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

[avz]

Maybe I already have.

Then maybe be happy and don't tell others what they should be doing.

 

[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.

In other words, the authority (in this case the EU?) should start legislating laws that looks into every aspect of Microsoft's Windows businesses, since Windows is used by virtually all businesses and consumers in the world. To my knowledge this has not happened since the early 2000. Microsoft is only found guilty of monopoly abuses with existing laws. Is the revenue generated by the Windows OS smaller than iOS? Seems like a double standard to me.

Should the authorities start legislating that MS Windows must allow the install of macOS apps since MS Windows is so dominant, what will the poor consumer of the world do if they want to run Final Cut Pro when they have a Windows PC? Isn't the argument saying that consumers must have the rights to install anything they want on their equipment?

Or should the legislation start only when a small minority of entitled folks (possibly with fundings to the authority?) starts making noises, or when the authorities need to divert attentions so as to be seen solving a "problem"?

 

[webkit]

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.

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.

It can, but Apple hasn't been.

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

This is not so much about an opinion but rather the facts of how antitrust laws and regulations have long worked. Again, 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 monopoly in a particular market even if there are alternatives. A company can be charged with antitrust violations even if there are alternatives. Your mention of the AT&T situation is irrelevant to the broader role of antitrust laws and regulations that are being discussed here.

 

[webkit]

Yes. All powerful govts can do anything they want.

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

Not at all costs. It can depend on the government regulations but I don't like to see dominant companies being able to unfairly block competition. We may not have iPhones or some other Apple products today if not for antitrust regulations.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Didn't the EU mandate that EU copies of Windows must include a "browser ballot" because Microsoft bundled a browser with Windows?

So do they still mandate it today? Because Windows still comes bundled with a browser.

🤔

 

[webkit]

Didn't the EU mandate that EU copies of Windows must include a "browser ballot" because Microsoft bundled a browser with Windows?

So do they still mandate it today? Because Windows still comes bundled with a browser.

Under the agreement, I believe the "browser ballot" was only required for five years.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Under the agreement, I believe the "browser ballot" was only required for five years.

Then what was the point?

Imagine there's a problem... and the EU comes up with a solution to the problem.

But after 5 years... the solution is removed.

So was "bundled browser" really a problem in the first place? Like I said... Microsoft still bundles a browser today.

It sounds like the EU said to Microsoft: "You're doing a bad thing... so we're gonna throw a wrench in it for 5 years. But after those 5 years... you can go back to doing the bad thing again..."

🤔

 

[Atomic1977]

Just think both  and Microsoft both started in someone’s garage.

 

[I7guy]

This is not so much about an opinion but rather the facts of how antitrust laws and regulations have long worked. Again, 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 monopoly in a particular market even if there are alternatives. A company can be charged with antitrust violations even if there are alternatives. Your mention of the AT&T situation is irrelevant to the broader role of antitrust laws and regulations that are being discussed here.

The word people use is dominance. Microsoft is the dominant desktop system. There is virtually no competition. Apple is not the dominant cell phone manufacturer. There are literally dozens of manufacturers. Some with their own o/s.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In other words, the authority (in this case the EU?) should start legislating laws that looks into every aspect of Microsoft's Windows businesses, since Windows is used by virtually all businesses and consumers in the world.

I‘m not sure where your fixation on Microsoft comes from and why, but it’s Whataboutism.

Should the authorities start legislating that MS Windows must allow the install of macOS apps since MS Windows is so dominant, what will the poor consumer of the world do if they want to run Final Cut Pro when they have a Windows PC? Isn't the argument saying that consumers must have the rights to install anything they want on their equipment?

Don‘t be ridiculous.
The legislation was never about installing Android apps on iOS or vice versa.
It is about distributing and installing apps made for a platform.

Has Microsoft used technical means to prevent developers from developing and distributing Windows apps to consumers, and prevented the latter from installing and using them? Did Microsoft make themselves the single gatekeeper for Windows applications on their dominant platform and try to charge developers for every software sale? No, they didn’t.

