EU Lists First 7 Potential "Gatekeepers" Under The Digital Markets Act (DMA)

[AlTech]

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not so sure that is the case.

Even if they are forced to let iMessage interact with other messaging services, I doubt a lot of people in the EU would switch from iPhones because of it (mainly because iMessage is in general not a big deal here). I also don't think people would flock to other app stores. On the Mac you have the option to download software from places other than the store, but it is still the preferred way for most people.

 

I feel like part of this is cos macOS by default actually only lets you download from the Mac App Store, you need to manually allow 3rd party programs from the app store.

 

Even once you change this, Apple throws hoops in the way of developers and users by requiring 3rd party apps go through Apple's Notarization process (where they demand to see your app's source code and demand some money) or be subject to manually approving the Application from the Settings Menu, a form of punishment meant to deter users from doing this and complaining to developers about this. The easiest way for a developer to solve this without givng Apple their source code is by submitting the app on the Mac App Store.

 

If Apple was forced to allow apps that aren't notarized to bypass the metaphorical beatings and shakedowns of 3rd party app users and developers, both developers and users would be much more inclined to not use the Mac App Store. As things exist today, an aspect of its popularity is for being the lesser of 2 evils.

 

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not so sure that is the case.

Even if they are forced to let iMessage interact with other messaging services, I doubt a lot of people in the EU would switch from iPhones because of it (mainly because iMessage is in general not a big deal here). I also don't think people would flock to other app stores. On the Mac you have the option to download software from places other than the store, but it is still the preferred way for most people. Being on the app store provides benefits such as being easily discoverable, having an easy payment system, and a robust update system (including a very good CDN).

From a user's perspective the payment system is easy. Developers may not care for Apple's payment system, nor should they be forced to use it to be on the Mac App Store.

 

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not so sure that is the case.

Even if they are forced to let iMessage interact with other messaging services, I doubt a lot of people in the EU would switch from iPhones because of it (mainly because iMessage is in general not a big deal here). I also don't think people would flock to other app stores. On the Mac you have the option to download software from places other than the store, but it is still the preferred way for most people. Being on the app store provides benefits such as being easily discoverable, having an easy payment system, and a robust update system (including a very good CDN). Plus the safety it gives your users to even try your app.

In my opinion through my experiences from trying a Mac app both via the Mac App Store and from downloading a Mac app from the web, the only difference came from Apple enforcing the metaphorical beatings for apps not using Notarization. Otherwise the experience was mostly the same. There isn't a security difference between running an Apple Notarized app and running a Mac App Store app, they both are equally secure and Apple's collection of their protection money is included in the Mac App Store percentage fee.

 

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 I don't think it will affect that all that much. It might be the case that now someone like Epic Games will launch an alternative app store and put Fortnite on it, and thus keeping all of the revenue. But Apple already banned them so it's not like they will lose anything they get today. Some people might download games from the Epic game store instead but how big is that market realistically?

Clearly big enough that Apple feels the need to keep up the metaphorical beatdowns with Apple Notarization and discouraging users from using 3rd party apps outside the app store. If Apple didn't feel pressured by them they wouldn't be apply their own pressure to them.

 

Whilst I despise Epic, they should be able to make a Mac application using macOS SDKs if they want to. In an ideal world there should be the legal right to create an app for a platform which has apps, and yet that does not exist and Apple can suspend anybody from making apps for macOS and all Apple OSses entirely and ban you from even using an Apple Device or even buying a new Apple Device.

 

Apple tried to enforce that ban from using any Apple Device and using macOS and any Apple OS and Apple OS SDK. The courts blocked it because of how it would affect Unreal Engine.

 

So they're just banned from the Mac App Store and IOS App Store. They can feasibly build their own app store ecosystem on macOS and IOS if unhindered by Apple.

 

Quote

On August 24, 2020, after a court hearing Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Epic's request to prevent Apple from taking away its developer licenses for iOS and macOS, but did not grant the preliminary injunction to overturn Apple's decision to remove Fortnite from the iOS store. Rogers wrote that the removal of the developers licenses had "potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally" and Apple "has chosen to act severely" in threatening that step.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

 

Whilst not directly related, Facebook have recently said they want to become an App Store themselves. If companies want to build their own app stores on Apple's platforms, who is Apple to block them from doing so?

