iPadOS Identified as Digital 'Gatekeeper' Under New EU Tech Rules

[Analog Kid]

Stretching? No you and I just have a completely different use of the words. You want a very broad and borderline useless definition in my opinion, while I uses a very narrow definition.

And that narrow definition brought the discussion of iPadOS to mushrooms and cats? 😄

You're right, we're using words differently and you're using them incorrectly. "Same" is absolute measure of one particular state and means "identical". The "more" in "more like" is a relative comparison between two different states (in this case before the changes and after the changes) and "like" is a relative measure of similarity. So "same" and "more like" have very different meanings and grammatical uses and you are incorrect in substituting one for the other.

And in this discussion I would say iOS and android are staying neutral.

And I would say that the fundamental character of iOS/iPadOS is being forced to change. What has always made iOS iOS is the walled garden approach, not the choice of color palette and button arrangement. UI/UX has changed over generations of iOS, the walled garden approach has not. The EU has deprived iOS of its unique identity, its added value to consumers like me, and therefore its competitive position in the market.

iOS getting side loading makes it closer to macOS.

It is making iOS more like Android in that they are both mobile OSes where one was differentiated by the walled garden while the other was differentiated by a more open approach. Now they are both forced open, eliminating that key differentiation and source of competition.

Yes, also more like MacOS, which is a bad thing. I know people think they're setting some kind of hypocrisy trap by bringing MacOS into the conversation, but it's as silly as discussing the genetic similarities of mushrooms and cats. As I've said I don't want my mobile devices to be like my desktop devices-- I use them very differently and expect very different things of them.

 

[Beautyspin]

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

It is from the DOJ complaint against Apple. Not some random quote.

 

[Analog Kid]

It is from the DOJ complaint against Apple. Not some random quote.

Link, and the quote I should search for in that link?

 

[Beautyspin]

Link, and the quote I should search for in that link?

Search for enough. Read the section where you find the second "enough" in the complaint. Made it easier for you.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In theory yes, but IMO it is naive to think there will only be new apps in non-Apple stores. Some companies will move their apps out of the App Store and that might lead to a downward spiral (just look at the app store for macOS). This is likely to happen for specialists apps used in business, and I might as an employee be forced to mix side-loaded apps with apps from the app store.

Well if things develop just how the Macappstore is abandoned then that’s a great thing as it shows that it’s not competitive and fails to provide what users and developers need.

I find that an unacceptable security risk and bloody inconvenient. And, as I have noted, the EU has done nothing requiring Apple to guarantee the quality and security of apps. They do a pretty good job, but we've all seen instances where clearly Apple dropped the ball in reviewing an app for inclusion in the app store. The non-Apple app stores won't have to guarantee security or quality either. I view this as a missed opportunity on the part of the EU that indicates they care about their businesses but not their consumers. I must say I am disappointed in the EU.

Well EU have implemented some security measures and standards, but I’m not sure how they can dictate the quality standard without getting in the details.

If Apple drops the ball then other stores can do a better job and compete with better quality services.
Do you think Steam doesn’t maintain security and quality standards?

And that narrow definition brought the discussion of iPadOS to mushrooms and cats? 😄

Mushrooms and cats are things we share code with. Therefore any person could be more or less similar to them.

You're right, we're using words differently and you're using them incorrectly. "Same" is absolute measure of one particular state and means "identical". The "more" in "more like" is a relative comparison between two different states (in this case before the changes and after the changes) and "like" is a relative measure of similarity. So "same" and "more like" have very different meanings and grammatical uses and you are incorrect in substituting one for the other.

Well I’m not substituting the words. I don’t think android and iOS are the same or becoming similar as android have a diverse range of versions. Some more restrictive than iOS and other more open than iOS.

And I would say that the fundamental character of iOS/iPadOS is being forced to change. What has always made iOS iOS is the walled garden approach, not the choice of color palette and button arrangement. UI/UX has changed over generations of iOS, the walled garden approach has not. The EU has deprived iOS of its unique identity, its added value to consumers like me, and therefore its competitive position in the market.

