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

[Kisai]

15 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Thats on the user not Apple. Apple shouldn't care if the user screw up their own device. 

You can not drop all the responsibility on the user. If you put a "do not push button" in front of them, they will just push it if it makes it go away, and that's what we all learned back during peak pop-up ads.

 

15 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Thats not correct. You dont need to buy older modems. There are plenty of new cable modems. Also what ISP's give you is a gateway technically speaking. A standard cable modem has no router function built in. 

No, you needed a modem that didn't have the gateway stuff in it. The modem the ISP gives you is always going to be the cheapest gateway model that does the job, cause it allows the ISP to remote into it, not the more expensive business model they reserve for their more valuable customers and the occasional whiney baby tech enthusiasts.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

 

20 years ago my ISP didnt even offer a gateway. For a long time it was just a standard modem or a eMTA when we added voice services. 

The area I live in, is where cable modems were first rolled out in Canada before Rogers and Shaw swapped markets. Up until about 2006, no cable or dsl modem came with WiFi. If you wanted to use your own router/wifi box, you needed the model that didn't have the gateway features.

 

ISP's don't replace your equipment unless absolutely necessary, and you typically can't "buy" the device either.

[Donut417]

25 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, you needed a modem that didn't have the gateway stuff in it. The modem the ISP gives you is always going to be the cheapest gateway model that does the job,

You stated you have to buy older modems because they didnt have routers built in. Im telling you, YOU ARE WRONG. The CM1000v2 and the S33 are both retail modems with no router built in and are current with the latests tech. Well the S33 is technically better as it supports faster speeds. In the time we have been with coax based internet which we got in the early 2000's, we had only ONE gateway, the first modems we just standard no frills, we didnt even have a router at the time. Eventually we got a router and the next modem we had, had an eMTA built in for voice. Eventually Shitcast forced a gateway on us, by that time rentals were like $10/m, we bought the SB6141 (8x4 no router built in, bought in the 2010s). Used that bad boy up till this year when we were upgraded to 300 Mbps as that modem was not rated for those speeds on the Comcast network. 

 

Here in the US we have a plethora of standard cable modems at our disposal as retail modem support is required by FCC regulations. I know some countries dont have the forethought to make such rules to protect their citizens but in this instance the US government decided to protect its citizens, but only for Coax based ISPs. 

[Kisai]

26 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

You stated you have to buy older modems because they didnt have routers built in. Im telling you, YOU ARE WRONG.

Again... The OLDER modems didn't have gateways in them. Neither did the DSL modems. The gateway models only started to be mandatory around 2006, and you could only get the older non-gateway models by complaining about if. If you tried to get another model off eBay, the ISP would not provision it. SOL. If you got a TPIA (Third Party Internet Access) ISP that used the cable or DSL carrier's lines, you had to use their modem. Even if it was the exact same modem.

 

The entire situation is something of a "not enough people give enough of a care about", because Canadian ISP's do not have the leverage American ones do. So whatever comcast was using is what Shaw and Rogers in Canada were also using. And Shaw has the absolute crappiest, cheapest gateway equipment and television equipment out here. Assuming you can even wrestle your way into the administrative panel and change anything.

 

If you were to go wardriving around here you'd see that all the cable and dsl modems have their default names. Because people can't be bothered to change the settings from the default ISP settings.

 

 

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

The gateway models only started to be mandatory around 2006,

Thats in Canada. Here in the US we have had the option to buy our own for like ever at this point, since we bought our first modem we always had the option to buy a standard cable modem. I have NEVER had to buy an older modem, I have always had the option to buy the latest and greatest. Thats the point your not getting. 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Donut417 said:

That being said, I dont understand why Apple is so resistant on side loading. I mean, not everyone is going to do it. They will still have a lot of people who will choose to use their App Store. Not everyone wants to go thru the trouble of Side Loading. Also, they can refuse to provide support for people who side load. If they choose to side load and fuck up their device, well its not on Apple. Thats kinda how it works with Cable Modems in the US, if you choose to use your own, the cable company will provision it and some MAY provide firmware updates, but most of the time support will blame your modem for any issue. 

I mean, they are resistent to it because it means they lose control over their customers.

I think an even better example of how it isn't the end of the world would be MacOS. You can sideload on that too, yet most people choose not to. Because the app store on MacOS has everything people want and need to begin with and provides a better experience.

 

And that's how it should be. Apple already has a massive advantage over theoretical competing app stores because it comes on the phone and ties into your Apple account. I am sure that if this goes through only a very small minority of people will ever use sideloading. And those who do will probably just do it for one or two apps at most.