[wanderingfool2]

For this topic it worries me a bit in terms of what they seem to be doing with gatekeepers.  While I do think Google has completely abused their position in the Android market (specifically not allowing manufacturers like Samsung to produce non-google embedded Androids); a question that seriously needs to be questioned is whether or not Google would have entered into the Android market if they knew they eventually would be prevented from doing things that would make them money.

 

At a glance it seems like it's an attempt to decouple lets say advertising from the product itself, but that I think does raise an issue in that early days of Android that's what Google was banking on when they made it open source.  So at that stage would they as a company have created it, or would we have ended up with more like Apple where they have it closed source and selling it to other companies (with forcing them to do more stuff now that there wasn't even an alternative OS).

 

While I do feel that laws need to be in place, it really is worrying the amount of restrictions they are including on the gatekeepers.  Anyways, the proposal is too long so I didn't really read it all, could potentially be perfectly fine but I do have my reservations about this

 

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Even if they are forced to let iMessage interact with other messaging services, I doubt a lot of people in the EU would switch from iPhones because of it (mainly because iMessage is in general not a big deal here). I also don't think people would flock to other app stores. On the Mac you have the option to download software from places other than the store, but it is still the preferred way for most people. Being on the app store provides benefits such as being easily discoverable, having an easy payment system, and a robust update system (including a very good CDN). Plus the safety it gives your users to even try your app.

The way I see it though, if iMessage was forced to accept RCS in EU then they wouldn't really have  much to stand on for not implementing it in NA...where in some communities not having an iPhone makes you an outcast/excluded because the lack of ability to properly communicate with group chats.  [And it doesn't work simply by using a competitor app like WhatsApp for group messages, because they already have iPhones so it's a self feeding cycle]

 

With that said, I bet there would be people who would end up switching to iPhone if there was proper amounts of control of the phone.  One has to admit Apple does make a pretty clean OS, and the only thing holding some people back is the lack of control over installing some apps.  Linus is right in terms of his issue with Apple, the "this is not available in your country" is easily solved on Android.

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Take Apple for example. The biggest reason why they sell so much is because they took decades building their walled garden. Even if they'd somehow comply with these rules, they would lose a huge amount of sales either way. So while it seems unprobable that they're gonna retreat out of the EU it is still a possibility.

Just as a reminder this only applies to the EU market. You can bet that Apple will only comply in the EU and keep the walled garden everywhere else where no regulation against it exists. That makes complying way more profitable than pulling out of the market. Also I do think you could even go so far as to say it would be illegal for apple to pull out of the EU as a publicly traded company because you are basically intentionally tanking your stock and not fulfilling your fiduciary duty as a publicly traded company. Your share holders would 100% sue over such stupid decision like this. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For this topic it worries me a bit in terms of what they seem to be doing with gatekeepers.  While I do think Google has completely abused their position in the Android market (specifically not allowing manufacturers like Samsung to produce non-google embedded Androids); a question that seriously needs to be questioned is whether or not Google would have entered into the Android market if they knew they eventually would be prevented from doing things that would make them money.

 

At a glance it seems like it's an attempt to decouple lets say advertising from the product itself, but that I think does raise an issue in that early days of Android that's what Google was banking on when they made it open source.  So at that stage would they as a company have created it, or would we have ended up with more like Apple where they have it closed source and selling it to other companies (with forcing them to do more stuff now that there wasn't even an alternative OS).

 

While I do feel that laws need to be in place, it really is worrying the amount of restrictions they are including on the gatekeepers.  Anyways, the proposal is too long so I didn't really read it all, could potentially be perfectly fine but I do have my reservations about this

 

The way I see it though, if iMessage was forced to accept RCS in EU then they wouldn't really have  much to stand on for not implementing it in NA...where in some communities not having an iPhone makes you an outcast/excluded because the lack of ability to properly communicate with group chats.  [And it doesn't work simply by using a competitor app like WhatsApp for group messages, because they already have iPhones so it's a self feeding cycle]

 

With that said, I bet there would be people who would end up switching to iPhone if there was proper amounts of control of the phone.  One has to admit Apple does make a pretty clean OS, and the only thing holding some people back is the lack of control over installing some apps.  Linus is right in terms of his issue with Apple, the "this is not available in your country" is easily solved on Android.