Well that’s an interesting point, but I would question iOS/ipadOS walled garden ever being a selling point or a unique competitive feature. But everything else combined is what makes iOS a great platform.

That’s why’s so many people still use iOS despite hating the walled garden approach.

It is making iOS more like Android in that they are both mobile OSes where one was differentiated by the walled garden while the other was differentiated by a more open approach. Now they are both forced open, eliminating that key differentiation and source of competition.

Android is an open source platform, and iOS is a closed source platform. But that doesn’t make android open. You can purchase Samsung phones and it will block side loading. Or Huawei etc.

Yes, also more like MacOS, which is a bad thing. I know people think they're setting some kind of hypocrisy trap by bringing MacOS into the conversation, but it's as silly as discussing the genetic similarities of mushrooms and cats. As I've said I don't want my mobile devices to be like my desktop devices-- I use them very differently and expect very different things of them.

It’s not a hypocrisy trap. For me the iPhone/ iPad experience have only gotten worse over time.
Or rather the AppStore has become worse and need proper competition or be replaced by better quality services.

Example steam would be a better option for games

 

[amartinez1660]

On the same day, the Commission opened a market investigation to assess whether Apple's iPadOS, despite not meeting the quantitative thresholds laid down in the DMA

The rule HAS changed or the rules are selective. Which one is it?

There’s a great article about developing under these regulations from someone that have gone through it for decades: https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/215-building-under-regulation

It goes through a “long history” regarding some insanity moments like forcing Windows to remove media playback and its API capabilities (that’s like forcing windows to not include default WiFi drivers) and many others.

One interesting paragraph, related to what you mention:
“(…) Instead, there is a lot of backroom talk about a potential investigation which is really an invitation to the target to do something different—a threat. That's because in the EU process a regulator going through these steps doesn't alter course. Once the filings start the case is a done deal and everything that follows is just a formality. I am being overly simplistic and somewhat unfair but make no mistake, there is no trial, no litigation, no discovery, evidence, counter-factual, etc. To go through this process is to simply be threatened and then presented with a penalty. The penalty can be a fine, but it can and almost always is a change to a product as designed by the consultants hired in Brussels, informed by the EU companies that complained in the first place.”

At some point when this all started they had Apple iPhone and iPads as a whole in their targets, everything else has been just theatrics. You will realize too that they carefully select threshold and numbers to cover as many international companies as possible with none of their local ones.
Anyways, finding it an interesting read.

My .002 cents.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There’s a great article about developing under these regulations from someone that have gone through it for decades: https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/215-building-under-regulation

It goes through a “long history” regarding some insanity moments like forcing Windows to remove media playback and its API capabilities (that’s like forcing windows to not include default WiFi drivers) and many others.

One interesting paragraph, related to what you mention:
“(…) Instead, there is a lot of backroom talk about a potential investigation which is really an invitation to the target to do something different—a threat. That's because in the EU process a regulator going through these steps doesn't alter course. Once the filings start the case is a done deal and everything that follows is just a formality. I am being overly simplistic and somewhat unfair but make no mistake, there is no trial, no litigation, no discovery, evidence, counter-factual, etc. To go through this process is to simply be threatened and then presented with a penalty. The penalty can be a fine, but it can and almost always is a change to a product as designed by the consultants hired in Brussels, informed by the EU companies that complained in the first place.”

At some point when this all started they had Apple iPhone and iPads as a whole in their targets, everything else has been just theatrics. You will realize too that they carefully select threshold and numbers to cover as many international companies as possible with none of their local ones.
Anyways, finding it an interesting read.

My .002 cents.

Well you couldn’t be so right but also so wrong at the same time. And to be fair this is a common misconception of the procedure. This isn’t just how the EU commission works but also similar to any civil law country in EU regarding independent organs investigating the market.

EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

The General Court’s ruling process involves:

1. Written Phase: The parties submit written observations to the Court.
2. Oral Phase: A public hearing may be held where lawyers present their case, and judges may ask questions.
3. Deliberation: The judges deliberate based on the evidence and arguments presented.
4. Judgment: The Court issues its judgment, which can be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.

