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

[TheawesomeMCB]

Summary

The DMA EU bill came full force yesterday, this bill could force apple for sideloading, other app stores, and iMessage inter-compatibility.

 

Quotes

Quote

The DMA could force Apple to make major changes to the way the App Store, Messages, FaceTime, and Siri work in Europe. For example, it could be forced to allow users to install third-party app stores and sideload apps, give developers the ability to closely interoperate with Apple's own services and promote their offers outside the ‌‌App Store‌‌ and use third-party payment systems, and access data gathered by Apple.

 

My thoughts

I think apple is in a really tight corner now. It’s either comply with the DMA laws. Or leave Europe but lose ~24% of its revenue and on top of that probably risk country’s to quickly pass bills and get hit with a anti trust because of anti consumer and anti competitive behavior if they did that. And if they just try to Geo lock it, I feel like buying a iPhone from Europe will skyrocket. So either way it’s a lose lose for apple.

 

Sources

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/11/01/dma-eu-law-could-force-major-changes-apple/?fbclid=IwAR0T7Ulnov8ShDyiT0zv4zSOFJK4DqLVEWE8fGrY1eyLQtMMydyEmUict-o

[Arika]

You love to see it

[Holmes108]

I'm not a fan of Apple, and went with Android in the early days specifically because of this type of stuff (sideloading, etc), but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit (with some obvious exceptions relating to safety, essential goods, etc). 

 

As much as I'd like to occasionally see arrogant Apple fall on their face, in this case I'd almost like to see them leave Europe (will never happen), and let the angry customers take it out on their politicians. 

 

I know I'll be in the minority on here, but I just don't tend to be on the side of regulations for the most part.

[AndreiArgeanu]

I don't know about accessing data gathered by Apple but if they would allow sideloading of apps I think I will probably switch to an iPhone pretty soon afterwards. Being able to modify apps to suit my needs or using apps like new pipe to make me able to download youtube video/audio with 3 clicks from the youtube app has been the biggest barrier for me that has always made me lenient towards Android devices.

[AndreiArgeanu]

1 minute ago, Holmes108 said:

but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit

By this logic then you should have no problem with companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google becoming monopolies and absorbing every other tech company out there giving you less choice and giving them full control. Because that's what you'll end up with if you just let bussiness run how they see fit, the biggest ones will become monopolies and absorb everything else around them to maintain their leadership. While definitely not perfect, regulation of business is definitely needed in many cases. At the end of the day giving the consumer more choice and protection isn't bad.

[TheawesomeMCB]

4 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

I'm not a fan of Apple, and went with Android in the early days specifically because of this type of stuff (sideloading, etc), but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit (with some obvious exceptions relating to safety, essential goods, etc). 

This regulation is necessary I feel though. When you get companies like apple that have this much power, it could make people really upset if they change something. Todays market is mostly either an iPhone or android. And if one of the two is causing problems that is extreme anti consumer behavior something has to be done.

[Arika]

38 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit

And they still can, if they aren't happy, pull out of Europe. But that would just show how little they actually care about their consumer's choices. 

 

I can't believe we're at a point where people are saying that the world's most valuable company should be able to run their business how they want like its still a little ma and pa shop on the corner.

[suicidalfranco]

Now watch the usual diatribe from the fanboys arguing how having options will negatively affect how they use their phones

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, TheawesomeMCB said:

Summary

The DMA EU bill came full force yesterday, this bill could force apple for sideloading, other app stores, and iMessage inter-compatibility.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

I think apple is in a really tight corner now. It’s either comply with the DMA laws. Or leave Europe but lose ~24% of its revenue and on top of that probably risk country’s to quickly pass bills and get hit with a anti trust because of anti consumer and anti competitive behavior if they did that. And if they just try to Geo lock it, I feel like buying a iPhone from Europe will skyrocket. So either way it’s a lose lose for apple.

