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

[AppliedMicro]

It depends on the OS design. Legislating how an OS should work is never the job of any regulatory bodies.

If that OS serves as a platform for thousands of highly diverse businesses and their access to dozens of millions of end users in a virtual duopoly, the business conduct of the platform owner should be regulated.

It‘s too important to society to leave its owner to exploit it in unfair and anticompetitive ways and business practices that inhibit innovation and competition.

And thankfully, legislators have begun to clamp down on such practices by stating explicitly the few ways an OS will not be allowed to work.

 

[quarkysg]

If that OS serves as a platform for thousands of highly diverse businesses and their access to dozens of millions of end users in a virtual duopoly, the business conduct of the platform owner should be regulated.

It‘s too important to society to leave its owner to exploit it in unfair and anticompetitive ways and business practices that inhibit innovation and competition.

And thankfully, legislators have begun to clamp down on such practices by stating explicitly the few ways an OS will not be allowed to work.

A smart phone is never a necessity, even in today's world. It is just a convenience.

 

[johnnytravels]

A smart phone is never a necessity, even in today's world. It is just a convenience.

Yes, much like a car is ‘just a convenience’. You can do all the transporting yourself and goods on foot, it just takes more time, effort, resources etc.
Yet all European countries have laws regulating what a car can and cannot be to be allowed to be used in public. And guess what: American car manufacturers are fine with it and don’t scream protectionism.
You are witnessing a large union of sovereign nations designing what they believe their digital world should be like. In 10-20 years it will be as if we never had these debates. Other countries can create whatever versions of the digital world they please (and countries like China already do on a big scale, and Apple is complying every f’ing time).

 

[maflynn]

A smart phone is never a necessity, even in today's world. It is just a convenience.

I would disagree, that its a convenience. I absolutely need it in my job and if I were to get rid of my smart phone, I'd have to carry multiple devices, like a dumb phone to be reachable. A pager so when things go down. A tablet or a laptop to take a look at things to determine a course of action.

 

[quarkysg]

Yes, much like a car is ‘just a convenience’. You can do all the transporting yourself and goods on foot, it just takes more time, effort, resources etc.
Yet all European countries have laws regulating what a car can and cannot be to be allowed to be used in public. And guess what: American car manufacturers are fine with it and don’t scream protectionism.
You are witnessing a large union of sovereign nations designing what they believe their digital world should be like. In 10-20 years it will be as if we never had these debates. Other countries can create whatever versions of the digital world they please (and countries like China already do on a big scale, and Apple is complying every f’ing time).

A car can kill you if it has defects. Nice try. Try harder.

 

[quarkysg]

I would disagree, that its a convenience. I absolutely need it in my job and if I were to get rid of my smart phone, I'd have to carry multiple devices, like a dumb phone to be reachable. A pager so when things go down. A tablet or a laptop to take a look at things to determine a course of action.

So it’s not an absolute need then.

 

[maflynn]

So it’s not an absolute need then.

Oh it is.

 

[johnnytravels]

A car can kill you if it has defects. Nice try. Try harder.

Even if you don't agree with my comparison, you can complain about the Eu all you want, I think they don't care... and tbh Congress is also on Apple’s ass for the same reasons, so I guess it's not even anti-American protectionism (unless of course Congress are also Anti-American at which point you might as well start making America great again and so forth)...

 

[webkit]

Apple never allowed sideloading.

As I said before, that's not really relevant here since what has changed is Apple's dominance in mobile OS. A function of antitrust laws and regulations is to try to keep companies with significant market power (like Apple has achieved) from engaging in potentially anticompetiive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

As I said before, that's not really relevant here since what has changed is Apple's dominance in mobile OS. A function of antitrust laws and regulations is to try to keep companies with significant market power (like Apple has achieved) from engaging in potentially anticompetiive behavior.

The difference between apple and AT&T is the people have a choice with mobile phones. In my own opinion that is not dominance, that is competitive. So while the eu lawmakers craftily crafted some language it is to the detriment of almost all involved.

 

[I7guy]

We call that installing software. It's weird that this word has tried to make something normal sound like something shady.. just stop it. I will install software on any device I own whether the maker approves or not.

