I have no interest in distributing IOS apps but I would like to be able to install and run my own code on IOS.
Right now I can install my own code on my iPhone but if I don't have a Apple developer account Apple will remove apps after a week. And presumably when the account lapses, so does the install.
How, if at all, are these Apple restrictions affected? Are we still stuck in the thrall of Apple or do we get more options?
Maybe one day that could make it possible to install projects directly from github.
I suspect that there are thousands of interesting projects on the Apple Store that you can't find unless you know exactly what they are called because for obvious reasons the App Store search is a POS. Github would be a much more useful source of the apps that Apple doesn't profit from.
Hostile is stupid, because Apple's brand is something along the lines of "make things straightforward and high quality for the end user". If they can't justify a short duration like a week they are betraying that brand.
This brand supports them doing all sorts of things that some like and some chafe at. For example, the ios store, grossly deficient as it is, is IMHO a relative win: combined with the strict hardware lockdown it makes me comfortable casually downloading apps, and more importantly my parents downloading apps. Other examples are the automatic backups to the cloud or the Safari requirement. I look at my dad's virus- and crapware-ridden windows machine and just shake my head. It's gotten so terrible that he uses his phone more and more because it keeps working.
Apple understands the subtlety of that brand too well, and they get away with a lot (e.g. they crushed a lot of opportunities for advertising spyware -- yay! -- but kept that capability for themselves).
BTW I wouldn't and don't tolerate that automatic backup in macos nor a strict app store lockdown, and if the mac really headed in that direction I'd go back to Linux. For example, Dropbox is a first class citizen on the mac, but not quite on ios.
I understand that some chafe under the ios restrictions, and I don't blame them. I still think of my laptop as my "real" personal computing device and my phone as something I want to always be working.
An app called "reprovision" can do the same on an iOS device, without requiring a copy of altserver running. I haven't used it since 2021 when I used it for signing a jailbreak app, and development has stalled since then, but it worked for me.
> How, if at all, are these Apple restrictions affected?
They are completely unaffected by the DMA. The only exception might be if another store decides to allow sharing of signing keys across apps they host, however one bad actor could take down the entire set of keys used if flagged.
It's even worse, even with an Apple Developer account you still need to beg them for certain entitlements. No entitlements means no VPNs, no invisible push notifications etc.
AFAIK this is just Apple-approved apps, just through another app and servers. How does this change anything? Apple still has full control over what apps users can install. There is no side-loading. They still need to approve every app on third party platforms.
Or has Apple actually decided to remove app signing? They sure didn't when they announced this change.
Apple has a history of doing bare minimum compliance with regulation they don't like. Regulators have to treat them like a toddler, because that's how they behave when they don't get their way. They don't want competition, they don't want to give developers any kind of freedom, and they especially don't want any competing payment apps on their platform.
Right now, Apple is testing the limits of what they can get away with. A small infraction here, removing a feature there, just seeing what triggers the regulators and what doesn't. Once regulators start investigating them, they'll just change their software to comply and get a minimal fine for the short period that they did get caught violating the law in.
In a few years time, when the first fine is handed out and has been appealed on all levels of the court, we'll see what Apple will actually end up sticking with.
They're doing everything to discourage devs who'd want to release apps on their own and make actually difficult to do so. You still need to fit their requirements if you want to play the alternative stores game where apple holds all the cards.
So yes, what they did changes anything, and it's just a smack in the EU face while keeping the status-quo. If they wouldn't maliciously comply and do some weird acrobatics we'd have a fdroid-like stores running right now and options to enable side-loading and some kind of scanning feature like google play protect (which on the other hand, likes to turns itself on).
For the user this is really simple: you're a typical consumer who wants to use appstore and stick to apple-approved software just to be "safe" - that's the default for you. You are poweruser who wants to expand the software library on the device - tap the setting, read the warning, read it again and install whatever you like
These are Apple notarized apps. As with macOS, they still have to both be signed and go through some verification , but they don’t apply any of the other App Store rules to it.
Well, except that they do. TFA says that the clipboard app in question had to include a map because it requires a dirty workaround to stay active in the background, at apple's demands. Yes, they're not "app store rules" and they're "notarization rules" but the end result is the same, they could choose to make those rules the same and yeah maybe a European court could force them to comply but in reality land apple has more money and lawyers than god.
Sure, but as long as apple will play hardball like they're clearly doing, they could very well enforce app store rules as app signing rules and it'd be years before the eu would force them to stop, not even counting on the fact that current app signing rules are already insane.
Did it do anything useful for the user yes/no? Was it rejected by Apple because it didn't fit the usage patterns they could think of in Cupertino yes/no?
I don't get what your problem is. Nobody is forcing you to use alternative app stores on iOS. Just stick to the official Apple one and nothing will change for you. Why do you wish a worse experience on others when you're not impacted by the new changes?
For example I would love to use Apple, IF, they were more open and less hostile. So they're loosing potential customers by being stuck-up and stubborn.
The fear is that we will be impacted. E.g. Whatsapp is required to meaningfully engage with many social activities and communities in Europe. If Whatsapp decides to switch entirely to an alternative app store, I have no choice but to follow. And as a result, I'm no longer protected by the Apple app store's security measures (feeble as they may be.)