 

Sources

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/11/01/dma-eu-law-could-force-major-changes-apple/?fbclid=IwAR0T7Ulnov8ShDyiT0zv4zSOFJK4DqLVEWE8fGrY1eyLQtMMydyEmUict-o

Politicians shouldn't create regulations when they don't understand the technology.

 

Could the EU compel Apple to support RCS in iMessage? Yes. Would it be treated differently from the status quo? yes. 

 

App stores, or Siri, unlikely. 

 

What really needs to come down the pipe is a regulation compelling "indefinite perpetual license." eg, if I buy X app on Windows, I own it, and Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, can not remove it for any reason, be it canceling the service or uninstalling it. If I decide to switch to an iPhone or iPad, and the same software is available, then I should not be forced to buy it a second or third time. If I buy it once, I am entitled to run it on any device that I own, under the same conditions I originally purchased it (eg, if bought a playstation game 20 years ago, then I'm entitled to any "emulated" version of it on any platform without having to buy it again. If the developer remakes the game, I'm only entitled to the remake if developer doesn't also have the emulated/native version of the original.)

 

To take an example SEGA has released versions of Sonic 1/2/3 for multiple platforms. If I own the original Cart, then I should be entitled to the same game inside "Sega Genesis Classics" , but also the same game inside "Sonic Origins" because the game is identical. You could make the argument that "Sonic Origins" is a different game, but it isn't.

 

On the flip side of that Final Fantasy VII "Remake" is a different game. If I own the PS1 or original 199x PC version, then I should be entitled to any of the "fixed" versions released of FF7 for the PC other than "Remake"

 

If I own MS Office 2016, or Adobe CS6 then I should be entitled to that version, forever. If I "upgrade" to a cloud version, then that perpetual license should be brought forward even to Creative Cloud 2022, because those products have fundamentally not changed. Any new software added to Cloud since purchasing CS6. No.

 

If I switch between Mac and PC, I should still have that license. If I switch to an iPad, I still have that license.

 

But under the way things work right now, if I buy a game on iOS, and were to later switch to Android. That entire investment in the Apple ecosystem of discarded. If I buy a game on Steam, I don't automatically get it on iOS, PS5 and Nintendo Switch. That's a problem, and an obstacle to changing platform, or even using multiple platforms.

 

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You could make the argument that "Sonic Origins" is a different game, but it isn't.

You definitely can make the argument that the two games are different. Same as saying that you should be entitled to MS office 2019, cause 2016 and 2019 are basically the same

[Kisai]

11 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

You definitely can make the argument that the two games are different. Same as saying that you should be entitled to MS office 2019, cause 2016 and 2019 are basically the same

Don't misunderstand. The reason Sonic Origins is the same game is because the removed the previous one which was little more than an emulator over the mega drive ROM.

 

MS Office, changes enough that I could see a justification for holding a perpetual license. But again, If were to "cancel" updating Office, MS should not suddenly have office removed from my PC. Whatever version I last updated to, is the same perpetual license from when I originally bought it as Office 95/97 through a chain upgrades to 2016. But it's harder to make the claim that Office 2016 and 2019 are different in the same way that Adobe CC 2017 and 2022 are different. Nether product's core functionality has changed, but because I can't install the "newest" product without the newest OS, and can't install the oldest products on windows 10 or Windows 11, I should be entitled to the version that does.

 

And if I switch to a Mac, I shouldn't have to buy everything again.

 

And when people whine and complain that nobody uses Linux... that's because I can't install my Windows or Mac Licensed software on it. Not only is there not a native version of the software, but there isn't even a way to buy and install it because they're stuck behind the app stores.