Apple objectively makes the fastest smartphone cpus and their phones are generally of very high quality. The os is definitely preferred by alot of people so if you really look at the biggest reason why people go android it's usually because they don't like the walled garden and want more customization and options which with this could actually be something possible on Apple phones. I don't doubt it would be the turning point for some. 

[wanderingfool2]

23 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Apple objectively makes the fastest smartphone cpus and their phones are generally of very high quality. The os is definitely preferred by alot of people so if you really look at the biggest reason why people go android it's usually because they don't like the walled garden and want more customization and options which with this could actually be something possible on Apple phones. I don't doubt it would be the turning point for some. 

Yea, honestly if Apple wasn't as much of a walled garden I would actually consider them, which is why I'm not sure if it really would hurt or benefit...it all really I think would depend on what people view it as.

 

Although there are still a bunch of things I don't like about iPhones and find too concerning to necessarily opening use (Like the fact if you spy on someone's pin you can change their Apple account password and essentially lock them out of all Apple devices).

 

Either way though, legislating things like this though is always worrisome to me, as there tends to be overstepping that happens eventually.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This sounds good to me. I am a bit skeptical and worried about what the end result will be, but the intentions seem good and it sounds like the companies on the list all qualifies. Some companies will certainly be affected more than others though. Judging by the criteria it seems like for example, Samsung will basically just have to let users uninstall preinstalled apps (which they already do to a big degree), while Apple will have to rework a large portion of their services.

Yeah, I wonder whether samsung or google will take the biggest hit in that respect. Samsung apps are preinstalled on all samsung phones but google apps are preinstalled on almost every android phone...

[AlTech]

55 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Apple objectively makes the fastest smartphone cpus and their phones are generally of very high quality. The os is definitely preferred by alot of people so if you really look at the biggest reason why people go android it's usually because they don't like the walled garden and want more customization and options which with this could actually be something possible on Apple phones. I don't doubt it would be the turning point for some. 

IOS is proprietary. I'd only switch back if it was made open source and there was a fork with the Apple spying removed.

 

Though I do unironically like Android and not spending $800 on a new phone.

 

Shame we don't have serious competitors to this duopoly like Windows Phone anymore.

[Lightwreather]

4 hours ago, AlTech said:

Even once you change this, Apple throws hoops in the way of developers and users by requiring 3rd party apps go through Apple's Notarization process (where they demand to see your app's source code and demand some money) or be subject to manually approving the Application from the Settings Menu

I will just say this, once you enable the option to allow installs from identified developers, it is actually pretty easy to circumvent the need for motorised applications. On the first time you need to open it, Right-click -> Open -> Wait for it to initially reject -> click the button that pretty much says open anyways. After that it does not ask you again. There is also a command you can use to disable gatekeeper (I'm not too sure if this is partially in case you don't want to remove SIP or just completely) and also one that can be used to disable gatekeeper checks for that one particular file.

 

The only time I've ever had to approve any install from the settings menu are for kexts and other driver level stuff such as the vm hypervisor for Virtualbox (don't use it, UTM is better on macOS (literally just a GUI for QEMU)) or the ACE audio engine that I've needed for some audio applications. Even then that was only for the initial install.

[HenrySalayne]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The way I see it though, if iMessage was forced to accept RCS in EU then they wouldn't really have  much to stand on for not implementing it in NA...where in some communities not having an iPhone makes you an outcast/excluded because the lack of ability to properly communicate with group chats.  [And it doesn't work simply by using a competitor app like WhatsApp for group messages, because they already have iPhones so it's a self feeding cycle]

With that said, I bet there would be people who would end up switching to iPhone if there was proper amounts of control of the phone.  One has to admit Apple does make a pretty clean OS, and the only thing holding some people back is the lack of control over installing some apps.  Linus is right in terms of his issue with Apple, the "this is not available in your country" is easily solved on Android.

You showed exactly why we need the DMA. Consumers will massively benefit from this.

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While I do feel that laws need to be in place, it really is worrying the amount of restrictions they are including on the gatekeepers.  Anyways, the proposal is too long so I didn't really read it all, could potentially be perfectly fine but I do have my reservations about this

What restrictions? The DMA doesn't restrict anything but the ability of corporations to create barriers for third party services and technologies.

