44 ms·

EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

• jarbus 4y ago
  Why is the EU able to pass pro-consumer laws, but America unable to? Are big tech companies just unable to properly bribe the European Union like they do the American Government?
  • dbrgn 4y ago
    Because of institutional corruption. Lawrence Lessig has some great talks about this topic, here's one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okfLPvBjImM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okfLPvBjImM Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCo2bE9Gtk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCo2bE9Gtk (Lawrence Lessig, a law professor, was one of the founders of Creative Commons. He later tried to change US copyright laws to be more consumer-friendly, but concluded that it's almost impossible to do so as long as corporate interests rule politics. He then shifted his research topics to institutional corruption in politics. He actually ran for presidency a few years ago, with funding only from the popuplation, and limited to a certain amount. It failed, he wasn't even invited to TV debates because "if he doesn't take company money he doesn't have a chance".)
  • lioeters 4y ago
    What I'm afraid is that, if the EU continues to successfully assert their authority in matters of pro-consumer/worker/citizen issues, the affected corporations will be more motivated to bribe and thoroughly corrupt the system just like they've done in the U.S.
    • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
      They can try but it’s much less effective in the EU. US government just doesn’t care about its people
  • CaptainNegative 4y ago
    EU-based *aaS companies are practically nonexistent relative to US-based ones, so there's basically nothing holding them back from passing bills like this one gerrymandered to (i) companies with a global market cap above €75B, (ii) with 45 million European users, (iii) and an included web browser or messaging app. If they had companies satisfying those criteria, they'd certainly see more pushback. I personally like these changes, but the cynical forum shopping underlying the €75B threshold they picked is pretty nasty behavior, and I hope US lawmakers retaliate appropriately.
    • Aperocky 4y ago
      So it's basically thinly veiled protectionism.
    • biztos 4y ago
      Would it not be possible to spin off “iPhone Europe PLC” which is worth less than the threshold? If it were truly independent then Apple’s “global market cap” would be irrelevant, and Cupertino could collect via IP licensing in Luxembourg taxed at 5%. [edited for clarity, I think]
      • unity1001 4y ago
        > Would it not be possible to spin off “iPhone Europe PLC” which is worth less than the threshold? That kind of loophole-explotation floats only in common law. Not in civil law. The civil law would go down like a hammer on such heads.
      • dx034 4y ago
        Apple with just European users would be worth much more. If a company really wasn't that big just in Europe, there would be a case to exclude them. Apple certainly isn't one of them.
    • antioppressor 4y ago
      Retaliate for what? There are zero rules and regulations in the US concerning these big behemoths. Those senate hearings are just laughingstock kinda theatricals.Just watch back the Microsoft Antitrust Depositions with Bill Gates.
  • syrrim 4y ago
    Political organizations need to bear in mind the appearance of their actions. Big tech companies are predominantly American (google, apple). Europe putting more regulations on them reads as a patriotic act of defending people from corporate imperialism. The US regulating them reads as limiting the freedom that enabled them to reach such a dominant position in the first place.
  • chis 4y ago
    The U.S. government is pretty inept in general these days. It's hard to see how such an expansive govt regulation would get approved by the current Congress which gets deadlocked over pretty much anything.
  • antioppressor 4y ago
    Because tech behemoths are tentacles of the US. Part of the country's global strategy. US is also meddling in EU lawmaking big time. These rules should be brought around 10+ years ago when they were creating the basic rules for their nice ecosystem.
  • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
    EU is a democracy.
  • unity1001 4y ago
    Proportional representation allowing representation of all views in countries' parliaments on top of doing the same in Euparl. This leading to many actual left-wing MPs getting elected and informing entire parliaments about stuff which the average American may never know about - less American congressmen would ever want to hear about: The browser wars came to Euparl way back in mid 2000s and left-wing MPs first warned that major corporations would abuse it, then over time they demonstrated that it was happening exactly so. Leading to Microsoft vs the Commission and the browser ballot box. Then GDPR. In the meantime, also GMO labeling. And food standards WAY back. And right to repair and all that stuff. And now this. There are even communist MPs in Euparl who are MAJOR proponents of Open Source since a long time ago. They also subscribe to the ideology as well. Which brings about an interesting point: The legislation precisely targets the early, free state of the Internet from mid 2000s to early 2010s before major tech companies consolidated everything.
• hunglee2 4y ago
  all pretty sound, aside from 'interoperability on instant messenger', which would be incompatible with privacy / security obligations from the providers. Wonder how hard US govt will bat for the US tech, leverage is there vs the EU post Putin invasion of Ukraine
  • igorkraw 4y ago
    BS, XMPP federation has been around for decades now. Google messenger used to speak it before the removed it , maybe Facebook as well.
    • zaik 4y ago
      Hopefully this will be the re-birth of the XMPP standard. WhatsApp is built on it, has a huge market share and, when I read this correctly, will start federating in the near future.
    • ptomato 4y ago
      yup. with google messenger it was used almost exclusively to spam google messenger users, and that's what'll happen with this as well.
• Gareth321 4y ago
  This is easily one of the most expansive Acts regarding computing devices passed in my lifetime. The summary is in the link. As an iPhone user, this will enable me to: * Install any software * Install any App Store and choose to make it default * Use third party payment providers and choose to make them default * Use any voice assistant and choose to make it default * User any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default * Use any messaging app and choose to make it default * Make core messaging functionality interoperable. They lay out concrete examples like file transfer * Use existing hardware and software features without competitive prejudice. E.g. NFC * Not preference their services. This includes CTAs in settings to encourage users to subscribe to Gatekeeper services, and ranking their own services above others in selection and advertising portals * Much, much, more. After the Act is signed by the Council and the European Parliament in September, Apple, Google, Amazon, and other "Gatekeepers" will have six months to comply. Fines are up to 10% of global revenue for the first offense, and 20% for repeat offenses.
  • mehdix 4y ago
    Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner.
    • Gareth321 4y ago
      It depends what you mean by walled garden. If you're referring to their ability to secure iOS, then no. The legislation includes many exceptions for security purposes; but they must be demonstrable and genuine. The current iOS implementation already sandboxes applications and only provides limited permissions ad hoc, according to user approval. So even under the current architecture, allowing users to install applications doesn't undermine security.