[Dominik W]

I for some reason don’t feel very happy about this. Deep down I feel some sort of strong opposition to it.

 

Maybe because it’s my opposition to legislate everything you like into law? I don’t know. 

[Error 52]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:47 PM, 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"

Sonic Origins isn't the same game, though. It looks and plays the same but it's completely different under the hood with a totally different engine, 60fps, and widescreen, new modes and features. This whole idea of enshrining in law seems...kinda nonsensical. What is and isn't a "different game" is a pretty vague concept.

 

Anyway back on topic, message app interoperability is one of those things that sounds great in theory but I don't think makes a ton of practical sense. It's been a years long project for Facebook to get interoperability working between WhatsApp and Facebook. Would they have to then integrate with iMessage, Signal, Telegram, Discord, etc? That seems like it would be an unwieldy mess even before you start considering these companies have very different attitudes towards privacy.

[Imbadatnames]

The EU just wants to monitor everyone, that’s the only reason they’re pushing this shit. They really should back off and let companies make what they want to, it’s not like iOS is an essential good or without competition.  

[Imbadatnames]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I mean, they are resistent to it because it means they lose control over their customers.

I think an even better example of how it isn't the end of the world would be MacOS. You can sideload on that too, yet most people choose not to. Because the app store on MacOS has everything people want and need to begin with and provides a better experience.

 

And that's how it should be. Apple already has a massive advantage over theoretical competing app stores because it comes on the phone and ties into your Apple account. I am sure that if this goes through only a very small minority of people will ever use sideloading. And those who do will probably just do it for one or two apps at most.

It’s also a massive security concern and opens a lot of holes. Google doesn’t like sideloading and actively discourages it because of this.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Error 52 said:

Sonic Origins isn't the same game, though. It looks and plays the same but it's completely different under the hood with a totally different engine, 60fps, and widescreen, new modes and features. This whole idea of enshrining in law seems...kinda nonsensical. What is and isn't a "different game" is a pretty vague concept.

They present it as the same game, and they removed the "previous" version, so it is the same game. Don't argue with me on that. That's literately what they did.

 

That is the point that some people choose to ignore. I am entitled to keep having the version I already own work, if the software company decides to retroactively remove/disable/fail-to-update the version I have and replace it with another, I should be entitled to what it was replaced with. Geekbench is guilty of doing this. For all intents Geekbench 2 and Geekbench 5 are the same product with a different baseline. It's the same product. You can't download GB4 even if you purchased it before, you can only still use it if it's still on your device.

 

1 hour ago, Error 52 said:

 

Anyway back on topic, message app interoperability is one of those things that sounds great in theory but I don't think makes a ton of practical sense. It's been a years long project for Facebook to get interoperability working between WhatsApp and Facebook. Would they have to then integrate with iMessage, Signal, Telegram, Discord, etc? That seems like it would be an unwieldy mess even before you start considering these companies have very different attitudes towards privacy.

The logical thing to do is ask Apple to support RCS in iMessage if the carrier supports RCS. Apple could by default "turn off SMS/RCS to other Apple users" thus ensuring end-to-end encryption is used. Problem solved. Telegram, Signal, likewise would have to make the same support requirement, they must support SMS/RCS, but do not need to have it enabled by default. In particular you can't replace the default messaging app on the iPhone, so that option isn't even there unless Signal or Telegram operate their own SMS/RCS gateway instead of sending it through the device.

 

The politicians really do not have have the slightest grasp of how the technology works, and the last time we had a "messaging app cross-software support" it was between AIM, MSN messenger and Yahoo messager, none of which exist anymore because Verizon got a hold of two of them, and MS folded MSN messenger into Skype and then then threw skype out a window in favor of Microsoft Teams.

 

Next thing you know we will be seeing government regulators telling all software that can video conference to be de-facto interoptable (Eg zoom, discord, teams, skype, microsoft netmeeting*, etc)

 

*Netmeeting was actually based on standards.

[TheawesomeMCB]

Looks like this topic was put on tech linked at 3:10

[AnonymousGuy]

On 11/4/2022 at 4:40 AM, Dominik W said:

I for some reason don’t feel very happy about this. Deep down I feel some sort of strong opposition to it.

 

Maybe because it’s my opposition to legislate everything you like into law? I don’t know. 

My read is no one actually cares about sideloading on iOS...no one who uses an iPhone has ever said "oh gee I wish I could install this malware manually and load 3 other janky app stores".   It's just people who don't use iOS trying to make it shittier so Android seems equivalent.

 

Alternatively when your buddy gets a nice car and your comment is "pshhh red sucks as a color".

