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.
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Afaik, this is all in software. Depending on the region you set up the watch in, the functionality may differ.
So unless you pretend to be in the EU (which you perhaps could do with VPN and a US bought device as well), the EU model will not help you.
EU is actually democratic - so both voters and national governments ultimately control it.
Oh yes, they will totally quit one of their biggest markets.
Which is the same as quitting - because no one in their right mind will buy such a crippled iDevice.
A 6 month provision after enactment to have everything done seems quite unreasonable. If all this comes to pass with little change, I predict the European versions of Android and iOS to be very problematic and buggy for some time to come.
When it comes to the services, we already have that.
Default apps are fine but default apps that cannot be uninstalled aren’t.
Some thoughts on that..
Presenting a list of options worked before. It would be nicer to have more options granted.
Even better solution: You could just download an .ipa binary from official TLS-enabled websites of each browser vendor.
“But people are too tech-illiterate to figure that out.”
- Well, they have the default App Store option for simple baby mode,
- and if they are that tech-illiterate, they statistically wouldn’t care about the nuances of browser engines in the first place.
It appears their options are to stop/limit business in the EU or make their own offering worse, lose competitive advantages and lose business regardless.
Oh I can’t wait to have to unfeck all my relatives phones after they sign up to god knows what and install some dodgy App Store from North Korea.
The more attention we give these grandstanding clueless lawmakers the more they will interfere with progress. It’s time to hit the ignore button and then watch them all go away.
About. Damn. Time. “Get up stand up, Stand up for your rights.” ?
I used to be against all of this, but ultimately changed my mind after countless examples of Apple’s censorship and frequent technical issues. Apple’s chokehold on NFC in iPhones is also a major disadvantage for their users.
Yes, it might lead to some malware - but it won’t be Apple’s responsibility anymore. If anything, they can use it as an extra advantage in their marketing - “Apple iCloud+ with extra safe App Store”.
Yes, it might lead to some malware - but it won’t be Apple’s responsibility anymore. If anything, they can use it as an extra advantage in their marketing - “Apple iCloud+ with extra safe App Store”.
You mean using the free, 90-day Let’s Encrypt TLS certificate that allows anyone to spin up a Secure HTTP server? Yeah, super secure. Way to go!
It won't be. If a service is built on end to end and sees that as their differentiator they aren't letting someone else in their sandbox. Which is good, because once a 3rd party has access to their keys then there is no more assurance of security.
I suspect Apple will get blamed and lawmakers demanding action when that happens.
I suspect this will have a lot of unintended consequences and collateral damage, which of course will be blamed on Apple.
One funny thought - will Epic have to allow side loading, open up their store to third parties and other payment systems? Valve?
You're likely to get the lowest common denominator feature set so while a plain SMS could be sent to a different app you're back to 1990's messaging.
Last edited:
This clueless Vestager please go away. My eyes are hurting.
Some of it seems reasonable, other parts seem like they have been drafted by a guy in a suit without any technological background like how would the whole interchangeable messenger thing even work. Messaging apps are different for a reason. They simply have a different feature set and what about end to end encryption. Is WhatsApp supposed to pay for the hosting that is needed to store attachements sent by iMessage users? It’s technically not even their user. How would I even agree of the TnC of app B if I am actually using app A and only send a text to someone on app B. Is the EU going to provide an API? (I doubt it. Also wouldn’t want it) So many questions
You are not in a minority. I paid for a few extra years to cancel The Times (London). It was impossible to get any response to e-mails and the phone number did not work.
It's really simple for Apple.
Allow a store to produce apps for the phone. However you don't get access to ANYTHING on the phone. No contacts, Camera, Photos, Map data, Any security stuff, Microphone, music, Limited single touch even. There is zip all reason they HAVE to allow any access to that.
So web apps.. which you can already do.
Done. Thanks Apple please pay me my Lawerly Fee of 1 Million dollars.
Allow a store to produce apps for the phone. However you don't get access to ANYTHING on the phone. No contacts, Camera, Photos, Map data, Any security stuff, Microphone, music, Limited single touch even. There is zip all reason they HAVE to allow any access to that.
So web apps.. which you can already do.
Done. Thanks Apple please pay me my Lawerly Fee of 1 Million dollars.
Remember to opt out from any class action when shady lawyers begin to point fingers towards Apple when blamed offering an insecure device that harvested data of your own children.
Isn't the UK looking to do something similar?
Apple Could Be Forced to Follow New Digital Competition Rules or Face Fines, Under UK Proposal
The U.K. government is today unveiling its plan to regulate tech giants, such as Apple, to ensure that the U.K's digital market, which includes...
www.macrumors.com
Actually regarding messages - how can they force something to be interoperable? Are they going to pay for developemnt on Andorid. I want iMessage on my Blackberry and Nokia 7310.... stamps feet.
I doubt they meant that. Let’s Encrypt is designed to secure transport layer point to point only. It’s not for vendor authentication, signing or user authentication.
If they did mean that then they don’t know squat about signing.
Nice EU, don’t let companies run roughshod over the people.