    • ls15 4y ago
      > Is this potentially breaking apple's walled garden? I wonder wether they will comply at all. They will or there will be a repetition of Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, but with much higher fines.
• djbebs 4y ago
  • ls15 4y ago
    For these companies. As a user, I think that these are great changes.
    • joshsyn 4y ago
      Not really, where is the creative freedom? Is anyone being held hostage to choosing a different phone if it doesn't allow their favourite track to be played?
      • ls15 4y ago
        > where is the creative freedom? Creative freedom is for companies that are valued below €75bn and exempt from this regulation. The big ones have to comply with more heavy-handed regulation, as it should be in my opinion.
  • DandyDev 4y ago
    Can you explain why this is a bad thing?
    • fbn79 4y ago
      This bring more choiche power to the final user. But are final users always in position to make such choiches? Do the final user always have the competence? If you open the app store walled gardens good things can enter, but even bad things. Today if you buy an iPhone to you son you sure that apps are reviewed by Apple. With this ACT, nor Apple, nor other provider can give you this certainty of app moderation.
      • akmarinov 4y ago
        Apple currently let through tons of malicious apps that hit you with a $1000 subscription, so they’re not the best at it either.
• tnzk 4y ago
  > After being signed by the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Council, it will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and will start to apply six months later. So will start by next mid-Jan? I thought this would take a years or two to materialize.
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    Adoption will occur in September, so my reading is that Gatekeepers need to comply by March 2023.
• exabrial 4y ago
  These regulations are precisely targeted to harm these monopolies, but ultimately they will also harm the small players trying to get into the market because of the huge compliance risk. So it is a double edged sword as we’ve seen this play out before. The solution is to prevent monopolies forming in the first place and break them up quickly. And God sakes, stop approving mega mergers (facebook and Instagram? Lol. Google and YouTube? Double lol) Despite this, I’m happy to see some action, but I’d rather set direct action against breaking them up.
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    >they will also harm the small players trying to get into the market because of the huge compliance risk. You will be pleased to hear that the legislation has a floor defined for "Gatekeepers" as only those with a fair market valuation over €75 billion.
    • exabrial 4y ago
      Didn’t notice that. Thanks for pointing that out. I can’t recall a recent piece of regulation that had that provision so this will be interesting to see if it works in reality.
      • Gareth321 4y ago
        It is arguably unprecedented, so I am also very interested to see how this plays out.
      • arlcode 4y ago
        You will be extra pleased to learn that the DMA (this law) or it's cousin the DSA also has rules to restrict the formation of monopoly by limiting the ability of gatekeepers to buy out all competition even before the market dominance is established. (As a side effect it'll probably result in fewer companies with unsustainable business models which are only funded to be bought out) I'm looking forward to it and hope it'll work out.
    • joshsyn 4y ago
• baal80spam 4y ago
  Won't this at least increase the prices of the hardware produced by these companies?
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    We shall see. One thing to remember is that the price of a good is not determined by its costs or profitability, but rather by supply and demand. Apple and Google, for example, are undoubtedly already charging as much as they can for phones in all markets. Given their respective marketing prowess, I expect those prices to be very near the optimal price point already. If they increase prices, they lose sales to a greater degree, and ultimately earn less. Either way I'm sure they will use this legislation as a marketing tactic to justify typical annual price increases.
• endisneigh 4y ago
  I’m curious if this will result in fragmentation in the phones themselves.
  • xdennis 4y ago
    I don't know what type of fragmentation you're referring to, but at least this act requires them to allow communication between companies (i.e. what phones were created for in the first place).
• johnnypangs 4y ago
  Does this cover it allowing the ability to develop browsers on iOS?
  • amelius 4y ago
    Yes, but Apple will make sure they run at 50% lower speed. /s
    • ysleepy 4y ago
      You joke, didn't Apple add custom instructions to their silicon to accelerate their safari/js hot paths like they did with rosetta 2?
      • Avamander 4y ago
        No, those instructions are a part of ARMv8.3 and used by many.
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    Yes, they specifically reference browser engines.
• rpadovani 4y ago
  Lovely. The EU is a behemoth that takes years to proceed, but I really like that they are still trying to fight for consumers' digital rights.
  • nabla9 4y ago
    EU always starts slowly, often with inadequate policies and regulations. But there is constant grind and improvement. Take for example carbon pricing. It started long time ago, was not good enough. There was gradually tightening and now it finally starts having some teeth and more is coming.
  • SuperSandro2000 4y ago
    While at the same time being anti consumer and trying to pass chat control.
    • alaric410 4y ago
      Chat control looks dead. (fingers crossed)
• anonymousab 4y ago
  I wonder if this will affect game consoles as well. They have software markets but they are extremely specific and targeted. In terms of size, I'd think that Microsoft and maybe Sony would reach the threshold.
• MarkMc 4y ago
  So when I attempt to install the Amazon play store on my iPhone, will I get the following scary message? "WARNING: You are about to install non-approved software which may be malicious or a virus. If this software causes damage to your iPhone we will not fix your device, even if it is still under warranty. Are you really sure you want to continue?"
  • 32163704 4y ago
    I presume so. Does the EU ruling require companies to offer warranties for damage caused by users installing malicious software?
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    My reading of the legislation is that this kind of message is only permissible if the Gatekeeper also includes that message when installing the native equivalent. The legislation requires that on initial setup of the device, the user be given a choice of services like browsers, and the Gatekeeper cannot unfairly prejudice competitors by, for example, including such a warning for only the competitors.
• IshKebab 4y ago
  This goes way further than I think anyone ever expected. Hopefully it works out well but some of these seem quite impractical. E.g. I'm curious if they're really going to implement end-to-end encrypted video calls between iMessage and Whatsapp users. Yes this is really required! Possibly even group video calls but the wording for that makes no sense so who knows. They have 4 years to implement it. I feel like they could have gone a lot further to ban tivoising / locking devices too.
• alaric410 4y ago
  Created an account just to comment on this. This is huge. This is basically forcing Apple to open their ecosystem to developers. It's also breaking up a lot of othre monopolies such as WhatsApp. Sweet! Thanks EU!
  • pieter_mj 4y ago
    You might want to hold on thanking the EU : are you aware of the accompanying proposal the Digital Services Act [0]? [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31132417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31132417
• spicysugar 4y ago
  Does it include full ide support for ipads?
  • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
    I hope so. I love my iPad but it is so annoying it is locked down
• ben_w 4y ago
  I'm conflicted about the app stores. On the one hand, a non-modifiable single point of sale tied to the OS, with rules to prevent private data (and private API) access, is good and reduces data risks to me personally and society as a whole. On the other hand, I'm not an American, I don't live or work in America, and the users of my five most recent published apps have not been in the USA, so I've never been happy about the US federal government having any say at all about my use of encryption. Plus my cultural norms are not those of the USA, so I'm comfortable with content Apple block outright and uncomfortable with stuff Apple lets though without any (apparent to me) concern. The other stuff all appears straightforwardly good. I wonder what this will mean for licensing/fees for future releases of Xcode, Swift, iOS etc.?
  • thefz 4y ago
    History is full of examples of malware slipping through and app review processes leaking everywhere, the non modifiable single point of sale is not there to benefit you.
    • ben_w 4y ago
      > malware slipping through and app review processes leaking everywhere, "It's not perfect" != "It doesn't benefit me" (For other examples from my life: clothes, driving licenses, voting, spam filters, and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). > the non modifiable single point of sale is not there to benefit you. That probably wasn't the original point of it, but it does have the effect of protecting me.
• baobob 4y ago
  Does anyone know if the definition of "gatekeeper" extends to infrastructure services like AWS or Cloudflare? > A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services, which, in turn, enables them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of activity to another. Some of those undertakings exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient those market operators may be Sure sounds cloudy to me edit: it seems to be explicitly covered: Article 2 > (1) ‘Gatekeeper’ means an undertaking providing core platform services, designated pursuant to Article 3; > (2) ‘Core platform service’ means any of the following: > (i) cloud computing services; Article 3 > 1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if: > (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market; > (b) it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and > (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future. This act sounds like the US tech equivalent of Thor's hammer
  • hrgiger 4y ago
    It gives me feeling also kindle covered
    • shkkmo 4y ago
      Does it also cover gaming consoles?
      • MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Hopefully. Game consoles normalized the shit Apple is doing.
  • nonameiguess 4y ago
    I'm not sure how this would mean anything for a service provider like AWS. You can already install and run whatever version of your own services you want on bare EC2s, and if you don't want to use the xen hypervisor for some reason, you can buy bare metal instances and do whatever you want with them. It's already possible to run OpenStack on AWS if you really want to do that.
• badsectoracula 4y ago
  Nice, this means i might consider buying an iPhone again at some point. I have an old iPod Touch but since it has been long abandoned by Apple it is practically useless - i can't even use it as a music player despite it obviously being perfectly capable of that. I've given up on Apple devices considering i can't even install another OS on their Macs too nowadays so i can at least use up-to-date software. (technically i know it can be jailbroken but the process is so annoying and requires downloading some old version of iTunes from who knows where - so obviously i'd rather have that sort of functionality officially supported)
• bloppe 4y ago
  It blows my mind how many people have bought into Apple's position on this. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. If you're not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.
  • vlozko 4y ago
    This is a very myopic view of what it’s like for the elderly and less tech savvy. Most aren’t capable of telling the difference and yet they constantly find themselves unknowingly getting scammed. I take it you’ve never had to clean out a horribly malware infested computer for a mother-in-law before?
    • bloppe 4y ago
      While this is certainly a problem, I don't accept it as an argument for why we all have to be locked in the walled garden. Just add a system setting that controls the walls. Let people disable it if they want, and tell your mother-and-law to never ever disable it no matter what. If you're worried that they'll be tricked into disabling it, then they probably should not be in control of a bank account or anything else serious anyway. Anyway, this isn't really relevant to this regulation. People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA.
      • vlozko 4y ago
        What happens when installing Facebook requires this setting to be disabled because it's only installable with their own App Store and rampant with privacy intrusions? > People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. I disagree with this assertion. It's certainly far less than those getting scammed on Mac/PC. > It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA. There's a failure in imagination here in all the ways that companies will take advantage of this to the severe detriment of users, often with the user being clueless on how much they're compromised. What's undeniable is that this regulation dramatically increases the surface area of ways to scam people.
• mark_l_watson 4y ago
  Looks pretty good, and I wish my country (USA) would pass similar things. Still, as an Apple customer, I like having Safari pre installed and I like the Message app so I hope it’s functionality doesn’t change.
• sylware 4y ago
  They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. That does enable the possibility to use other browsers than big tech browsers. It is related to the "core messaging interoperability". And making core messaging functionality interoperable is fairly not enough because we already know what they will do to lock users on their software: they will accelerate their planned obsolescence, will increase the complexity/size of their protocol (or open source software) in order to kill alternatives which cannot have full-time bazillions of devs. Ofc, they will hide their malicious behavior behind words like "they have to evolve/adapt" or other security fallacies (I would not be surprise if corpos(=state?) paid hackers start to abuse the system in order to give corpos "good excuses" to trash interop), etc, well you get the picture. Simple, but good enough to the do reasonably the job, stable in time is the way to regulate them. Those guys are smart, their evil will be too.
  • amelius 4y ago
    > They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web Noscript has nothing to do with this.
  • bloppe 4y ago
    They're smart, but the language of the regulation gives enforcers enough leeway to fine them for trying to pull bullshit like this. Using "bazillions of devs" to try to circumvent the spirit of the law would be an enormous waste of time and money. Hopefully they realize that before even trying.
    • sylware 4y ago
      That said, they are actually doing it for the web, and it is working. I am more pessimistic than you about this since I am being hit hard by the web issue.
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    > They forgot the noscript/basic (x)html interoperability for the web. I agree that interoperability on the web should be protected at least as much as on mobile, since the web as a platform has the potential to be more open than the tightly integrated mobile ecosystems. Unfortunately, what that would look like in practice is harder to say, as I don't think governments could mandate "Semantic Web" versions of all websites, even though that would give true client choice and allow the building of complementary services. My main disappointment with the legislation is that "core messaging interoperability" doesn't also require interoperability between social networks, since a Facebook user should be able to send a DM to a Twitter user, for example, and ActivityPub solves the more general issue of social network federation.
• ilaksh 4y ago
  What's the plan for enforcing it? Did the United States sign off on it? In my opinion they need the US buy-in, and there actually need to be criminal penalties enforced against top executives (jail time) and the other executives need to see it happen. Unless they do that stuff it seems like they may really try to ignore and delay and do the absolute minimum effort.
