Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

[BaldiMac]

Of course we're not being sarcastic on your observation. You were actually complimenting the other OP on his refreshing honesty.

Your sarcasm is noted, but again, incorrect. I've called for posters multiple times to say what that that poster said.

I did not accused you of being dishonest, I don't know you man.

Sure you did. When I noted a poster was being honest, you said "Well he was, but you're not."

Of course you do not what I'm talking about. Yet, it seams that you got there by yourself ... finally. Congrats.

Maybe you forgot your original point. You were talking about SLA's and how nobody reads them. Which has nothing to do with developer agreements that are read and commonly understood.

 

[Gudi]

Look up becoming a shareholder. You can do those very things.

I already did it.

Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

There is no need to pretend this is somehow still an unresolved issue. 🤷

 

[redbeard331]

You can:

What does it mean to jailbreak your phone—and is it legal?

...from Microsoft, no less.

How to Jailbreak iOS 16 Easily With Checkra1n (Real 100%)

...but note how many people in the comments are saying it breaks their phone.

Checkra1n only works on old phones up to iOS 14.8, my iPhone X is still in 14.8 and I have had it jail broken with Checkra1n for years.

What I cannot do is jailbreak my iPhone 14 pro, and I’ll have the same problem when/if I get a iPhone 15.

 

[BaldiMac]

Below is a screem shot of what I posted as a definition of a duopoly...

View attachment 2258499



Below is a screen shot of the definition on the page I posted a link to...

View attachment 2258501


How are they "obviously" different??

Because the definition that you linked to has many more components than market share. Which is obvious when you consider the 99% vs 1% scenario that I keep repeating and you keep dismissing.

What was the word that you originally said I defined arbitrarily?

We've had the same conversation across multiple threads. No need to go in circles.

 

[redbeard331]

How to Jailbreak iPhone 13 and 14 Easily! (Work 100%)

Clearly there are options...

That’s not a jailbreak, there is no jailbreak for the iPhone 14. Video is misleading.

 

[OneBar]

When you buy a compute from Dell, HP, etc. you are buying the OS with the hardware similar to when you buy an iPhone from Apple, AT&T, Best Buy, etc. you are buying the OS with the hardware. You are not necessarily being charged separately (separate line items), you are being charged for both the OS and hardware combined (one price).

You don't "own" the OS in either case (Windows or iOS) as you are really just buying a license to use the OS. However, you are buying the license in BOTH cases.

Apple is indeed selling the OS as part of the purchase of an iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc. just as can be the case when buying a PC.

Having bought many pcs and Macs, you're wrong. You can buy a computer from a box brand with or without the OS. If you purchase it with, then you pay the cost of the OS on top. It's a separate charge. You cannot purchase an Apple computer or device without an OS. You also do not purchase the OS or a license of it. Not since, I believe, OSX Tiger. Since whichever it was, you no longer purchase a license for macOS and you no longer own it in any fashion. There is no charge for it, hence the free downloads and upgrades. And again, you need to consult your contract and TOS if you don't believe me.

They define "dominant" via their gatekeeper criteria. It's no more nebulous than monopoly, duopoly, etc. can be.

Which is? Monopoly, duopoly, etc have hard definitions. "Dominant" does not.

It doesn’t matter if they own the manufacturer or not. MSRP does NOT only apply to companies selling their own product through their own vendors. Once again, retailers like Walmart absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufacturers of all kinds may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers have to stick to that price. Note the word SUGGESTED in MSRP as it can be illegal for manufacturers to dictate pricing to third party retailers. This would be known as vertical price fixing.

It quite literally is the deciding factor as auto manufacturers are the only ones who have MSRP laws. Why? Because they have dealers they contract with to sell their vehicles and they got in legal trouble for, as you put it, price fixing. They were marking up prices via dealerships and getting the kickback. So the MSRP came around to show what the cost of the vehicle off the line was plus what the dealership is marking it up to. Which still isn't what you pay but that's not the argument, but a gripe.

A manufacturer or developer may set a (suggested) retail price but that doesn't necessarily mean it will or has to be the actual selling price.