 

[Arika]

24 minutes ago, Kisai said:

What really needs to come down the pipe is a regulation compelling "indefinite perpetual license." eg, if I buy X app on Windows, I own it, and Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, can not remove it for any reason, be it canceling the service or uninstalling it. If I decide to switch to an iPhone or iPad, and the same software is available, then I should not be forced to buy it a second or third time. If I buy it once, I am entitled to run it on any device that I own, under the same conditions I originally purchased it (eg, if bought a playstation game 20 years ago, then I'm entitled to any "emulated" version of it on any platform without having to buy it again. If the developer remakes the game, I'm only entitled to the remake if developer doesn't also have the emulated/native version of the original.)

100% agree with all of this

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Holmes108 said:

I'm not a fan of Apple, and went with Android in the early days specifically because of this type of stuff (sideloading, etc), but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit (with some obvious exceptions relating to safety, essential goods, etc). 

Why? Why do you think it's bad to legislate good things? Why is the line drawn at "safety" and "essential goods" but no further? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Anti monopoly laws and consumer protections are pretty important and this falls under that purview, even if this isn't strictly essential to human survival.

55 minutes ago, Kisai said:

What really needs to come down the pipe is a regulation compelling "indefinite perpetual license." eg, if I buy X app on Windows, I own it, and Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, can not remove it for any reason, be it canceling the service or uninstalling it. If I decide to switch to an iPhone or iPad, and the same software is available, then I should not be forced to buy it a second or third time. If I buy it once, I am entitled to run it on any device that I own, under the same conditions I originally purchased it (eg, if bought a playstation game 20 years ago, then I'm entitled to any "emulated" version of it on any platform without having to buy it again. If the developer remakes the game, I'm only entitled to the remake if developer doesn't also have the emulated/native version of the original.)

This can't be done without waiving a huge portion of intellectual property rights. Which I'm all for, but also will not happen in the current political landscape.

 

It's also worth noting that while releases of the "same" software on different devices might act the same and share a name, that doesn't automatically mean it's the same software. I'd assume MS Word has very different code in its Android, Windows and iOS versions and lots of people must have worked on each version to get it done. Of course in the case of Office the license covers all versions across devices iirc so it doesn't really matter.

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And when people whine and complain that nobody uses Linux... that's because I can't install my Windows or Mac Licensed software on it. Not only is there not a native version of the software, but there isn't even a way to buy and install it because they're stuck behind the app stores.

That's DRM, another thing that should be illegal and could easily be made so if regulators didn't get hyperlobbied all the time.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

This can't be done without waiving a huge portion of intellectual property rights. Which I'm all for, but also will not happen in the current political landscape.

Didn't say it wasn't.  Just the idea that "renting" or buying software again that hasn't actually changed is absurd. It's not like say, a GPS, or ArcGIS where the data has to constantly be updated because they reflect real world changes. 

 

Like even the upgrades from Windows 2K/XP to Vista/7 to 8/10/11 , or the upgrades from Adobe CS2 to CS3/4/5 to CS6 and all subsequent versions are really only trivial upgrades that none of the core functionality changed, but the licensing model did. 

 

Subscription models are lazy ways to generate revenue while doing nothing to actually improve (usability, compatbility, functionality, etc) the software. Software landlording.

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

It's also worth noting that while releases of the "same" software on different devices might act the same and share a name, that doesn't automatically mean it's the same software. I'd assume MS Word has very different code in its Android, Windows and iOS versions and lots of people must have worked on each version to get it done. Of course in the case of Office the license covers all versions across devices iirc so it doesn't really matter.

I didn't say Mobile Word/Photoshop "is the same product", just that it's marketed as the same product, hence if I paid for the desktop version, that mobile version should be included. If I only paid for the mobile version, where's the equal functionality version on the desktop? Many of the "web" versions of software are the same as the mobile version, but because they're "web", they don't work offline without the "app".

 

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

That's DRM, another thing that should be illegal and could easily be made so if regulators didn't get hyperlobbied all the time.

 

I fundamentally believe that DRM's place is the same as patents. It should be something that protects functionality and fairness, not as a way to ensure lock-in to a platform. eg a DRM system that ensures that all players game files are the same is not the same as a DRM system that calls home to check for a valid license key. If something is too much of a pain in the butt to trust the end-user, then it should be RDP/Geforce Now or even Stadia-like.