Android allows sideloading since forever and nothing like that ever happened there. There's no Whatsapp app store. Actually very very few Android users (mostly techies and enthusiasts) use any alternative app store. The vast majority only use the Google Play Store.
So why would you automatically assume the sky will be falling on iOS the moment that happens wen there's no proof to draw such conclusions? Why not wait and see what happens before panicking just because of apple's scaremongering tactics to protect their cash cow?
> Android allows sideloading since forever and nothing like that ever happened there.
That's because developers don't care about android. There's not enough money to push an alternative App Store for the amount of work it takes.
Now that apple was forced to do it, now consumers are pretty much screwed if they want to use an app and care about privacy.
Just like when Apple opened up payments, it was never about "consumer freedom", it was "corporate freedom" to make it as hard as possible to cancel your subscription" and "corporate freedom" to profile your subscriptions to sell you more.
Just like how opening up wallet will just end in making banks richer and the user experience worse. Do you people actually think these poor multinational banks needed the government to help them because they couldn't compete? Man you are gullible.
Android users spend very little on apps, iOS users spend more, that’s why iPhones get better quality software first, with better features and performance. Google’s own apps run better on iphones than on most android phones.
There are plenty of iOS only apps most people would switch for, but Android is the phone people buy if they can’t afford an iPhone.
There’s a reason iphone penetration rises with discretionary income.
case in point: there was no Epic Games Store until it was allowed on iOS. Do you honestly think tthe market cares about android at all?
Apple does a lot of things right, for better or worse.
Want copy paste? It’s consistent across the whole system because you have one choice. You don’t have to guess how the pop up is going to work beyond context. Other more open platforms get messy and fragmented hoping the developer chose a good implementation.
Want encrypted messaging? Easy, just talk to other iPhones. Want less infection risk? Live in Apple’s walled garden. I get less calls from grandparents asking for iOS assistance than Android, the interface is more intuitively laid out.
Have years of apps purchased with no way to transfer without paying again? You’re probably not switching.
I'm pretty sure I have a consistent copy/paste experience on my Fedora laptop, despite it being "open". Do you have examples of a "fragmented experience"?
> I get less calls from grandparents asking for iOS assistance than Android, the interface is more intuitively laid out.
I'm trying to think of a time that either my parents or grandparents called for support on Android. On iOS I've had plenty of questions posed, though usually because Apple don't want people to get WhatsApp notifications, for example.
Android is a good example. Open a few different apps an note the pop up diffeences base on whatever API was used.
The biggest questions were widgets and audio issues. Apps they couldn’t find etc. I’m not advocating for Apple, but their system does have a few advantages that open source projects could take cues from.
AFAIK the DMA specifically allows this to protect the operating system, so Apple is always going to be involved in the process to ensure basic security.
Whether you agree with that or take Apple’s word on what is a valid security concern is up for debate
Agree, and the fact that apple can still enforce an obviously inefficient and stupid workaround is even nuttier.
> The first version I tried used the user’s location to remain active, but was rejected by Apple. Testut then updated Clip with a Map feature — so there’s a reason for the app to remain active in the background — to receive approval.
Yes, I'll admit that I prefer some limitations on background processes in order to preserve my battery. But apple is not doing that, instead they allow it but only after the app adds some pretend functionality which makes the user experience worse for everyone.
And let's think about how many pointless background processes they themselves have added over the years, it seems that every patch level there is a bunch more.
they allow it but only after the app adds some pretend functionality which makes the user experience worse for everyone.
or nefariously worse. how curious that "verification" is extended only after the app implements a location 'ping', which is inevitably reported to or observed by the system.
the more i think about it, i honestly wonder if it hasn't taken this long because Apple's been reluctant to reveal and therefore open up to public scrutiny any sense of what the system does with clipboard functionality and/or its contents 'behind the scenes.'
The fact that I don't have to worry if the newfangled clipboard manager my grandma was tricked into installing is sending the passwords she is copy&paste-ing to a server in China is wonderful.
I wish people using the Grandma argument for security would provide some statistics on how many grandmas got hacked and robbed from side loading android apps before trying to die on that hill for Apple.
Both my father and my mother got their banks ripped off by keyloggers on both an android handset and a windows computer separate occasions. They have been divorced for 30 years and do not even live near or speak to each other. The only thing that keeps them safe these days is iOS.
That sounds terrible indeed, I'm sorry to hear that, but anecdotes don't make a statistic.
For example my parents had always been tech illiterate android and windows users and never got hacked or robbed online.
>The only thing that keeps them safe these days is iOS.
BS. If a resourceful and motivated actor wants to phish your credentials they can do it even if you use iOS as well. They can call you and impersonate your bank. They don't need to get privilege escalation on your phone's OS.
Have you actually seen how a wide-open computing device looks like in regular person's hands?! Those IE instances full of "punch the monkey" toolbars were not just a meme, you know.
I moved my family from Windows to Linux and then iPads as soon as I could. I still encounter hacks (iOS's calendar for some reason is vulnerable to appointments from spam emails) but it's incomparable to how it was before.
> Wide open computing has also enabled generations
I totally agree with you. I love open computing! I grew up with it and it afforded me the chances in life that allowed me to get where I am today.
And I hate what Apple has done to it and how it treats us, developers. But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but we need to give up short-term interests for the long-term gain.
Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers. But for that to exist - we need competition in the platform market (not only the platforms to be open to competition - this is an important aspect). And you know what the biggest competition killer is? Regulation. Even well-meaning regulation (which DMA isn't, btw). Regulation always favors incumbents. Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll. Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.
Anything EU throws at Apple - Apple will eventually (begrudgingly) implement. But they will still be market leader, they will still be big and arrogant and treating devs like crap. Meanwhile every rule will became another obstacle in what way of a new, better platform to appear. Regulations ossify markets and kill innovation. In the end we will be left with a few, "well" regulated, mammoths corporations.
Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way. The few negatives will lead to a net positive in the grand scheme of things.
>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.
Tell me the name of your dispensary because I also want to buy what you've been smoking.
>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.
It sounds counter intuitive because it totally is.
>Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers.
Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms? People(mostly Apple shills) keep harping on about how closed platform = security, but you can secure open platforms too if there's the will for that. Servers exposed to the web run almost exclusively open platforms(linux and FOSS SW stacks) and those who are run by competent companies and people are very secure. The "closed = more secure" argument is totally bullshit and you know it.
Do you think Windows would have been that much better if only Microsoft would have been allowed to decide what you can do with their OS and what apps you can sell/run? Honestly. The correct solution Microsoft implemented was to better secure Windows with firewall, antivirus, virtualization, core isolation, etc., not lock it down so they own it instead of you. It's not perfect, but better than being locked down. If Microsoft can secure Windows against malicious threats to protect its users then so can Apple secure iOS if they want to, instead of selling you the BS argument that the only way to secure it is to lock it down and give them exclusive control.
>Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll.
Not this regulation. You are confused.
>Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.
Super false again. Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because it's not a single 300 million people country with a single culture, language, defense and legal framework, but a collection of 26 countries with different languages, cultures, laws, militaries and spending habits, each doing their own thing, so scaling up a consumer product of one country across that many members is much more difficult to gain escape velocity and become a global leader than it is in the US. And this is after we gloss over the fact that the US is the No. 1 world economy, owns the money printer to the world reserve currency being able to dump trillion in a sector, and is the sole WW1 and WW2 victor and their tech supremacy in SV is an extension of their investments in WW2 tech that continued to bore fruit decades alter and keep them No. 1 while Europe was bombed to shit. This is why the US rules tech, not because EU has some more regulations.
>Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way.
Start-ups have absolutely no chance against Apple in the smartphone space anyway (how many people do you know who will buy a phone today, made by a start-up, that can't run iOS nor Android?), but this regulation will help a little.
And these regulations aren't in palce to create startups to compete with Appel, but to prevent startups ad iOS developers being abused by Apple's ban hammer. Apple won't allow your app on their store? No problem, just distribute it on another store. Why does this seem bad to you? Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?
> Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms?
Is it hard for you to accept the fact that other people make different choices? The market has spoken already and Apples success indicates that yes, people do want closed platforms as well.
Pretending iOS's security is not the best on the market right now is simply being in denial.
But I am not arguing for closed solutions. I am arguing for an ecosystem with both closed and open solutions.
> Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because
Europe was keeping up with USA just fine until about 15 years ago. So the problem can't be one of the reasons you listed (certainly not the ancient history of the WW2), those existed before as well. What changed lately was the onerous amount of regulation being added and a strong left turn in economic policy. Together they brought the unfolding disaster we are witnessing today.
I am willing to bet you've never build a startup in your life. Do that please and then come back and tell me which is worse: regulation or big competition.
> Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?
Because they aren't selling you a device. They are selling you access to their platform. Interfering with how they build and run that platform will just ensure we'll get fewer platforms in the future. You get either competition or regulation - the later logically diminishes the first.
>Europe was keeping up with USA just fine until about 15 years ago.
Keeping up how? let's go back 15 years ago: All the top GPUs were American, all the top CPUs were American, all the top SW companies were American, all the successful mobile platforms were American(Nokia was dying), all the top social media platforms were American, all the top PC manufacturers were American(and Chinese), all top semiconductor makers were American(and Asian), all the top financial institutions and VC funds were American(coincidence that money correlates with top tech?). etc
Where was Europe keeping up exactly? Oh yea, we had one Swedish music service whoopdie-doo.
>So the problem can't be one of the reasons you listed
Really? You don't think having the word's reserve money printer that fuels the stronger VC sector in the world that's absent in the EU, doesn't count? Or that Europe has 26 different markets with 26 deferent legal systems and languages and consumer spending habits? You think all those didn't matter when scaling up a start-up across the continent? You really are clueless.
> What changed lately was the onerous amount of regulation being added and a strong left turn in economic policy. Together they brought the unfolding disaster we are witnessing today.
Please tell me exactly which specific EU regulations of the past 15 years are preventing you from scaling a successful EU start-up? Is it the regulations like you say, or is it the lack of VC funding like I said?
>Because they aren't selling you a device. They are selling you access to their platform.
Where? If I go in the shops, I see iPhones for sale, not subscription to the iPhone service.
I live in EU and I've been running software startups for over 20 years now, while doing angel/seed-investments on the side. Never encountered any issues from lack of funding or fragmented markets. Tons of problems from regulations though. Labor regs are the most onerous, but recent high-tech ones come close, even if I haven't reach the growth stage to be heavily impacted yet.
