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

[SactoGuy18]

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

While that might work for Android, Apple may want every App Store to have the same security criteria, even if the "cut" to the App Store may be lesser than what Apple wants.

 

[webkit]

While that might work for Android, Apple may want every App Store to have the same security criteria, even if the "cut" to the App Store may be lesser than what Apple wants.

Apple may very well want something different but given that Android already allows third party app stores, I was curious if there were any rules in place there. For example, does Google/Android currently require alternative app stores to "comply with Google Play store security rules" as you had suggested might happen going forward.

 

[tranceme]

Yes. Yes you are.

So by your statement: If Apple does AppStore so well, they shouldn’t have to fear having to open the operating system to third parties.
Unless what they are actually doing so well is gatekeeping access to selling software on iOS.

Sure. Why? They created the iPhone and their app store. Spent years working on this. Also, since I'm very aware of costs to run infrastructure to host services, this is not cheap.

 

[tranceme]

No. They are regulating certain companies based on market power.

As a citizen and consumer, it feels very good to know that even the biggest megacorporations' powers aren't unlimited and unchecked. When thousands of businesses and dozens of millions of end users have built upon and depend on their products and services.

In the case of Apple or Google, the two alone been rewarded for their success with billions of dollars in earnings from the EU alone over the last 15 years or so since the advent of smartphones. And they will most likely continue to do so, regulation or not.

Cry me a river.

When you can earn (or you have earned already) billions of dollars in Europe, a little regulation isn't going to stop businesses from operating in that market or innovating.

LOL. You argument is that they made billons of dollars. Doesn't matter if you make one dollar and billions. That is exactly my point. The EU is unfair. They look for companies that can afford to be fined.

As a consumer, you have more power by not buying the solution. I simply don't buy it. You forget that there are choices. You don't have to buy an iPhone.

 

[webkit]

The EU is unfair. They look for companies that can afford to be fined.

They look for companies which, in their regulatory opinion, have a dominant position in a market and are using that position/market power to unfairly restrict or block competition. It just so happens that dominant companies are typically also wealthy companies but it's not about the wealth per se, it's about the dominance and anticompetitive behavior.

 

[AppliedMicro]

LOL. You argument is that they made billons of dollars.

I never advocated to regulate companies solely because they’re making (tons of) money. It‘s only undesired (e.g. anticompetitive or anti-innovative) practices that should be regulated. And yes, government should only focus on companies that have attained a certain market power.

But since you seemed so concerned about feelings, that’s what I replied to:

As developer, it doesn't feel good to know if you do something very well, the EU will eventually come down on you.

I‘m confident that having raked in billions of dollars should and will assuage such bad feelings.

Only a handful of developers will be covered by this regulation - and lawmakers shouldn’t let their feelings dissuade them from passing such legislation.

They look for companies that can afford to be fined.

There’s not much to add to what webkit said. The companies covered can operate their European businesses as required by the regulation, in which case they won‘t be fines (though they may incur costs to comply, yes).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because the original comment was about apps in general. Then you moved the goalposts to iOS apps. And yet in the entire paragraph that you quoted, there is nothing to imply that platform rules and fees are outlawed for gatekeepers. Because "fair" doesn't mean the lowest possible price. It simply means that prices are similar to the competition. As you pointed out, it falls towards the low end of similar stores. And, of course, none of those solutions costs zero. "Your own solution" still has costs, (credit card fees at a minimum.)

The comment is still about apps in general. iOS apps goes against the rule.

Same way apple can’t enforce a fee on apps sold on a Mac. Or Windows can’t force a fee on windows apps.

iOS doesn’t need Xcode to have app’s developed.

Fair means you have options. Currently only one option exist with arbitrary liberty for some. Reader apps, normals apps and buying a train ticket on the apps who pays zero commission isn’t functionally different from any app offering gold coins.

You can’t comm

Because the original comment was about apps in general. Then you moved the goalposts to iOS apps. And yet in the entire paragraph that you quoted, there is nothing to imply that platform rules and fees are outlawed for gatekeepers. Because "fair" doesn't mean the lowest possible price. It simply means that prices are similar to the competition. As you pointed out, it falls towards the low end of similar stores. And, of course, none of those solutions costs zero. "Your own solution" still has costs, (credit card fees at a minimum.)

