47 ms·

EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

• PedroCandeias 4y ago
  I'm personally happy to stay inside Apple's ecosystem, but believe that everyone should have the option to choose. This looks like good news, a step in the direction of being more in control of the devices we buy.
  • ericmay 4y ago
    You do have the option to choose. You can buy any number of Android phones, or you can jailbreak an iPhone with custom software. Ultimately this will be bad for regular people, and good for crypto scammers, ad agencies, and companies that rely on hovering up personal data.
    • WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Apple advances this argument all the time. Meanwhile most European use Android which allows side-loading and the predicted apocalypse didn’t actually happen. I know it’s annoying: this pesky reality showing to everyone that your argument is actually specious.
      • drcongo 4y ago
        Didn't it? Every Android user I know is a data leak firehose.
        • root_axis 4y ago
          Based on what? How would you even know?
        • aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
          Same here for iOS users in the US. Add some details and maybe we can compare better.
          • cmdli 4y ago
            Here's a detail: iOS stopped apps from tracking you, and it worked so well that Facebook (an ad company) fought it tooth and nail and lost quite a bit of money because of it. Do you have any such details of similar things happening in Android?
            • Apocryphon 4y ago
              It's coming: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/google-plans-android-privacy-change-similar-to-apples.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/google-plans-android-privacy...
    • tchocky 4y ago
      Don't know if it will be bad. Apple still can make this securely. It doesn't mean that the system needs to be completely open, just that apps need to be able to access hardware features. NFC for example can be asked upon like GPS on the OS level. Doesn't mean that the apps need to access NFC on the direct hardware level. And I don't want to have Android, but I would like for Apple to open up things like the forced browser engine stuff. With this Apple is blocking so much innovation for the web because they are not implementing so many things.
      • Jcowell 4y ago
        One thing I hope for is that API access comes with the following agreement: 1) Use of APIs means an App must be listed on the App Store or be used the regular way. You want location data? Sure but in exchange, I want to see an App Store listing along with the Data Privacy Report. You want access to NFC but you’re a bank? Sure but your cards must also be available to be added directly without an app. You’re free to create another version of your app and list that on another App Store , but I want a version that adheres to the App Store rules.
    • anonymousab 4y ago
      > or you can jailbreak an iPhone That's often not an option due to Apple's choices, but if Apple offered an official way to break out of the garden with your own iPhone then I think things wouldn't have gotten this far.
    • izacus 4y ago
      And now you'll be able to choose WHILE still keep using iOS which is much better for you as a consumer. This being bad for "regular people" is typical monopolistic corporate scaremongering. Apple has proven that they're more than capable of providing secure devices that provide choice with their MacBook series.
      • ericmay 4y ago
        Kind of. So the primary issue is that Apple collectively bargains on behalf of customers against developers. So if you take something like privacy rights, Apple can say "hey, we've got all of these users and if you want to participate in the ecosystem you have to not track their data" - as an example. Now what happens is that companies like Facebook and others who really want to get your data without that pesky Apple interfering is they launch legal attacks and marketing campaigns to convince people that Apple is a big bad monopoly and their "locking down" is bad for customers, etc. (so ya know, typical monopolistic corporate scaremongering) and then Apple goes and gets regulated. With Apple finally being forced to allow a third-party app store on iOS, it makes financial sense for, well, Facebook and others to start such stores that don't respect privacy rights - Apple can't make them and then Facebook creates a neutered version of its products on Apple's App Store and creates the best version on their own (or one they support) app store. It didn't make a lot of sense to do this with just Android because you're maintaining a lot of software and it's not worth the money + you don't want to show your hand. Now with this new legislation these companies will basically eliminate a lot of customer protections that we have. Many day-to-day people will just say "oh I need the X store for Facebook and TikTok and YouTube" and they'll sign away privacy rights to get those apps because they don't have an immediate feedback loop. They just get more and more invasive applications and then that's that. With Apple maintaining control of the App Store ecosystem, customers could have their cake and eat it too. They got privacy rights because Apple could collectively bargain for them, but they also got their apps because so much money stands to be made anyway that companies would comply with these rules. It absolutely blows my mind that people are rallying the pitchforks around Apple for "monopolistic corporate scaremongering" all the while missing that its all of these other "monopolistic corporate scaremongering" corporations like Facebook, Google, TikTok, Uber, and others who they're out in the streets for. I mean, you do know that Facebook is a giant corporation, right? (Not picking on Facebook here). For me personally as a user, it means companies leave the App Store ecosystem, and devalues the iPhone and other devices.
  • ratww 4y ago
    > I'm personally happy to stay inside Apple's ecosystem I used to believe that I'd stay inside the Apple ecosystem if this ever happened, but the ecosystem has become a total dumpster fire in the last few years IMO. The App Store itself is riddled with 99% crap apps, there's a lot of advertisement that really puts me off, the macOS Store results are mostly copycat apps or very suspicious stuff (although most of the time the real Apps aren't even there), their own apps (Music, TV, AppStore itself) are buggy as heck for me, there's an incredible amount of notification spam from otherwise useful apps (bank app, Uber, delivery app, etc). They've lost control. Opening up is more necessary than ever, for multiple reasons.
    • Hamuko 4y ago
      I detest the App Store ads. They can't even be making that much money, but they completely undermine the reliability of the App Store.
      • ksec 4y ago
        >They can't even be making that much money Apple's Search Ad made $2B a year in 2020. And estimated to be $2.5 to $3B in 2021.
• bilsbie 4y ago
  This could be huge for open source on iOS
• hackerlight 4y ago
  > Make messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request. I hope this means WhatsApp will be somewhat interoperable with equivalent messaging platforms. But I suppose this is just designed to target iMessage. Or have I misunderstood? > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable. Finally I will be able to uninstall Microsoft Edge.
  • tech234a 4y ago
    It appears to be possible to uninstall Edge using the command line [0][1]. Haven’t tried it myself though. [0]: https://www.askvg.com/fix-how-to-uninstall-new-microsoft-edge-in-windows-10-uninstall-button-grayed-out-or-disabled/ https://www.askvg.com/fix-how-to-uninstall-new-microsoft-edg... [1]: https://www.askvg.com/windows-10-tip-block-or-prevent-automatic-installation-of-microsoft-edge-browser-via-windows-update/ https://www.askvg.com/windows-10-tip-block-or-prevent-automa...
  • dado3212 4y ago
    This isn't "I can integrate WhatsApp with Slack" this is "I can set my default text app/call app/video app from iMessage/Phone/FaceTime to a third-party app". Same with setting default browser.
    • theshrike79 4y ago
      "interoperable with third-party services" does not mean "change default app".
• djbebs 4y ago
  Terrible news.
  • tchocky 4y ago
    No, it's good news! No more forced crappy webkit browser engine in iOS. The other things can be added in a secure fashion as well. Sideloading doesn't need to be wild west. macOS also makes it possible with certificates etc. Messanger interop is also nice, when done right: basically would need a shared standard like the web that is done by a messaging consortium like the W3.
    • kmlx 4y ago
      > No more forced crappy webkit browser engine in iOS. you know this just means more chrome right? > Messanger interop is also nice, when done right: basically would need a shared standard like the web that is done by a messaging consortium like the W3. we went thru this before. didn’t work then, won’t work now.
      • tchocky 4y ago
        I know this means more Chrome. I'm a heavy Chrome user because of the dev tools that are great. At least chrome has good support for web standards compared to Safari. Why can't it work again? I mean the W3 works, doesn't need to support all the features. Messages and attachments would be enough.