EU general courts tends to favor teleological interpretation over textual interpretation.

Edit:
And do keep in mind harm to the consumer that might be very important to the U.S. legal framework, in EU it’s a more nuanced approach. According to settled case-law of the Court, in the sphere of EU competition law, the concept of ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed (judgment of 10 January 2006, Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others, C‑222/04, EU:C:2006:8)

And harm to the market and/or an undertaking is what’s important, and not only consumers.

 

[amartinez1660]

Well you couldn’t be so right but also so wrong at the same time. And to be fair this is a common misconception of the procedure. This isn’t just how the EU commission works but also similar to any civil law country in EU regarding independent organs investigating the market.

EU Commission Procedure:

The General Court’s ruling process involves:


The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.

EU general courts tends to favor teleological interpretation over textual interpretation.

Edit:
And do keep in mind harm to the consumer that might be very important to the U.S. legal framework, in EU it’s a more nuanced approach. According to settled case-law of the Court, in the sphere of EU competition law, the concept of ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed (judgment of 10 January 2006, Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others, C‑222/04, EU:C:2006:8)

And harm to the market and/or an undertaking is what’s important, and not only consumers.

Yeah well, I didn’t write the article, please refrain from commenting as if I did, maybe give it a read first and see if you truly 100% disagree with the whole thing.

Also your post doesn’t explain why the thresholds and definitions of “gatekeepers” happen to catch none of the EU companies.
Compared to the UK mandating certain security rules FOR ALL.

But all good really, I have no horse in this race.
I just find the circus truly interesting, such how these EU procedures counted as victories gutting Windows at times (to protect local media endeavors maybe, while now the angle is under the “more choices” umbrella), or the demise of Internet Explorer being thanks to the Browser Choices mandated pop-up (it wasn’t, it was due to the Google and Chrome combo being a power force).

There’s absolutely not “only good intentions for the consumer” behind any of this anyways, neither on Apple nor EU bureaucrats side. They are playing their power cards. Not fooling me.

 

[VulchR]

The Mac App Store obviously doesn’t seem as competitive or attractive to those companies (developers) as other e-commerce/payment service providers.

Wonder why that is? For starters, compare costs/pricing for successful (non-“small”) developers. (And no, not talking about game consoles here)

It’s up to Apple to provide competitive terms, service and pricing. Seems they just fail to do it for many high-profile developers.

I would say that the iOS app store is for more vibrant than the macOS app store plus other mac OS sources combined. This EU regulation will not increase the quantity or quality of apps - indeed it might reduce both. Anyway, it seems that these EU manoeuvrers are aimed at the benefit of companies, not consumers.

 

[Analog Kid]

Even when the executives say that they are slowing down innovation because they do not want to give features to the customers

Executive per the DOJ complaint:

"Existing features 'would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already'".

So the DOJ complaint, the one sided document those trying to prove wrong doing use to set the tone for the court case that follows, quotes an Apple executive saying they are already giving consumers more features than they would need to in order to sell iPhones.

That is not at all what you claimed they were saying, which is why you aren't including the quote. That's not slowing down innovation, that's innovation that has been continuing at a pace faster than the market demands.

@spazzcat is right, they have a long hard road ahead proving what they're setting out to prove.

 

[Beautyspin]

Executive per the DOJ complaint:

"Existing features 'would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already'".

So the DOJ complaint, the one sided document those trying to prove wrong doing use to set the tone for the court case that follows, quotes an Apple executive saying they are already giving consumers more features than they would need to in order to sell iPhones.

That is not at all what you claimed they were saying, which is why you aren't including the quote. That's not slowing down innovation, that's innovation that has been continuing at a pace faster than the market demands.

@spazzcat is right, they have a long hard road ahead proving what they're setting out to prove.

According to the DOJ, Apple executives have said that they're already giving more than their customers deserve. If possible, they would have taken away some features. That is why they are no longer innovating, because they know that followers will buy whatever Apple decides to sell them and they are right, unfortunately. They've achieved this status by locking in their customers.