[Quackers101]

seems like such a weird law, acting on weird grounds. but it would be nice as it said, to open up locked systems and forced on millions of users with locked and confusing services. If something could be done differently, and like others said be it about TV's or other products like it.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Quackers101

[Avocado Diaboli]

I like the general idea behind this. I've long maintained that if you win at capitalism and end up running a (quasi) monopoly, you should lose it all and have the state seize the infrastructure for the benefit of all, because clearly it has no business being in private ownership if its integral to the lives of pretty much everybody. This should be true for everything from railroads, transportation infrastructure in general, energy production to internet service providers to means of online communication. So yeah, suck it up big tech, power to the people.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I like the general idea behind this. I've long maintained that if you win at capitalism and end up running a (quasi) monopoly, you should lose it all and have the state seize the infrastructure for the benefit of all, because clearly it has no business being in private ownership if its integral to the lives of pretty much everybody. This should be true for everything from railroads, transportation infrastructure in general, energy production to internet service providers to means of online communication. So yeah, suck it up big tech, power to the people.

We actually did this the other way around.

Postal service (including telecommunications) and railways were state-run in Germany until the mid 90s. They were split-up and privatised (being still partly or fully state-owned) to allow new players in the market to innovate and compete. State-run organisations have a tendency to aggregate inefficiency and stagnation. That's still an unsolved problem and you can take your least favourite public authority / agency / department as an example.

[Avocado Diaboli]

16 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

We actually did this the other way around.

Postal service (including telecommunications) and railways were state-run in Germany until the mid 90s. They were split-up and privatised (being still partly or fully state-owned) to allow new players in the market to innovate and compete. State-run organisations have a tendency to aggregate inefficiency and stagnation. That's still an unsolved problem and you can take your least favourite public authority / agency / department as an example.

That's actually a lie and never been true. Look up the disaster that was British Rail and its privatization that didn't lead to greater innovation and in fact greatly reduced the quality of the rail service. Also, your German railway has been a laughingstock for decades at this point and still is, regardless of ownership. Meanwhile, here in Switzerland, our railway networks, while on paper "privatized" are mostly or entirely owned by the state. And our railways are known worldwide for their quality and punctuality. So no, state run organizations are and have never been suffering from inefficiency, at least not to any greater degree than private industry. This is less of a problem of ownership and more to do with the fact that humans are not 100% efficient, so some inefficiency will always be present in any system. 

 

But the broader point here isn't innovation or efficiency, it's that essential services absolutely need to be accessible to everybody, no ifs or buts. And that only works if they're publicly owned, so nobody can paywall them for profit.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You showed exactly why we need the DMA. Consumers will massively benefit from this.

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While I do feel that laws need to be in place, it really is worrying the amount of restrictions they are including on the gatekeepers.  Anyways, the proposal is too long so I didn't really read it all, could potentially be perfectly fine but I do have my reservations about this

What restrictions? The DMA doesn't restrict anything but the ability of corporations to create barriers for third party services and technologies.

There's ripple down effects that people don't consider.

 

For example, in Canada to protect customers we eliminated long term contracts and cancellation fees.  All well and good right?  Except after that it meant I couldn't lock into long term contracts at a reduced rate, I couldn't use the cheaper option of "financing" the phone by locking into the contract.  By essentially eliminating a way that carriers used to keep customers, they introduced a need to make more money.  Therefore it hurt the consumers more in the long run.

 

In this case, it's like Android.  Some of the wording in it seems like Google wouldn't have been able to use their position to get things like advertising information; so it leads me back to what I was saying.  Had there not been Android at the moment, do you think Google would open source to the extent it currently is, knowing that by doing so they would now have to essentially relinquish their control.

 

Whether we like it or not, corporations will want to keep making a profit (well increase it over time) and by essentially trying to cut off sources of income all it really does is shift it.  Mark my words, this kind of thing could lead to things like subscriptions for services (so now it's locking in users in different ways) or in general locking down of some systems as companies like Alphabet and Meta try gaining back revenue they lose.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

We actually did this the other way around.

Postal service (including telecommunications) and railways were state-run in Germany until the mid 90s. They were split-up and privatised (being still partly or fully state-owned) to allow new players in the market to innovate and compete. State-run organisations have a tendency to aggregate inefficiency and stagnation. That's still an unsolved problem and you can take your least favourite public authority / agency / department as an example.

Yeah, it is backwards.

