3 ms·

> So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! They already do. For instance M

by ardy42 6y ago

> So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form designs and font types/sizes for certain content (IIRC, to combat hiding disclosures in illegible type, etc). This kind of thing typically only happens when private self-interest gets in the way of the public good, which is arguably the case with some of Apple's App Store decisions. > Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Are you serious? Apple's going to comply with whatever regulations they need to, because having an app store is too lucrative for them. They're not going to cut their nose to spite their face.

simonh 6y ago
Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all. On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Why not simply close open access to the store and explicitly license every app. They could just do a deal with a dozen software vendors to develop the couple of hundred core apps and games they need, and to do bespoke development for other clients. No public signups as iOS developers.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all. You're moving the goalposts, you originally said: >>>>> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. The way this usually works is that the regulators/legislators would come up with relatively high level requirements [1] and Apple would have to figure out the design details to meet them. If their detailed design fails to meet or subverts the high level requirements, then they will be forced to defend their actions in court, where "we don't want to do it" isn't a defense. [1] Which hypothetically could be as simple as 1) users must have the option to install 3rd party app stores on their devices, 2) 3rd party app stores may not be technically disadvantaged compared to the 1st party store, and 3) maybe some requirements around revenue or cost sharing. > On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Explain to me why Apple hasn't abandoned the Mac OS platform for those same reasons, since it doesn't have the "exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity" that you seem to think are so essential.

by ardy42 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all. On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Why not simply close open access to the store and explicitly license every app. They could just do a deal with a dozen software vendors to develop the couple of hundred core apps and games they need, and to do bespoke development for other clients. No public signups as iOS developers.

ardy42 6y ago
> Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all. You're moving the goalposts, you originally said: >>>>> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. The way this usually works is that the regulators/legislators would come up with relatively high level requirements [1] and Apple would have to figure out the design details to meet them. If their detailed design fails to meet or subverts the high level requirements, then they will be forced to defend their actions in court, where "we don't want to do it" isn't a defense. [1] Which hypothetically could be as simple as 1) users must have the option to install 3rd party app stores on their devices, 2) 3rd party app stores may not be technically disadvantaged compared to the 1st party store, and 3) maybe some requirements around revenue or cost sharing. > On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Explain to me why Apple hasn't abandoned the Mac OS platform for those same reasons, since it doesn't have the "exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity" that you seem to think are so essential.