  • hestefisk 4y ago
    It’s EU law, not US law. US cannot sign off on EU law.
  • seydor 4y ago
    considering the status of both companies as basically a duopoly, it will be hard for the US to object about unfair trade rules.
  • arlcode 4y ago
    If it comes so far (which I really doubt) as them simply ignoring it, their European Operations can be fined (directly through their bank accounts if need be) or their European employees can be jailed. They can also be disallowed to do business with European consumers and companies. In short: "The fines will continue until compliance improves. Get in line or get out of the market". They don't have much political leverage, given how few people they employ and how little taxes they pay over here. Their standing in the US isn't the best either so it's doubtful whether America is willing to invest much political capital over something she herself is considering.
    • ilaksh 4y ago
      They won't simply ignore it, but they will do the minimum amount they can possibly get away with, which will amount to effectively ignoring it.
  • alaric410 4y ago
    The European Union is a huge market. If Google or Apple doesn't comply then they say goodbye to those profits.
• bkfh 4y ago
  What I don't understand about messaging is, do only the large providers have to be interoperable among each other or can I create my own crappy messaging app and integrate with WhatsApp, Messenger, Signal et al.? Edit: typo
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    That's a good question, but I assume that anti-trust regulators will decide what is "reasonable" partly based on the number of users of your messaging app. Obviously there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there, but if one of these gatekeepers has 100 million users, then it is hard to justify them writing and maintaining a load of extra code to interoperate with an app that has less than, say, 1 million users. Perhaps in practice, though, the gatekeepers will be able to publish a simple API and say that all competitors who want to interoperate with them can do so, after signing a contract with their lawyers and exchanging public keys in person, and paying an administrative fee (to prevent spammers).
  • alaric410 4y ago
    These regulations apply only to "Gatekeepers", meaning large companies with huge revenue and market power.
• hestefisk 4y ago
  European democracy at its best. Proud to be European today.
  • bagacrap 4y ago
    this is democracy? Seems like extortion and protectionism to me. If this affected any European companies I would just call it anti-business, but instead it's clearly xenophobia.
    • unity1001 4y ago
      > Seems like extortion and protectionism to me Wait until you learn about the import-quotas that the US applies to every country that it trades with. Including those with 'free trade' agreements.
    • alaric410 4y ago
      Those of us who are not American prefer that the internet is not owned by a small number of American megacorps. EU is responding to that.
  • pmcollins 4y ago
    did you feel proud when the eu passed the cookie law? are you proud every time you have to wait for and click through a cookie modal? (never mind the development costs) you might end up with an ad- and app-store- riddled europhone and if you decide that you want to buy a us or international spec iphone you won’t be permitted to do so.
    • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
      Yes. I like the cookie walls. It’s a constant reminder most websites are garbage. I welcome my ad- and app-store riddled europhones and then chose to not use most apps that use tracking ads
    • emkoemko 4y ago
      i like that companies are forced now to show me the data they collect on me with a simple request
• everyone 4y ago
  Wow I think that site has the 1st decent GDPR popup thing I've seen. Just two buttons, accept cookies, reject cookies, u click one and then it goes away.
  • alkonaut 4y ago
    That’s what a compliant one must look like. If it has e.g “accept” and “manage choices” then it’s blatantly non-compliant and hopefully such popups will be extinct once a few such sites are fined.
    • everyone 4y ago
      Well it's the 1st of probably 100's of sites I've visited that's actually compliant then.
• lizardactivist 4y ago
  • bloppe 4y ago
    I accuse tech gatekeepers of many things, but arson is not one. Any chance you could provide references to these claims?
    • lizardactivist 4y ago
      Me neither. But the US government looks after their corporations and their markets, and has never been above espionage, sabotage, and petty vindictiveness. In particular since it believes the EU markets should be theirs to do with as they wish, and that the EU government is the enemy standing in their way. And occasionally I see patterns of events where the time, place, circumstances and outcome makes me suspect sabotage.
• Pulcinella 4y ago
  How does this interact with non-Google manufactured android phones? Can Samsung lock things down where Google can’t?
  • MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Samsung specifically is well over the €75b threshold, so I would think this law applies to them as well.
• hereme888 4y ago
  So, if tech companies don't extend these changes to customers in the USA, could I buy an unlocked smartphone in Europe and for use in the USA?
  • yohannparis 4y ago
    Not necessarily, most software uses is based on where you are based. On iOS your account is tied to your billing address (which is soooo annoying). This is done to follow local laws, and where an app publisher wants to sell.
  • warp 4y ago
    I would expect this would also go in effect on existing iPhones, so it seems more likely that you'd need a European Apple ID/account.
    • bushbaba 4y ago
      So will google be forced to upgrade all older android sales to be upgraded to the latest release? If so, they’ll be fined
• impalallama 4y ago
  I'm very interested to see how this will affect closed gaming platforms like Nintendo, Sony, etc. Personally I'd love to be able to install an itch.io app on my switch and play some silly indies.
  • simondotau 4y ago
    If this law doesn’t force the consoles to open up, it will prove that it was not grounded in real principles. Consoles are computers, just as surely as an iPhone is.
    • bogwog 4y ago
      > Consoles are computers, just as surely as an iPhone is. I don’t think most people see it that way. Game consoles could be general purpose computers if you changed the operating system, but no one (except maybe PS3 customers) buys a game console expecting to use it for general computing. Likewise, the computer in a Tesla is probably powerful enough to run a full desktop operating system, but it’s clearly not what it was designed for, not what anyone bought it for, and not what anyone reasonably expects it to be used for. Smartphones are indisputably general purpose computing devices.
      • krageon 4y ago
        They are general purpose computers, just like phones. It's purely a software limitation.
        • shultays 4y ago
          My toaster probably have the same cpu as my phone, but limited by its software. Is it a general purpose computer as well?
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • 4y ago
• MrYellowP 4y ago
  I don't even want to know how bad this is going to turn out to be.
• zkirill 4y ago
  I like to think of this as payback for Android App Bundles and mandatory sharing of signing keys [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27699476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27699476
• alex7734 4y ago
  Very good. Even politicians can do a good thing every once in a while. Now, can we get rid of hardware remote attestation and impossible-to-unlock bootloaders please?
