It also explains why EU is trying to handicap american companies. Good video though.
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 Rivals Unite to Promote Open Ecosystems Using EU Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I literally did not make any point for you.
DO you think the average consumer is thinking of things like E2EE? You guys keep throwing that around but you are only thinking of yourself aka people who know what that is.
To the average consumer (we are using America) they simply want to text.
IMessage was created long before RCS was mainstream and Apple has every right to make and keep it for their platform. Just like BBM with Blackberry.
Sure, apple should evolve their messaging protocol but not at the expense of their product or their customerbase who are really not affected. It's an android issue since android fanboys are the ones complaining.
I won't say handicap as much as the EU seems like they are trying to ensure that their own tech companies are assured a seat at the table.
I am reminded of a saying. There is good in bad, there is bad in good. No doubt the EU has a number of good laws like GDPR that aim to better protect the privacy of its people, but at the same time, it feels to me like it would be impossible for anything within the EU to create a new social network while adhering to its requirements. They simply lack the resources to comply. Meanwhile, while these rules are onerous, later platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are still able to manage them and for these companies, it's simply an additional business cost that they can still afford to absorb because of their immense profitability.
Meanwhile, people like to slag on the US for being more lax with this sort of legislation, and that's precisely how companies like Facebook were able to grow, and grow to be as large as they are today. The next tech giant (if there is still room for more) will likely still come from the US, where the conditions are fertile for its inception.
On the other hand, the next Facebook or Tik Tok or Apple will never come out of the EU, which is also why the EU has no qualms about coming up with these rules that have minimal impact on their own companies. The rumoured ruling in favour of Spotify is, the way I see it, yet another way of EU favouring their own home-grown enterprises.
It's really just protectionism by another name. I am in no position to complain, since I have no skin in the game. Just be honest and upfront about it.
they are ironically doing what they are accusing Apple of doing: gatekeeping.
IOS and MAcOS are based on the same Kernel (Darwin) but they do differentiate between the devices they are on. So no they are not the exact same OS. Similar yes but not the same.
Similar to how Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8. They shared the same kernel, yes, but they were not the same exact OS(Windows 10 and Windows 10 mobile, were)
Can you explain the Pepperidge Farms reference? Maybe I’m timid but I don’t get it.
Given how Facebook almost single-handedly destabilised western democracy I'm not sure its the best poster boy for 'look what happens with less regulation'.
Nothing ironic about it. Gatekeeping is exactly something that democratic governments are supposed to do. As opposed to autocratic corporations.
A lack of court rulings doesn't necessarily mean a company or person didn't or isn't violating laws. It can take years of "illegal" activities before conclusions are reached through investigations, agreements, courts, appeals, etc. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but decide to comply with the laws to avoid going to court and potentially having a formal ruling against them.
Your comment was that if someone wants to sideload, they can use Android. My point was that just because there may be alternatives is irreverent here as having alternatives does not necessarily matter if a company is violating antitrust laws.
A company doesn’t necessarily have to have 90% share of a market to face antitrust investigations and litigation. Neither Coke nor Pepsi have the market share in their market that MS had in desktop OS but both have dealt with antitrust matters over the years.
No one should be gatekeeping because then the governements are having way too much power and the power should be in the hands of the people. That is in fact democracy.
No they are only advocating for the short term to try and weaken Apple because they are unable to compete with hopes this benefits them in the long run.
Apple wouldn't likely be planning to allow sideloading and/or alternative app stores on iOS in places like the EU if they weren't violating EU law. As I stated, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a formal court ruling. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but eventually decide to comply with the laws to avoid potential fines, going to court, etc. especially if they don’t think they will win.
They didn't "eventually decide to comply with laws". The EU passed new regulations and Apple will comply with them when they go into effect.
If you're gonna cry out the "sky is falling" then at least prove some laws were broken. Because a concept of "antitrust" exists doesn't mean guilty unless proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent.
My point is one buys a particular consumer lifestyle device with some expectations. If those expectations aren't met, depending on the company there may be a particular grace period to return the device. So return the device and buy something that meets your requirements. Or alternatively, lobby the government to force the manufacturer to make the changes. Many here go for the latter approach.
Your statement: or pirate like most android users do.
Again, since you made the claim, it is up to YOU to prove your claim is true, not for others to prove false. Saying "look at the Play Store itself" is not evidence. Either post some evidence to back up your claim that "most Android users pirate" or admit you made an inaccurate generalization.
After various attempts to fight, Apple did eventually decide (at least according to reports) that they will comply with EU laws regarding sideloading/third party app stores. Otherwise, they would likely be facing an official DOJ-like trial for being in violation of the laws.
Apple has had ample time to argue their side and has, apparently, decided to comply with the EU law but could've instead chosen not to and face potential consequences in a formal trial.
You're just making stuff up now. That's neither what you originally claimed, nor what actually happened. There are no reports that Apple seriously considered not complying with the DMA.
related > Commission sends request for information to Apple and Google under the Digital Services Act
Just their schedule of next event date, everything very calm.
Just their schedule of next event date, everything very calm.
It is what I originally claimed, and I am not making stuff up. Apple filed legal challenges against the EU law and when unsuccessful, eventually decided they will comply instead of trying to fight it further. I never said they were “seriously considering” not complying.
No, it's not. Your original claim is that the were violating EU law and the eventually decided to relent. They were not violating the law since the requirement has not yet gone into affect.
Again, you are making that up. When did they file a legal challenge that was unsuccessful in which the sought to avoid adding the ability to sideload?