In a contracted retailer situation that is exactly the case. Apple does not dictate how much an app is sold for. Walmart does not dictate how much a bag of Fritos is sold for. They have a contract with the app dev or Frito Lay to take a percentage cut of sales or a monthly contracted amount for shelf space that does not affect the pricing of the product. Same goes with Amazon as a retailer. They do not and cannot set the price for your product. They can only take a percentage of sales. Having sold many items in person, on Amazon, via Apple App store in the form of books and apps, you are factually incorrect in stating that stores set pricing and can change it arbitrarily.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sure you did. When I noted a poster was being honest, you said "Well he was, but you're not."

Of you course you noted the poster was being honest. You even properly misquoted him. I noted that you are not being honest. This is quite clear.

In this line communication it is only natural you believe that I called you a dishonest person even when quite obvisouly that is cannot be the case, since I don't know you from more of a couple exchanges in observations. So you seam to be offended by something it did not happen. Which is an act quite common in this pattern of communication.

I fully stand by not not so complimentary observation from what I can gather from your pattern of communication in this context.

 

[BaldiMac]

Of you course you noted the poster was being honest. You even properly misquoted him. In this line is quite obvious you believe that I called you dishonest person.

I didn't misquote him. I obviously paraphrased him being that I didn't use his words. The quotation marks were simply meant to indicate dialogue.

I did also include an exact quote in the same post.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I didn't misquote him. I obviously paraphrased him being that I didn't use his words. The quotation marks were simply meant to indicate dialogue.

Paraphrasing is quite common in editing. Yet you did it not to make it to carry the same meaning but to fit your narrative, not the authors meaning. So it's not really a paraphrase but a misrepresentation. By putting it in quotation marks, then you are basically attributing this fake representation to him in the dialog, injecting something in the diolog that you attribute to him, yet that is not what he said by any means. Only then, already armed with this fabricated meaning favouring your POV, even better attributed to the author, you note that he was being Honest when stating something he never did, a fabricated circumstance to suffice your rhetoric. Something you tried to do again to me by fabricating a circumstance of me making an offensive remark against you as a person, when indeed I was simply referring to your statements.

Hence I concluded that you were being sarcastic. But then you insist that you were not being sarcastic with a pinch of irony when it's quite obvious that you were. Look, I could have labelled this communication pattern worst, but given the circumstances I feel that indeed is not more than sarcasm.

Looks complicated, but it's quite simple really. But some cultures might find this kind of communication disrespectful and dishonest. More so than using slang.

You know what they say about a "paraphrase" of a "paraphrase" of a "paraphrase" of a "paraphrase" ... than someone asks ... hey "if the phrase is right there why paraphrase?".

 

[Gudi]

We're not saying you can't pass whatever laws you want. But your participation in this discussion has been less than mutually respectful, what with references to nuclear war, etc.

Do I owe you respect? Isn't respect earned by making a good point? I didn't reference war by accident. Literally all wars are about trading rights. The whole Ukraine War, Annexation of Crimea, Euromaidan conflict started with President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign an EU association agreement.

Wikipedia: European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement

The G7 versus BRICS arm wrestling over Taiwan, TSMC 3nm chips and rare earths is all about control of global trade. And the tiny little side conflict over who's the gatekeeper for the apps which you can or can't install on your iPhone is also about trade. This is the very basis of our wealth, our security and our freedom.

We're going to use every soft power and hard power tool available to us to keep this gate open. Me being rude and impolite is just a warning how serious this issue is and what's at stake. We won't submit to no Apple/Google dictatorship. Putin ignored the warnings of serious consequences and half a million people died.

The EU won't back down over the Digital Markets Act. Sometimes you've got to paint a colorful picture to get the message across. I sensed no respect either from those Americans, who immediately suggest a trade ban on Europe whenever they hear about an EU regulation. Let's not shy away from this conflict. You only keep the rights and freedoms, which you're also willing to defend.

 

[BaldiMac]

Do I owe you respect?

On this forum, yes, per the forum rules.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723

 

[Gudi]

On this forum, yes, per the forum rules.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723

Show respect for your fellow posters. Expect and accept that other users may have strongly held opinions that differ from yours.