  • perceptronas 4y ago
    I am not sure that's a good idea. Now phones are rarely stolen. I would not like to come back to time when you get mugged for your phone. (1st hand experience)
    • alex7734 4y ago
      You can still have FRP with an unlockable bootloader. Just place the unlock bootloader button after the forced Google login so that even if you factory reset the phone you cannot unlock the bootloader without the Google account. In fact that is how most phones (that still have an unlockable bootloader) do it, the button is in the developer options which if you reset the phone you cannot get to without having access to the linked Google account.
• losvedir 4y ago
  I'm sort of surprised at the positive tone here. Sure, it's nice for non-technical people to enumerate a lot of nice to haves, but just asserting something doesn't make it true or possible. As one example, making "core messaging functionality interoperable". How exactly does that work with end-to-end encryption? I suppose we'd need some sort of open system and protocol for all the tricky key sharing stuff? That would be nice but doesn't seem feasible in 6 months. And how do you know what they're using on the other end? If someone is using an app that doesn't support encryption, and they try to send a message to, say, you on WhatsApp, where you have e2e enabled by default, what happens? Another one is they can't "limit payment possibilities to their own method". Presumably this means like iPay and Google Pay. Isn't there, again, some hardware security issues in play with that? I don't understand those systems well enough to know for sure, but I thought they were locked down and proprietary in part to protect your financial data.
  • aaomidi 4y ago
    If the app doesn’t support encryption, then they don’t see the message. Client side lock downs aren’t security. They’re security theater.
  • capableweb 4y ago
    > How exactly does that work with end-to-end encryption? Exactly how we deal with everything else that works across platforms: standardization. We've done it at least once before (SSL/TLS), I'm sure these rich and "amazingly smart" companies can figure out how to achieve it once again. > Isn't there, again, some hardware security issues in play with that? Is there hardware security issues with accept CC details on the web? Assuming the computer itself isn't compromised, the web seems to (again) have figured out how to deal with it across platforms, both OSes and browsers, why can't phone OSes do it?
    • dodobirdlord 4y ago
      Ah, so now nobody can ever launch any new messaging features without reaching a consensus in a standardization body. Progress!
• golemotron 4y ago
  At what point does it just become cheaper and more prudent to leave the EU market?
  • capableweb 4y ago
    Considering that the EU is the second largest consumer market in the world (at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke...), it seems like that point is kind of far away.
    • golemotron 4y ago
      Could be as early as winter. Things are not very bullish for the EU right now given their energy situation.
      • alkonaut 4y ago
        You are suggesting the bad energy situation due to the war would make the EU a market small enough to ignore for any tech giant?
      • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
        We’re fine, don’t worry. Well most of us are
        • EtienneK 4y ago
          Copium.
  • alaric410 4y ago
    EU is one of the largest consumer markets there is. US Tech companies are probably regretting the day they left China. They won't make the same mistake again.
• switch007 4y ago
  Hopefully this goes better than GDPR. The only outcome I’ve seen is all my friends and family clicking “I accept” to explicitly allow tracking. Remember how we were praising GDPR and the level of fines etc…
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    If sites actually obeyed the GDPR (i.e. if national governments actually devoted enough resources to enforcing it) then all those banners would have a "Reject" button that is just as clickable as the "Accept" one. Hopefully your friends and family haven't become so trained to look for the word "accept" that they will be unable to find the correct button when companies finally start complying. Or better yet, companies will realise that 99% of users click reject, and the tracking data provided by the remaining 1% is not valuable enough to annoy the 99% for.
    • rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      > dane-pgp 4 hours ago | parent | next [–] If sites actually obeyed the GDPR (i.e. if national governments actually devoted enough resources to enforcing it) then all those banners would have a "Reject" button that is just as clickable as the "Accept" one. Yeah, but there isn’t. There is no incentive, or a stick, to make them comply. It’s a dumb regulation. The regulator doesn’t care to enforce and has no resources to enforce. It’s obvious that people who benefit from tracking will do anything to make people click that accept button. It’s obvious that they will also make it as obnoxious as possible to reject. It was clear from the beginning.
      • dane-pgp 4y ago
        > It was clear from the beginning. I don't remember anyone predicting that there would be an industry-wide effort to deliberately not comply with the rules, relying on lax national enforcement, with companies choosing to make their own websites less nice to use just to (successfully) trick people into hating the legislation and not the surveillance practices that the legislation was designed to stop. That's proven to be a great strategy in hindsight, but I think that this Schelling point was only found by accident.
• capybara_2020 4y ago
  Does this mean that you can install a stock version of Android and Google can't prevent apps from running because they fail "safetynet" or what ever it is called.
• fbanon 4y ago
  What HackerNews thinks will happen: "zomg, I will finally be able to run Arch on my iPhone!" What will actually happen: "honey, something is wrong with my phone, whenever I unlock it, a popup jumps up that says 'Please update the Adobe™ Updater™ to get up to date Adobe™ Software Updates', could you take a look at it?"
  • thrawway 4y ago
    You forgot the best part: the same people who think the former are responsible for the latter.
  • akersten 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm honestly shocked at how welcomed the concept of "the government is telling developers that they must make their product less secure and streamlined" is here... This will not bring the interoperability utopia many believe, unless you mean 8 different app updaters bogging down your phone because now there's "competition" and the DrainMyBattery Store only charges 15% fees so it's the only place you can get CoolApp.
    • asah 4y ago
      small price for an open ecosystem. honestly, Apple had their chance and while claiming to self-police, in fact they enacted an obvious walled garden that went way way way beyond security requirements.
      • d12bb 4y ago
        What is this open ecosystem worth if it's not as good as the closed one we have now? The choice always was there as one can buy Android (and install some Open(TM)Rom) or any niche OS.
    • justapassenger 4y ago
      Yeah, and that unsecured Linux is destroying the world! It’s not about making products less secure. That’s what apple makes you wanna think. It’s about giving customers choice. They can stay in Apple ecosystem (I will for example). Or they can not. Companies like Apple will have to work much harder now, to give both users and developers enough value to justify being locked in.
• eqtn 4y ago
  Will it possible for Apple/Others to create something like Apple EU which then will license iOS from Apple US paying license fees and stay below €75 billion market valuation?
  • kevingadd 4y ago
    Companies already use local subsidiaries in this way to dodge taxes and regulations. The EU isn't likely to overlook it this time.