> Please tell me exactly which specific EU regulations
Again, have you ever built anything?! Regulations break startups in other ways, not only directly. Running a startup is like running on a track. Regulations are like potholes: they can break your legs if you fall in one, but even if you are agile and maneuver around them they will slow you down and tire you out until you simply give up.
It is a statistic, why else do you think iOS is as locked down as it is, and Android is doing the same thing? You are assuming competence where there is none. Do you honestly think the average person knows how to use a smartphone? That they will take time out of their day to know what the things they are pressing are actually doing?
I'm asking you to prove the statistics of people being hacked in larger numbers because of open handsets, not that theoretically locked down ones seem more secure.
the universe is a "security shithole" unless one can competently protect oneself or have a competent protector/s do it for them.
i certainly don't feel like Apple nor Alphabet is in any vested position to protect me any more competently than i would at least want to have the option to try do for myself. how this post even otherwise tumbled down the 'iPhone versus Droid' bottomless pit is missing that point entirely.
Apple absolutely has an incentive to protect their customers. There’s a reason Android has the horrible reputation it does now, and it’s because Google didn’t give a fuck.
I really dislike the anecdotes don't make a statistic line. As an actual qualified mathematician it pisses me off that my field is used in vain to discard experience.
I mean would you ok if I waltzed into the middle of a town square and shot a load of people and said "well statistically you'll all be fine"?
No I'm sure you wouldn't. It is not ok that anyone gets shot or their system ripped off with a keylogger. Not one! And that means there needs to be technical measures which prevent it. If your line of thinking was a valid approach, we wouldn't have locks.
Only for now. This is a brazen bad faith effort at compliance and the EU courts will see right through. Apple would not be the first FAANG to make multi €B donations to the EU budget.
Think of the bright side, at least Android users finally get some competition so Android has to try harder.
For so long Android was the only place to get widgets. Finally iphone has them. Now they are going to have multiple stores!
If they sold iphones with aux ports, they might even convince me. (Probably not, Apple's security record is abysmal and I have an expensive secret on my phone)
I wonder if/when real versions of Chrome and Firefox will become available through these stores. Or would that still not be allowed without using Safari WebKit as the base?
The Verge: "Whether it’s security, user privacy, app updates, fraud protection, or refunds, you feel confident that Apple has it under control on the App Store."
In general, having lived and worked for extended (10 year + periods) in both the US and Europe. I find Europe have a lot more freedom, generally speaking. In some area's the US is better, and in other area's Europe is, but overall, I would tip the scale to Europe. American "freedom" have always felt to me like just pure marketing, however the same can be said for some European countries. For examples the Netherlands is not nearly as open minded and free, with lots of silly rules and regulations. However, places like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy etc. are actually much better in my opinion.
> For examples the Netherlands is not nearly as open minded and free
For a large part, it's mistaking indifference and ignorance for open-mindedness. This is not to say that there is not, at certain levels, deep societal reflections happening for an open society -with the same-sex marriage law from 2001 being an excellent case-in-point-, but, on average, philosophy and philosophical reflections are not ingrained in the dutch culture.
A very current backlash of the Netherlands perhaps not being as open-minded as thought can be seen in the slightly problematic consequences of last elections. With anti-immigration parties having booked big gains, ASML is threatening to leave the country if the anti-immigration policies they promised materialize.
I know a woman who had married a dutch and went to live in a farm there.
Apparently it was frowned upon for women to wear pants in the village where they lived, and finally she divorced and left (also for other issues I presume, but she cited closed mindedness as a major one).
Over here in Europe your be better off saying trousers, as suggesting it was frowned upon for women to wear pants sounds like quite a free and sexually liberated village to me :)
at least some of Apple's chickens would finally appear to be coming home to roost, and us in-the-know Americans appreciate those in-the-know Europeans for leading the charge (on both this antitrust protection and separately, GDPR/privacy regulation as well).
The Europeans have done some good work on things like privacy, but as for Apple and their app store, it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone. There are lots and lots of other phones out there that aren't nearly as monopolistic in their treatment of users.
To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase.
Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate.
An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed.
(I don't know the DMA well enough to say if it, specifically, is the right way to handle it, mind, but it's obvious to me that the present situation is untenable.)
>An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed.
Is it though?
To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation.
But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so.
Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice?
If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
Hammers aren't a good example because there's already an established market for interoperable nails, but batteries for tools is a more appropriate comparison I think.
They should absolutely get regulated, there is no good reason for Parkside batteries not to be compatible with Bosch tools, or Makita, or Ryobi or whatever else. They all have their slightly different battery interfaces, that don't have technical reasons to be different.
They only provide vendor lock-in, so that people who already have a Ryobi drill will also buy a Ryobi grass mower and a Ryobi trimmer, regardless of their actual individual merits, unless they want to also buy batteries (and chargers!) for each of their pieces of equipment.
This is bad for consumers, bad for competition and bad for the overall market. I hope this gets regulated in the future in the EU, but who knows.
Sure, it's bad, but suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools, which have proprietary batteries that cost a fortune, and have encryption chips to prevent making compatible third-party batteries or chargers.
The Granny Smith tools cost more than the others, and are sold in boutique shops by so-called "master craftsmen" who have never actually worked professionally with power tools. Yet somehow, half of tool buyers happily buy their tools, despite knowing they have to get batteries from the Granny Smith Stores and can't use any other tools' batteries. This is even touted as a feature(!), since it "protects" owners from "unsafe" 3rd-party batteries and chargers.
Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves? If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies, and that was tried before with disastrous results. So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions, as long as no actual fraud is being committed? And remember the safety aspect touted by Granny Smith: they claim that it's unsafe to use non-GS batteries in their tools, and that it's a burden on them to deal with warranty claims for GS tools harmed by bad non-GS batteries. (Remember, there are a LOT of users right here on HN who will cite this safety argument for iPhones.)
> suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools
The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
> Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves?
Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
> If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies
That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard).
> So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions
At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.
>The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files).
If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful.
>Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above.
>say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard
Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store.
>plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in
There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.
> Is this really a place where we need government intervention
Yes, it affects all of us and positions Granny Smith for even more control over derived areas. For one, Apple are applying American morals to decisions about what kind of content is appropriate in apps.
> when consumers are willingly making this choice?
Are they, though? They're making the choice, but there's lots of factors, and this is hardly the most obvious one. So there's lots of little, day-to-day choices by individual consumers based on what looks cool, what can I afford, what has the best games - and these small chocies just happen to add up to big choice that total control of smartphones should be ceded to Apple.
> But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less).
In my country it's actually something like 80% - and it skews in a certain way so that many apps are iOS-only. Not the ones you can't live without, not yet, at least.
> Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
I know Apple are running a big fearmongering campaign, but to the best of my knowledge, all of the changes that the DMA enforce are opt-in. The only way it affects you if you don't want to opt-in is that it informs that you now have a choice.
What, like paslode charges you for gas every time you hammer a nail. Joiners are not competitive if they don’t have a nail gun so they have to buy them and everyone knows paslode is the best. The compressed air ones are unweildy and the electric ones are not powerfull enough. (Sorry couldn’t resist it)
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate.
Android has its issues, but if you want to use a different app store on an Android phone, you're free to do so. You can also side-load apps over a USB cable. One is not like the other.
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate.
EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
> This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase.
"For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
> It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market.
The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.
I live in the EU too, and I've lived in other kinds of countries.
I don't think you realize what it is to have zero control over your government, and to be represented by no one. Your statements are grossly hyperbolic and a misrepresentation of the (real) failings of our democracies.
The whole point of the current discussion is how little power you actually have over Apple and other companies as a consumer. You cannot actually "vote with your wallet" by not buying any smartphone or not mowing your grass, it doesn't work.
>The whole point of the current discussion is how little power you actually have over Apple and other companies as a consumer. You cannot actually "vote with your wallet" by not buying any smartphone or not mowing your grass, it doesn't work.
I don't know about you, but I've never owned an iPhone. Android phones have worked, and still work, great for me. You don't have to buy an iPhone to have a smartphone.
I have power over Apple by simply not buying their crap, which is exactly what I've done. If other people like you did this instead of expecting someone else to control the company you willingly shovel your money to, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> I have power over Apple by simply not buying their crap
Do you? We both don't have iPhones (actually, I do have one at work because it's required for some of the things we do, but that's another problem) and Apple still exists, and still locks in my less technically aware relatives which becomes my problem.
Using an Android phone isn't a solution to all problems anyway, since many bank or identity apps require a locked, unrooted phone, which basically means they only run on unsecure phones that might report whatever to their actual owners in the US, China or South Korea.
Maybe in theory. But in practice, I've enacted much more change in the society voting with my money than I ever did with my actual vote. In fact, I think my actual vote has never in my life counted. My choice never won, my candidate never got in.
I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both.
But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.
coming back to this comment, and i just wanted to say...
i take your points well. and would also offer that you have a personal life experience which is fascinating to me given my upbringing in quintessential USA.
'voting with one's wallet' as a concept has more to do with the (English anyway) word for 'boycott.' a boycott, unlike governmental regulation, is something strictly reserved for private individuals to carry out. governments cannot legally boycott anything, at least that comes to mind. but they do have implicit (sometimes called 'plenary') authority to regulate the private market.
both, boycott (i.e. freedom of speech and to assemble, etc.) and lawful governmental regulation, are but of course myriad components of a healthy, functioning democracy.
> I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
Wrong. You can vote for your local representatives who control the EU executive. You can vote for your EU member who control the EU parliament.
What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works, apparently.
And of course I did. None of the politicians I voted for won. Turns out proposing populist measures, like "be tough on those evil multinational corporations" is much more electable than saying uncomfortable truths like "EU is falling behind on tech - we need to lower taxation and reduce regulation if we want to have a fighting chance of catching up".
> What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works
Please teach me then. What you said so far ("vote") is not only well known but is also quite ineffective - if you know how EU works actually, not just apparently.
Welcome to democracy: you get one vote among millions. If you want more influence you can convince and organise other people, or run for office, but no individual voter gets to dictate anything.
Thank you. And this is why capitalism is such a great complement to democracy: it fixes policy failures. This is also why socialism is so dangerous under democracy: policy failures spill over and break the economy as well.
> I actually live in the EU. We (the citizens) have zero control over that regulatory body. ZERO. None of those represent me and I have no way of influencing them in any way.
Do you think I didn't vote?! Do you really believe a single vote changes anything when populist politicians promise to fleece "evil foreign corporations" while giving free money to their constituents?
