Don’t care about emulators. I do care about not being restricted on doing what I want to do with my gear. I care about the freedom to develop software for the greater good, without it being subject to ‘laws’ from the guy I bought my phone from. I care about not being controlled by a major corporation. I care about a major corporation learning their place in the governance of the world.JFC, see post #77, point #2. Why open a mobile store for only a portion of the market?
I guess y'all are the only ones with any valid points and concerns, everyone else is a scared sheep.
As long as you get your precious side loaded emulators F everyone else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.
- Thread starter Sophisticatednut
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Then buy a phone and install open source software on it. Otherwise, you are paying a corporation to make decisions for you. That's not control. That's what we pay for.
And I care about supporting the continued existence of a unique ecosystem, unlike all the rest. It would be great if the Mac app store operated the same way as iOS but I don't think that will ever happen.
If you don't want to be controlled you have options. Those of us who appreciate the above will not have any options if the ecosystem is legislated out of existence.
Again with Apple being E-Corp? Are you out there trying to force Google to stop creepin and stalkin?
P.S. - What, if I may ask, is this software for the greater good that Apple is preventing or limiting you from writing?
Why not, if there's money to be made? Is 72% of the mobile market not enough? Or does the market suddenly become much smaller, when it's tactically convenient to discuss revenue instead?
I guess y'all are the only ones with any valid points and concerns, everyone else is a scared sheep.Why you all rely on that veiled insult instead of just discussing the topic is beyond me.
We are discussing the topic, you just don't like what people are saying.
As long as you can sleep soundly in your pen at night, F everyone else.
Posts #87 and #93, these replies were all made to you, why do you keep asking the same questions? Just because Android has that percentage world wide I believe the majority of money spent in a store or IAP is with Apple.
You are right, I don't like the constant "don't be scared" veiled insults. That is not discussing a topic, that is trying to belittle those that don't agree with you.
Not at all, you have somewhere to go for the freedom you seek. If the Apple app store becomes fragmented and legislated out of existence where should should someone who wants a one stop shop go? I'll wait. Forgive me if I don't hold me breath for a well thought out, civil response.
I don’t use Google anything. I can’t stand them. I like Apple and have been using Apple products for decades.
But Apple have become something else.
Nothing, im not a developer. But some of the open source software I can use on my GrapheneOS device is something else. Plus, why does Apple decide whether of not I can use an app for my perfectly legal vape on my iPhone?
I have and I do, thanks though.
On this we can agree.
As far as what Apple is or has become... I can't speak to that. I have come late to this side after being in IT from 1990 - 2005 I was deeply in with Microsoft and was mad when I had to do a yearly project to see if bringing Macs into our company made sense. Every year the answer was no. Fast forward a bit to my first iPhone (a 4s) and my first Mac in 2017, I only know what they have been lately and I appreciate it for what it is and have increased my number of devices knowing full well what the boundaries are and how it differs from other stores and ecosystems.
On this we can agree too, I'm just not willing to "burn it all down" for a relatively useless app, game emulators or streamers or pr0nz (these are the things I hear people wishing for). As much as I love my Pax I believe the app just show you the temp (we might not be talking about the same vape app)? More of a toy than anything which makes me wonder if they were collecting data with it.
It’s a geekvape, but regardless of the brand - all vape apps are banned. I don’t care about the app, it’s probably a gimmick I agree. But it’s the principal. Apples deemed vaping is bad for me so it can’t exist on my phone.
That just gets me going that does. How can it not?!
I think it’s a massive deal and a massive overstep. I’m not a child.
I thought this for years, I have only recently changed my opinion (a full 180 to be honest), you would see from my post history.
But I have snapped. And now something is finally trying to do something about it, and Apples response is absolutely awful. Controlling, patronising and frankly embarrassing.
They are not looking out for ‘us’ - absolutely no matter what they say.
Yup, I agree and am actually a bit perturbed as well, an 18+ or 21+ section of the store solves that problem. I guess the difference is I don't NEED any of the things Apple is limiting us on enough that it outweighs what I perceive as the benefits of the ecosystem. YMMV of course.
Fair enough, we all have a point where something pushes us over the edge.
I really cannot fault Apple for trying to hold on to what they built, any company would. As many point out here on MR from time to time, Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders. If they just bent over and gave up on their revenue streams without a fight heads would roll. As best I can tell and I'm no lawyer, thank god, Apple has complied with the DMA in a way that best protected their interests, who wouldn't? Those that were expecting better results are understandably disappointed but you can't just expect Apple to give up, that would be silly.