[williamcll]

On 11/4/2022 at 7:40 PM, Dominik W said:

I for some reason don’t feel very happy about this. Deep down I feel some sort of strong opposition to it.

 

Maybe because it’s my opposition to legislate everything you like into law? I don’t know. 

Would you rather have your laws dictated by corporate entities or political entities.

[Holmes108]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

Would you rather have your laws dictated by corporate entities or political entities.

Corporate, if it's non essential. (Generally speaking. There will be exceptions and debate as to what's essential) 

[HenrySalayne]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:15 AM, LAwLz said:

think an even better example of how it isn't the end of the world would be MacOS. You can sideload on that too, yet most people choose not to. Because the app store on MacOS has everything people want and need to begin with and provides a better experience.

On 11/4/2022 at 3:33 PM, Imbadatnames said:

The EU just wants to monitor everyone, that’s the only reason they’re pushing this shit. They really should back off and let companies make what they want to, it’s not like iOS is an essential good or without competition.  

On 11/4/2022 at 12:40 PM, Dominik W said:

Maybe because it’s my opposition to legislate everything you like into law? I don’t know. 

16 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

My read is no one actually cares about sideloading on iOS...no one who uses an iPhone has ever said "oh gee I wish I could install this malware manually and load 3 other janky app stores".   It's just people who don't use iOS trying to make it shittier so Android seems equivalent.

Just a few quotes from the last page of this thread. I'm not quite sure if this is comedy or a tragedy.

[Imbadatnames]

26 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Just a few quotes from the last page of this thread. I'm not quite sure if this is comedy or a tragedy.

Guessing you don’t like reality 

[LAwLz]

30 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Just a few quotes from the last page of this thread. I'm not quite sure if this is comedy or a tragedy.

Care to elaborate why my post makes you want to cry or laugh? I am not sure which part you think is absurd.

 

Do you disagree and think that sideloading on iOS will become very common and almost everyone with an iPhone will do it?

Do you disagree and think that a majority of people who own Macs are sideloading programs rather than just downloading things from the app store?

Do you disagree and think that the app store does not contain everything most people need on MacOS?

Do you disagree and believe that most people think going to the developer's website, downloading an installer and then installing that is a better user experience than downloading the same program from the app store?

[Kisai]

17 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

My read is no one actually cares about sideloading on iOS...no one who uses an iPhone has ever said "oh gee I wish I could install this malware manually and load 3 other janky app stores".   It's just people who don't use iOS trying to make it shittier so Android seems equivalent.

 

Alternatively when your buddy gets a nice car and your comment is "pshhh red sucks as a color".

Allow me.

 

"Hey fellow nerd, I have this really cool phone!"

 

"Pfft, can your phone do this" *loads up sideloaded app that does some cool-whizbang thing

 

"Aw, well good for you"

 

"No wait come back! It can also do..."

 

"Nah, bruh, I just wanted to show you my phone, and you made it about you."

 

3 months later...

 

"Hey bruh, still using that cool-whizbang thing?"

 

"nah, too much of a pain in the ass to install it"

 

...

 

To put it bluntly, nobody wants sideloading because "cool-whizbang" thing is something that is niche, and if they really wanted it to do that thing, they could do it by buying the sideload-able device. But do people really want sideloading? Users? No. It's just companies who want to undermine the security of the platform so they can bring things in through a backdoor. Many "cool whizbang" things are stupid things like console emulators that are a dime a dozen on the PC, and the performance on a mobile device is abysmal.

 

If Apple really cared about security however, they would ban ALL advertising, ban all telemetry tracking, and make "webview" driven software confirm it's privileges, since webview apps can load functionality that was not approved by Apple. We're a little bit too far past retroactively doing this, and doing so would be a lot like killing flash again. 

 

Yet the difference between Apple and Android is night and day when it comes to security. Apple has an explicitly opt-in process, so an app can't simply ask for everything and stop working if it doesn't. I've only ever seen, I think it was snapchat refuse to work without a camera enabled. Most other applications you can deny all the privileges and they will work, though some will be missing functionality. There's never been a typical game that has had any good reason to ask for your GPS or Camera. Pokemon Go being the exception because it was an AR game. Android has worked in a mostly opt-out privileges, where apps just ask for everything to install and then you have to go and revoke them. Or at least that's been my experience, I don't own an Android phone, I've only played with it via emulators, and even then...

 

Emulators demonstrate exactly what's wrong with Android. You can have emulators run Android operating systems, but insert ads into the OS itself that you can't remove without hacking around it. Then when it updates? You gotta do it again. That's the Android experience that people frequently share online "it sucks, it's annoying, but at least I have this feature that iPhone doesn't have, but I'm never really gonna use."