• a4a4a4a4 4y ago
  I'm not sure how I feel about this. My gut instinct is that opening these things can lead to a ton of malware and fake app stores, which will lead to a not-insignificant number of people being victimized. I'm also annoyed that the EU produces effectively 0 innovative tech, and subsequently has very suppressed tech salaries, but is so ready to regulate the American companies that make the world go 'round.
  • origin_path 4y ago
    It's worth noting that Android already allows such things and there has been no malware apocalypse. In all the years Android existed I've never encountered someone with a malware filled phone. People stick with the default app store and are fine. Agree about the EU though.
    • bun_at_work 4y ago
      The entire history of Android is filled with malware stories. Google has gotten better about moderating their PlayStore, but there have been plenty of flashlight apps or similarly dumb apps that are just rootkits, bitcoin miners, or more malicious forms of malware.
      • izacus 4y ago
        AppStore is also filled with malware apps (including explotative flashlight apps and apps that trick you into subscriptions). Yours is a throughly debunked argument.
        • rad_gruchalski 4y ago
          Awesome, there will be more of those soon.
      • kevincox 4y ago
        You are talking about malware in the official app store, not how installing software via alternative appstores or without an app store is worse.
• avgDev 4y ago
  Oh please spare me this crap. This isn't true at all. I knew this was bs before switching to iphone but I was optimistic. Apple AirPlay is just pure trash, so I have to use chromecast. My Apple watch keeps bugging out and notifying me few minutes late and requires restart of both devices. The device keeps connecting to open networks while my remembered home network is available. The camera lens has issues with glare in the sun. I got it because I plan on keeping the devices for 4-5 years, but the "it just works" is the worst kind of pro argument and has 0 information.
  • philliphaydon 4y ago
    > Apple AirPlay is just pure trash, so I have to use chromecast. What's trash about it? Never had any issues with it, ever. > My Apple watch keeps bugging out and notifying me few minutes late and requires restart of both devices. Bugging out and notifying you a few minutes late for what? I get text messages on my watch at exactly the same time as my phone. > The device keeps connecting to open networks while my remembered home network is available. The device will only connect to networks you've connected to before. So this is user error. It's simple, forget that network. > The camera lens has issues with glare in the sun. This is a problem with any phone, or any camera?
    • avgDev 4y ago
      AirPlay doesn't connect, disconnects and cannot reconnect. This is far from working. Chromecast is MUCH MUCH more reliable. Just go look on forums. The delayed notifications are also pretty common and addressed on many forums, even on apples. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7022042 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7022042 https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/jj8wpv/slowdelayed_notifications/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/jj8wpv/slowdela... The lens glare is extremely common on iphone 12/13, and I did NOT have glare this bad on my other devices. I believe some reviewers even mentioned it. https://www.reddit.com/r/iPhone13/comments/s0n095/iphon13_camera_lens_flare_issue_did_any_observed/ https://www.reddit.com/r/iPhone13/comments/s0n095/iphon13_ca...
      • 4y ago
• hgazx 4y ago
  This is going to be bad. Regarding the iPhone: It will open the door to apps asking me to install their own stores to access them. That will be inconvenient. It will open the door to apps charging me through methods other than Apple’s subscriptions. That will make it harder for me to cancel. It will open the door to malware on the phones of my less technologically capable relatives. On the other hand I will be able to install pirated Spotify and YouTube much easily. I currently have to use AltStore, which is somewhat annoying. I’m not even going to comment on interoperability between messengers. It’s simply absurd, no matter the way I look at it.
  • cloogshicer 4y ago
    How is interop between messengers a bad thing? Wouldn't it be amazing if you wouldn't have to switch between 100 messengers all the time?
    • hgazx 4y ago
      Personally I keep a different persona in all those messengers and they are all different in the way that they work and the features that they offer. I’m happy compartmentalising things. Not to mention the spam problem that will likely occur.
      • arlcode 4y ago
        I read the legislation as that still being possible. There is no need for you to communicate with anybody who you don't want to communicate with.
• plandis 4y ago
  One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. Europe could even subsidize it. But instead, it’s more engineering by bureaucrats. Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    >Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market? The open market employs children to work in coal mines. No one should trust the open market.
  • JohnGB 4y ago
    That's an ironic take given that these rules are there to take away monopoly power and have an actual open market.
    • bun_at_work 4y ago
      How does Apple have a monopoly? The only thing that comes close is the App Store, which requires you buy an iPhone, which is not the most common mobile device. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe Further, other phone companies start from nothing and become quite successful in market place, and some fail, but consider OnePlus - they decided to make a "Flagship Killer" and are still delivering high quality devices.
      • dane-pgp 4y ago
        > How does Apple have a monopoly? They have monopoly power and control over app developers' access to iPhone users. If supermarkets offered a loyalty card program that made it physically impossible for you to shop at another supermarket, then this would be a monopoly/anti-trust issue too, even if no supermarket had a majority share of the market. The usual response of Apple fans is "You can just buy a second phone", but asking app developers to give away free Android phones to their iPhone-using potential customers is not really a viable competitive strategy.
• tayistay 4y ago
  I have a modular synthesizer app for iOS [1]. Will this legislation force Apple to let me JIT? (That’s a key restriction that prevents competing browsers.) Would be great for performance. [1] http://audulus.com http://audulus.com
  • alkonaut 4y ago
    It might force Apple to allow you to distribute a version of your app on a different store or sideloaded from a file, which doesn’t necessarily follow the restrictions on the official App Store. That’s how I understand it at least.
• techpression 4y ago
  I really hope there will be an open iPhone that people can buy and they keep their existing one for those of us who doesn’t want our phones to become cookie-pop up-ridden data collecting nightmares that is guaranteed to to happen. Anyone want to bet against Spotify requiring you to install the Spotify App Store to use the client?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• sbenji 4y ago
  I think this is aimed as much at Microsoft as any of the companies listed.
  • Gareth321 4y ago
    It certainly qualifies as a Gatekeeper, and perhaps I should have included Microsoft in the title. I'm just not sure how this impacts them. The most obvious candidate here is the Xbox, but I've not done any analysis with regards to this legislation and game consoles.
• idkwhoiam 4y ago
  [flagged]
• cm2012 4y ago
  Since GDPR has an unbelievably wasted time to positive impact on people ratio, I fear that this will be the same.
