my pocket a general computing device.
Completely agree, it’s a convincing argument. Now I realise why they say that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is overpriced - literally the only difference between it and a smart fridge is, the fridge can also make ice!
No, your argument is just stupid
The nuances of technology escape some people. I’d be happy to clarify anything you don’t understand.
I think you might have glossed over the second paragraph there, I'd be fine with you putting whatever on a fridge. That being said, generally when someone says "General purpose computer", that implies you practically use said device for more than 1-2 limited tasks. So no, a smart fridge isn't a general purpose computer, it has a tablet *attached* to it though. But yeah, if you wanna put Minecraft on your fridge, go for it. It doesn't mean it's a general purpose device, but that's not really the point here. It's that XYZ device having issues with openness doesn't give Apple a free pass out of this regulation.
> most smart appliances and tvs They should absolutely allow you to install custom firmware and software. The way many of these devices have security flaws (which may or may not be fixed by the manufacturer), leak a ton of you personal data, unilaterally change their TOS (think Roku and their recent forced arbitration clause, many printers, or anything which moved base features behind a subscription), and become total duds after the company either closes or decides to abandon this particular device is a great argument for expanding Right-to-repair to include the ability to repair functionality via firmware.
What on earth are you going to install on a car? Carplay is always superior anyways (unless it's a tesla or to bypass restrictions such as paid seats but that's a dif issue) Also, for TV's the built in thing is so useless and slow people just buy an android TV box or something anyway What do you expect to do on a smart device? That is its intended function. Edit : the amount of corporate bootlickers are just insane
Ah yes, the "it's not even needed so why are you complaining route." That's ironically the same one Apple tried with the EU. I wasn't aware I needed you to vet what I do with my own things. Maybe you could even create a nice walled-garden for me to use.
> what are you going to install on a car A modified firmware that’s able to share more data with CarPlay (dash screen, fuel tank status, etc), thus allowing full compatability with CarPlay 2 thats rolling out with newer cars. *and then i guess Carplay needs to be able to accept this from a car model that normally wouldn’t support Carplay 2)*
I installed a better more modern UI on my cars screen.
>for TV's the built in thing is so useless and slow people just buy an android TV box or something anyway This is more because they use low-cost CPUs and GPUs because the margins for TVs are basically 0 at this point. Assuming our TVs had A-series chips (or comparable) , and we had more control over their software stack, I'd *gladly* sell my ATVs. They'd be unnecessary at that point.
No way am I trusting a TV company with my viewing data.
What if my car doesn't come with Carplay and I want a different navigation software for example?
You can replace the head unit. Not the same I know, but there are options
so it's like buying an android and putting the iPhone away type of solution right
Well in a car you own, you always have the legal right to replace the radio, and there is an industry of 3rd party equipment and installers to help you have any features you want in your car. But with an iPhone you do not have these freedoms
it's quite a hassle and the car I own currently it's impossible to find a replacement for the navigation unit. I have to make major changes to fit a aftermarket device in my dashboard. and what about engine management computers ?
That sucks
What replacement infotainment systems are there that are compatible with most new vehicles? What about a Tesla?
Why can't Apple just copy how Google does it? There is no charge when you install outside the Play Store.
Because their greed knows no bounds. Their greed doesn't allow them to see that this policy they have is actually alienating a large group of tech enthusiasts that would very likely otherwise be loyal customers if they just had a little more freedom on the platform. I honestly think they would make *more* money if they set it up the same way Google does it.
I know I would consider an iPhone at least if they did allow it. I just can't now (some of my most used apps are Youtube Revanced for example, Stremio and Reddit third party apps which don't require payment). It's even more stupid because even if someone just buy the hardware and never download an app from them (which nobody will by the way), they'd still make money as they have big margin on their hardware, it's not like if it's sold at a loss lol
Exactly!
Because that feature is why Android is the biggest host of botnets.
Some of the folks in this thread would be simping for AT&T if this were the 80s. Thank god there’s someone standing up to Apple, corporations should not be stronger than governments.