I am not talking about the DOJ antitrust case at all. I am telling you about what a lowly regard Apple executives have for Apple customers.

 

[Analog Kid]

Mushrooms and cats are things we share code with. Therefore any person could be more or less similar to them.

Yes, I agree. What I disagree with is your claim to be using a narrower definition than I was applying. But I'll end this here because I've had enough conversations with you to know that you'll go around in circles trying to avoid conceding any point.

Well I’m not substituting the words.

I understand that English isn't the native language of most of the EU, and I can accept people not understanding the nuance of certain words in the language, but when presented with clear definitions to choose to ignore them and claim you've never tried substituting the word "same" into places were I keep pointedly and explicitly using "more alike" is simply bad faith:

same

same

same

I would question iOS/ipadOS walled garden ever being a selling point or a unique competitive feature.

I and others are saying outright that it is the selling point and competitive feature for us. You and others don't like that approach, which is fine-- there is room for differences of opinion. I don't think 3rd party wallets is important, but I wouldn't claim it isn't a selling point for people who do and I wouldn't ask the government to come in and prevent the availability of 3rd party wallets on any platform simply so I had more choice when there is already a choice available to me.

That’s why’s so many people still use iOS despite hating the walled garden approach.

Just as I'm sure there are people who use Android despite preferring the walled garden. We don't get to choose from an unrestricted menu of options, everyone needs to make tradeoffs in their desires.

At least there used to be a tradeoff to be made though-- the EU has just taken that away.

Android is an open source platform, and iOS is a closed source platform. But that doesn’t make android open.

Both Android and iOS include open and closed source. Again you are, I now assume intentionally (see above), misrepresenting my statements: I didn't say Android was open, I said more open.

most android phones are just as locked down as iOS and would require a jailbreak to do that.

You can purchase Samsung phones and it will block side loading.

That is absolutely untrue:

How to enable permission to install apps from unknown source on my Samsung phone?

Learn about why Galaxy phone or tablet won't install apps from unknown sources

www.samsung.com

Or Huawei

also untrue:

How to enable or disable install apps from external sources - Huawei Manual | TechBone

Install apps from external sources - Huawei:

www.techbone.net

I've spent enough time addressing your rhetorical games and false statements. You aren't on my ignore list, so I'll see whatever you reply with, but will likely leave this conversation here.

 

[Analog Kid]

According to the DOJ, Apple executives have said that they're already giving more than their customers deserve. If possible, they would have taken away some features.

That is also not what they said. They said they cannot take features away. If they had monopoly power and customers were forced to take what they’re given, then Apple could absolutely remove features.

The whole point of that executive's quote was to be careful about including expensive features. Because they are in a competitive market, they need to remain competitive on price and adding expensive features will raise the cost of the device.

I am not talking about the DOJ antitrust case at all. I am telling you about what a lowly regard Apple executives have for Apple customers.

You misquoted a document that is already prejudicial against Apple to make your point. I have a different opinion, but you’re welcome to yours. Your statements about what executives are “openly saying”, however, are wrong.

 

[BaldiMac]

According to the DOJ, Apple executives have said that they're already giving more than their customers deserve. If possible, they would have taken away some features. That is why they are no longer innovating, because they know that followers will buy whatever Apple decides to sell them and they are right, unfortunately. They've achieved this status by locking in their customers.

I am not talking about the DOJ antitrust case at all. I am telling you about what a lowly regard Apple executives have for Apple customers.

How in the world do you, or the DOJ, take a proposal from a marketing executive as proof of Apple's strategy? That's nonsense.

 

[Beautyspin]

How in the world do you, or the DOJ, take a proposal from a marketing executive as proof of Apple's strategy? That's nonsense.

What proof? Proof for what? They said it. Do you think they meant it or not? If they did not mean it, why did they say it? Do you think they lie? So, how many other lies has he told? As I said, I am not talking about the antitrust case. If any executive of any other company had said the same thing, he would have been crucified. Apple fans are a rare breed. They are willing to take any kind of behavior from Apple.

 

[Beautyspin]

That is also not what they said. They said they cannot take features away. If they had monopoly power and customers were forced to take what they’re given, then Apple could absolutely remove features.