Fair has nothing to do with price but a ces to customer

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because the original comment was about apps in general. Then you moved the goalposts to iOS apps. And yet in the entire paragraph that you quoted, there is nothing to imply that platform rules and fees are outlawed for gatekeepers. Because "fair" doesn't mean the lowest possible price. It simply means that prices are similar to the competition. As you pointed out, it falls towards the low end of similar stores. And, of course, none of those solutions costs zero. "Your own solution" still has costs, (credit card fees at a minimum.)

The comment is still about apps in general. iOS apps goes against the rule.

Apps aren’t interchangeable between platforms

Same way apple can’t enforce a fee on apps sold on a Mac. Or Windows can’t force a fee on windows apps.

iOS doesn’t need Xcode to have app’s developed.

Fair means you have options. Currently only one option exist with arbitrary liberty for some. Reader apps, normals apps and buying a train ticket on the apps who pays zero commission isn’t functionally different from any app offering gold coins

Yeah, but the chart says “Who owns who” as in “You’d be surprised to find out how far these tendrils extend!” Maybe it should have instead been “What technology companies have been purchased by these other technology companies”. While it would have been a more boring… ohhh, answered by own question. The hyperbolistic “Who owns who” is far more clickbaity and would have more folks copying and pasting it.

Well for me it’s more how much of things are just owned by a few companies and tendency for them to just buy up everything.

It only prevents a Google competitor in the EU. The EU is now (not “now” now, but, if things go as some think) locked-in at a governmental level with whoever the top players are today. Their rules essentially communicates to any tech companies that it’s beneficial for you NOT to be popular in the EU. Stay small, under the radar OR out of the EU, and you gain/maintain quite a wide swath of flexibility as to how to run and grow your business.

The thing is how is it not beneficial? Not being allowed to be anti competitive? With these laws now Samsung can implement android however they want without Google demanding anything.

Any phone manufacturer have just been granted freedom from Google to include anything they want without being forced to bundle things.

What’s communicated is these actions they have listed are unwanted

Google and Apple may likely see competition OUTSIDE of the EU, but, due to the Gatekeeper rules, whatever that competition is would be wise to skip the EU to avoid the regulation and all of the overhead of trying to make their small upstart company connect to EVERYONE else’s network… on TOP of just trying to make their customers happy.

It’s no more overhead than how a browser works. you must meet many stringent criteria’s.

No new standard is needed, you just allow access to your protocol or a third party protocol. And you must be extremely successful to be considered a gatekeeper.

99% of companies won’t ever meet the criteria

ABSOLUTELY agreed! Just like it’ll be good for companies that leave for not wanting to respect DMA.

Indeed. Privacy is important, if you don’t want to respect it then you should leave. If you don’t want to respect laws you should leave and allow other to take your place.

Steam would not make gaming better on iOS. OR, do you assume that, overnight, teams that are well versed in releasing games specifically for Windows and Linux x86 systems (with keyboards and mice) would magically become adept at developing iOS games?

That’s not what would happen. Steam is a game store. Any developer can release games on it. X86 and Linux games etc wouldn’t be available on iOS.

Just how Windows games aren’t available on the Mac versions.

Steam would make gaming better by allowing a more diverse game types.
Steam allows any game content that is legal and Steam Greenlight is a platform that allows active Steam users to vote on indie titles they wish to see showcased on its site. For a small submission fee, any indie developer can upload their game to the service.

iOS don’t have that. Steam also allows you to pay for one game that runs in all platforms. Compare that to for example the Macappstore, you buy a Mac game, and if you want to play on windows or Linux you would need to purchase it separately.

However, if they were in the EU of the future, that CPU architecture would be forced to have features that were not beneficial to Intel’s business, but what the government felt were vital. And Tesla’s batteries would be forced to adhere to voltages and delivery methods tied in the past, unable to innovate. And Samsung’s modems and screen technology would be some iteration of what some regulator thought was the best thing to deliver. Fortunately for ALL those companies, they were not founded in the EU!