      • toyg 4y ago
        This actually opens a race to be the best mobile browser, which might well see new entrants. As people increasingly use their mobiles as primary devices, they are more likely to move to a new browser on mobile platforms and then adapt their desktops to that choice, rather than the other way around as they did in the past. Current mobile browsers have historical baggage that a new entrant would not need to carry.
        • philliphaydon 4y ago
• superb-owl 4y ago
  This is huge. Forcing Apple to allow app side-loading, third-party payments, etc is going to wrest away control of the iOS ecosystem (and eat pretty heavily into their revenues [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-generated-record-revenue-from-app-store-during-2021-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-generated-r... I hope some of these regulations spill over into the U.S. and the rest of the world.
  • 988747 4y ago
    I wonder if it would make more financial sense for Apple to withdraw from EU market, rather than complying. The numbers for 2021 are pretty much in line: $89B - Apple sales in Europe (including some non-EU countries, most notably UK) $85B - Apple AppStore revenue worldwide. The question is: which one has more potential for growth.
    • tchocky 4y ago
      I don't think so. The EU market is pretty huge and financially strong. Maybe they will only allow sideloading and payment freedom for the EU with special iOS builds.
      • kmlx 4y ago
        depends on the company really. some might think a bit more about offering their products to eu countries considering (some of) these rules. which imo are quite serious, and some even ridiculous.
        • WastingMyTime89 4y ago
          Which ones do you find ridiculous? They frankly diverge from the current status quo but to me they all go in the right direction.
          • kmlx 4y ago
            i foresee a fiasco in general, but a few stand out: > Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, including marketing and advertising performance data. with competitors? :)) > Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request. could have been solved easily if they proposed a working group to come up with the next video and messaging standard. right now i foresee the discussions we had back in mid 00s: we use our own video encoder. they use h263. and those other guys use vp9. good luck to the team writing a transcoder that works real time :)) > The Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires platforms to do more to police the internet for illegal content, has also been approved. “think of the children” legislation.
• sph 4y ago
  Happy that I might be able to install something else than Safari. I want the Gecko engine on iOS. Sad that being in UK probably means we'll ignore it because "Brexit." I got a text the other day telling me that, since we've left the EU, roaming charges are back. Hurray! Without making this about politics, this is a great step forward. Still unsure how Apple & co. will make their proprietary video and messaging platforms "interoperable". I doubt they'll be writing an RFC any time soon.
  • gjsman-1000 4y ago
    > "will make their proprietary video and messaging platforms "interoperable" Because it's Europe, and also FaceTime and such aren't anywhere near as popular over there, it is possible that Apple will just pull them from the market there. You can't be forced to provide interoperability with a service you aren't operating. Whatever the result, this does mean iOS 16 is going to have many "features" that Apple didn't announce...
    • smoldesu 4y ago
      > it is possible that Apple will just pull them from the market there. It's also possible that pigs will sprout wings and fly away from manure piles everywhere. Apple is the same company that backdoored iCloud for China so they could operate domestically and make money from the CCP, though. The idea that they'd stop serving the entirety of Europe because of some evil legislation is a complete joke.
      • shapefrog 4y ago
        > The idea that they'd stop serving the entirety of Europe because of some evil legislation is a complete joke. I think the idea comes from a US understanding of what exists beyond the border.
        • smoldesu 4y ago
          You're not wrong. HN's audience is comically unaware of any population that doesn't perennially travel to Disneyland or have a history of >3 failed startups.
• guerrilla 4y ago
  Oh wow, that's quite a list. I wonder if any of it will end up having retroactive effects because > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable. I REALLY want to remove some of this junk Samsung forced on my phone (while omitting screen record on this model.)
  • anonymousab 4y ago
    I suspect the compliance will be as minimal as possible, e.g. uninstalling included junk will only flip some settings bit that hides some of the user facing activity. Just enough to make a glib "look, we obeyed the law" statement as they will assume nobody will actually take them to court over it. Perhaps I am too pessimistic.
    • gjsman-1000 4y ago
      That's actually about how it is going to work. Apps on both iOS and Android are in the read-only system partition. Even when you disable an app on Android, the read-only system partition version remains and the latest version installed in the rewritable user folder gets deleted. It is absolutely just going to be a visual switch.
    • xdennis 4y ago
      Or worse, bundle things together. So if you want to remove some junk it also removes essential things like being able to call somebody.
• amelius 4y ago
  It will be interesting to see what dark patterns Apple will come up with to resist this. I imagine every time you open Firefox you will get a popup window saying "Do you want to use Safari instead?"
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Followed by "Thanks for making Safari your default browser" after you clicked on "Make Firefox my default".
  • tchocky 4y ago
    Using different browsers and setting them as default is already possible in iOS. They are just forced to use WebKit as the rendering engine instead of Blink or Gecko.
    • amelius 4y ago
      True. But this "friendly stance" might change if browsers choose to use their own rendering engine now that the EU allows them to.
      • izacus 4y ago
        This hasn't happened on Android so your claim is pretty outlandish.
        • Jcowell 4y ago
          Android is too fragmented to having any pushing power for one company (other than Google and even Google’s pushing power is low but that’s due to a different matter). The experience too fragment , the API’s too fragmented. iPhone’s unified experience makes it easier for pushing power to come to play. If Facebook leaves the App Store and opens a new one and uses the epic games strategy to pull in developers, users will go there privacy be dammed. Privacy regulations should have came out before this.
    • xdennis 4y ago
• dijit 4y ago
  I'm personally very happy with Safari slowing down the over-arching progress of "Web browsers are an application distribution platform", but I definitely see the value in this. I am very excited about the prospect of having federation between communication platforms... imagine sending messages from iMessage to whatsapp?! great, just like in the mid-00's!
  • kmlx 4y ago
    > great, just like in the mid-00's! funnily enough i was working on apps that did this back in the mid 00s. it was horrible. the standards simply couldn’t keep up. the clients couldn’t keep up. in the end it was better for the end user not use those standards and instead we rolled our own. could be different story today but i don’t think so. just the video call feature would be an absolute mess to standardise. hell, even emojis would open up a can of worms. payments between contacts? contacts themselves? i fear this would end up being the mid 00s again.
    • tchocky 4y ago
      Emojis are just Unicode characters, why would it be so hard?
      • 3836293648 4y ago
        That's just emoji. Think about Apple's animoji
      • Mikeb85 4y ago
        There's lots of non-standard emojis used by various messaging apps.
    • toyg 4y ago
      > the standards simply couldn’t keep up Or rather: developers were so up their own backsides that effectively refused to cooperate. Obviously you go faster if you don't have to talk to anyone, and everybody loves lock-in. Which is why this legislation is welcome.
    • 4y ago
• gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Edit: It is clear that I was an idiot with this comment and my facts are quite wrong. Removed.
  • darrenf 4y ago
    > They might choose to do so with a special version of iPhone that only works in the EU with EU languages and EU carrier bands (no English language strictly necessary because the UK left, remember?)... I think Ireland (and Malta) would like a word: "English remains an official EU language, despite the United Kingdom having left the EU. It remains an official and working language of the EU institutions as long as it is listed as such in Regulation No 1. English is also one of Ireland’s and Malta’s official languages." - quoting https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/languages_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
    • gjsman-1000 4y ago
      True... forgot them, my apologies to both nations. Though... Apple could just pull out of those nations...
    • cm2187 4y ago
      And in all fairness it is the only common language anyway. I read a study that compared the percentage of a generation in the EU that studied a particular foreign language that is not their native language in high school or university. English is north of 95%. The second largest are I think French and Spanish at around 30%. So when you have 27 nationalities in a room, there isn’t really any other practical alternative right now. English is the modern latin, whatever you think of the US, UK or Roman empire.