So will you respect that my opinions strongly differ from yours? I didn't engage in name calling, hate speech or taunting (this time around). Albeit I must admit that my view on American capitalism isn't very flattering. All I said is that Europe is going to defend its right to regulate its own market. And yes, this right was earned by a series of world wars, of which only the two biggest have numbers. What is legal to be traded on a market is a serious issue, as serious as slavery. Fairer and more contestable digital markets are a necessity. There is plenty of dystopian science fiction warning about the dire consequences of digital monopolies.

 

[webkit]

Because the definition that you linked to has many more components than market share.

And which of those other components made the site’s own opening "What is a Duopoly?" definition and my identical quoted "What is a Duopoly?" definition "obviously" (according do you) different?

 

[webkit]

Having bought many pcs and Macs, you're wrong. You can buy a computer from a box brand with or without the OS. If you purchase it with, then you pay the cost of the OS on top. It's a separate charge. You cannot purchase an Apple computer or device without an OS. You also do not purchase the OS or a license of it. Not since, I believe, OSX Tiger. Since whichever it was, you no longer purchase a license for macOS and you no longer own it in any fashion. There is no charge for it, hence the free downloads and upgrades. And again, you need to consult your contract and TOS if you don't believe me.

Just because you can buy Windows separately as well bundled with hardware while iOS is only sold bundled with the hardware does not mean that you aren't purchasing the software (license) in BOTH of these incidences. "Ownership" of the operating system doesn't automatically change because it was purchased separately versus bundled with the hardware. Also, the fact the Apple stopped charging for OS X upgrades after 2012 didn't necessarily mean users "owned" the operating system any more or less than before that time.

Again, Apple is indeed selling the OS as part of the purchase of an iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc. just as can be the case when buying a PC.

Which is? Monopoly, duopoly, etc have hard definitions. "Dominant" does not.

Monopoly and duopoly don’t necessarily have “hard” definitions which is a reason why there can be so much debate and legal wranglings about the terms. They can be defined different ways depending on the country/state/region, court/case, etc. Again, the EU's definition of "gatekeeper" is not any more nebulous than monopoly, duopoly, etc. definitions can be.

It quite literally is the deciding factor as auto manufacturers are the only ones who have MSRP laws. Why? Because they have dealers they contract with to sell their vehicles and they got in legal trouble for, as you put it, price fixing. They were marking up prices via dealerships and getting the kickback. So the MSRP came around to show what the cost of the vehicle off the line was plus what the dealership is marking it up to. Which still isn't what you pay but that's not the argument, but a gripe.

In a contracted retailer situation that is exactly the case. Apple does not dictate how much an app is sold for. Walmart does not dictate how much a bag of Fritos is sold for. They have a contract with the app dev or Frito Lay to take a percentage cut of sales or a monthly contracted amount for shelf space that does not affect the pricing of the product. Same goes with Amazon as a retailer. They do not and cannot set the price for your product. They can only take a percentage of sales. Having sold many items in person, on Amazon, via Apple App store in the form of books and apps, you are factually incorrect in stating that stores set pricing and can change it arbitrarily.

Any retail product can have an MSRP and the vertical price fixing laws can apply to many more products than just automobiles. Once again, retailers like Walmart absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufacturers of all kinds may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers like Walmart have to stick to that price. Also, stores absolutely can work with sellers, developers, etc. regarding potential sales, discounts, promotions, etc. to entice people to use their store and/or make it more appealing to sell through their store.

 

[BaldiMac]

Show respect for your fellow posters. Expect and accept that other users may have strongly held opinions that differ from yours.

So will you respect that my opinions strongly differ from yours?

Of course! I even pointed out how refreshingly honest your posts are, even though I disagree with many of your points.

I didn't engage in name calling, hate speech or taunting (this time around).

I did not mean to imply that you had broken any rules. I was just answering your question.

And which of those other components made the site’s own opening "What is a Duopoly?" definition and my identical quoted "What is a Duopoly?" definition "obviously" (according do you) different?

I've already explained multiple times why a market share only definition was insufficient. I don't think this conversation can move forward if you are going to continue to ignore what I say. Thanks for taking the time to discuss!

 

[JamesHolden]

Of course the Mac has an increased security risk because it is more open than iOS.

Really? Where's the evidence? If someone sticks to the Mac App Store for all apps, where's the increased security risk? And where's the evidence that shows someone installing malware on his or her Mac having a negative impact on my Mac?