JFC, see post #77, point #2. Why spend the time and money to open a mobile store for only a portion of the market?
I guess y'all are the only ones with any valid points and concerns, everyone else is a scared sheep.
As long as you get your precious side loaded emulators F everyone else.
What? Tell that to Samsung, OnePlus, Motorola, etc… with their alt stores.
There are a number of reasons to open an alt store.
Fair enough. I actually feel the same on one level. On the iPhone at least.
It’s not in the least bit surprising and I’ve made similar points myself. But all the more reason to use the law to force companies to do the right thing. They’re clearly not going to do so spontaneously.
Well you seem to agree, considering the same logical argument is used for both instances, you just don't like it being used against you. Just replace apple with developer and the App Store with alternative stores.
your walled garden is still left intact, how is developers being able to leave and users being able to choose to follow them a threat to you? It seems you think you developers have an obligation to stay on the App Store.
Just like the Mac App Store is still intact, developers just don't want to use it because it's a terrible service.
i would need to sell my phone and get an android phone with all the downgrades for a single feature? nah
no, as i don't use android nor care for them, EU is still helping with the stalking issue already so it's a non issue.
so no I'm not worried about my privacy considering EU and their electorate care about privacy.
In the realm of the EU and DMA, ran into this little item…
Right thing? Who gets to determine what is right? To bureaucrats the only indication of what is "right" is the direction the political or lobbyist winds($$$) are blowing.
IMHO most iOS customers are quite content with the walled garden and do not want to have 10 app store accounts or accounts on every random web site to buy or update apps like we do in the PC/Mac world. Updates on my Mac are a PITA compared to my iPhone.
Most smartphone users have little to no clue about walled or unwalled. They only know the App Store or Play Store / OEM Store. They don’t realize that OEM play stores result in “unwalled”. When they look for a specific app, they just wonder why Android or iOS don’t carry it. I wouldn’t called unknowing being “content”. More like uneducated.
Whelp, there are no stats available for either of us but I will re-phrase:
Ask the average iOS user if they would prefer:
One app store for:
- Comparing apps
- Privacy scorecards
- Downloading
- Paying
- Upgrading/updating
- Customer service
Multiple app stores for:
- The likes of Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Epic, Steam, etc., each requiring your personal information and credit card info
- All devs that offer downloads only from their site, each requiring your personal information and credit card information
- Comparing apps over the web with no uniform appearance or reviews, search results much more likely to be "pay to play" especially for those dumb enough to use a Google search for their apps
- No privacy scorecards, only a small book of legalese in an EULA
- Trusting each individual store or dev to have a reputable payment processor that isn't going to get hacked tomorrow... lots of big names out there that have been hacked
- Needing to update apps individually (or by store)
I think you need anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint to be viewed as "uneducated" in order to support your narrative.
Last edited:
Wow! I’m not sure if you really believe what you are posting or ….
I have several “stores” I procure from in Android today and do not have the update issues you allude to.
As for searching, that’s what I do for iOS today; use Google. The App Store is a nightmare when trying to find a solution (app) for my needs. Google (or Bing, or DDG) are so much easier. Playing with Arc atm and this looks promising.
People know about their device what gets advertised and what gets passed around by WOM. Then they learn. Maybe. Can’t remember the last time I saw an Apple advertisement mentioning “Walled Garden” and how great it is.
Watching some news videos and when I watched this it reminded me of this thread and the concern over allowing alt stores and sideloading and the possibility of negatively affecting the user.
Note time stamps 1:24 and 2:33.
Walled safe garden. Hasn’t been for quite a while.
Note time stamps 1:24 and 2:33.
Walled safe garden. Hasn’t been for quite a while.
…managing their subscription in-app.
Without paying 30% more.
Oh, and payment by PayPal.
Amazon has my payment information anyway, and Meta has data.
And developers don’t require my credit card when I pay by PayPal.
Which has two factor-authentication. Just like credit/debit cards.
Lots of people buy lots of things online safely and securely.
Users were perfectly happy with this and the DMA seeks a solution for something that wasn’t a problem... otherwise, iOS market share would’ve plummeted ages ago.
You want a million app stores? Buy an Android. You want MacOS on an iPad? Buy a Mac. It’s that simple. Leave those of us who are happy with the current situation alone instead of affecting everyone for a small minority who can’t be bothered to buy something else.