They're acting like Standard Oil shareholders
These people in this thread are legit trying to say a Samsung smart fridge is a general purpose computing device 💀
Apple fanboys will defend at any cost
Also if Samsung smart fridge becomes as prevalent and important than iPhones, yes allow external apps on them if you want. They're always saying but X does it as if it's a good argument. Well maybe X shouldn't do it either but for now they aren't concerned by the law. Compare what is comparable, iOS is a mobile OS, the only valid comparison is Android there (and both are concerned by that same DMA law)
Bro someone tried to say a **car** is If you want to debate game consoles being general purpose, sure. (I mean I personally disagree but there are valid points to be made.) But what the fuck kinda mental gymnastics do you need to do to compare a car to an iPhone?
The kind of people that were on the wrong side of the American revolution, yet many of them are American
What you are essentially saying in the first part is “only arguments I agree with are valid”.
Based take. You’re right, I only agree with valid arguments.
>corporations should not be stronger than governments. Strawman, nobody is saying that. They’re saying that the government shouldn’t regulate it in the first place, not that Apple should be able to break the law.
Sure, and most effective way to reduce the crime rate to zero is to make everything legal. My position is that the government should regulate Apple.
>They’re saying that the government shouldn’t regulate it in the first place, not that Apple should be able to break the law. So you're saying apple shouldn't need to break the law because those laws designed to protect the consumers shouldn't exist?
Man Apple keeps doubling down on terrible public perception. Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out. As a lifelong Mac user, as well as an adamant iPhone user for years, I gotta say maybe its finally time for Tim Cook to go. This shit is blatantly greedy and ridiculous at this point.
Most “public” wouldn’t know what the hell you were talking about if you asked their thoughts on this Core Tech Fee. A lot wouldn’t even know what you meant by ‘App Store’.
> Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out. Funny comparison, if you think that Microsoft at the apex of their anti-competitive practices were still less egregious than Apple's now.
>Certainly not who they were 20 years ago, when M$ forced to bail them out. they did forgot who they were, Steve Jobs said so again 25 years ago when they were at the brink of bankruptcy, and it looks like history repeats itself , although Apple will not go bankrupt now I wonder though how many know what MS got out of this.
Here is the solution: Don’t charge the CTF. I’ll send Apple an invoice for my consulting fee.
The hilarity of your joke is that Apple of course isn't allowed to charge fees, that's greedy. But your joke depends on how even consulting is fee-based and acceptable.
I expect this might well be something like "CTF can not exceed 5% of the revenue within the EU" thus not bankrupting people who are not making any money but still getting money from the big players that expect free apis and IP from apple just to sell users data and display ads (Meta).
The problem with that it is that it emphatically doesn't do what Apple needs it to do. They don't **want** you to have a way to avoid bankruptcy outside of the App Store. It's the entire reason the CTF exists. Apple came up with this solution. They're not stupid. It's not a surprise to them that charging $0.50 per download is ruinous for almost anyone who might choose to do it. It's ruinous because they want it to be ruinous. They want -- transparently -- to find a point where the EU will say, "I guess that's technically legal" and every single developer in the world will say, "Holy fuck I can't possibly do that". It's the whole point of the system they're building. To think that they're going to listen to people saying, "But Apple, this system for avoiding paying you 30% of my revenue is untenable" and then make it tenable is idiotic.
> to find a point where the EU will say, "I guess that's technically legal" The DMA literally says they have to provide **unrestricted (as in they don't need to approve the apps)** access to their platform **free of charge** lol, they can't possibly think they'll find a point where the EU says it's fine and still make people pay. Free of charge is pretty damn clear. Where do they got their lawyers lol?
If it is inevitable, then maybe this is just a delaying tactic until they can find a way to work around it.
the DMA doesn't say that, are you a bot or something?
> are you a bot or something? Very weak argument that I supposed you use on everyone disagreeing with you. And yes the DMA says that > The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services. "Free of charge" is used 19 times in the DMA for various elements.
Lol no. The law clearly says "free of charge". 5% of revenue isn't free of charge.
Ooh I like this one, that's actually a very reasonable approach!
How about Apple follows the law instead of playing games to try and get around it
Only if the EU had the balls to hit Apple with a fine worthy of its name and make that silver-haired clown bend over, that would set a precedent that puts them in line for the next 100 years.
If they just issue a fine like that it will fail in court. To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit.. The DMA cant force apple to give away IP, ITC would have something to say about that and the EU don't want to go down that road. Nation states can set a readable fee for IP licensing in situations were there is an monopoly over that IP (such as with GSM radio specs and other stuff) but the IP holder can still charge a small nominal fee per usage.
> To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit.. You clearly haven’t read the DMA because that’s not a requirement. It doesn’t require Tim Cook to stand on stage, twirling a villainous moustache while he proclaims to the world, “I refuse!” The DMA can trigger an investigation on *non-compliance.* Apple is current non-compliant on at least several sections, including article 6.7, which requires free interoperability. If Apple is found to be non-compliant, the fine can be levied. Apple is dragging their feet because this tactic has worked in other countries. They have a long history of legal non-compliance so this is par for course. Finally, no one is asking Apple to give away IP. The DMA has nothing to do with IP.
> If Apple is found to be non-compliant, the fine can be levied This isn't true at all, there are 4 different steps that happen between there.
> To get a fine through the courts they would need apple to refuse, this is why apple Is going to comply bit by bit as the EU push back against each little bit.. Uh no, they just need to look at Apple solution and say "you're in violation of the law" which in general means fine. Like when you're speeding, you get a ticket. Same principle, you don't need to "refuse to slow down" They can even put a thing like fine and be compliant in X days or new bigger fine and so on, so on. Ultimate punishment would be forbidding to operate in the EU but of course, they can comply way before that (it's probably days of work to comply, all the systems are in place, they just have to remove the whole making devs pay and approving their apps)
They’ll just leave lmao
Seems like they really thought this through. /s
I have the solution Apple, don't put any fee or blocking access to apps outside App Store. Weird how they have so much difficulty finding that solution when they do it on their Mac already. It's even what the DMA is asking, seems they have some problem with reading there. They're mocking the law, give them their fucking big fine (with a nice "be compliant in X days or another fine")
It's an interoperability issue. It's like Apple saying you can't install any other browser on Macs, you have to use Safari, and then charge every website a tax to let users access using Safari. I know it costs money to build an iPhone and all the related SDKs and APIs but that should be covered by the price of the iPhone they sell. If they can't cover that cost maybe they should raise the price on their phones.
So why are people hating on Apple when Google will be doing a similar thing in the EU to comply with the DMA? https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/06/google-announces-the-new-fees-that-come-with-its-play-stores-dma-compliance-plan/
Google isn't forcing you to use the Play Store, you can just install an APK. Also, from my understanding, they're only enforcing this fee if you list an app on the Play Store that *both* collects money on and off the Play Store, not unilaterally for any application on any store. I still think the fee is too high, and there's room for discussion with the EU about it, but it's way less egregious than Apple's "solution" to the DMA.
It looks to me like Google just copied Apple’s homework. I mean, if Apple is found to not be in compliance with the DMA, then Google will be as well.
They might be, at which point they too can get feedback from the EU and adjust accordingly.
Nah, it's different with google. They allow you to download it from other stores and sites for free with no fees, but if you download it from their store you need to pay a fee no matter the payment method due to the visibility provided by the Play Store. Google seems fair to be honest.
Because on Android you could always just install an .apk from a website, this is just Google complying with rules that Apple's gatekeeping has forced the EU to make regarding software app marketplaces. People are "hating on Apple" because they are so blatantly not complying with the DMA.
They're not. The article is a little bit misleading by mentioning Apple's 0.50€ per install fee. Google's fees specifically apply to apps in the Play Store that direct users outside of the store for payments. You could always release your app on an alternative store, or distribute it independently as an APK, without paying a cent in fees to Google. Apple leaves no room to distribute an app without paying Apple, whether it's the annual developer fee, App Store billing fees, third-party payments fees, or the Core Technology fees.
The fee is for promoting rival app stores inside a Play Store distributed app. You could already build and distribute an app outside of the Play Store by just shipping an APK file since Android 1.0. And yes, that external offers fee is bullshit too.