Letting users download apps from sources outside the Apple walled garden won't negatively impact anyone who chooses to remain within the garden. End of story.

 

[JamesHolden]

I think that right now, that it's most likely going to happen exactly like that.

IOS 17 will likely be released in the next week, and thus far, there are no signs of 3rd party app stores or side loading in any of the betas.

I'll bet that Apple makes zero reference to these things in their Keynote Address tomorrow.

IF Apple complies without appeal, I'll bet they quietly release an app update, to EU phones only, just prior to the deadline.

...and now that I think about it in greater detail, Apple already segregates feature availability per country. For example, the SOS satellite system is only available in certain countries. So, Apple already does this, and will likely do the same for any side loading or 3rd party app store options.

You make a compelling argument. We shall see!

 

[Ctrlos]

But going back to your post I had first replied to, you had asked why they didn't go after Sony. Based on Epic's specific issues with Apple (restricting alternative app stores, alternative payment options, sideloading, etc.) what suit would've they have brought against Sony since there were already multiple ways and payment options for buying Epic games to use on PS and Xperia.

There is no way for them to sell IAP and not pay Sony (or Nintendo. Or Microsoft) 30% of the take.

Epic might have talked the talk about opening up iOS and allowing sideloading and suchlike but this was all just rubbish designed to galvanise developers. It began and ended with profit margins.

 

[Somian]

Don’t you already have to pay $100 a year for an App Store developer account and the ability to test your apps on actual devices?



That is a horrible idea that will get developers to leave the platform. Other SDKs do not charge developers to use them and only charge for the licensing of the SDK when the app is being published for sale.

Pretty much every SDK is free with enterprise versions. Microsoft Visual Studio is free but has a paid enterprise version. Unreal Engine is free to use where you just gotta pay licensing if you’re publishing your game to sell. XCode does not need to become paid, just do what they already do on the Mac which is charge for app signatures so any sideloaded apps that don’t have an app signature have to go through extra security steps before launching, just like on Mac

Yes, but it could be free only for personal use and if the developer wants to use it commercially, they would have to pay an additional fee which is waived when publishing exclusively to iOS App Store and nothing else.

 

[Crowbot]

Really? Where's the evidence? If someone sticks to the Mac App Store for all apps, where's the increased security risk? And where's the evidence that shows someone installing malware on his or her Mac having a negative impact on my Mac?

Letting users download apps from sources outside the Apple walled garden won't negatively impact anyone who chooses to remain within the garden. End of story.

But it's not the end of the story. It would be Apple allowing sideloading that punches a hole in the wall. There would have to be two versions of iOS to maintain the wall for those happy with the current status. (Me included) I don't see Apple doing that willingly.

 

[BaldiMac]

Really? Where's the evidence?

Common sense. Being able to install malware is less secure than not being able to install malware.

If someone sticks to the Mac App Store for all apps, where's the increased security risk?

1. All app aren't available on the Mac App Store.
2. Your argument is essentially that if the Mac were limited to the App Store like iOS, it would be more secure like iOS. That's exactly my point.
3. Intending to only install apps from the Mac App Store doesn't prevent you from being tricked into installing apps another way.

And where's the evidence that shows someone installing malware on his or her Mac having a negative impact on my Mac?

Keep shifting those goalposts. I never claimed anything of the sort. Though, of course, malware on the Mac of someone I know could steal my contact details and any other personal information about me that they have.

 

[OneBar]

Just because you can buy Windows separately as well bundled with hardware while iOS is only sold bundled with the hardware does not mean that you aren't purchasing the software (license) in BOTH of these incidences. "Ownership" of the operating system doesn't automatically change because it was purchased separately versus bundled with the hardware. Also, the fact the Apple stopped charging for OS X upgrades after 2012 didn't necessarily mean users "owned" the operating system any more or less than before that time.

Again, Apple is indeed selling the OS as part of the purchase of an iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc. just as can be the case when buying a PC.

Again, read your contract and TOS. You'll get a great surprise.