• giantrobot 4y ago
  This should have been named the Law of Unintended Consequences. In the most abstract, opening up mobile and messaging platforms is a Good Thing. Unfortunately it is going to cause a mass of real world problems and will have significant negative consequences. Requiring alternate App Stores will mean Facebook, Epic (Tencent), TikTok, and Scams R Us will all set up their own app stores. Their apps will slowly move to those stores where there are zero restrictions on the collection of personal data. Even if the OS requires user permission to access personal data people are just going to smash that accept button like they've been conditioned to do with GDPR dialogs. Forcing alternate browser engines will just see Google use its enormous influence on the web to coerce everyone into using Chrome. The current "web standards" are ridiculously complicated. Google's "standards" are also privacy nightmares as they're perfect for fingerprinting. Web standards have gotten so complex Microsoft threw in the towel and just uses Blink. This legislation is just going to accelerate a Blink (and thus) Google monoculture on the web. If Microsoft can't maintain a viable browser engine against the complexity of web standards, driven primarily by Google, there's no hope for a plucky upstart to come along with a new browser engine. I guess learn to enjoy WebIrisScanner and WebAttention APIs when they're rolled out to help Google's ad business. Messaging interoperability is going to be a clusterfuck. Messaging protocols and back ends are complex. The law doesn't seem to specify what messaging interoperability means at an implementation level. It's going to impose a huge cost on all messaging platforms to carry (and spool for delivery) traffic from third parties. While obviously the EU wants to impose cost on US companies, EU mobile carriers will end up subject to these laws and need to spend money supporting Facebook and iMessage traffic. If history teaches us anything about sweeping technological regulation it's that we're not pessimistic enough about unintended consequences.
  • Apocryphon 4y ago
    I really think that setting up an alternative app store is more difficult than one can imagine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31991394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31991394 Out of the ones you've listed, I think Epic has the highest likelihood to do it, not just because they were the only one to take substantiative legal action to try to force it, but because theirs is a platform that might actually offer compelling content that would give users a good reason to switch. (Though then again, plenty of iOS games will remain with the Apple Arcade, and I'm not sure what killer apps Epic has beyond Fortnite.) If Facebook or TikTok moves their apps to a new app store without offering an additional app library of new content, users are going to be irate and it could end up backfiring on them. I think TikTok would stand a greater chance of doing that given that ByteDance is a Chinese company subject to that nation's regulations and policies, but I don't see attempts at a Meta, Google/Alphabet, or Amazon app store succeeding for long. App stores are hard, and even harder when your competitor owns the platform- I'm sure Apple can still exercise leverage over iOS beyond the App Store.
• InTheArena 4y ago
  This looks like bad news for Apple, much more so then for Google. It doesn't really address Google's ad-driven ecosystem, but goes hard after the app store and hardware differences where apple has prioritized privacy rather then ad-spend. I don't see a alternative to apple the to emulate Google and ditch privacy in favor of ad-tech after looking at the text.
  • chis 4y ago
    Might end up being good for Goog if it expands the reach of Chrome on iOS. Google currently pays 10+ billion a year to be the default search provider on Safari.
  • dudus 4y ago
    These rules specifically seem targeted at Meta's/Google's ad business. - (Gatekeepers have to) give business users access to their marketing or advertising performance data on the platform - (Gatekeepers can no longer) reuse private data collected during a service for the purposes of another service
• fariszr 4y ago
  Finally, it's time to stop chat monopolies, and apple's empty excuses for monopolistic behaviors like only allowing WebKit and only apple payment process while also taking 15% and not allowing you to increase the price.
• whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  I do wish iPhones could use alternate browser engines and bypass the Apple 30% cut, but the fact I'm having to click through one of those stupid cookie dialogs on this page just leaves the bad taste in my mouth of how much the EU regulation screwed up the internet the last time they made a change like this. Not saying I want tracking cookies everywhere, but they should have just made tracking cookies illegal outright, rather than legal if people agree meaning I have to dismiss thousands of cookie dialogs a year. Because they were incompetent in writing their legislation, they doomed us to cookie dialogs for the rest of my life.
  • 627467 4y ago
    I left Europe before the full enforcement of this cookies dialog and everytime I spend time there I'm like: how can anyone accept this state of affairs
    • tradertef 4y ago
      Exactly my situation. I was there for a business trip a couple of weeks ago and all those dialogs make the experience of web horrible.
    • apexalpha 4y ago
      More and more website do not have this Cookie warning simply because they choose to not collect enormous amounts of user data. One example: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ The cookie law could've been better but there's not law that says you need this banner, only that you need it if you collect an unnecessary amount of data from your users.
    • lock-the-spock 4y ago
      You left Europe because of consumer protection laws? To solve a problem that is actually global and, if it really bothers you, can be solved with a browser plugins that clicks yes? Rather odd choice, but everyone has their priority I suppose.
  • pmcollins 4y ago
• WebbWeaver 4y ago
  So many loopholes
• gamesbrainiac 4y ago
  > prevent developers from using third-party payment platforms for app sales Does this mean that you can install any application on iOS and tvOS now?
• InsomniacL 4y ago
  In 6 months time am i going to be able to send a whatsapp message to someone on facebook messenger?
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    The other question is, will you be able to follow a Twitter user from Facebook, and send them a DM? I think the answer is "No", because that counts as social media interoperability rather than messenger interoperability, but I don't understand how Facebook have managed to convince the EU to exempt them from this.
• bluSCALE4 4y ago
  This is amazing. I can't wait until these changes get implemented. I'll never understand boot-lickers that complain about this sort of thing. These devices are computers, I couldn't imagine my computer getting this locked down. Now, the EU just needs to outlaw soldered components that can be made interchangeable and all will be good in the world.
• bluSCALE4 4y ago
  8 years is too much time. I feel like a technology gets replaced every 15 years so by this logic, rules will only get applied at the tail end of its lifespan. Better late than never but maybe 3-5 years would be a better number.
• pnw 4y ago
  Obviously this is aimed at phones but does it extend to any other computing devices? For example, does it require Microsoft to allow access to a third party app store and payment system on a game console like Xbox?