The whole point of that executive's quote was to be careful about including expensive features. Because they are in a competitive market, they need to remain competitive on price and adding expensive features will raise the cost of the device.



You misquoted a document that is already prejudicial against Apple to make your point. I have a different opinion, but you’re welcome to yours. Your statements about what executives are “openly saying”, however, are wrong.

Oh! So, copy pasting is misquoting? I have attached the document. Feel free to read the entire section. We have had a similar discussion before where you keep repeating the same thing again and again, forcing me to repeat my answers in different ways again and again. I am not falling for that this time. Go ahead and read the complaint and the conclusion that the DOJ had drawn from this. It follows right after the statements I had quoted/copied.

 

[BaldiMac]

What proof? Proof for what? They said it. Do you think they meant it or not? If they did not mean it, why did they say it? Do you think they lie? So, how many other lies has he told? As I said, I am not talking about the antitrust case. If any executive of any other company had said the same thing, he would have been crucified. Apple fans are a rare breed. They are willing to take any kind of behavior from Apple.

If you can't acknowledge the difference between a marketing exec proposing something and the company implementing something, then you're not discussing this in good faith.

 

[Beautyspin]

If you can't acknowledge the difference between a marketing exec proposing something and the company implementing something, then you're not discussing this in good faith.

All I can say is READ THE DOJ CONCLUSION at the end of the paragraph, immediately following my statements. (Sorry for using caps to highlight some words).

 

[BaldiMac]

All I can say is READ THE DOJ CONCLUSION at the end of the paragraph, immediately following my statements. (Sorry for using caps to highlight some words).

I read the DOJ's framing of the quote, and I called it nonsense. Can you acknowledge the difference between a suggestion and an implemented strategy? Or do you need someone at the DOJ to explain that simple concept to you?

 

[Beautyspin]

I read the DOJ's framing of the quote, and I called it nonsense. Can you acknowledge the difference between a suggestion and an implemented strategy? Or do you need someone at the DOJ to explain that simple concept to you?

I am not asking for your summation of the comment. The DOJ heard the executive and came to a conclusion. Will you take the opinion of every one of 300 million + population of the USA?

 

[BaldiMac]

I am not asking for your summation of the comment. The DOJ heard the executive and came to a conclusion. Will you take the opinion of every one of 300 million + population of the USA?

Got it. You're unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Analog Kid]

Oh! So, copy pasting is misquoting?

You didn't copy paste, you paraphrased very inaccurately.

You said these were open statements by executives-- they were not, they were internal emails.
You said they stated they want to slow innovation-- they did not, they said they're providing more innovation than customers demand.
You said they wanted to remove features-- they did not, they said they cannot remove features.

You copy and pasted nothing. You took a document you know is already selective in the information and context it would provide and then distorted the few things that were still in quotes.

Honestly, if I had to fight an anti-trust case for Apple, I'd start with that quote as evidence that market competition is forcing them to innovate at a rate higher than they otherwise would to remain competitive, they're price sensitive, they lack the power to restrict the features in their platform, and they're concerned about customers moving to other platforms.

Go ahead and read the complaint and the conclusion that the DOJ had drawn from this.

You didn't quote the DOJ conclusion, you incorrectly paraphrased the unnamed executive and tried to promote the DOJ opinion to fact.

The whole point of the adversarial approach to justice is that both sides fight bitterly for their point of view without a need to give support to their adversary. The DOJ is doing just that-- they aren't trying to lay out a balanced view of the facts and the context around them, they are trying to make the most pointed and aggressive case they can knowing the other side will do the same. The document you're linking to is incredibly biased because that's the DOJ doing their job.

Later the court will issue a finding of fact which attempts to strip away the bias from each side.

 

[Analog Kid]

I am not asking for your summation of the comment. The DOJ heard the executive and came to a conclusion.

The DOJ didn't come to a conclusion, they are asking the court to come to a conclusion.