 

[wamred]

I don't know, on the one hand it would give me, an Apple user, a better phone. But on the other hand, I don't like governments telling companies to do so much. I don't really know what the best thing to do here is.

[hishnash]

5 hours ago, TheawesomeMCB said:

And if they just try to Geo lock it, I feel like buying a iPhone from Europe will skyrocket.

They would not need to geo-lock the device they can do the lock based on the address you provide when creating your Apple ID, (you need to provide payment info that matches the address).  

 

[hishnash]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

What really needs to come down the pipe is a regulation compelling "indefinite perpetual license." eg, if I buy X app on Windows, I own it, and Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, can not remove it for any reason, be it canceling the service or uninstalling it. If I decide to switch to an iPhone or iPad, and the same software is available, then I should not be forced to buy it a second or third time. If I buy it once, I am entitled to run it on any device that I own, under the same conditions I originally purchased it (eg, if bought a playstation game 20 years ago, then I'm entitled to any "emulated" version of it on any platform without having to buy it again. If the developer remakes the game, I'm only entitled to the remake if developer doesn't also have the emulated/native version of the original.)

 

In fact App Store rules currently mean that if a user has purchased your app/content on another platform you can provide this to them on iPhone through the App Store without requiring them to buy again (and unlike Sony apple does not take a cut).  

What you are not permitted to do in the app is tell users to go buy it somewhere else, but you can have a `already purchased? login/enter product code to unlock` 

however requiring software devs to provide software updates for every platform for free for ever is not a good idea. When you buy software you buy the bits you purchased not a license for all future work by that software development studio.  A version of your software on another platform is a different set of bits. This is just the same as when I buy a plaything of a dog from an artist I get that copy of the painting I do not istnatnly own every bit of art work that artist makes of dogs. If that artist opts to paint the same scenes but on wood and I purchased it on canvas I cant turn up and demand they give that to me for free, they re severest products just like the iOS version of a game and the Windows version of the same `game` are different products that might share some content but there is a lot of content that is not shared. 

 

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, hishnash said:

however requiring software devs to provide software updates for every platform for free for ever is not a good idea. When you buy software you buy the bits you purchased not a license for all future work by that software development studio.

 

Not asking for that. I'm asking for "the software I paid for" to work "on the hardware I have", and if they are not willing to fix the old software, give me the new software that does, or an emulation environment that will. That's not an unreasonable ask.

 

An unreasonable ask is going "I bought Windows 95 in 1994, on a computer I no longer have, give me a free Windows 11 license", it is reasonable to ask for a Windows 95 Virtual machine that can run that software.  Microsoft should, have virtual machines of all previous OS versions they no longer support available, simply for this. But they don't, and that's a missed opportunity.

 

[hishnash]

5 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Being able to modify apps to suit my needs or using apps like new pipe to make me able to download youtube video/audio with 3 clicks from the youtube app has been the biggest barrier for me that has always made me lenient towards Android devices.

Even with side loading your not going to be able to break the secure boot and thus attach a debugger to be able to modify apps in such a way that they cant detect it (eg inject buttons...). just think of a banking app being modified so that when you enter in the recipient bank account it sends a different api call but shows you what you expected even through you pay someone else?  there are very good reasons even with side loading your not going to get patching of apps.

Legaly apple already support side loading it is however a pain.. any users can sign any app to run on their iPhone for up-to 7 days (yes you can side load but you need to reload every 7 days).  What apple do not support is a way for users to just 1 tap download and install without them signing (singing requires you to enter you iCloud password).    There are some limitations on the apps, things were there are real sec concerns such as car play (legal) and setting of devices policy.