So do they still mandate it today? Because Windows still comes bundled with a browser.

Their own browser product (Edge) with its market share of 10% or so isn’t a dominant product by any means. And they aren’t trying to push their proprietary web technologies (such as ActiveX, Silverlight) as they did with Internet Explorer years ago.

 

[quarkysg]

I‘m not sure where your fixation on Microsoft comes from and why but it’s Whataboutism.


Don‘t be ridiculous.
The legislation was never about installing Android apps on iOS or vice versa.
It is about distributing and installing apps made for a platform.

Has Microsoft used technical means to prevent developers from developing and distributing Windows apps to consumers, and prevented the latter from installing and using them? Did Microsoft make themselves the single gatekeeper for Windows applications on their dominant platform and try to charge developers for every software sale? No, they didn’t.


Their own browser product (Edge) with its market share of 10% or so isn’t a dominant product by any means. And they aren’t trying to push their proprietary web technologies (such as ActiveX, Silverlight) as they did with Internet Explorer years ago.

It is not whataboutism. This is about the principle of legislation. Why harp on mobile OS now, specifically targeting iOS, when for more than 30 years the Windows desktop OS has a dominant monopoly and the market it created is worth billions?

Do you know the reason?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is not whataboutism. This is about the principle of legislation. Why harp on mobile OS now, specifically targeting iOS, when for more than 30 years the Windows desktop OS has a dominant monopoly and the market it created is worth billions?

iOS isn‘t targeted specifically. No doubt Microsoft Windows will be considered a core platform service under the regulation, too.

Do you know the reason?

Microsoft has never engaged in the practices forbidden by the regulation as much as Apple. They never broadly prevented the distribution, installation and use of third-party applications on their OS by technical means. Their Microsoft Office document standard is openly documented and interoperable, even Exchange is.

Not sure about in-app purchases on the Microsoft Store, but then, honestly, this never was as dominant as the Duopoly of Google Play and Apple App Store on Mobile. There‘s no reason to believe we wouldn‘t have seen the regulation if Microsoft required going through their app store on Windows or the same market share as Google or Apple on mobile.

The word people use is dominance. Microsoft is the dominant desktop system. There is virtually no competition. Apple is not the dominant cell phone manufacturer.

As a side note, the Digital Markets Act is explicitly intended to also cover non-dominant actors:

„…existing Union law does not address, or does not address effectively, the challenges to the effective functioning of the internal market posed by the conduct of gatekeepers that are not necessarily dominant in competition-law terms.“

 

[quarkysg]

Microsoft has never engaged in the practices forbidden by the regulation as much as Apple.

Huh?! Why is Microsoft being fined while Apple has not?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Huh?! Why is Microsoft being fined while Apple has not?

Microsoft was fined according to existing laws and regulation.

Your question above was: "Why harp on mobile OS now, specifically targeting iOS, when for more than 30 years the Windows desktop OS has a dominant monopoly and the market it created is worth billions?"

I understand that with your question "Why harp on ... now, ... when for more than 30 years..." you were referring the new Digital Markets Act regulation imposed by the EU.

My answer: First, iOS isn't specifically targeted. Microsoft and their desktop OS will be too. Second, as to the "why now?": Microsoft has not striven to become the sole gatekeeper for applications on their Windows desktop OS.

Kind of... well, they did institute Store distribution requirements for their Universal Windows Platform apps. But only with Windows 10, long after Apple had proven the success of their app store. And, unsurprisingly, Epic's Tim Sweeney complained vocally about it. Microsoft recently backtracked to a position that's more comparable to Apple's on macOS, with their May 2020 Windows 10 update.

 

[webkit]

Then what was the point?

Imagine there's a problem... and the EU comes up with a solution to the problem.

But after 5 years... the solution is removed.

So was "bundled browser" really a problem in the first place? Like I said... Microsoft still bundles a browser today.

It sounds like the EU said to Microsoft: "You're doing a bad thing... so we're gonna throw a wrench in it for 5 years. But after those 5 years... you can go back to doing the bad thing again..."