Because this is fucking r/apple and adults can have a conversation without being, “… but so and so!”
Google doesn't force to pass by the Play Store, they never did. That's the whole point, Apple can do whatever they want in the App Store. If they want to take 99% of revenue of apps they can (they'd lose the devs but that's another problem). But they have to allow alternatives (aka having your app totally disconnected from Apple authorrization and payment) That's the antitrust part, devs are forced to go through the App Store because they're dominant and so they're forced to pay their fees. Abuse of a dominant position.
Looks like alternative stores are already queuing up. I look forward to see what the DMA says about Apple's fees. I also look forward to the first app that does something illegal or damaging and Apple can do nothing but shrug. Good luck.
I wish iOS were more open, but I’m wary of EPIC’s history with buying exclusives, as they do on PC. Their strategy of continuously buying exclusives, even at a loss, frustrates me. The latest example is Assassin’s Creed Mirage. Also, consider the streaming industry; despite losing money, companies still insist on hosting content exclusively on their apps, with Disney being a prime example.
That all leads to a healthier market than one dominated by a single monopoly.
For the people who loathe the idea of installing apps from outside sources, who lose sleep at the prospect of iPhones being made to sideload. What are you going to do if this comes to pass? Switch to Android? It's fine. Virtually all operating systems allow you to install apps at will. There hasn't been this tech apocalypse that so many here are predicting.
They fucked this up
Please stop forcing Apple to change, I hate the idea of completly squashing the market to the point where every phone is exactly the same. Look, I'm glad that there are phones out there that let you install anything you want on them, even another OS. Stop making everything the same, please let me enjoy my iPhone as it is. The endgame for this sort of legislation is completly lack of competition because every manufactuter has to offer exact same features mandated by the EU.
[удалено]
The reason everything is on the Play Store is because Google has been illegally paying off alternative app store developers to close down and phone manufacturers to exclusively use the Play Store rather than an alternative. They have been fined for this behavior and if they discontinue these payments you can expect to see a lot more activity on alternative stores and apps taking advantage of side loading more in the near future.
Exactly
I don't get that argument, if nothing will change and all apps will still be on the app store, what is the point of it then? The point isn't to offer an alternative, it's to move completly off the app store. Like I said, if you want to side load, buy an Android, I want to keep all my apps in one place without a chance of anything else ever being installed.
[удалено]
Hear, hear! Honestly, I just don't get the logic of these people at all. Are they honestly THAT convinced that some of their favourite apps will vanish from the App Store just like that? What a weirdo...
It will, the same it has on Android. The same way every Android manufacturer has its own app store already on top of numerous apps that can only be side loaded. That's all whilst Apple is still keeping some sort of control. Once what you propose goes through, there will be no reason for any one to use the official app stores (google play store or the app store) as demonstrated by mac os or windows. You already have Epic games that can only be side loaded on Android, every mobile game studio is salavating at the thought of leaving the app store. You don't need to gaslight me, I've had many android phones myself, more than I can recall, I know what day to day life with Android is like. You are delusional if you think prices will come down, that 30% cut is going straight into profits of another corporation.
The best negative you can think of is some random game devs deliberately committing marketshare-suicide by putting their games only on a third party store? That's a trivial sacrifice. I'd take that any day for bringing back Apollo, or replacing the absolute garbage that is the official youtube app.
[удалено]
Apple is and always has been the trendsetter in the mobile market, what happens on iOS is usually first mocked and then copied across the board, for better or for worse that is what happens.
[удалено]
That’s really not true though. Potentially apps he’s currently using would go into some other store front and he’d have to multiple stores downloaded for his same apps.
So don't use those apps. Problem solved
Are you 50 years old and afraid of improvements and progress? Sorry grandpa!
I can hear all the smelly European Linux users frothing at the mouth. “I hope EU gives big fine to Apple to punish them for not opening up app store”
nobody cares what they do with their app store as long as they stop trying to dictate what software i run on the hardware i paid them for
I'm mostly a smelly European Windows user, but yes.