Do you know what the funny part is? That this garbage law doesn’t even force Apple’s hand on two of the most damaging things they do:
Not providing Safari updates on older iOS versions (you can now download something else, but it’s not the same)
Disallowing downgrading, and therefore allowing Apple to obliterate every single iOS device in existence if enough time elapses. The DMA? Silent about downgrading. Very logical.
You want a million app stores? Buy an Android. You want MacOS on an iPad? Buy a Mac. It’s that simple. Leave those of us who are happy with the current situation alone instead of affecting everyone for a small minority who can’t be bothered to buy something else.
Do you know what the funny part is? That this garbage law doesn’t even force Apple’s hand on two of the most damaging things they do:
Not providing Safari updates on older iOS versions (you can now download something else, but it’s not the same)
Disallowing downgrading, and therefore allowing Apple to obliterate every single iOS device in existence if enough time elapses. The DMA? Silent about downgrading. Very logical.
The problem is the cut that smartphone platform owners want to take from subscriptions to services, if purchased via apps. Simply due to the fact the app was downloaded from the only store allowed on the platform.
Services like Spotify, that compete directly with those of the platform owner (e.g. Apple Music or YouTube Music) have two unpleasant options. Either they give their customers the convenience of paying for the service through the app, in which case the platform owner takes a cut (15-30%, depending on platform). Or their customer needs to leave the app and subscribe via the service's website - all without the service being allowed to even hint that this is possible. Even if they do so, adding friction to a sale will naturally result in less customers. Either way, the platform owner gets an unfair advantage for its service.
If you want to argue this isn't much of an advantage, you might want to ask yourself why platform owners are so insistent on maintaining the status quo. If most customers know how to sign up to services directly - and can be bothered to do so - then this policy wouldn't generate much revenue for the platform owner. In that case, why pointlessly inconvenience the platform's customers? The truth is, it generates a ton of revenue - and as smartphone lifecycles have lengthened, Services has become an increasingly significant piece of the pie.
In the early days of the app stores, Apple and Google's positions were more defensible. They were putting a lot of effort into building their platforms, and deserved to reap the rewards. And they did - they're both among the richest companies in the world. But as time goes on, and smartphones have become less a luxury and more a fixture of modern life, it's worth revisiting the situation. Allowing these companies to have the sole app stores on their respective platforms essentially gives them a license to print money.
Google happens to be more open than Apple, because their business is selling advertising space, and Android largely exists to stop Apple having a total monopoly on the smartphone market (and hence mobile browsing). If Google had left it to the likes of Samsung, Nokia or Microsoft to create alternative smartphone platform(s) to Apple, it would have been game over 15 years ago. So they developed and gave away an OS for free, to anyone who wanted it, and didn't object to manufacturers creating their own app stores. Google still tries to deter users from using alternatives to the Play Store, they just have a (much) weaker hand there than Apple.
In terms of iOS, the problem tends to be 'invisible' to the consumer, in that the unfairness most directly affects the companies trying to compete with Apple on Apple's platform. The result for the consumer of weaker competition is higher fees and less innovation than there otherwise would be. Without the counterfactual of a more open iOS, though, it's hard to know what you're missing. The iOS platform matters, not just because it's our chosen platform, but because at 2/3 of mobile app revenue, and 3/4 of subscription revenue, it's by far the most important mobile marketplace.
I still haven't seen a convincing argument over why this is an unfair advantage. Apple spends billions on building a platform. Spotify would pay a tiny fraction of that. How is Apple at an advantage?
Apple spent billions on building its platform; I doubt maintaining it costs that. Sure, Apple Silicon design / manufacture is expensive, but so are iPhones (as is Qualcomm's R&D, and upmarket Android phones). One would need to define what counts as 'platform', as a certain proportion is arguably paid for directly by the sale of iPhones themselves.
Regardless of the above, the point is that Spotify are just one example. Individually, they only contribute a small fraction of the costs of the iOS / iPhone platform; it's the aggregate of huge numbers of such services that brought in around $33bn of iOS app subscription revenue in 2024. Games brings in 60% of mobile app spending overall; given most are free, that presumably means in-app purchases, of which Apple gets 30%.
Advertising is also becoming an increasingly large source of revenue, but that's probably another conversation.
The advantage I was alluding to in terms of Apple Music, is that whilst Spotify's would have to give Apple 30% of its iOS subscription revenue, Apple gets to keep 100% of the money it makes from Apple Music. In practice, Spotify have refused that deal, so aren't able to provide subscriptions through their iOS app, presumably at some detriment to their business.
Last edited: