Yep agreed. This is like forcing NVIDIA to open up CUDA so AMD and others can compete with it. What truly baffles me is that we are advocating for NO DIFFERENCE between ANY product. That’s just insane.
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
Yep agreed. This is like forcing NVIDIA to open up CUDA so AMD and others can compete with it. What truly baffles me is that we are advocating for NO DIFFERENCE between ANY product. That’s just insane.
How does Apple control….CONTROL…..my life? If any company is controlling your life it’s a you problem. I have no issues dropping Apple for Android tomorrow. And I have over $30,000 in iTunes content.
You guys are hilarious. We're out here advocating for owners rights over their purchased hardware, and you guys are getting mad about it...
Alternatively, you're advocating that we do stuff ourselves instead of having it done for us. Some of us would rather devote that time to what we enjoy. Why is that hard to understand?
Also, you're not advocating for rights over hardware. You're advocating for the government to force changes to IP.
No, I'm advocating for market regulation, which we apply in all markets, just not the smartphone industry apparently.
Let's have another look at the article:
So I guess my question to you is are you another company or developer? Have you tried to release an app on iOS or Android? Every aspect of the process is tightly controlled and monetized by both Apple and Google, more so by Apple but it's both companies.
On desktop computers anyone can release an app, either a web app or a native app, and offer it anywhere they want. Why should mobile be any different?
Different ways to describe the same thing.
Is it "market" regulation if it only targets one company?
It doesn't target one company... The new regulations apply to all companies designated as gatekeepers.
Some of the regulations only target Apple. For example, the sideloading regulations in the DMA. There is no other company that meets the gatekeeping requirements and doesn't allow sideloading already.
That's not targeting Apple. Any company now or in the future that meets gatekeeper requirements and restricts things like sideloading is subject to the law as well, not just Apple. If Alphabet/Google decided they wanted to ban sideloading on Android, they would be subject to the law. The law is meant to address current as well as any potential future violations, be a deterrent, etc. It's not just targeting Apple.
And yet out of hundreds of thousands of tech companies, only one company is being forced to change. That's targeting an individual company.
If there are a hundred people with green balls and Jane is the only one with a red ball, then any law that applies only to people with red balls targets Jane.
Once again, it's not targeting Apple. Any company (not just Apple) now and in the future that meets the gatekeeper criteria, violates the law, etc. is subject to the law. If it only targeted Apple then Alphabet/Google, for example, would be allowed to ban sideloading but that's not the case as the law would apply to them as well.
Repeating yourself doesn't change my point.
And your point is still wrong. It is not only targeting Apple.
No, you just want the word that I used to mean something different than I do. That's not how language works. I clearly described what I meant by targeting.
It's the same as what's happening with Tesla right now. Traditional automotive manufacturers are using lobbying, regulators and the mass media (who they pay handsomely via advertising, yet Tesla doesn't advertise) to control the narrative that there's no demand for EV's, EV have heaps of problems etc etc.
Just look at the media reporting this week "Tesla to recall 2 million vehicles".
The reality is, Tesla's "recall" was an OTA update to increase the font size in the autopilot warning notice - has been delivered to all cars in 5 days and none of them needed to visit a dealership. Tesla hold the top 3 positions in the safest vehicles leaderboard worldwide. They have the best selling car, CAR not just EV, worldwide (model Y) - which is impressive given the Toyota Corolla has held that spot for the last 25yrs straight, and the Y is 2x the price.
As an outsider looking in, it reeks of desperation. They can't compete on providing the same level of service, same user experience or same quality of product so they spend more time and money trying to be underhand and bring the leader down, than it would take to make their products compelling in the first place.
It's only a matter of time before they have their Kodak/ Nokia/ blackberry moment where their only ongoing relevance is as patent trolls.
Last edited:
A recall is still a recall. It doesn't matter how the recall is handled (OTA versus in-person). The recall label is meant to bring heightened awareness and identify something as a potentially more serious safety issue and not just a minor update or fix. Recalls can occur in response to extensive government (NHTSA) investigations, as was the case with the Tesla Autopilot recall.
Tesla has had at least a dozen recalls this year (none impacting nearly as many vehicles as the recent Autopilot recall), some software related and some hardware related. That's down from about 19 in 2022.
NHTSA doesn’t differentiate a software update from a hard recall. No cars have to go back to the service center.
If we want to get on the subject of electric cars then we should be demanding fuel cells not these awful lithium ion batteries that make China rich and rape the Earth(sort of ironic).
The electric car is no doubt the future but the current tech they are pushing so hard makes me wonder if they really want ev to succeed. Pushing a bad technology to solve a fundamental problem is not a good long term strategy.
Fuel cells take water and split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. You use the hydrogen as a clean burning fuel source to give the car energy. You can modify existing engines to work with it. But I am sure they could engineer an electric car using the fuel cell as a power source. Then you fill up your tank with water. The pollution is oxygen.
With a Lithium ion battery you have a terrible battery solution. It is bad for the environment along the entire chain of use. Procurement, Production, disposal. These batteries are only good for 3-5 years. You have to use regular power plant sources to charge the batteries. If the plant is burning coal, oil or gas to give electricity to the town then you are not reducing your carbon footprint. On top of that you are losing a ton of electricity in waste. Batteries lose some charge in heat. They lose capacity over time. Temperature can affect battery performance.
Then in 20 years of lithium ion cars what are we going to do with all of the tons of spent batteries? That is a lot of toxic waste.
The current tech in electric cars is deeply flawed and until there is a breakthrough in rechargeable batteries or using fuel cells the tech is sort of still really in it's infancy. We don't even have enough electric grid capacity to change over to electric cars yet they are pushing everyone to do so. Don't you have to build the infrastructure first, then push the tech??
Anyway, enough of my sort of Tesla off topic discussion.
The electric car is no doubt the future but the current tech they are pushing so hard makes me wonder if they really want ev to succeed. Pushing a bad technology to solve a fundamental problem is not a good long term strategy.
Fuel cells take water and split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. You use the hydrogen as a clean burning fuel source to give the car energy. You can modify existing engines to work with it. But I am sure they could engineer an electric car using the fuel cell as a power source. Then you fill up your tank with water. The pollution is oxygen.
With a Lithium ion battery you have a terrible battery solution. It is bad for the environment along the entire chain of use. Procurement, Production, disposal. These batteries are only good for 3-5 years. You have to use regular power plant sources to charge the batteries. If the plant is burning coal, oil or gas to give electricity to the town then you are not reducing your carbon footprint. On top of that you are losing a ton of electricity in waste. Batteries lose some charge in heat. They lose capacity over time. Temperature can affect battery performance.
Then in 20 years of lithium ion cars what are we going to do with all of the tons of spent batteries? That is a lot of toxic waste.
The current tech in electric cars is deeply flawed and until there is a breakthrough in rechargeable batteries or using fuel cells the tech is sort of still really in it's infancy. We don't even have enough electric grid capacity to change over to electric cars yet they are pushing everyone to do so. Don't you have to build the infrastructure first, then push the tech??
Anyway, enough of my sort of Tesla off topic discussion.
It’s called the “sometimes, but” New tech is better than old tech but for these ways. Fuel cells come with their own sets of issues, notably around the extraction, cost and flammability of hydrogen and the infrastructure needed.
It may not be that EVs are 100% the future, but we’ve become so accustomed to the issues with ICE and Diesel engines we don’t even blink. The earth with ICE engines is pilliged with every fill up and rinse and repeat.
Anyway as you said, slightly off-topic.
Dear god. Yes they do want a more level playing field to promote local companies.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have customers in mind too.
Many of us who want Apple's system to remain closed are customers. I am curious how the EU canvassed its 448 million people to determine what customers want. Or... maybe ... they just listen to lobbyists for local incompetent companies that cannot compete with Apple. Anyway, I guess we'll see whether this opens the floodgates of malicious software and a Balkanisation of sources of apps for iOS.
Or C: The first time that a side loaded app on another users phone affect me either through my information in their Contacts being captured; my conversations / location data in their email or messaging apps are captured; my financial information being captured (or worse, money stolen) due to an unscrupulous app on someone else’s phone that just happens to be related (joint account or member of my “Family”).This conversation is repeated across every sideloading conversation.
A: If you don't sideload, it won't affect you.
B: It will affect me as soon as the first app that I need or want leaves the App Store for a third-party source.
I don’t have to use an alternative App Store or sideloaded app from who knows where to potentially be affected.
Yes, I admit it sounds like I donned my tin foil hat before typing that. But just because it sounds unlikely and paranoid does not mean it won’t happen. I trust the hackers - especially the larger groups and state-sponsored groups - to be much more nimble and driven to exploit the new avenues of attack than Apple or governments will be to stop them.
When (if) this comes to be I’d want to have - at a minimum - a “Family-level” control that can block a phone from joining the Family if it enable alternate app stores or sideloading.
This conversation is repeated across every sideloading conversation.
A: If you don't sideload, it won't affect you.
B: It will affect me as soon as the first app that I need or want leaves the App Store for a third-party source.
As we have seen with Google Playstore apps don’t do that. The only app I know of making that move was fortnight outside of that no one does it and they are allowed to that on around so option B is not really valid.
Option A is true for vaste majority. Side loading homes opens the door for a lot more making things for family/ friends only. It also makes testing software for all developers a hell of a lot easier is distributing testing versions of app.
Also makes it easier for a company to have an internal app made and sent out. Enterprise certs are a total pain in the ass and a struggle to keep working. It works but Apple makes it harder than it should be.
We know security claim by Apple is BS.
Let’s go down C.
If your financial info is on someone else phone you have other issues. That is on you. So not valid.
Your contacts being snoop up. Again you gave the other person your contact info. Plus plenty of easier ways to scoop it up already in use and chances are good that already been shared and access.
Any messages you sent to another person it is already outside your control.
If anything it would force Apple to increase security and privacy even more and make it harder for apps to break out of the sandbox. Also could encrypt the raw data even more so it can not be scooped up.
Your C is mostly just excuses to cover up your own bad security behavior.