Yes, that’s called sideloading. I can’t do it from windows, not anywhere else unless I jail break. But yeah there has to be be develop and test and this is it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A smart phone is never a necessity, even in today's world. It is just a convenience.

Neither is the internet a necessity or absolute need.
Nor having a phone. Or electricity.

 

[I7guy]

I would disagree, that its a convenience. I absolutely need it in my job and if I were to get rid of my smart phone, I'd have to carry multiple devices, like a dumb phone to be reachable. A pager so when things go down. A tablet or a laptop to take a look at things to determine a course of action.

One device to replace three sounds like a convenience. What is the requirement in todays day and age is cell phone service or WiFi. Without either of those a pager would seem like a technical marvel.

 

[I7guy]

Neither is the internet a necessity or absolute need.
Nor electricity.

Sure if you are talking about survival vs a robust economy. I mean we don’t really need cars either, horses used to do just fine.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What is the requirement in todays day and age is cell phone service or WiFi

Having WiFi or cell phone service is pointless if you don't have a mobile device to use its.

Sure if you are talking about survival vs a robust economy

I was being sarcastic in reply to quarkysg's statement above that smartphones are a mere "convenience".

They clearly aren't necessary for survival. And I don't think government should limit itself to regulating only matters of live and death (such as cars/driving mentioned to above).

Consumers and business users in efficient, modern and thriving economies will leverage smartphones for great economic benefit. And they will do so using third-party apps on their devices.

That's why, given the duopolistic nature of their OS and app distribution, these markets shouldn't be left unmonitored and unregulated by government (Just as the internet shouldn't. Imagine a local or regional duopoly of internet providers or cellular carriers cutting off access to Google's or Apple's services. Or Apple cutting off iOS devices from accessing Google's services, e.g. Maps, Search, Mail. I mean, "It's their platform, their IP, they can do with it what they want, can't they?").

👉 Whether you agree with the particular nature and kind of regulation that the EU imposes on so-called "gatekeepers" is a different (though obviously fervently debatable) question.

As is whether it needs to be regulated at all, given current market conditions. In which we have at least two dominant OS and App Stores competing with each other. And both of them allow third parties access quite broadly and openly - though far from free or without limitations and rules.

I can see why some would say that there's still enough choice and competition today and therefore reject additional specific regulation. It's a reasonable opinion (though I disagree).

Negating the importance of smartphones altogether in this day and age isn't though (in my opinion).

 

[webkit]

The difference between apple and AT&T is the people have a choice with mobile phones. In my own opinion that is not dominance, that is competitive. So while the eu lawmakers craftily crafted some language it is to the detriment of almost all involved.

Simply having alternatives is not necessarily enough. There were alternatives to Windows in desktop OS yet governments still came down on Microsoft for antitrust violations.

The reality is that a company can be declared a monopooly in a particular market even if there are alternatives. A company can be investigated for and charged with antitrust violations even if there are alternatives in the particular market. Monopoly/antitrust laws and regulations are not just about one company/AT&T-type scenarios.

 

[I7guy]

Simply having alternatives is not necessarily enough.

One of the things I get to do is vote. And I'll vote for the representative most aligned with my values. IMO, it is enough.

There were alternatives to Windows in desktop OS yet governments still came down on Microsoft for antitrust violations.

Microsoft did with a 95% percent of the desktop market unlike apple and the others which is split, did do some stuff which the regulatory bodies came down on them. Apple won (or didn't lose) in a court of law on this very thing.

The reality is that a company can be declared a monopooly in a particular market even if there are alternatives.

It can, but Apple hasn't been.

A company can be investigated for and charged with antitrust violations even if there are alternatives in the particular market. Monopoly/antitrust laws and regulations are not just about one company/AT&T-type scenarios.

A company can be investigated for anything. But it all has to go through due process and the government does not always win.

 

[I7guy]

Having WiFi or cell phone service is pointless if you don't have a mobile device to use its.

Before all this stuff was crammed into a cell phone, you could get a cell phone dongle that attached to a usb port (or used wifi starting in 1999). Back in the day I used a windows laptop with a cellular dongle. And for heavy work a laptop is far superior to a cell phone.

I was being sarcastic in reply to quarkysg's statement above that smartphones are a mere "convenience".

I missed the /s.