I don't know what the behind the scenes discussions were at the time but the EU may have wanted to see what market conditions were in five years and then, if necessary, reinstate the mandate. As it turned out, Internet Explorer's share of the desktop browser market in Europe went from about 45% down to 17% during that five year period. Given this significant decline, they may have felt it unnecessary to reinstate the mandate but would continue to monitor the situation.

 

[webkit]

The word people use is dominance. Microsoft is the dominant desktop system. There is virtually no competition. Apple is not the dominant cell phone manufacturer. There are literally dozens of manufacturers. Some with their own o/s.

There are degrees of dominance and courts/antitrust laws and regulations sometimes assess dominance in varying ways. Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS within which apps are marketed.

 

[I7guy]

There are degrees of dominance and courts/antitrust laws and regulations sometimes assess dominance in varying ways. Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS within which apps are marketed.

Of course there are degrees. Every case is different , and there is no hard and fast rule.

Apple has not been shown to have the dominant position you speak of.

 

[monstermash]

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.

Except you can leave "Apple Country" anytime you want and go live in Android Land or Windows World.

With respect to actual countries, most people don't have the legal right to live in a different country. Of course, I grant you, that does not keep a lot of scum bags from living in a country they have no right to be in.

 

[monstermash]

Then maybe be happy and don't tell others what they should be doing.

I wish the EU would adopt this idea.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Except you can leave "Apple Country" anytime you want and go live in Android Land or Windows World.

The analogy isn't perfect. But suffice to say, most people don't easily move to another country.

With respect to actual countries, most people don't have the legal right to live in a different country

EU citizens are free to settle and live in more than 30 countries - thanks to the EU.

I wish the EU would adopt this idea.

I wish Apple would adopt this idea.

 

[quarkysg]

Microsoft was fined according to existing laws and regulation.

Your question above was: "Why harp on mobile OS now, specifically targeting iOS, when for more than 30 years the Windows desktop OS has a dominant monopoly and the market it created is worth billions?"

I understand that with your question "Why harp on ... now, ... when for more than 30 years..." you were referring the new Digital Markets Act regulation imposed by the EU.

My answer: First, iOS isn't specifically targeted. Microsoft and their desktop OS will be too. Second, as to the "why now?": Microsoft has not striven to become the sole gatekeeper for applications on their Windows desktop OS.

Kind of... well, they did institute Store distribution requirements for their Universal Windows Platform apps. But only with Windows 10, long after Apple had proven the success of their app store. And, unsurprisingly, Epic's Tim Sweeney complained vocally about it. Microsoft recently backtracked to a position that's more comparable to Apple's on macOS, with their May 2020 Windows 10 update.

It feels like we are going in circles.

The wordings in the DMA is clearly targeted at iOS, especially with the Gatekeeper keyword. And the reason is because a select few entitled "developers" feels that they should not be paying 30% to Apple for using Apple's platform and IPs for their business. To me, this is as simple as that. This has never been about competition in general, but no competition for the select few entitled "developers."

I predict the consoles "market" will be spared because the claims is that they can get software from multiple sources, ignoring the fact that all software for consoles comes from their "gatekeeper" blessings in the form of licensing fees.

Do not be surprised tho. that Apple's development toolkit will turn into another Windows OS platform or the console model. Apple will probably start charging developers an arm or a leg just to start developing for iOS/iPadOS/macOS/tvOS/watchOS, and still retain the kill switch due to security concerns. This will harm small and indie developers and remove competitions for big developers with big budgets, a.k.a. the Coalition of Apps Fairness. You can bet that Apple will factor in all the support cost that comes with all these new restrictions.

And I predict the end-game is that we will end up with subscriptions based apps or apps that costs $100s. Good old days right.

Who will then be inclined to develop innovative apps? If this happens, how will the consumers benefit?

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think what will happen is that both the iPhone and Android phones will allow third party app stores, but all the app stores must comply with App Store and Google Play store security rules. This would allow the like of Epic Games to set up their own app store for its own games under Apple and Google security rules; it may allow Amazon to finally set up its own payment process so the Amazon app can sell music and ebooks from the app itself.