  • cm2187 4y ago
    EU senate? What senate? For a law to pass, you need the European parliament, the EU commission and the council, no such thing as a EU senate.
    • gjsman-1000 4y ago
• carlycue 4y ago
  Music to my ears. Apple is a junkie that's addicted to the App Store & services revenue. By opening up their walled garden, it forces them to be more proactive to regain some of that lost revenue. I guarantee the car, the AR/VR and their other underdeveloped products would've progressed so much faster if Apple depended on new product categories to grow their revenue. Right now, they're feeling too cozy.
  • nojito 4y ago
    Imagine thinking that punishing success is the way to go. Europe loves propping up failing companies and industries. Not very surprising that they would go after a company with barely a 30% share of the market.
    • kmlx 4y ago
      protectionism is not new, but it’s definitely in the eu’s dna. there are huge lobby groups that constantly want more protection in europe. and they almost always get what they want.
      • toyg 4y ago
        Careful with your glass houses. Without restrictions on Japanese companies selling chips in the US, Silicon Valley would have been very different.
      • bildung 4y ago
        > protectionism is not new, but it’s definitely in the eu’s dna. This is actually the opposite. The EU here is enforcing market competition in segments that became entrenched by monopolies (remember this is not specifically about Apple).
    • Bayart 4y ago
      Considering corporate « success » in a capitalist environment amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside of the commons, yes, it's absolutely the way to go.
• mikhailt 4y ago
  In case someone here knows but how is it even possible that EU can fine companies based on the whole world "turnover" (which I might incorrectly presume meaning profits) when their power is restricted to the EU space. Re: this: > The DMA says that gatekeepers who ignore the rules will face fines of up to 10 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover, or 20 percent in the event of repeated infringements, as well as periodic penalties of up to 5 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover.
  • Noe2097 4y ago
    I see it this way: the EU may choose whatever way it wants to compute a fine -- they are making the law, they could have written a fixed amount, or an amount based on revenue made in the EU (which is probably a pain to define and certainly easy to "workaround"), or an amount relative to the average temperature in the Sahara over a year. Whether it's "fair" is an entirely different topic. And I guess any company could try to fight that decision in court.
  • waffleiron 4y ago
    Same way you can be fined in another country while on holiday even though you don't earn any money there. They set the law, and if you (or Apple) doesn't like it don't go/have business there.
  • makeitdouble 4y ago
    To add to Noe2097's comment, entities ignoring international bounderies is not something special. For instance US citizens are required to disclose and pay tax on their global income, even if they are official resident of another country. Makes no sense, but the US is free to decide its own rules.
  • adventured 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• AltruisticGapHN 4y ago
  I think there are good intentions behind it, but it also misses the mark by targeting big tech specifically. The good that could have come of it, is a sort of open sourcing of tech companies... but of course none of that is going to happen. Yet we have standards; like USB-C which are a good thing. Question is who should enforce creating more standards (to address eg the interoperability of the messaging apps cited in the article). The big issue I see here is it is completely unfair to Apple because Apple is really in a league of its own. It's very essence, what makes Apple.. Apple.. is that they create BOTH the hardware and software. When I buy a Mac Mini, or an iPad I buy the whole package, that is the value of it... It's like the EU telling Apple they know better how to design products and that Apple should redefine themselves as a company.. yet.. by finetuning and crafting software for their platforms Apple offers a user experience that is simply the best. What the EU should have done instead is try to force big tech to work together? I don't know how to feel about this but as a European I'm tired of being a peasant... and this is going to set us back even more. :/
  • hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    Unfortunately Apple, although creating technically excellent products[0] is a very bad player as far as the environment is concerned. In particular, they insistence on thinness and related design choices (gluing everything together) makes the shelf life of their products relatively short. This is wrong no matter how you look at it. I have no problem with paying premium, I have a problem with the fact that my MacBook Pro from 2019 upgrades my main tool (Xcode) for a few hours, just because it is a 128GB model - supposedly the most popular one. I mean, it has "Pro" in the name, why does it behave like a toy? Why can't I replace the tiny 128GB drive with a 2TB one I just bought from Samsung? Because Apple decided I can't. It wasn't always this way. Before the thinness craze, I think around 2013, you could freely replace your memory and disks - and I still have several of these machines beefed up. [0] Most of the time - let's ignore little fucups everybody makes from time to time
    • tannhaeuser 4y ago
      Hmm, I mean I wish we'd still be in the 1990's with user-replaceable RAM, batteries, CPUs/GPUs and all, but I don't know that Apple specifically is a "very bad" player in terms of longevity and sustainability. The updates you get on iOS devices for years on end (up to 10!) is notably unheard of in Android land. In fact, I'm using my original iPad Mini (from 2013 or so) still without probs, and have installed games on it as recently as a couple months ago; and so do I run a four year old iPhone 6s that's doing just fine with up-to-date essential apps for banking, auth, CoVid contract tracing (until a couple of months ago when we still needed those), etc. Likewise, Apple notebooks have way better value retention/resale value, not to speak of battery power, display and overall quality. Whereas the Dell and Lenovo (Thinkpad, Latitude/Precision so comparable in price) notebooks I've received recently for customer project work have OOTB battery and other failures (I'm actually on my third or fourth Dell/Lenovo notebook within a little over half a year), to the point that I'm refusing to buy PC hardware as it is because it's just laughably last-gen compared to Apple, and sometimes not even that, it's not even funny anmore.
• usrn 4y ago
  I really hate having the government involved in regulating this sort of stuff but Apple has brought so much destruction in bad faith it's hard to feel sympathy. They have nearly single-handedly killed open source chat software (people forget that before the iPhone you could actually send messages from Goolge talk to AIM thanks to XMPP, this still exists but Apple has made it nearly impossible to use comfortably on the iPhone.) Fuck them, I hope they go out of business. As for the "consumer tech industry" that's practically dead at this point anyway, no sense worrying about it.
• davidkuennen 4y ago
  Wow, this is huge. I wonder if it will motivate Apple and Google to finally reduce their fees to something reasonable like 5%.
• nuker 4y ago
  > Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, I will quit Apple. Wait … Google is worse … :(
  • yxhuvud 4y ago
    It will be interesting to see what that refers to in particular. Remember we also have GDPR that restricts what data is allowed to be collected.
• mlindner 4y ago
  If EU plays their hand too hard they may just end up with no Apple devices at all. Maybe that's their goal anyway. I wonder how long until the US takes them to the WTO or starts creating retaliatory tariffs.
• nuker 4y ago
  I hope they’ll fight it off. I don’t want to lose all privacy and security I have now on iOS.
  • hamandcheese 4y ago
    Interoperability is not mutually exclusive with security. You are welcome to continue using the App Store.
    • niek_pas 4y ago
      > You are welcome to continue using the App Store. As long as apps remain available on the App Store. I wouldn’t be surprised to see, e.g., Facebook making their messaging app available via sideloading only in order to circumvent Apple’s privacy rules.
      • joshstrange 4y ago
        This will 100% happen and anyone thinking otherwise is just being willfully ignorant. We saw what FB did when it was able to operate in the shadows with it's enterprise cert for it's "VPN". As for why it hasn't happened on Android I think the reasons are simple. First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). This is the logical end for at least these two companies. I agree with some or parts of the things the EU is calling for here but some are just absolutely ridiculous and/or make no sense.