 

Generally what happens is:

State-run things are too efficient, hire enough people to provide work efficiently, and the people stick around for a lifetime thus ensuring that there's no brain drain to other companies/countries/etc. In a properly operating state run system, medical, educational, housing, and infrastructure (telecom, internet, roads, rails, etc) are all capacity planned correctly. 

BUT

State-run things breed corruption, people who do "just the minimum", people who won't dare touch anything "above their pay grade" for fear of retribution from the job you took away from someone. See some of the hilarious-but-true "make-work" projects in China, where jobs are just continuously created to build things that nobody actually needs well before the need arrives. 

 

Private-run companies are inefficient by design. They hire "just enough" people and burn people out as fast as possible and replace them with people who won't complain. You complain, you are fired. This ensures that the people who care about the product or the company are ousted from the company, and replaced with nepotism hires.  Eventually the company just subsists long enough to be bought by other company, and the old owners/board make out like bandits, and all the people who cared about the company are let go.

 

If you complain, when you work for a private company, you are fired. "There are plenty of people I can hire off the street who would gladly take your position and work for less."

 

As always there needs to be some balance of "private" and "public" services, because without the private component, a state-run only version of things, will never try to find efficiency. People who work for the state but never actually do anything but rubberstamp activities for someone else, are a waste of money and resources. This is why housing must be 50% state-run, otherwise housing prices escalate (such is the situation in Canada) as private companies collude to never sell anything at a loss. 

[ravenshrike]

This has interesting implications for the Xbox and Games for Windows.

[Vilacom]

At what point is this just going to have to be a government run enterprise, like you’re telling companies they have to give up massive profits and control over their products.  Objectively good for consumers, but how much is a phone subsidized by those App Store profits, people are super irritated because streaming services have all split off and require a dozen different subscriptions, logins, payment information.  Game launchers for various companies that have decided they need their own battle.net/steam interface.  

This mostly seems like you’ll gain the freedom to be forced to install like 12 different “app stores” which are just companies wanting their own direct payment processor to make sure they are retaining the maximum amount from every subscription and they get to keep all the data as well.  

Like, if people want something that is supposed to not look at profits and only act in the interest of making something the best for the end user you want a government service(and before people lose their shit about low quality government service, I get it, but thats still the only way to get that end goal).  This seems like something that is just impossible to enforce.  

[RejZoR]

18 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Take Apple for example. The biggest reason why they sell so much is because they took decades building their walled garden. Even if they'd somehow comply with these rules, they would lose a huge amount of sales either way. So while it seems unprobable that they're gonna retreat out of the EU it is still a possibility.

I don't think that's the case. Most people in Europe use SMS or some other messaging app like Whatsapp, Viber, Signal or Telegram. Even when I had an iPhone I mostly messaged using SMS or Signal. One relative had iPhone, but I turned off iMessage because with it enabled I always got double messages from him, one SMS and one iMessage which was annoying.

 

Also people whine too much over walled garden and don't appreciate enough how well that walled garden works when you're in it, down to simple things as how phone and smartwatch connect to each other. For example, when I had iPhone and Apple Watch, if they were both within same WiFi at home, even if phone was far away on the other end of the property, they were still connected and if I got a call, I got notification on watch almost anywhere at home. Galaxy Watch that I have now paired with Galaxy S23 Ultra, if I go just out of bluetooth range and they get disconnected and even though they are both also on same WiFi, they often don't connect or it's almost down to luck and not a reliable thing. And that is quite annoying.

 

Walled garden is only an issue if you invest so heavily into it. I haven't and only hard tied walled garden thing was Apple Watch to iPhone which just doesn't work with Android phones. I still use AirPods 2 with my Windows/Linux desktop computers and I actually never ever used them with my iPhone. Migration from iOS to Android was painless because I use 3rd party apps anyway which are found on both, iOS and Android, making my use and migration rather seamless. Only thing a bit fiddly was exporting my contacts, but there are apps that can do that for you so it was minor annoyance.

[porina]

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Just as a reminder this only applies to the EU market. You can bet that Apple will only comply in the EU and keep the walled garden everywhere else where no regulation against it exists.

I have wondered what could happen. Would EU get a special version, and ROW continues as before? If so, could they stop the EU version from escaping if it proved desirable for users in ROW? Hardware differences could hinder that, for example, if you make radio products that only met EU rules, but not elsewhere. But this would then also hinder roaming. It would still be simplest for a worldwide hardware platform to exist.