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the DOJ role here. It is not their job to provide all the facts and present a conclusion that carries the weight of law, that is the job of the court. The DOJs job is to take everything they can to try and convince the court to find in their favor. Apple will be equally biased in trying to convince the court in their favor. The court is tasked with listening to the two sides, and based on the information presented, make a finding of fact and then measure those facts against existing law and the precedents set by earlier rulings on those laws.

The DOJ, by design, is going to give the most biased view they can manage-- not because they're corrupt but because that is how the system is meant to operate. Two positions being argued by advocates each with singular focus on their point of view.

Will you take the opinion of every one of 300 million + population of the USA?

The DOJ does not represent every one of 300+million citizens, they are meant to represent, well, justice-- whether the people agree with that justice or not. And the 300million people are not of a common mind on this issue, obviously.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It’s worth pointing out that basic small businesses under 1M revenue, already only pay 15%.

If all a million business needs is a way to host and distribute their App nothing else on offer, 15% means it pays 150k just for that, a crazy amount of money for such a purpose, only justified by the fact that aren't other ways in iOS to do it, no competition. All the rest provided by the service is irrelevant as it is unnecessary for such a business, added complexity considering that most businesses operate Multiplatform, Android, iPhone, Web if not desktop also.

Now some devs, with no business, with nothing to loose ... 15% of nothing is still, of little is still little, so why not? Billing and all taken care of, something that they might not even know how to deal with, international and what not, may sound like sweet deal ... heck maybe is just a hobby that generates some passive income ... all good. But keep your business small.

On the other hand through the Facebook app, Meta generate billions in digital content yet has it all for free. I bet Apple spends tenths of millions just to distribute this app!!! now add TikTok, Instagram …

The way I see it, this inflationary and unfair bundling practice on non Gatekeeping device such as the iPad, even though it is mostly anti-competitive, my opinion, its impact is relatively controlled for the moment.

On the other hand this kind of bundling at a large scale, at gatekeeping scale, is anti-competitive and ultimately a $ecurity risk for users.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, I agree. What I disagree with is your claim to be using a narrower definition than I was applying. But I'll end this here because I've had enough conversations with you to know that you'll go around in circles trying to avoid conceding any point.


I understand that English isn't the native language of most of the EU, and I can accept people not understanding the nuance of certain words in the language, but when presented with clear definitions to choose to ignore them and claim you've never tried substituting the word "same" into places were I keep pointedly and explicitly using "more alike" is simply bad faith:

Would simply have to agree to disagree, can be up to a language barrier as I think it’s obviously not that meaning.

I and others are saying outright that it is the selling point and competitive feature for us. You and others don't like that approach, which is fine-- there is room for differences of opinion. I don't think 3rd party wallets is important, but I wouldn't claim it isn't a selling point for people who do and I wouldn't ask the government to come in and prevent the availability of 3rd party wallets on any platform simply so I had more choice when there is already a choice available to me.

Well for us it’s the competition of the storefront and wallet that is important.

Just as I'm sure there are people who use Android despite preferring the walled garden. We don't get to choose from an unrestricted menu of options, everyone needs to make tradeoffs in their desires.

At least there used to be a tradeoff to be made though-- the EU has just taken that away.


Both Android and iOS include open and closed source. Again you are, I now assume intentionally (see above), misrepresenting my statements: I didn't say Android was open, I said more open.

That’s completely fair, and a potential impact. For me I still think you have the option to continue to exist within the walled garden by never opening the gate voluntarily.

That is absolutely untrue:

How to enable permission to install apps from unknown source on my Samsung phone?

Learn about why Galaxy phone or tablet won't install apps from unknown sources

www.samsung.com

also untrue:

How to enable or disable install apps from external sources - Huawei Manual | TechBone

Install apps from external sources - Huawei:

www.techbone.net

I've spent enough time addressing your rhetorical games and false statements. You aren't on my ignore list, so I'll see whatever you reply with, but will likely leave this conversation here.

Well then this is a new update. Last time when I used a Samsung phone and a Huawei phone it was a pain in the ass to do that. Ether it was a hidden setting or I had to root the device.

So I completely retract my statement in that regard as I’m out of date.