ARM was founded in UK in EU.
And ASML Holding is in the Netherlands, making it possible for inte, AMD or TSMC to manufacture the current chips.

EU construct and manufacture many of the fundamental parts of technology.

And Tesla is forced with everyone else to use CCS typ 2 as the charging cable. They are forced to support 240v.
Samsung modems are forced to follow the telecommunication guidelines on the radio spectrum etc etc. this is in every country.

You think EU regulations cover things they never touch. This isn’t USA where they micromanage everything.

Good point! Because history shows that there are NO governments that didn’t care for their constituents! They ALL always had a free choice of where to live, whom to marry, what religion to worship and the borders were always open and free.

… not an argument. Government bad essentially

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There are comment periods on all proposed regulations, and somehow they still catch a dozing industry by surprise. The EU has banned so many noxious chemicals that we are exposed to every day, and that ticks off industry and their cadres of well paid lobbyists. The EU is by and large a good thing, but their actions can sting a little from time to time.. *shrug* I felt in college majoring in government that what the world needs is some consistency, someone 'leading', someone watching out for the people over the corporate jaundiced eye. Hmm... I do feel they should stay out of the bits that differentiate different vendors. Android, risky; iOS safer, training wheels.

In the last paragraph.
iOS and android is still different.
This is a question of ownership.

The AppStore is a service you choose to use. But the iPhone is yours. And you should have the ability to install things you want. It’s not a daycare

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Hopefully we will be able to easily block the third party messages. I have no interest in being flooded with more spam and garbage by people who will use this as a gateway into iMessage.

Well what I can find it seems apple have 5-10% market share. With WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and telegram dominating the market.

 

[monstermash]

Would be funny if the EU bans Twitter and then people can sideload it anyway because EU makes this stupid law (;

 

[byke]

I wonder if we could ever see Apple taking a creative approach to the EU?

If Apple offered a bootcamp option, which allowed people to install a different OS (such as Android, linux etc) by their own choice.

It would allow owners of devices to still be able to do what they like with their hardware.

But also 'protect' the integrity of the wall garden, as long as apple didn't allow any cross pollination between the boot options.

And if Apple offered owners the possibility to be able to wipe their device in store, allowing them to use all of their device for another OS of their choice and installation. Then maybe the argument could be made that Apple wouldn't need to adhere to EU authoritarianism , as owners had full control over what they owned while the iOS Intellectual Property of the software and walled garden still remained in the hands of Apple which offers such for free or with subscription.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If Apple offered a bootcamp option, which allowed people to install a different OS (such as Android, linux etc) by their own choice...

Keep in mind that hardware devices aren't covered by the legislation.
Operating systems and app stores though squarely are:

"The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services" [= app store] "of the gatekeeper."

"The gatekeeper shall allow end users to access and use, through its core platform services" [= operating system!], "content, subscriptions, features or other items, by using the software application of a business user, including where those end users acquired such items from the relevant business user without using the core platform services" [= app store] "of the gatekeeper."

👉 Gatekeepers will have to (limitedly and as long as they're big and powerful enough) open up their operating systems and app stores. Not their devices for other OS.

So your suggestion would only work if millions of users dropped iOS for another OS so thatiOS falls below the "gatekeeping" threshold. I don't think there's great customer demand on iPhones for that, and neither is it in Apple's interest. Cause they couldn't sell apps to those customers.

(Oh, and, just in case, before you get even more creative and think of ways how Apple could split up their services and OS into different variations/flavours/remixes etc. - e.g., selling essentially the same OS and offering the same app stores under different names and companies/subsidiaries or the like - look at the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMA first.)

 

[AppliedMicro]

"Mobile apps have become an essential tool for participation in much of daily life. Two companies – Apple and Google – act as gatekeepers over the apps that people and businesses rely on

(...)

Operators should lift restrictions on alternative ways for consumers to download and install apps. While still preserving appropriate latitude for privacy and security safeguards, legislative and regulatory measures should prohibit restrictions on sideloading, alternative app stores and web apps."

...finds and recommends the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).