 

[AppliedMicro]

We're indeed are going in circles.

And the reason is because a select few entitled "developers" feels that they should not be paying 30% to Apple for using Apple's platform and IPs for their business

No - they feel that they shouldn’t be „taxed“ on their revenue by Apple for basically doing nothing.
Apple just doesn't contribute or add 30% value to an video subscription or online dating service. The app developers use Apple‘s platform and IP as much as Apple is selling tons of devices with their app ecosystem. They difference being: Apple can shut off any developer by technical means (for the time being). And third-party developers can't shut down Apple, unless acting concertedly (which would probably be illegal in itself).

Apple are charging not for development or IP - they're mainly charging for "access", just because they can. They're for charging for gatekeeping, in other words.

Do not be surprised tho. that Apple's development toolkit will turn into another Windows OS platform or the console model. Apple will probably start charging developers an arm or a leg just to start developing for iOS/iPadOS/macOS/tvOS/watchOS

At this point, your argument basically amounts to:

Apple (and/or especially its App Store business) are greedy, anti-developer, anti-consumer, anticompetitive and anti-innovation.

…and we should let them keep doing what they do, lest we risk they act even worse.
That said, third-party iOS SDK are a thing.

and still retain the kill switch

“The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.“.

 

[quarkysg]

No - they feel that they shouldn’t be „taxed“ on their revenue by Apple for basically doing nothing.
Apple just doesn't contribute or add 30% value to an video subscription or online dating service. The app developers use Apple‘s platform and IP as much as Apple is selling tons of devices with their app ecosystem. They difference being: Apple can shut off any developer by technical means (for the time being). And third-party developers can't shut down Apple, unless acting concertedly (which would probably be illegal in itself).

Apple are charging not for development or IP - they're mainly charging for "access", just because they can. They're for charging for gatekeeping, in other words.

In other words, they feel entitled to leach off other's IP and hard work. This is essentially what you are saying correct.

Why are these "developers" still "developing" for iOS if they feel so strongly about it? iOS only has < 30% market share in EU. The Android platform has more than 60% marketshare. Why force the authorities to change one company's business model, which is not illegal by any measure in any country at the present moment?

Could it be that these "developer" think that they can make more money from iOS users compared to Android users? Do you think then think that these "developers" are greedy?

This has been debated countless times in this forum.

Can you identify any business that have invested an obscene amount of capital on their products and essentially giving it away without any revenue generating model? I have to admit I have not seen one yet.

At this point, your argument basically amounts to:

Apple (and/or especially its App Store business) are greedy, anti-developer, anti-consumer, anticompetitive and anti-innovation.

…and we should let them keep doing what they do, lest we risk they act even worse.
That said, third-party iOS SDK are a thing.

Lot's of big words there. Do you know what is the sole purpose of any for-profit company, especially a publicly listed one, for existing? To make the authorities to feel good about themselves? Let me give you a hint: it is growing top and bottom line quarter after quarter. Are you tellng everyone that the businesses in EU have a different objective for existing?

Are you now saying that the EU is not happy with Apple because they are "greedy"? They have been greedy all these while since they are in business. This is very evident with the prices they charge. So why now?

As for third-party iOS SDK, where do you think they get to produce the SDK from? Their own R&D? Let me give you another hint: it's named after a fruit. Is the third party iOS SDK FoC, open source SDK not-withstanding.

AFAICT, Apple has been doing tons of work to enable developers and consumers to enjoy developing and using their products. I do not see this accusation being true, except coming from a select few entitled "developers."

“The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.“.

Not sure you understand how Apple implements the kill switch. It does not prevent what has been quoted above. It just allows Apple to stop rouge apps from destroying your device, assuming you are using an iOS device. Win-Win-Win right?

 

[webkit]

I think what will happen is that both the iPhone and Android phones will allow third party app stores, but all the app stores must comply with App Store and Google Play store security rules.

Android already allows third party app stores. Does anyone know what security or other rules exist?