[hishnash]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

An unreasonable ask is going "I bought Windows 95 in 1994, on a computer I no longer have, give me a free Windows 11 license", it is reasonable to ask for a Windows 95 Virtual machine that can run that software.  Microsoft should, have virtual machines of all previous OS versions they no longer support available, simply for this. But they don't, and that's a missed opportunity.

 

So MS much now build a VM to run win 95 for every new hardware platform?   What if you opt to buy somthign realy obscure... sum IBM mainframe are MS compelled to provide you a VM to run win 95 on Power9? 

 

All I think is required is that if you purchase software you own it (as is), eg there is no `date` were it dies and if they shut down licensing servers etc they are compelled to issue one final patch that no longer requires license (for free to everyone that has purchased).  But expecting them to continue to develop (and test) solution to keep old software running on newer hardware would kill every developer out there as it means year on year the amount to testing work we need goews and grows as newer a newer systems are developed we need not only test our current products but every single product we have ever shipped! 

[TheawesomeMCB]

51 minutes ago, hishnash said:

They would not need to geo-lock the device they can do the lock based on the address you provide when creating your Apple ID, (you need to provide payment info that matches the address).  

 

Well then other countries would just put in a bill similar to the DMA, making that useless.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Can't wait to sideload apps onto a smart fridge.  

[Kisai]

52 minutes ago, hishnash said:

So MS much now build a VM to run win 95 for every new hardware platform?   What if you opt to buy somthign realy obscure... sum IBM mainframe are MS compelled to provide you a VM to run win 95 on Power9? 

It's not an unreasonable request, and we know Microsoft can do this since they did that with the "XP mode" in Windows 7 Pro.

 

And yes, the vendors should be compelled to either:

a) recompile their software products for the current OS/hardware (no new features are necessary)

or

b) provide a virtual machine image, and leave the user to figure out how to use it. 

 

Microsoft has a virtualization platform, providing images of their unsupported OS's that work on it, is not an aggressive ask.

 

 

52 minutes ago, hishnash said:

All I think is required is that if you purchase software you own it (as is), eg there is no `date` were it dies and if they shut down licensing servers etc they are compelled to issue one final patch that no longer requires license (for free to everyone that has purchased).  

Software vendors aren't even doing that. With games, shutting down the "servers" can render the entire multiplayer aspect disabled, even if the servers only ever acted as a matchmaking system. Then there are entire MMO's where the "server" world is just gone.

 

52 minutes ago, hishnash said:

But expecting them to continue to develop (and test) solution to keep old software running on newer hardware would kill every developer out there as it means year on year the amount to testing work we need goews and grows as newer a newer systems are developed we need not only test our current products but every single product we have ever shipped! 

Then stop releasing trivially version inflated software. 

 

Here's a thought experiment. How do I run a clients accounting&POS program that was built on MS DOS Fox pro, to Windows 11?

1) Option 1, Dosbox, this works for running the program, but not the hardware

2) Option 2, decompile the software and write a new one

3) Option 3, buy something off the shelf, and still have to convert the clients data

 

People out there, legitimately still use old software

https://www.cnet.com/culture/george-r-r-martin-writes-with-a-dos-word-processor/

 

The right solution is always going to be 

"how do I run this stupid thing in an emulator" over "recompile the stupid thing with newer tools and have to actually fix bugs"

 

In case it's not clear, the entire "cloud services" model removes the first option.

 

[bcredeur97]

I never understood why apple couldn't have sideloading and stuff as a special menu dev or experimental menu. 

Or even root access. 

Void the warranty for all I care and make it so you can't get support with it enabled. I don't care. Sometimes ppl just want to do whatever they want to a device... or use it for something special where it makes sense, or it's all they have.

[AlTech]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Didn't say it wasn't.  Just the idea that "renting" or buying software again that hasn't actually changed is absurd. It's not like say, a GPS, or ArcGIS where the data has to constantly be updated because they reflect real world changes. 