 

[Imbadatnames]

24 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Allow me.

 

"Hey fellow nerd, I have this really cool phone!"

 

"Pfft, can your phone do this" *loads up sideloaded app that does some cool-whizbang thing

 

"Aw, well good for you"

 

"No wait come back! It can also do..."

 

"Nah, bruh, I just wanted to show you my phone, and you made it about you."

 

3 months later...

 

"Hey bruh, still using that cool-whizbang thing?"

 

"nah, too much of a pain in the ass to install it"

 

...

 

To put it bluntly, nobody wants sideloading because "cool-whizbang" thing is something that is niche, and if they really wanted it to do that thing, they could do it by buying the sideload-able device. But do people really want sideloading? Users? No. It's just companies who want to undermine the security of the platform so they can bring things in through a backdoor. Many "cool whizbang" things are stupid things like console emulators that are a dime a dozen on the PC, and the performance on a mobile device is abysmal.

 

If Apple really cared about security however, they would ban ALL advertising, ban all telemetry tracking, and make "webview" driven software confirm it's privileges, since webview apps can load functionality that was not approved by Apple. We're a little bit too far past retroactively doing this, and doing so would be a lot like killing flash again. 

 

Yet the difference between Apple and Android is night and day when it comes to security. Apple has an explicitly opt-in process, so an app can't simply ask for everything and stop working if it doesn't. I've only ever seen, I think it was snapchat refuse to work without a camera enabled. Most other applications you can deny all the privileges and they will work, though some will be missing functionality. There's never been a typical game that has had any good reason to ask for your GPS or Camera. Pokemon Go being the exception because it was an AR game. Android has worked in a mostly opt-out privileges, where apps just ask for everything to install and then you have to go and revoke them. Or at least that's been my experience, I don't own an Android phone, I've only played with it via emulators, and even then...

 

Emulators demonstrate exactly what's wrong with Android. You can have emulators run Android operating systems, but insert ads into the OS itself that you can't remove without hacking around it. Then when it updates? You gotta do it again. That's the Android experience that people frequently share online "it sucks, it's annoying, but at least I have this feature that iPhone doesn't have, but I'm never really gonna use."

 

You can do this? You can have ads that don’t use telemetry, apple does. Again through using just iOS with no additional software you can block apps tracking you outside of that app, you can block website trackers through safari and you can use private relay to hide your IP address and stop tracking. Having all 3 of these on btw basically bricked Google search on safari (by design on Google’s end I suspect) and I had to swap to bing 

[Dominik W]

10 hours ago, williamcll said:

Would you rather have your laws dictated by corporate entities or political entities.

Both? In the end that's how it will always be. And it's not like they both always have our best interests in mind...

[Dominik W]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Just a few quotes from the last page of this thread. I'm not quite sure if this is comedy or a tragedy.

That's how everything is. People have their opinions, and that's how it's gonna be. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's a comedy or a tragedy in the negative sense.

 

[HenrySalayne]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Care to elaborate why my post makes you want to cry or laugh? I am not sure which part you think is absurd.

Because you state an opinion as fact. Even more so, you're implying the store is everything a Mac user needs. Completely in contrast to reality.

This might be a generational thing because the Mac users I know haven't jumped on the hype train in the last few years, but not a single person is using the store exclusively.

55 minutes ago, Dominik W said:

People have their opinions, and that's how it's gonna be. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's a comedy or a tragedy in the negative sense.

I think you're missing the point here. Those quotes are not opinions but "alternative" facts. If you want to voice your opinion, mark it as such.

 

Edit:

Look at this masterpiece of somebody arguing in passion against something which would not take anything away from them. "I don't like it so nobody shall have it!".

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

To put it bluntly, nobody wants sideloading because "cool-whizbang" thing is something that is niche, and if they really wanted it to do that thing, they could do it by buying the sideload-able device. But do people really want sideloading? Users? No. It's just companies who want to undermine the security of the platform so they can bring things in through a backdoor. Many "cool whizbang" things are stupid things like console emulators that are a dime a dozen on the PC, and the performance on a mobile device is abysmal.

 

 

[Dominik W]

5 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I think you're missing the point here. Those quotes are not opinions but "alternative" facts. If you want to voice your opinion, mark it as such.

I never stated any facts...

 

I voiced my opinion.

[HenrySalayne]

21 minutes ago, Dominik W said:

I never stated any facts...

I voiced my opinion.

I think you're missing the point here (again).

Not you in particular, but you as in each and everyone of you.

[Dominik W]

1 minute ago, HenrySalayne said:

I think you're missing the point here (again).

Not you in particular, but you as in each and everyone of you.

Then don't quote me.