 

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also I do think you could even go so far as to say it would be illegal for apple to pull out of the EU as a publicly traded company because you are basically intentionally tanking your stock and not fulfilling your fiduciary duty as a publicly traded company. Your share holders would 100% sue over such stupid decision like this. 

IANAL but what exactly would actually be illegal? It is always on a traded company to persuade the shareholders what they do is the right thing. Not all shareholders will agree, but as long as enough agree, they can keep going.

 

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Apple objectively makes the fastest smartphone cpus and their phones are generally of very high quality. The os is definitely preferred by alot of people so if you really look at the biggest reason why people go android it's usually because they don't like the walled garden and want more customization and options which with this could actually be something possible on Apple phones. I don't doubt it would be the turning point for some. 

Don't underestimate the UI and ecosystem. I think that's the biggest reason Apple gets lock-in. Hardware matters comparatively little to normal people. I'm a long time Android main, but have had a work iPhone for some years, as well as owning an iPad and Mac Mini the past. I just don't like the Apple UI nor do I use its ecosystem, so even if Apple were made more open, I can't see myself switching back to them. I do use Google features regularly. While I had the iPad I ended up installing most of the Google apps on it, uninstalling the Apple ones I could, so apart from the UI it was closer to your average Android tablet than an iPad at that point. The UI was still a negative for me.

 

I have some non-tech friends who use iPhones. It's what they're used to. I don't think they have any reason to switch to Android. They might like the lower cost options, but they don't want to move from Apple.

 

Having said the above, I'm now left wondering, would these new requirements coming in make people switch where they otherwise wouldn't? I'm not sure. It may be more about allowing people to do more with their chosen platform, than moving to another one.

[williamcll]

I think the corps are just going to take the penalty and keep what they're doing. What are you gonna do, ban the site?

[LAwLz]

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Also people whine too much over walled garden and don't appreciate enough how well that walled garden works when you're in it, down to simple things as how phone and smartwatch connect to each other. For example, when I had iPhone and Apple Watch, if they were both within same WiFi at home, even if phone was far away on the other end of the property, they were still connected and if I got a call, I got notification on watch almost anywhere at home. Galaxy Watch that I have now paired with Galaxy S23 Ultra, if I go just out of bluetooth range and they get disconnected and even though they are both also on same WiFi, they often don't connect or it's almost down to luck and not a reliable thing. And that is quite annoying.

You're essentially looking at two cars, one red car, and a blue car, noting that the red car is faster, and then saying "People who buy blue cars don't understand that red cars are faster. Red cars are just better than blue cars".

 

There is nothing about it being a walled garden that makes something work better or worse. What you are describing is a good implementation, which is not inherent to it being a walled garden or not. A walled garden might have a poor software architecture that causes it to not work that well, just like an open standard can work really well. It's all down to implementation, it doesn't have anything to do with open vs walled gardens.

 

I don't see anything in this legislation that would force these companies to make their services worse. It's more about saying "hey, you're not allowed to put up roadblocks so that competing products become worse to artificially make your service seem better by bringing others down".

It's like being the fastest sprinter in school because you broke everyone else's legs with a hammer. You don't really get to say "but I won't be the fastest if you take away my hammer, so I am a victim here". If you really are that good then you should have no problem competing fairly, without kneecapping your opponents.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

There is nothing about it being a walled garden that makes something work better or worse. What you are describing is a good implementation, which is not inherent to it being a walled garden or not. A walled garden might have a poor software architecture that causes it to not work that well, just like an open standard can work really well. It's all down to implementation, it doesn't have anything to do with open vs walled gardens.

 

I don't see anything in this legislation that would force these companies to make their services worse. It's more about saying "hey, you're not allowed to put up roadblocks so that competing products become worse to artificially make your service seem better by bringing others down".

It's like being the fastest sprinter in school because you broke everyone else's legs with a hammer. You don't really get to say "but I won't be the fastest if you take away my hammer, so I am a victim here". If you really are that good then you should have no problem competing fairly, without kneecapping your opponents.

I would say, it depends.  When talking about walled garden approach, like iPhone, if let's say they now have to offer an app store other than themselves...and lets say Google opens their app store on iPhones.  There would be, I believe, a decent amount of people who would switch from to that.