 

Like even the upgrades from Windows 2K/XP to Vista/7 to 8/10/11 , or the upgrades from Adobe CS2 to CS3/4/5 to CS6 and all subsequent versions are really only trivial upgrades that none of the core functionality changed, but the licensing model did. 

 

Subscription models are lazy ways to generate revenue while doing nothing to actually improve (usability, compatbility, functionality, etc) the software. Software landlording.

So you're fine with going back to the old way of buying major upgrades separately? E.g. If you buy Office 2016 and if you want Office 2019 then you need to buy Office 2019 despite "owning" Office 2016.

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

I didn't say Mobile Word/Photoshop "is the same product", just that it's marketed as the same product, hence if I paid for the desktop version, that mobile version should be included. If I only paid for the mobile version, where's the equal functionality version on the desktop? Many of the "web" versions of software are the same as the mobile version, but because they're "web", they don't work offline without the "app".

 

 

 

I fundamentally believe that DRM's place is the same as patents. It should be something that protects functionality and fairness, not as a way to ensure lock-in to a platform. eg a DRM system that ensures that all players game files are the same is not the same as a DRM system that calls home to check for a valid license key. If something is too much of a pain in the butt to trust the end-user, then it should be RDP/Geforce Now or even Stadia-like.

 

 

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

Politicians shouldn't create regulations when they don't understand the technology.

 

Could the EU compel Apple to support RCS in iMessage? Yes. Would it be treated differently from the status quo? yes. 

 

App stores, or Siri, unlikely. 

 

What really needs to come down the pipe is a regulation compelling "indefinite perpetual license." eg, if I buy X app on Windows, I own it, and Microsoft, Adobe, AutoDesk, can not remove it for any reason, be it canceling the service or uninstalling it. If I decide to switch to an iPhone or iPad, and the same software is available, then I should not be forced to buy it a second or third time. If I buy it once, I am entitled to run it on any device that I own, under the same conditions I originally purchased it (eg, if bought a playstation game 20 years ago, then I'm entitled to any "emulated" version of it on any platform without having to buy it again. If the developer remakes the game, I'm only entitled to the remake if developer doesn't also have the emulated/native version of the original.)

Some developers (I am not in favour of this BTW but I am aware of this practice) currently sell programs to customers at different pricing depending on if they want to buy a license that works on multiple platforms or just one.

 

E.g. You can right now buy a Geekbench license for Windows only (or Mac only, or Linux only) for $9.99 or for Windows, Mac, and Linux for $14.99.

 

Wouldn't this increase pricing for those programs by forcing devs to offer the more expensive package without offering the cheaper package for fewer OSes?

 

And if it did effectively increase pricing for these programs, would you be willing to accept the price increase in exchange for forcing the dev to sell a license that works across platforms?

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

To take an example SEGA has released versions of Sonic 1/2/3 for multiple platforms. If I own the original Cart, then I should be entitled to the same game inside "Sega Genesis Classics" , but also the same game inside "Sonic Origins" because the game is identical. You could make the argument that "Sonic Origins" is a different game, but it isn't.

 

On the flip side of that Final Fantasy VII "Remake" is a different game. If I own the PS1 or original 199x PC version, then I should be entitled to any of the "fixed" versions released of FF7 for the PC other than "Remake"

 

If I own MS Office 2016, or Adobe CS6 then I should be entitled to that version, forever. If I "upgrade" to a cloud version, then that perpetual license should be brought forward even to Creative Cloud 2022, because those products have fundamentally not changed. Any new software added to Cloud since purchasing CS6. No.

 

If I switch between Mac and PC, I should still have that license. If I switch to an iPad, I still have that license.

 

But under the way things work right now, if I buy a game on iOS, and were to later switch to Android. That entire investment in the Apple ecosystem of discarded. If I buy a game on Steam, I don't automatically get it on iOS, PS5 and Nintendo Switch. That's a problem, and an obstacle to changing platform, or even using multiple platforms.