Democracy isn't a silver bullet, and doesn't work well when the voters are stupid and make bad choices. IMO, it really requires an educated and reasonable populace to work out well. Otherwise, you get what we're seeing in the US and Hungary lately.
Are you being serious?! I know those guys. I voted in their election. I didn't vote for any of them, of course, since I know how weak they are.
You see, here is how it worked in my country: populist parties share the power and easily crush competition. They get elected by promising populist measures: higher pensions, higher minimum income and a tougher stance on the only thing they can attack: foreign corporations, which are made to be the scapegoats - root of all evils.
Then in EU elections their list is filled with the most useless, moronic, deeply corrupted and easily controlled politicians. This is because the EU parliament is seen as a well paid, easy comfy job tailor made for politicians too stupid or too visibly corrupt to prepare the next election cycle at home.
Those are "my MEPs". The only people they listen to are the handlers from back home. The only interests they represent is that of the highest bribe.
> EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate.
Who is economically illiterate here exactly? If I buy an iPhone, who owns it? Me, or Apple? According to you, it's Apple. Because they own the "platform" they get to decide what software you can run on it. No option to opt out.
Apple denying user choice for their own interest, on user owned hardware, is so obviously anti-consumer that only an ideologue would deny it.
> "For your own safety" is how authoritarianism raises.
Do you mean how Apple denys user freedom "for their own safety", literally?
Dictatorship from an unelected, self appointed corporation is actual authoritarianism.
It's not a dictatorship, though: you're free to buy an Android phone like me. Just like you're free to buy a shirt from Uniqlo or H&M or wherever instead of Louis Vuitton. Microsoft has something much, much closer to a dictatorship, but I haven't seen much action on regulating them; the only thing that finally reigned them in (a little) was the move to web apps.
Yes so what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating which items you can wear together or on what days you can wear them?
You're entirely missing the point. Tech companies don't get to dictate what we can do with their products. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. You think that going to a competitor is the answer but the competitor is doing the same thing and so would every company over time because it gives the companies so much power and profit, at the cost to user freedom. This is particularly dangerous in a market that is basically an oligopoly.
The "free market" is great but it doesn't solve every problem or abuse. Users and customers have rights that need to be protected. Why you thing giving up your natural rights to corporations is a good idea I'll never know.
> what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating
You simply switch to a producer with more acceptable terms or one that doesn't dictate at all. Unless the competition was curtailed through excessive regulation, of course.
Why is it so hard to understand how the free market works and so hard to accept that different people can make different choice from you and that is ok because you it doesn't impede on your right to make your choices?
Why this desperation to impose your choices on other people?
>Yes so what happens when Uniqlo or H&M starts dictating which items you can wear together or on what days you can wear them?
You go find a new clothing store.
>You're entirely missing the point. Tech companies don't get to dictate what we can do with their products.
No, I'm not, and yes, sometimes they do, if you agree to it. Lots of enterprise vendors dictate how their customers can use their products.
>You think that going to a competitor is the answer but the competitor is doing the same thing and so would every company over time
No, they aren't doing the same thing. I can use other app stores (or side-loaded apps) on Android right now. Why is this SO hard for you to understand? No, there's no evidence this is going to change. If it does, then you have a very good reason for government to step in and force changes.
It's really trivial for Apple to simply not sell us iPhones too. Apple has no inherent right to a market if the people making up that market - directly or via our representatives - decide we don't want them to market to us. If they want access, they are free find a compromise that makes us willing to let them deal with us.
I have plenty of issues with the EU, but consumer regulations is one of the areas where its work has produced by far the most benefit for regular people. Sometimes it takes a while to shake out properly (e.g. the nuisance of cookie banners), but overall they seem to be persistently chipping away at issues that have actual negative effects on people's lives, however small they might feel if a given one does not directly affect you.
The whole point of this entire kerfuffle is that Apple has a monopoly on distributing iphone apps. The courts have decided that iPhone is a big enough market to where having a monopoly on the distribution of apps is undesirable.
I’m pro voting with your wallet, but what the EU is doing is different. You pretty much need a smart phone these days. So it’s reasonable for phones to have greater scrutiny and require all phones to support the same bare minimum.
Again, Apple does not have a monopoly, or anything approaching it. 50% marketshare is a lot for a single vendor, but it's not even close to 100%, and there are plenty of viable alternatives which apparently a lot of people don't want to consider because it isn't "cool" enough for them.
It kind of does, since the gatekeeper status is bound to how many users a platform has.
I’d also like to mention that EU anti-trust law talks about „dominant position“ and not about monopolies. And any Company with more than 40% market share are in a dominant position.
'market share distribution among competitor platforms' would have made my point clearer. this is not about that.
antitrust regulation strictly considers the 'market share' (i guess you could say?), i.e. the size/influence of the alleged monopoly, not its share of the market relative to the whole.
Nobody cares that Nintendo has a monopoly on games published for their hardware.
I think we would care if all the other console makers left the market.
I think this analogy applies to Android vs. iOS — and that's despite me being annoyed by Apple acting as morality police with regard to content, instead of limiting their rules to the security domain.
comparing video game consoles to the modern smartphone is an intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for. but i don't quite understand what you mean regardless. (why would we care about Nintendo if all other game console makers did what? they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason/s?)
> intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for
Neither should matter.
Also, if you think the analogy misleading, please say why rather than calling it dishonest (I need more details than you've given to understand why you don't like it in those ways): this is a sincere comparison, and it's hard to learn from insults.
> they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason?
Doesn't matter. The consequences of the hypothetical in all cases are "the only console games you can buy anywhere are now vetted by one corporation".
intellectual honesty is a concept the opposite of which i did not refer to with any intent to insult. what i mean is that, on their faces, video game consoles and smartphones are inherently different things. that you can play video games on a smartphone but you can't smartphone on a video game console is relevant. and that nearly everyone in the modern world has one (smartphones), but a relatively small number the other (video game consoles) is too.
it may just be that i genuinely don't understand your analogy.
Thank you — though it still feels like an insult, I will accept this was not intentional. (I bet I do the same at times).
Unfortunately I remain un-illuminated.
To me, an analogy must not be identical to the thing it is compared with: something identical would still be "an example", but an analogy is always specifically in the subset of examples which are different in some substantial way.
I can only think to give further examples of analogies which I think would be apt, and ask which would you accept as an analogy in this case, which would you refuse, and why?
Supermarkets: each brand controls what is sold within itself. This control doesn't matter, because we have multiple brands. It would matter if we didn't have multiple brands.
States within a federal nation: each regional government controls the laws within itself. Moving between them is straightforward, but not zero-cost. People care a bit, but they have to be pushing quite hard on the national Overton Window to get censured from above.
Transport options in specific geographic regions: Let's say you have the option of a car, a bus, walking, or cycling. The bus is mandatory for some people (disabilities, OAPs, school kids), so let's say those groups get free passes. Given everyone else (by construction) doesn't need the bus, in this scenario does it matter what price the tickets are or that the routes are fixed and limited?
That's because Americans often don't get the difference between freedoms from and freedoms to, and confuse the two, thinking Apple's freedom to do whatever they want outweighs their customer's freedom from abusive practices.
Same with many other topics - your freedom to own a gun doesn't outweigh other people's freedom from getting shot.
The US is not a very free country, despite the claims to the contrary. Try drinking some beer in a public park while having a picnic and see what the police do to you. The main "freedom" in America is the ability of wealthy interests to screw over everyone.
>"in order to assure the highest quality of service, we require you to pee in a cup on monthly basis, it is of utmost importance that walmart cashiers don't ever smoke weed on their weekends because reasons"
>apply for a third job
>"wow sir you peed in public 20 years ago, I'm sorry but this is an unforgivable mistake, I can't hire people who have a history of peeing in public"
The methods that the US society uses to force its citizens to comply with social norms are similar to Soviet Russia. Yes, technically speaking law doesn't prevent you from doing things, but if you do them, you'll get fired and won't find another job "because it is the freedom of the corporation to decide not to work with you" and have fun living without a job. I am so happy that EU has, in general, much better protection of worker rights.
Similarly, much of Europe scores higher on the Democracy Index than the US. The US loves to say how democratic it is, but it's democratic in a few specific ways and misses out on most other aspects. The 538 podcast did a good breakdown of this a year or two ago.
Whilst true, Europeans do have more freedoms around not getting shot. :p
That's the thing about a framework of freedoms. In anarchy, the strong will subjugate the weak, and thus only the strong are free.
Thus if we want to protect your right to not be shot, we need to prohibit someones right to shoot you, and in some societies that extends to your right to bare arms with actual positive outcomes behind it.
> In anarchy, the strong will subjugate the weak, and thus only the strong are free.
Th'at's not anarchy, that's libertarianism: maximal individual freedom at the expense of others. Coincidentally the system propelled by all big tech moguls, and half of the us political scene.
Anarchy is not the absence of rules, it is the absence of hierarchy. Contrary to what we have been fed since we were born, we don't need a hierarchy to function. Anarchy is the understanding that no human is above any other, and that we cannot live alone so we're just going to live together, agree together on rules, democratically (some say the only true democracy where everyone can express themselves on all topics and decisions are taken based on this) and with the collective wellness and joy as the compass.
In many eu countries you can get a suppressor much more easily than in the US, also you can own guns (handgun, shotguns, rifles, semi autos) in most places and carry guns in a lot of them if you have a reason to
Owning guns is a different story. In the US, it's actually easy to do. Austria and the Czech Republic are the closest to US average, and it's still significantly harder.
Also, most of the US has permitless carry. If you can own the gun, you can carry it, period.
NYC is the only city on that list with any real restrictions. Much easier on Philly than any European country, and the European countries are still tougher than NYC.
A significant proportion of the land in the small European country where I live is owned and managed primarily to allow people to shoot things (grouse and deer).
Partisanship and hyperbole? Where's the partisanship? There's no political party in the US that wants to legalize alcohol consumption in public parks (maybe the libertarians, but no one pays attention to them anyway, for good reason; their last Pres candidate didn't even know what Aleppo was when it was all over the news). Hyperbole? It's *literally* the truth. Go try it for yourself. Make sure a cop knows you're drinking a beer. There's nothing "complex" about this.
This complaint boils down to “X is not very free because they have laws that differ from my own country due to very different cultures.”
> The main "freedom" in America is the ability of wealthy interests to screw over everyone.