 

Now Apple makes the majority of their money from the store, instead of selling the iPhone itself (relatively speaking).  If lets say they lose even 10% of their app revenue now, would they start increasing their price of their phones to compensate (as per $ it's still the most performing phone usually)...where one of the reasons for that is they don't have to worry as much about making a profit on their phones.

 

 

To hammer the point how in terms of why I do worry about some of this.  Imagine device drivers for Windows.  All of them need to effectively be signed by Microsoft.  Under the interoperability it means now that MS would have to either sign all drivers hardware makers submit, or provide a method for which drivers could be used, free of charge.

 

Apple, free of charge, has to provide ways then for Apps to also be charged...but depending how you interpret what they have written, it must be a simple effective way...so it's whether or not some judge would find putting up lots of warnings and making it more difficult to install 3rd party apps will be an issue.  If it's found that way, then I would argue it could undercut certain security aspects.

[Brooksie359]

15 hours ago, porina said:

I have wondered what could happen. Would EU get a special version, and ROW continues as before? If so, could they stop the EU version from escaping if it proved desirable for users in ROW? Hardware differences could hinder that, for example, if you make radio products that only met EU rules, but not elsewhere. But this would then also hinder roaming. It would still be simplest for a worldwide hardware platform to exist.

 

IANAL but what exactly would actually be illegal? It is always on a traded company to persuade the shareholders what they do is the right thing. Not all shareholders will agree, but as long as enough agree, they can keep going.

 

Don't underestimate the UI and ecosystem. I think that's the biggest reason Apple gets lock-in. Hardware matters comparatively little to normal people. I'm a long time Android main, but have had a work iPhone for some years, as well as owning an iPad and Mac Mini the past. I just don't like the Apple UI nor do I use its ecosystem, so even if Apple were made more open, I can't see myself switching back to them. I do use Google features regularly. While I had the iPad I ended up installing most of the Google apps on it, uninstalling the Apple ones I could, so apart from the UI it was closer to your average Android tablet than an iPad at that point. The UI was still a negative for me.

 

I have some non-tech friends who use iPhones. It's what they're used to. I don't think they have any reason to switch to Android. They might like the lower cost options, but they don't want to move from Apple.

 

Having said the above, I'm now left wondering, would these new requirements coming in make people switch where they otherwise wouldn't? I'm not sure. It may be more about allowing people to do more with their chosen platform, than moving to another one.

Shareholders have a right to sue if dumb decisions like this that could lead to them losing alot of money in the form of share prices which this absolutely would tank share prices. Also this can be a class action lawsuit or even one or major shareholders. Regardless if the majority of shareholders agree the other shareholders have the right to see for financial damages from such a stupid decision. Also most people won't go through the trouble of getting the European version and Apple definitely has a financial incentive to make it difficult for people to do so. They just need to make it as much as a hassle as possible to make most people not bother. 

[hishnash]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apple, free of charge, has to provide ways then for Apps to also be charged.

Yes of cource the biggest limitation on devs wanting to both with this is the rules do not stop apple from charing a rev share fee for developers that want to use apples SDK... shipping an app on apple without using thier SDK (however you distribute it) is not encomicly viable.

And the ruling to does not stop companies from charging for use of the SDK.   So yes devs will be able to install apps from other sources but they will still need to pay apple a rev share if they want to use any of apples SDKs (hint they will as building your app without it is 1000x more work).  Infact for apple this would mean more money as they can like Unreal engine charge a rev share based on total revenue including revenue made by ads (current apple does not take any cut of the money you make by display ads in your app). 

And saying you need to pay to use the SDK is not gate keeping, there is a LOT to the SDK that is user-space and optional, you could build and app using just the kernel space apis but you would need to do a lot more work, this law does not require apple to provide thier work to companies for free.

[wanderingfool2]

57 minutes ago, hishnash said:

And saying you need to pay to use the SDK is not gate keeping, there is a LOT to the SDK that is user-space and optional, you could build and app using just the kernel space apis but you would need to do a lot more work, this law does not require apple to provide thier work to companies for free.

Except it sort of is gatekeeping, and depending how one interprets it parts of the SDK would be part of the API...which does need to be offered free of charge.  If Apple were to be required to have their API access free of charge, which it is, and they control the hardware so also the compiler then I do think based on the rules that it might require them to offer the necessary tools to compile onto their system free of charge.