They clearly aren't necessary for survival. And I don't think government should limit itself to regulating only matters of live and death (such as cars/driving mentioned to above).

I agree fully. But where we probably will disagree is the line at which government should stop poking it's nose into things. That's why we vote for representatives that align with our interests.

Consumers and business users in efficient, modern and thriving economies will leverage smartphones for great economic benefit. And they will do so using third-party apps on their devices.

Many also use browsers.

That's why, given the duopolistic nature of their OS and app distribution, these markets shouldn't be left unmonitored and unregulated by government (Just as the internet shouldn't. Imagine a local or regional duopoly of internet providers or cellular carriers cutting off access to Google's or Apple's services. Or Apple cutting off iOS devices from accessing Google's services, e.g. Maps, Search, Mail. I mean, "It's their platform, their IP, they can do with it what they want, can't they?").

This is one of those things that I said above we will not agree on.

👉 Whether you agree with the particular nature and kind of regulation that the EU imposes on so-called "gatekeepers" is a different (though obviously fervently debatable) question.

Yes, I agree.

As is whether it needs to be regulated at all, given current market conditions. In which we have at least two dominant OS and App Stores competing with each other. And both of them allow third parties access quite broadly and openly - though far from free or without limitations and rules.

Yes again.

I can see why some would say that there's still enough choice and competition today and therefore reject additional specific regulation. It's a reasonable opinion (though I disagree).

Negating the importance of smartphones altogether in this day and age isn't though (in my opinion).

Smartphones are hear to stay and not everything that can be done on a smartphone can be done on a laptop and vice-versa. However, it's my contention, that many companies who use a smartphone for their proprietary business processes, do their research before hand so they app and platform will be successful.

 

[4743913]

Yes, that’s called sideloading. I can’t do it from windows, not anywhere else unless I jail break. But yeah there has to be be develop and test and this is it.

AltStore and TrollStore work great for installing software on devices that are not jailbroken. But this is an extra step that should not be necessary.

 

[I7guy]

AltStore and TrollStore work great for installing software on devices that are not jailbroken. But this is an extra step that should not be necessary.

Of course corporate enterprise certificates, legal and illegal (according to Apple TOS) as valid ways to install apps from other stores. However, the TOS is fairly strict and I hosted an app on a corporate app store years ago, it was expensive. (ie not free as can be done through the ios app store)

 

[monstermash]

I would disagree, that its a convenience. I absolutely need it in my job and if I were to get rid of my smart phone, I'd have to carry multiple devices, like a dumb phone to be reachable. A pager so when things go down. A tablet or a laptop to take a look at things to determine a course of action.

But it isn't a necessarily that you do that job...you could do something else.

 

[monstermash]

Simply having alternatives is not necessarily enough. There were alternatives to Windows in desktop OS yet governments still came down on Microsoft for antitrust violations.

The reality is that a company can be declared a monopooly in a particular market even if there are alternatives. A company can be investigated for and charged with antitrust violations even if there are alternatives in the particular market. Monopoly/antitrust laws and regulations are not just about one company/AT&T-type scenarios.

Yes. All powerful govts can do anything they want.

It's why all powerful govts should be avoided at all costs.

 

[avz]

Yes. All powerful govts can do anything they want.

It's why all powerful govts should be avoided at all costs.

Maybe you should start your own "country" with the weak government where "anything goes"?

 

[monstermash]

Maybe you should start your own "country" with the weak government where "anything goes"?

Maybe I already have.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yes. All powerful govts can do anything they want.

It's why all powerful govts should be avoided at all costs.

The irony in this being (and I'm not saying this for the first time) that the iOS platform with its App Store works very similar.

It's the equivalent of large country that being governed by one powerful authoritarian government (Apple), That judges whats good or bad for its citizens. Makes its own laws and regulations. And enforces their laws against citizens and taxes them. Often using external threats to denying choice to citizens and businesses. And the phrase "just use Android instead then" is the equivalent of telling someone to "move to Canada or Mexico, if you don't like it".

It really is astonishing:

I mean... I can kind of get people that want to blissfully live their lives in "obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom" to enjoy the security and stability of living in a secure walled garden provided by powerful government.

I can't understand it when they claim to be so against authoritarian government - yet cherish a billion dollar corporation that's acting exactly like one.