Try as I might, I’m failing to picture which shadowy cabal of wealthy elite might be behind the laws preventing day drinking in parks, and how they might be benefiting from it.
There’s a very good case to be made that these kind of laws are selectively used as a tool to oppress minorities and the poor. So while it’s probably not the straightforward Mr. Burns picture you painted, it is absolutely one of many tools in a large toolbox employed in America to continue to maintain the existing power dynamic.
This is a very interesting perspective that I hadn’t considered, and I think it’s because I’m from a very small Midwest town where homelessness is not an issue.
So when the person I replied to talks about public drinking in parks, in my head I’m picturing the family gatherings my family does each year in the park; and I think about several of my relatives who struggle with alcohol addiction, and my reaction is “well yeah, of course nobody wants to deal with a huge group of drunk people being rowdy in the park.”
What I don’t consider is how those same laws can be used against homeless people to remove them from the same park. In a town of 3000 people, homelessness is not something that really exists here.
Thanks for your comment, it has helped me understand the issue.
Remember that freedom isn’t a resource that a society can have more or less of. Freedom of one person or group always comes with a restriction of freedom of someone else. It’s a delicate balance, not a “do whatever you want” kinda thing.
I wouldn't say "always"; the freedom of gay people to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes doesn't affect anyone except themselves, and certainly doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. In other cases the restrictions of "freedom" are not really legitimate – e.g. the "freedom" to not see interracial marriage or something like that (and I did see some twat complain about that on HN just a few months ago).
But in some cases, yes, there's an interaction of conflicting freedoms and finding the right balance can be tricky, and consumer protection laws are a good example of that.
I think it will always inherently affect some "freedom" but some of them may so contrived and the competing concerns so unevenly stacked between the "freedom to X" and the "freedom from X" that there's legitimate case to be made. Your interracial marriage example would clearly be one - it has significant impact on the quality of life on one side, and no remotely similar impact on the quality of life on the other side.
It's only when the "freedom to" and the "freedom from" are legitimately at least somewhat evenly stacked in how it affects people that it ought to be an issue given careful consideration.
> That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening.
Except that this is not a good faith or legitimate freedom. Hurting people is not a freedom to anyone but a complete sociopath. The fact that the law forbids me from detonating a bomb in times square is not a restriction on any part of my ability to live life.
And yet for centuries, the freedom of the sociopaths, as you described them, was valued higher than the freedom of gay people. We decided that we should protect the latter from the former by restricting the ability of religious people to act in accordance with their worldview very recently.
Under that framework, we're talking about shifting the balance towards customers, at the expense of reducing freedom for a corporation to squeeze their customers and suppliers.
Yes, in this case the freedom of the company to milk the customers AND the developers on its platform is restricted, but the freedom of consumers is protected.
This is possible because of the powerful regulatory body that is the EU. Regulation and interventionism give the public more freedom. This might be hard to swallow for a proponent of lessez-faire policy.
Yes, I remember a nice quote from some book, some French complain about slavery in the land of the free and the american responds something like "america is land of the free, we are free to have slaves"
So freedom for Apple is more free in USA to screw customers, like those Aplle custoemrs are prevented to be shown some informational text, if users know to much is bad for Apple.
I have done some reflection on core democratic values. Especially to whether there is a more fair key than 1 person 1 vote. Eg. land is the main mandate for a country to controle. Should land be the key? The one with more land gets more votes.
Whenever I think it out these systems collapses. If it was land that was the key for votes, the society would inevitable converge to a single entity owning all the land and all the voting power - that is not democracy anymore.
In the end all democracies need to strive for equal voting power to all participants.
In the framework freedom can be quantified to be in alignment with what the populous wants. In the US case, "freedom" rights tend to benefit only a few people. This is not a balance, or a zero sum game. This is an absolute reduction of freedom.
You can install alt store outside of EU and the apps are basically emulators and cracked spotify/youtube. Freedom to install anything is nice but 95% of people won't use it
I'm in two minds about this. You're not wrong, but I would be terrified if my parents had this "freedom". If some popular app required them to give it full access to their phone, they would do it, and they wouldn't understand the risks involved. I have always recommended Apple ecosystem products to my family specifically because it is relatively hard to do the Wrong Thing, and I honestly believe Apple being forced to loosen this control is a net bad.
If you want to root your phone and install all sorts of weird system-level tools, I have no idea why you'd choose an iPhone in the first place. That kind of thing is virtually the raison d'etre of Android.
They likely would not be in this position if they weren’t abusing it for an egregious fee. If they were noble, they wouldn’t have the fee. I think it’s more about holding profits captive than anything else.
> would be terrified if my parents had this "freedom"
We are so accustomed to the nanny state, we are afraid when we are left to our own devices and our God given brain. How can we possibly survive without our overlord telling us what is good and what is bad?
Right now I can install my own code on my iPhone but if I don't have a Apple developer account Apple will remove apps after a week. And presumably when the account lapses, so does the install.
How, if at all, are these Apple restrictions affected? Are we still stuck in the thrall of Apple or do we get more options?
Maybe one day that could make it possible to install projects directly from github.
I suspect that there are thousands of interesting projects on the Apple Store that you can't find unless you know exactly what they are called because for obvious reasons the App Store search is a POS. Github would be a much more useful source of the apps that Apple doesn't profit from.