        • Apocryphon 4y ago
          > First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. iOS users do spend more money on App Store purchases than Android. But if Meta's whole intention to build a 3rd party App Store is to mine them for data, why didn't they try that on Android- shouldn't the data of Android users be just as good, especially when they have a significantly larger user pool to do that with? Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell. > It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. If they were to do that today, they would immediately face friction from users who do not care for more fragmentation of services, and aren't even as engaged with the product as they used to. Maybe they could try to segment off a more popular product, say Instagram, but that would also cause blowback. > Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies? I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices. The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, those companies' continued difficulties in creating new compelling products to woo consumers, and all of the failed app stores of the past. (As Ballmer said, it's all about the developers.) They would have to be cleverer about it. So far, I've yet to see any comprehensive hypotheticals that really deal with past and present realities about the difficulties in setting up such rival ecosystems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720
• sylware 4y ago
  big tech does not want simple, but good enough to do the job, and stable in time protocols to interoperate with. Force the big to interoperate with the small, and not let the big crush the small, this is one of the whys of regulation. For instance, in the case of the web: noscript/basic (x)html. With basic (x)html forms, you can browse tiled maps, do shopping, interact with the online administration service, etc. With the <video> and <audio> element, the noscript/basic (x)html browsers can pass an URL to an external media player, what seems missing is the type of streaming. I don't know if you can specify the type of the href, HLS/mpeg DASH/etc, kind of a mime type for those. Then the ability to seek into a big video should be standardized, very probably an URL parameter to do this, at least per mime types if those exists, like t=xxhxxmxxsxxxms. Those are extremely simple, do not require those horrible web engines and are enough to do the job. The current javascript-ed web engines are insane and beyond sanity bloats (SDK included), locked-in by gogol/apple/mozilla via complexity and size. The real hard work is into "securing" those "simple" sites against corpo(=state?) sponsored hackers to make those not work and promote corpo-locked software and protocols. That could be idiotic hackers pushing the web to use those corpo-locked software and protocols.
• polskibus 4y ago
  I’d love to see separating market making from participation, similar to finance. Ie. the same company must not operate and sell at the same time on that market.
• VyseofArcadia 4y ago
  I really hope Sony and Nintendo are classified as gatekeepers as well because this > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet. would be huge for Playstation and Switch owners.
  • oneoff786 4y ago
    It might kill off consoles entirely tbh
    • ReptileMan 4y ago
      It won't - without root piracy will still be extremely hard.
      • warning26 4y ago
        I think the biggest change we would likely see is that classic-game-rereleases would evaporate, as it would become trivially easy to install emulators.
        • caramelcustard 4y ago
          It already is on XBox, so no.
          • Jcowell 4y ago
            Disagree. “Trivially easy” must be set in common sense to the average consumer. It must be something that they can do easily without any guides or tutorials. Changing my name on Xbox is trivially easy. This[1] is not. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devkit-activation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...
            • caramelcustard 4y ago
              Disagreeing with your disagreement. How "easy" a tech-related task is to accomplish is determined by the users skills and experience, as well as software/hardware usage patterns that they've learned over the years. Official guides/tutorials for enabling/disabling various functions exist for Google Play/AppStore too. Does that mean that one of the easiest ways to acquire apps that have ever existed is...not easy? Because there really isn't much difference between following a "how to login into my Apple/Google account" tutorial and "how to enable an XBox feature".
• bushbaba 4y ago
  Sounds like a security nightmare. The reason I like my iPhone is because it’s a walled garden. Things just work. This regulation hampers this
  • oneoff786 4y ago
    You don’t need to leave the walled garden
    • mantas 4y ago
      Wait till must-have apps go for 3rd party stores and exploit that to no end. E.g. banking, transit, parking etc.
      • Tijdreiziger 4y ago
        Can you point to examples where that has happened on Android (a comparable platform that has allowed sideloading since its inception)?
        • mantas 4y ago
          Android / Google App Store is much more lax, isn't it?
          • Tijdreiziger 4y ago
            How so?
  • tchocky 4y ago
    Not really. It can still be a walled garden if there is an opt out option, so you can still be able to be inside it but with the option to go out of it and be able to sideload/use different app stores. Also the Apple app store will definitely still be the main source as people usually don't switch that easily for almost no benefit. No one will force you use a different app store as well.
• s1k3s 4y ago
  I can't make up my mind if this is good or bad. On one hand, FAANG has a huge advantage over anyone else on the market, but they did build that product and they did spend their own money to do it. I'd be curious if there are any other occurrences in history of something so big ending up regulated by the government?
  • PaulKeeble 4y ago
    Microsoft is an earlier example of a company with theoretical competition but which ended up with significant intervention due to the practical walled garden they had created and where exhibiting significant monopoly powers over.
    • Miraste 4y ago
      And Microsoft's garden had much, much lower walls.
  • hamandcheese 4y ago
    Apple has benefited fabulously for well over a decade. And I’m sure the EU will remain a profitable market even with these regulations in place. With these changes, Apple will go from being one of the richest companies in the world to… still one of the richest companies in the world.
    • s1k3s 4y ago
      Yes sir, I get that. My point was they’re there for a reason. They must be doing something right.
      • hamandcheese 4y ago
        The point I’m making is that the argument “Well they built it, shouldn’t they benefit” would make sense if these regulations posed any sort of existential threat to their success. But Apple is already so entrenched that regulation like this won’t. The “doing something you right” you speak of is apple making a great product, and they can make a great product without their monopolistic practices. Furthermore, I don’t think these regulations apply to new/non-entrenched players either, so I don’t think they will stifle innovation.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• eqtn 4y ago
  Will this enable steam to come to xbox and/or playstation?
• dzonga 4y ago
  in as much this bring native firefox i.e gecko engines to iOS it will also mean innovative native apps not just on iOS since you won't be restricted to native apps that use apple technology ie Swift, UIKit etc you could totally write an app that renders using a game engine in Rust whatever and as long it compiles for the platform you're good to go. One thing though, hopefully sandboxing is maintained
  • PhilipTrauner 4y ago
    You can already do that right now (even Vulkan should work fine through MoltenVk), although accessibility will be poor when compared with Apple's offering unless significant effort is invested.
• Aulig 4y ago
  This is excellent. As an app developer, I'm looking forward to side-loading, other browser engines and not being forced to use in-app-purchases.
  • synu 4y ago
    As a regular user I’m looking forward to all the same!
    • efields 4y ago
      As a regular user, I have no intention of side loading anything! Don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything! Enlighten me.
      • corrral 4y ago
        It's great for pirating mobile video games. My Android-using friends' only use of this feature is to turn their phone into a Gameboy Advance. Which is pretty great, to be fair, but nowhere near enough to tempt me back to putting up with Android the entire rest of the time I'm using my phone.
        • tombert 4y ago
          It doesn't have to be piracy. I have plenty of Sega Genesis/Mega Drive ROMs that I purchased from Steam years ago, and it would be nice to be able to play them on my phone on the go.
      • synu 4y ago
        I travel back and forth between App Store regions frequently, and some things are only available in one place or the other. I’d also like the ability to actually use a different browser, not just reskinned Safari. There would probably also be some interesting open source stuff you could install.
      • tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
        There are some edge cases where the app stores don't allow desirable applications to be distributed. One example would be e.g. NewPipe (an open source third party ad-free YouTube client) on Android. Another would be alternative browsers or programming language interpreters on iOS (the rules on the latter changed repeatedly). Termux is also being distributed outside of the Play store due to some restriction and IIRC not feasible on iOS due to the App store restrictions.
• JoeNr76 4y ago
  The only questionable part is end-to-end encryption. I don't see how you can make your messaging apps interoperable and have E2E encryption. Most of the other things: mostly good. Apple and Google need to be taken down a peg or 10.
  • hrnnnnnn 4y ago
    Couldn't you have the clients send each other their public keys as the first step in the conversation?
  • arlort 4y ago
    You can't, not in a perfectly verifiable way At some point app A needs to know how to decrypt messages received on app B and/or vice-versa Nicely designed apps will do so on your device, shady apps will do so on servers, as a consumer you'll have to decide which companies behave and design their apps in a way that is satisfactory to you But you have to do that to use any app in the first place. If you're using a messaging app it means you trust its developers and how much data they collect and how they handle it. Adding a "how do they handle interoperation" checkbox does not significantly change that calculus imo (as to how E2E can work with interoperability, with an open API app A will just ping app B's servers in addition to its own and will have its own E2E key as well as B's key. Groups could be more complicated but group encryption is a pretty hard problem anyway and you might just give up and warn your users that cross-platform groups won't be E2EE)
    • ece 4y ago
      If an app is decrypting on a server instead of your device, it's not E2EE period. It's false advertising to call it E2EE. People can have bridges and such, but you know if you're controlling it or not, or it can just be local.
      • arlort 4y ago
        Hence the "shady" part
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
• ajaimk 4y ago
  EU regulation just ruins tech in my opinion. GDPR was great in principle but all we ended up with was annoying cookie pop ups. Apple did a much better job with App Tracking Privacy. And not, EU so regulating that to make it worse
  • lmc 4y ago
    > GDPR was great in principle but all we ended up with was annoying cookie pop ups. Read through this list - there's more than just cookie popups: https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/ https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020/
  • the_duke 4y ago
    The problem with GDPR is underspecification and bad enforcement because the agency of the country where the company is registered is responsible, and the fuzzy nature of the law allows companies to drag out fees with long legal battles. The annoying popups are basically malicious compliance. We'll see how things play out here, but this time there are a lot of provisions that should make enforcement easier.
    • orangecat 4y ago
      The annoying popups are basically malicious compliance. Yes, and this should not have come as a surprise to competent regulators.
  • _Algernon_ 4y ago
    Cookie popups existed long before GDPR was even on the drawing board. I don't dispute that the cookie banner regulation is stupid, but don't twist the truth to fit your narrative. GDPR is a completely separate regulation.
• bratwurst3000 4y ago
  Does that mean we can finaly use firefox with gecko and adons?
• Kelteseth 4y ago
  Wonderful! This would certainly help with complying with Qt LGPLv3 and the strict App Store requirements.
• obblekk 4y ago
  I generally believe Apple, Google and others should be able to profit from creating some of the most useful, innovative and technically challenging products in human history (remember multi touch was not an affordable thing before Apple). But, 15 years (since original iPhone) is about enough to reward the innovation. Beyond that point, it is the role of government to open up platforms to enable the next generation of competition and creation, otherwise things start to get stagnant. That said, there aren’t a ton of things left that can’t be done without Apple approval (or rather, tons of things but not tons of value being blocked). Free speech seems like the big one and I do think it’s good for that to be officially supported (and require court orders to block rather than Apple/Google orders). I would be a bit worried about the the ability of the EU to regulate privacy as swiftly and effectively as Apple. If I go to a clinic, they ask me to side load an app while I’m sick, and that app has no real privacy protections… Probably on balance, this will be good for free society, and come with the natural knock on effect of more freedom to harm yourself as well.
  • amelius 4y ago
    The problem with these big companies is that they tend to produce useful stuff for the average consumer only. But if they were broken up into smaller companies that created stuff that other businesses can use to build more products, I think we would have a more modular economy with far more choice than the current duopoly offers.
    • jahewson 4y ago
      If you’re producing consumer devices you need scale. Huge scale. Niece companies catering to specific audiences sounds great but without scale, the prices would be an order of magnitude higher than you’re used to paying. Modularity itself is costly as integration is one of the main factors driving down consumer devise prices.
      • account42 4y ago
        You need scale for the hardware part but not nearly as much scale for the OS and barely and for the apps. That's why these should not be tied together, so that we can have specialists Apps and operating system that do not have the scale to afford their own hardware platform.
• jollybean 4y ago
  Massive announcement. Basically 'Separation of Platform and Apps', cleaving a wedge between layers of the value chain.
• hyperpape 4y ago
  There's several very good provisions in this legislation (3rd party payment processors, non-preferential treatment for 1st party apps), there are several that have a mix of upsides and downsides (sideloading is one--I personally like knowing that Facebook can't ask people to sideload some privacy destroying crap on iOS). Then there's: - Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request. - Give developers access to any hardware feature, such as "near-field communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms, and the software used to control those technologies." Apps will use near-field communication technology and other mechanisms to track us (consider how many device related APIs have restrictions in web browsers for just this reason), and I think it's credible that the interoperability requirements are going to be used to smash end-to-end encrypted messaging. You can have a decentralized end to end encrypted protocol. Can you retrofit every existing messaging service to use it in the short-term? Probably not. As an end user, the things that give developers maximum freedom are not necessarily the things that let me use my device with maximum freedom. I support people who want a FOSS device that is in no way locked down. I just don't want that, because I don't want to play systems administrator for an always on tracker in my pocket.
  • erk__ 4y ago
    The near-field communication have a clear reason. Apple was only allowing access to their own banking app as a payment provider in shops. As I understand there was not even a way to get access with any kind of forms or such if you had a competing plastic card firm. That is pretty much the only reason that clause is the legislation.
    • madeofpalk 4y ago
      > there was not even a way to get access with any kind of forms or such if you had a competing plastic card firm What does this mean? Apple is not a payment processor. The banks sign deals with Apple put make their cards available through Apple Pay, but the payment still goes through the payment networks (visa, mastercard, amex) and the banks.
• MrThoughtful 4y ago
  Like so often with new laws, I think a more general one would have been better. Why is it about apps, app stores, developers, voice assistants and all that specific stuff? In my opinion, it should just have been this: A company is not allowed to artificially restrict what users can do with the products they bought. Then it would also not be allowed to restrict people from installing alternative operating systems on the hardware they bought. Linux on an iPad! How nice would that be!
  • jahewson 4y ago
    > Linux on an iPad! How nice would that be! Honestly? It would absolutely suck.
  • arlort 4y ago
    Because laws need to be justiceable Overly general laws are prone to either evasion or arbitrary and unjust enforcement
  • pabs3 4y ago
    Linux on older iPads is already possible, because the bootrom of those devices has a flaw that lets you run arbitrary code: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/developers-get-linux-up-and-running-on-old-ipad-air-2-hardware/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/06/developers-get-linux... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31624185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31624185
• oellegaard 4y ago
  It's fun how Android users are so excited on behalf of Apple users in terms of letting Apple users install custom apps from outside the App Store. Being an Apple user for more than 15 years, I couldn't be more happy with the fact that Apple has vetted the applications you find in App Store. Also, naturally, App Developers are excited. Well, perhaps you should think about the users - we don't care about you having to pay a cut. However, we really appreciate the experience from the App Store. Want to cancel a subscription? Just navigate to the one and only place where you can browse everything and cancel with a single tap. I once purchased an Android device so see what it was all about. I found most of the apps were completely crap and the once that were good, were essentially just a copy of the iOS app. To be fair, this was many years ago. I really hope that somehow someone interacts at a high level and gets the part about the App Store removed. IF the consumers of Apple - for instance me - would like this part changed, perhaps we could instead put our money elsewhere, rather than rely on politicians to pro-actively deal with this.
  • eklavya 4y ago
    Exclusively Apple user here, couldn’t be more happier for the announcement. Keeps my favoured platform alive and innovative. Btw, you can keep using App Store so I don’t understand the issue here.
    • pchristensen 4y ago
      With sideloading, developers with market power will be able to force iOS users into worse conditions than the standard App Store. You can bet that FB will get everyone onto their sideloaded version ASAP, and I doubt it will respect the "Ask App Not to Track Me". Then, once everyone has figured out sideloading with FB, the bar will be lower for other apps and suddenly the consumer protections of the App Store are weaker for everyone.
      • neop1x 4y ago
        It has been like this on the desktop since forever and some apps are still not available from app stores like Adobe creative suite and it has worked fine. It has created new business opportunities for anti-virus companies initially but the need for those diminished over time as OS-level "defender apps" and overall 3rd-party app handling got better. I don't see any problem here. If Facebook forced users to install spyware and spy on users without their consent FB itself would be fined by regulators. And you can always use the web FB version if you are afraid of using their app or stop using FB completely.
• illuminati1911 4y ago
  I’m happy with this. Apple was begging for this with their narsistic and arrogant anti-consumer behavior. Also app store these days is pretty much ruined. Almost all new apps are ”free” but in the end require a monthly membership or some other BS. Hopefully soon we can just pull apps directly from github releases.
  • criddell 4y ago
    I'm looking forward to the consoles being forced to end some of their anti-consumer policies. It's about time people who buy a Switch or PS5 can use them for more than what Sony and Nintendo say they are allowed to.
    • stale2002 4y ago
      Feel free to try and make a law doing that, if you can get support. But this current law is not going to be stopped just because there is some other industry that you claim has problems as well.
      • criddell 4y ago
        This legislation all covers systems with 45 million users. That covers the PS4 and Switch and within a year or two will cover the PS5 (that's assuming a conservative 1 console = 1 user).
  • Klonoar 4y ago
    …or you could pay developers what they charge. Stop participating in a race to the bottom.
    • illuminati1911 4y ago
      The github open source software costs $0. I’m fine paying that. You can keep on paying $19.99/month for a calculator in Apple’s closed fake market if you want even after this regulation.
• MBCook 4y ago
  And Chrome now owns the web. Goodbye open web. It was a fun 30 years. Way to go EU.
  • xdennis 4y ago
    The EU went after IE when it owned the web. They can go after Google if it keeps abusing its search monopoly to push Chrome.
    • MBCook 4y ago
      I’m seriously worried it won’t happen fast enough. I don’t like the “if this blows up we’ll fix it later” school of things. I’d much prefer to be prepared for the obvious possibility ahead of time and it never blow up. Honestly there’s a case for going after Android itself, it killed the market for phones OSes since why develop/charge for one when you can get it for free. MS had no way to compete with free. But how could you ever undo that at this point? (Exception is Apple who was already established and does everything on their own anyway and the cash to fund it)
• cafed00d 4y ago
  I hope Apple turns Xcode features into a tiered pricing model to counter balance and keep developers in check. 1. Want to use the swift compiler? Pay $5000 per year per user (pretty competitively priced if you compare it to the MATLAB Compiler) 2. Want to click any of the “Services” buttons to enable “Siri” etc in your app? $100 per user per year 3. Want to log and instrument your iOS app in production? $1000 per device 4. Want to… (you get my point) Disclaimer: I work at Apple and use all their products. I worked at Mathworks many years ago and saw this thread about the Compiler license https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/248667-how-much-does-a-matlab-compiler-cost#accepted_answer_195994 https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/248667-how-m... Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like adversaries; they are vile, nefarious tricksters. They’re just as “monstrous” as Apple or Google are purported to be. My 3p app experiences from the days before 2010s was riddled with shitty installer’s phantom installing “cnet downloader”; and, fearfully installing plethora of antivirus software (which always seemed to find viruses according to their scanning progress bar)
  • 8note 4y ago
    with sideloading, chances are that somebody will enable androud tooling and apps on iphones, so that wont work for too long
  • Jcowell 4y ago
    > Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like adversaries; they are vile, nefarious tricksters. They’re just as “monstrous” as Apple or Google are purported to be. This is a sentiment that I honestly wished was most discussed here. Developers are not.user.friendly. They’re money friendly. I don’t do , ever, expect them to put user rights over monetary gain and expect them to 100% sell out user data if there’s a big enough user incentive. Web developers would rather use Chrome backed APIs that allow them to do whatever they want, even if damns the web and user privacy.
  • stale2002 4y ago
    > Institutionalized 3p developers should be treated like adversaries The weird part about your statement here, is that you bring up a statement about 3rd party developers doing bad things, and yet the solutions you gave do nothing except for take extra money from those 3rd parties and gives that money to Apple. If you actually cared about stopping all these bad actions, why didn't you suggest an action that gives Apple zero dollars, and prevents these bad things from happening? I am all for both helping customers, and preventing monopoly app stores. How about we solve all of this, by making sure app developers do not have to pay Apple anything, while also ensuring that app developers follow basic user privacy requirements?
• efields 4y ago
  Let’s start the list of UX that could be built if apple followed these rules starting tomorrow. What will be available to me that I don’t have now, and how will it benefit me, Joe P. Consumer? Keep in mind, I have no idea what a software developer does all day — I just want my email to work and these internet pop ups to be easier to close. What am I missing out on?
  • annexrichmond 4y ago
    It may allow for some healthy competition and ultimately better UX on that front in the long term, but in the short term it could also take away dev time for Apple to improve iOS in other ways.
    • efields 4y ago
      That’s a good point about Apple’s own resource reallocation necessary in the short term. iOS feels _pretty good_ these days compared to where it was not too long ago, but having to “unlock” APIs that were built to be private but now have to be public will also expose new bugs (both inherent and new).
    • idle_zealot 4y ago
      > take away dev time for Apple to improve iOS in other ways The mobile phone platform has been "complete" for years now. There are little niggles to work out here and there, but the single most meaningful change that could come is the switch to an open platform. Consider the abundance of tools on desktop platforms like macOS that hook into the system to augment the UX for the better. Imagine having to use macOS without some window management tool like Rectangle, or without a key rebinder like Carabiner. Personally I would find my user experience greatly diminished. But that is the status quo on mobile. Opening iOS up to extensions and third-party integrations would allow for much faster development of the platform's UX, assuming that Apple Sherlocks whatever extensions end up popular. I have no confidence that Apple will be adding useful interaction paradigms on their own (see Stage Manager) so this seems like the inly path forward.
      • 4y ago
• the_duke 4y ago
  This regulation is 5+ years overdue, but legislation always lags behind market conditions. If the US/other countries follow suit there will probably be a big unintended effect though: the diminishing of open web standards and Google getting final say about what will work on "the web" and what won't. With Firefox diminishing, Safari is the last bastion against a Chromium-only web. There are lots of Chromium forks, but they own the project, and I doubt even Microsoft would take on any significant divergence from the upstream code base, considering the development velocity. I would predict (native) Chrome graining a very sizeable market share on iOS within five years, driven in part by web app developers being happy to finally just focus on Chrom(ium) and add "works best Chrome" banners.
  • depressedpanda 4y ago
    What I see, as a web dev, is that finally Apple will have to keep Safari/iOS up-to-date with Safari/macOS, and that in turn up-to-date with all other browsers. I.e., they will no longer be able to artificially hamstring the web in order to prevent web apps from competing with their App Store. They certainly have the money to keep pace with Chrome, and I certainly don't want to put up banners saying "works best in [anything but Safari]", which has been the case for many years now.
    • MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
      “They certainly have the money to keep pace with Chrome” This point has been made before. But Chrome is a moving target. I actually am skeptical that Apple can spend more money on WebKit than Google can on Blink. The way Chrome rose to prominence was by implement brand-new web standards faster than anyone else. If the question is only, “what engine supports the most websites,” I suspect Chrome will increase their development pace in order to try to extend their lead.
      • bageljr 4y ago
        Isn't that a good thing? Like I'm a full time firefox user but what you're saying is "Google and Apple will fund development of web browsers/engines that support new APIs to outcompete each other"
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• actuator 4y ago
  This is so good. At least one regulator seems to be doing its job.
• theplumber 4y ago
  I love EU: "Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription."
• twoodfin 4y ago
  Does anything about this legislation prevent Apple from simply offering a big switch to put your device in “unprotected” mode, giving apps and even full alternative OS’s unrestricted access to the hardware, but without any Apple apps or services available?
  • hoschicz 4y ago
    I think essentially yes, they can't bundle all their apps and services; you have to be able to install their apps and services separately in the unprotected mode. Not very sure though.
• ttul 4y ago
  > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet. While I love the idea of being able to finally install SNES emulators and the like, many malicious actors will now pray on unsuspecting iOS users to install spyware, malware, and other crap via third-party app stores. Not everyone is as sophisticated as the typical Hacker News reader; younger and more naive users will be taken in as victims of various types of fraud. I think that a better path for the European Union would have been to force some regulation of the app store process. Leave in place the parts of Apple's process that provide reasonable guarantees of security and privacy for users, but allow Apple to continue to be the gatekeeper, just with some oversight from regulators. There are plenty of examples of governments regulating things that we might wish to be a little freer if only such additional freedom didn't come with perilous consequences for consumers. I submit the example of cryptocurrencies. Lots of freedom; very little regulation; many vulnerable people have lost their savings.
  • mattnewton 4y ago
    > While I love the idea of being able to finally install SNES emulators and the like, many malicious actors will now pray on unsuspecting iOS users to install spyware, malware, and other crap via third-party app stores. Not everyone is as sophisticated as the typical Hacker News reader; younger and more naive users will be taken in as victims of various types of fraud. Think of the naive users argument has never made sense to me, just allow someone to flip a switch in settings that says “do not flip or your phone could be taken over by hostile viruses” or something to that effect. If someone is going to flip that switch and then install what someone tells them over the phone, why wouldn’t the attacker just ask for them to log into a fake bank site at that point? How much is the App Store saving them?
    • ttul 4y ago
      Let me sketch a scenario for you. Your grandmother receives an email from a trustworthy-sounding man who asks her to follow these easy steps to get a free app. Granny taps "Allow third-party app stores" and then installs whatever garbage the fraudster is hoping she will install. Multiply this by tens of thousands of vulnerable users and you have the makings of a significant problem that will cost society a lot of money and lead to much misery. With the locked-down Apple app store, it's very difficult for granny to install malware even if the trustworthy-sounding man in her inbox is being "helpful". But as soon as you allow a switch of any kind, it will be exploited.
• ksec 4y ago
  I see a lot of Apple Supporters are already calling for Apple to Pull out of the EU. While this legislation applies to both Apple and Google. It was ultimately Tim Cook's Apple that leads to all these changes. Not only did they refuse to actively engage with the EU ( or any government ), they threaten them by either limiting features, services or even outright pulling out of the country. Their standard PR responses were how many jobs they created via their App ecosystem. I would not be surprised if their next page in their PR playbook were to bring Steve Jobs out one way or another. There are quite a few things I dont like in this legislation. But I also think Apple deserves it. Governments around the world have been waiting, but not until the EU, which represent 25% of Apple's revenue made their move before they could follow. Now UK, Australia, Japan and South Korea could pick a subset of this legislation to use as their own.
• YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  Was expecting big fall in share price for Apple but this new didn't even registered anything in share price. Any idea why 10s of billions of dollars of pure competition free predictable profit is not a big thing?
• zackmorris 4y ago
  Maybe fines like this could fund UBI? Society could vote on a number of measures designed to create a sustainable economy. For example, instead of carbon tax credits, we could just set a ceiling on carbon emissions and let companies pay the fine, then send direct payments to everyone. Or set a living wage of $20/hr and make companies directly responsible for paying the shortfall that the government makes up in welfare payments. Or even create a national debt tax, where any cost overruns would fall on the companies who lobbied most. Basically make all of the amoral sources of profit no longer profitable, to starve the beast of multinational corporations so that they can't overtake world governments. Kind of a trickle-up approach to economics to immediately put cash in people's pockets and incentivize automation instead of the daily grind.
  • rglullis 4y ago
    I would not want to receive any money that I know to come from a dirty source. It makes me complicit in the act.
    • zackmorris 4y ago
      That's what money is
  • tgv 4y ago
    > Maybe fines like this could fund UBI? What? Are you counting on steady fines to provide basic life support? If that's not bizarre enough: how much do you think UBI (in the EU) would cost? There are 450M people in the EU. Giving the adults around €20k per year would require €7200B.
    • zackmorris 4y ago
      Just to clarify: that €7200B is currently in the hands of corporations and the wealthy. That's spun to us as economic fact (can't have wealth redistribution!!!) but it comes down to tax policy. We could all vote to raise taxes on high incomes, or even enforce existing tax codes, but we've been told that would put the brakes on the economy. Which is code for the riffraff getting the money instead of a few rich guys. Having to manufacture the money for UBI is a self-limiting belief. The money is already there, but we're so used to giving it all away as unearned income to investors, and even participating in the skimming as investors, that it feels like there is no money. By design because that's what The Matrix is.
• summerlight 4y ago
  This wouldn't happen if Apple decided to cut their Apple tax to 15% or something. They already knew that this 30% is not sustainable. 15% would be still considerably higher than usual payment processors' but something justifiable given their massive investment into the platform. But instead of taking this path, Apple decided to exploit this 30% tax for competition against other service providers. This is obviously unfair advantage, so sooner or later this kind of regulation was expected to come. I'm still not sure if Apple really believed that they could stop this kind of regulation, but they built their entire business structure based on a brittle assumption that they could retain full control on their ecosystem regardless of political landscape. Now they're going to pay the price of making a wrong bet.
  • alimov 4y ago
    > but they built their entire business structure based on a brittle assumption that they could retain full control on their ecosystem regardless of political landscape. Now they're going to pay the price of making a wrong bet. Do you really believe that you see or understand something that decision makers at Apple hadn’t considered?
    • summerlight 4y ago
      Why do you think Apple's decision makers would make the same decision to mine based on the same information? I'm pretty sure that Tim clearly understood the trade-off and his leverage was on a more predictable path via more market controls. You gotta understand different people make different decisions even with the same input.
  • strulovich 4y ago
    It’s very likely this would have happened even if Apple would have cut it to 15%. There’s still about 12% on the table, and the rest of the gate keeping issues would still be there. History is full of precedents where a powerful party gave some of its power only to have it not stop and even accelerate the attacks against it. Apple could not stay the biggest company in the world without attracting attention such as this. One of those has to give.
• vivegi 4y ago
  I love this just for these three rules: > Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet. > Allow developers to offer third-party payment systems in apps and promote offers outside the gatekeeper's platforms. > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription. and restriction on this behavior: > Require app developers to use certain services or frameworks, including browser engines, payment systems, and identity providers, to be listed in app stores.
  • n8cpdx 4y ago
    People don’t choose iPhone because they want those things, they choose iPhone because they want to be protected from them. Look at the Lumenate app that was just on hacker news yesterday: - Android users are complaining about having to create an account to use it - iOS users just pushed a button and didn’t even have to share their email or make a password - iOS users who subscribe have one place to manage their subscription, know that Apple will remind them _before_ the subscription auto renews, and know that they won’t be trapped or tricked into continuing to pay. I don’t know why people on HN think somehow third party payment services are going to be better for Apple’s users than Apple has been. And I don’t know why HN users are so eager to ignore the disaster that the install-exe-from-internet computing mode has been for security. If you hate Apple so much, use an Android, but once again, keep your grubby hands off my iPhone. I hate that Europeans are trying to make my quality of life worse, like they have been for years with cookie popup bullshit.
    • ko27 4y ago
      > People don’t choose iPhone because they want those things Your argument is ridiculous. People didn't choose iPhone because they wanted to deprive themself of an option to switch browsers engines or payment vendors either. People actually chose iPhones for a thousand other reasons.
      • ynniv 4y ago
        No one chooses phones based on browser engines. Why anyone is upset with Apple improving security by only allowing executable pages in Safari is beyond my comprehension.
• blablablub 4y ago
  A lot of talk about the Apple tax of 30%. But who is actually paying the vat of the purchase price? The developer or apple? If it is Apple, then with VAT rates of ~20% in the EU, a 30% cut all of a sudden does not sound so unreasonable.
  • mr_toad 4y ago
    Value added taxes are taxed on value added. Apple pays tax on the 30% it charges, less expenses.
• hrdwdmrbl 4y ago
  Does anyone know if Shopify will be considered a gatekeeper? What are the qualifications for being deemed a "gatekeeper"?
  • arlort 4y ago
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_... If you search for "three main cumulative criteria" you find the three criteria (tldr: turnover in EEA >7.5B€ or capitalisation >75B€; 45M end users (monthly active) in EU and 10k business users (yearly active); satisfy those criteria for three consecutive years) This only applies to companies operating in the following areas: online intermediation services; online search engines; online social networking services; video-sharing platform services; number-independent interpersonal communication services; operating systems; cloud computing services; advertising services; web browsers; virtual assistants.
• mritun 4y ago
  I think California should add legislation to check the power of the European car makers. Make sure that the German cars interoperate with the Ford components and can be serviced by other independent car dealerships as well. BMW and Porsche should also share their advertising numbers.
  • checkurprivlege 4y ago
    • checkurprivlege 4y ago
      Global companies don't love us, and neither does international capital. But we will take pride on our museums and the geography, even if they have nothing to do with our own decisions!
  • username_my1 4y ago
    With “electrification” Germans shouldn’t have unique hardware advantages when it comes to the car industry
  • xdennis 4y ago
    Your suggestions seem to come with a bit of spite, but if they protect consumers I'm all for them. I'm not sure how interchangeable car parts are, but what the EU is doing is requiring things that are known to work: you could always sideload on Android or any computer ever, you could always install any browser anywhere except on iOS, you could always use any payment system, etc etc etc. The EU is basically requiring Apple to not block competitors, not to go out of pocket in supporting them.
• stevenalowe 4y ago
  "Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet" Because security is an illusion anyway? I don't understand the hubris behind politicians dictating technical and/or business decisions. If you want interop so badly, start your own platform. You'll find maintaining its integrity/security an absolute unwinnable nightmare.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• anonymousDan 4y ago
  The game is up for the tech monopolies, happy days.
• exabrial 4y ago
  Instead of more regulation, I wish they'd just break them up. I'd prefer to have less regulation and no monopolies, then a bunch of regulation and monopolies.
• shaman1 4y ago
  While most of the things here are desirable to a user I imagine the cost of compliance would be enormous for Apple, not to mention that it will take years. Even if they do comply, I wouldn't imagine them enabling these for NON-EU countries. They might do a fork and provide slow updates to EU customers or some other way of punishing the users. On the side of the EU, the legislation is a bit too targeted causing a bit of concern to wheather they found the right balance between user rights and stifling private companies. Some of EU legislation has had disastrous side effects like GDPR, this might as well bring unexpected consequences.
• runako 4y ago
  If app developers now will have access to the Secure Enclave, I sincerely hope Apple ships this as an EU-specific version of the hardware. I actually do like having hardware that can be (more) trusted, at least in some cases.
  • smoldesu 4y ago
    I think you have a grave misunderstanding of how hardware-based security coprocessors work... Maybe look into how Windows/Android handles similar models using TPM?
    • runako 4y ago
      Thanks for that, do you have a link that provides an intro?
• kbigdelysh 4y ago
  I hope this does not lead to corruption among EU policy makers. When regulators start adding regulations in a sector, big corps in that sector start spending more money for lobbing; hence more corruption among policy makers.
• fleddr 4y ago
  Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with it or not. That's not really the point. The emphasis of this legislation first and foremost is on developers. Whom need/deserve a level playing field, instead of having the odds stacked up against them. A return to more open computing should be celebrated, even if it remains to be seen what will happen. And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist.
  • capableweb 4y ago
    > And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This is the important point. Just like with decentralized VS centralized debate, starting out with one of them, decides if you can even have the other one. If you have a decentralized foundation (like HTTP), you can always add centralized entities on top, if that's favorable (like Twitter). But the other way is not true, you can't build decentralized things on a centralized foundation. If you have open computing on mobile devices, you can always opt-in to just stay within one ecosystem without being hurt by the openness. But the other way around is not true.
    • n8cpdx 4y ago
      This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe. Hands. Off. My. iPhone.
      • smoldesu 4y ago
        Google and Facebook are subject to legislation as well. If Apple worked with lawmakers to set good privacy precedents for these companies, then you might have an argument. Instead, all we proved is that private corporations feel no obligation to play nice with their competitors, so now our legislators have to fix it for us. > Hands. Off. My. iPhone. You don't own a damn thing. Only Apple (and evidently, governments) makes the choices on "your" iPhone.
• justinclift 4y ago
  > Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription. Oh hell yeah. Hopefully this means the applications which Microsoft keep shovelling into Windows and disallowing removal of become a thing in the past. eg "Video Editor" was an unfortunate discovery on a system here yesterday, introduced with some recent Win10 update. And which isn't allowed to be un-installed. A "Video Editor" shovelware program. Treated as critical to the system. Fuckers. :(
• anothernewdude 4y ago
  So much legislation in the EU. No wonder they never get any small firms there. What start-up is going to navigate all this bullshit while actually developing anything worthwhile?
  • xdennis 4y ago
    This allows more companies to compete with Apple on their platform. Let's say you want to start a payments company. You can do that now. This gives consumers and small firms more freedom.
• tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  The items they listed in this article sound mostly good. (Some of them will also make it harder to protect users from malicious apps, but the restrictions are likely unfortunately necessary to protect them from malicious gatekeepers). What I'm worried about is the stuff they didn't list. Each previous iteration of this was full to the brim with surveillance and censorship provisions, mixed with the good ideas and changed so often that organized pushback from civil society was impossible.
• kurupt213 4y ago
  This reads like absurd regulatory overreach.
• assetlabel 4y ago
  While I would love many of those changes to happen, I won't be holding my breath. Seems to me the odds Apple will pull out of Europe based on this are pretty high. The compliance cost of these changes must be astoundingly high. Fines based on worldwide revenue.. to fine them more if they make more sales in the USA... seems morally repugnant and abusive to me. So does this one: "Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, including marketing and advertising performance data."
• _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Many comments here regarding Apple. But what about the gaming consoles? M$, Sony, Nintendo going to allow sideloading and full hardware access too?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• mrtweetyhack 4y ago
• pabs3 4y ago
  Does this mean that we will be able to install Linux on iPhones?
  • sircastor 4y ago
    Nope. This really just tells Apple and Google that they have to offer a few more features and solutions to competitors than they currently do.
• lenkite 4y ago
  I love the EU. Thanks so much for taking consumer rights forward.
• zoobab 4y ago
  "other tech firms" also your self hosted web server. The title is an american view of the world, where the large companies need to be in the title.