Monopoly and duopoly don’t necessarily have “hard” definitions which is a reason why there can be so much debate and legal wranglings about the terms. They can be defined different ways depending on the country/state/region, court/case, etc. Again, the EU's definition of "gatekeeper" is not any more nebulous than monopoly, duopoly, etc. definitions can be.

The terms have hard definitions, the wrangling happens when trying to decide if an entity fits those definitions. "Dominant gatekeeper" does not have a hard definition and is up to the legislating body to decide what it means. Which is in itself a form of dominant gatekeeping.

Any retail product can have an MSRP and the vertical price fixing laws can apply to many more products than just automobiles. Once again, retailers like Walmart absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufacturers of all kinds may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers like Walmart have to stick to that price. Also, stores absolutely can work with sellers, developers, etc. regarding potential sales, discounts, promotions, etc. to entice people to use their store and/or make it more appealing to sell through their store.

No, MSRP only pertains to automobiles. In fact it was one of my State Senators that chaired the subcommittee that birthed the Monroney sticker that shows the MSRP.

The Apple Stores don't mark up an iPhone beyond what Apple says they cost to purchase. Sam's Club isn't marking up the iPhone beyond what Apple says it costs to purchase. Why? Because neither of them can because the stores do not set the price, the owner of the product (Apple in this case) does. The App Store doesn't mark up the price of an app, they take a cut of the sale of the app. Why? Because they cannot change the price of the app.

 

[webkit]

Again, read your contract and TOS. You'll get a great surprise.

I think it is you who may be surprised. Software "ownership” doesn’t necessarily change because something is bundled versus sold separately, a free upgrade versus priced, etc.

The terms have hard definitions, the wrangling happens when trying to decide if an entity fits those definitions. "Dominant gatekeeper" does not have a hard definition and is up to the legislating body to decide what it means. Which is in itself a form of dominant gatekeeping.

False. From a legal, jurisdiction, case by case, etc. perspective, "gatekeeper" is no more nebulous than monopoly, duopoly, etc. can be.

No, MSRP only pertains to automobiles. In fact it was one of my State Senators that chaired the subcommittee that birthed the Monroney sticker that shows the MSRP.

False. As just one of MANY MANY examples, below is a screen shot from a Sony press release regarding Bravia televisions. Note the wording “suggested retail price” and use of MSRP. Also note that these products are NOT automobiles.

The Apple Stores don't mark up an iPhone beyond what Apple says they cost to purchase. Sam's Club isn't marking up the iPhone beyond what Apple says it costs to purchase. Why? Because neither of them can because the stores do not set the price, the owner of the product (Apple in this case) does. The App Store doesn't mark up the price of an app, they take a cut of the sale of the app. Why? Because they cannot change the price of the app.

This discussions wasn't necessarily about marking up or increasing a price, it was about discounting or reducing the price (too). Once again, retailers like Walmart absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufacturers of all kinds may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers like Walmart have to stick to that price. Also, stores absolutely can work with sellers, developers, etc. regarding potential sales, discounts, promotions, etc. to entice people to use their store and/or make it more appealing to sell through their store.

 

[OneBar]

buncha blah blah

Ok dude, you win. You obviously can't read or you'd have already read the contract and TOS and found out you were flat wrong.
The "MSRP" on what you posted is there because they're preorders and the final price isn't set, yet.
The discussion was about whether a store can change the price of a product, period. They cannot. As you said, they can work with the product creator to change the price or the creator can increase the price of the product and the store cannot countermand it. Try selling something, you'll find that out. Stores only control the pricing of their own products. In the cast of Walmart, Equate. Otherwise they have a contract with whoever is using them to resell their product, just like you would contract with the App Store or Amazon, to display said product at a set price and they either get a cut of sales or charge you a monthly fee for shelf space. Walmart doesn't care about pricing of Frito Lay products as long as they get their monthly shelf fee. Sales of Fritos aren't their problem or concern. The App Store doesn't care about the pricing of your app as long as they get their cut of sales where applicable. In both cases that's a level of control they don't want or need and opens them up for liability if and when someone disagrees with the pricing.

 

[MacMan2013]

Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding them everywhere, misdiagnosing them, and applying the wrong remedy. Enough said. The EU are just jealous because Apple is popular and produces products people want, whereas the EU is about as popular as a shrill high pitched whining sound that just won't go away.