• Dagonfly 4y ago
  > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. A lot of Apple's system design will hinge on this paragraph. They might still be able to require some form of Notarization. I'd welcome that. Keep the Security through code signing and a strong permission system. Allowing other App Stores to set their own review process and "guidelines".
  • Apocryphon 4y ago
    Apple definitely can do more for iOS user security beyond App Store review, and much casual commentary overlooks that. Not to mention, given how the EU seems to be fairly pro-consumer protection, alternative app store guidelines will probably be subject to regulator scrutiny as well. A lot of the doomsday scenarios about Facebook creating an app store to invasively track people seem to forget that regulators don't like that, nor their respective monopolistic practices, either. I don't think they'll be able to get away with creating an user-tracking scammy app store and then taking their existing ubiquitously-used apps off of the official App Store without drawing the ire of the EU.
• from 4y ago
• biztos 4y ago
  For obvious reasons most comments are about how this affects Apple, but doesn’t it also mean I will be able to develop apps for Kindle, and those apps will be able to use the built-in mobile data on the same terms as Amazon?
• joe__f 4y ago
  To my understanding, the EU cookie law has mostly been met with malicious compliance; now I get a pop-up window on nearly every web page I visit asking me if I'm happy to accept their tracking cookies. Does anyone have thoughts on how big tech might comply to this new digital markets act maliciously?
  • woojoo666 4y ago
    The GDPR outcome was largely good though. I can download my data from way more websites than I could before
    • kaashif 4y ago
      > The GDPR outcome was largely good though. The issue with GDPR-style regulations with huge penalties is that it makes it harder for new entrants to the market to operate without fear of violating the law by accident. Big tech has no such fear due to huge legal departments. Maybe the outcome overall is still good, but let's remember that Facebook (and Mark Zuckerberg personaly) was/is at the forefront of demanding heavy regulations for social media [1] because they knew only they (and maybe one or two established competitors) could operate safely and actually make sure they comply with the law [2]. More regulation just entrenches the big incumbents. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-... [2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/regulation-good-for-facebook-bad-for-competition-former-exec.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/regulation-good-for-facebook...
      • krageon 4y ago
        Please stop spreading this GDPR FUD, the demands are very clear - as is the case where you don't need informed consent at all. "New entrants" are either not scared of the GDPR or probably violating it, much like the big players.
      • bruce343434 4y ago
        good, screw them for "accidentally" violating GDPR and screwing with my data.
• antipaul 4y ago
  Part of me would love to see Apple pull out of Europe, and bully them to roll this back. Would be fun to watch! I’d say 50-50, they’d win!
  • bluepizza 4y ago
    You can replace Apple products with similars. Apple cannot replace money with lack of money.
• antipaul 4y ago
  Subject: business models to become huge monopolies. Apple makes $$$ from selling products people mostly love. Google, Facebook/Meta make most of their cash from surveillance capitalism, I mean, advertising. Microsoft (tracking keystrokes in Windows) and Amazon (“we are a ‘data’ company”) also aren’t really privacy focused (though they do get chunks of income from actual products) So I’m a bit torn with this legislation.
• bogwog 4y ago
  I’m excited to see how Apple passive aggressively implements these changes.
• ksec 4y ago
  While this will put some pressure on Apple and Google, personally I still want a third choice of Smartphone Platform. People would immediately point to Microsoft being a possible third should they decide to do it, I am not looking forward to it as much considering Microsoft would be more of the same as current Apple and Google. In terms of consumer facing companies, it is sad there is not a single company in Silicon Valley which I like.
  • Apocryphon 4y ago
    Really sad we don't have a Palm or a General Magic around these days.
  • rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    Microsoft already tried and failed. They have also ruined Nokia.
• bgdam 4y ago
  I hope this means Apple is finally forced to start competing on features and not just on being able to block apps from their platform. Case in point: Push notifications for PWAs. If there is an alternate browser that supports this, that can be installed on iPhones, Safari is going to get this real quick.
  • bagacrap 4y ago
    that would be a great outcome! Sadly I think you overestimate the reach of PWAs.
    • bgdam 4y ago
      Oh no, I know PWAs are not really all that capable. But there are an astounding number of apps which are apps only because they need push notifications. All of these could become PWAs.
• bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  So, not sure if I understand - if Google makes a Google app store for IOS does their App store have to comply with all rules or can it skip because Google does not own the IOS platform?
• tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  The rules described there make sense. What nasty rules enabling government surveillance or censorship/copyright enforcements did they also include that they not mention in this press release?
• nuker 4y ago
  > give business users access to their marketing or advertising performance data on the platform Is it what Facebook was crying about when iOS hardened its privacy?
• stolsvik 4y ago
  To all the folks that worry that Apple won't any longer be able to police Facebook: We can regulate that too. We can some really draconian rules wrt. what can and can not be collected etc. See, with a working governing body, the people wins. GDPR is great. USA don't have it, we do. Regulation works here. (Not always, not enough, it have unintended side effects and all that. But letting the big tech guys run the world instead: No thanks.)
  • kmlx 4y ago
    > GDPR is great. not at all from my experience. it’s been extremely frustrating so far.
    • alaric410 4y ago
      you work at facebook?
• 14 4y ago
  This sounds awesome to me and some really good changes. We have these powerful devices and they are just shit in terms of what we are allowed to do. We live in the future and it has been ruined by corporations. Why can’t I play a YouTube video in safari and then open my snap and have a call with my son while listening to my song and have both of us enjoy that same song. That is just one example of I am sure hundreds of cool features that have been blocked by devices. I hope these new rules show that we deserve better devices and that no we are no where near peak technology.
• londons_explore 4y ago
  The big question now is.... Will this unlock Apple devices worldwide, or will apple make special EU-firmware which only gives this legally mandated functionality for phones sold in the EU?
  • alaric410 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
• Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  This is very good news. Finally iPhone users will be able to truly own their devices, not begging Apple's permission to install the app they need. Now, I wonder, how would Apple try to spoil this? When they were ordered to allow third party payment services, they started insisting on racketeering their additional 30% Apple Tax directly from developers. Any ideas?
• mullingitover 4y ago
  Surprised nobody is talking about what a huge bonanza this is for software piracy. Sure, it'll come with Lovecraft-grade eldritch horrors in the malware space, but that's the price you pay.
  • alaric410 4y ago
    Software piracy is good.
• formvoltron 4y ago
  So does this help smaller players compete with the big guys? Seems like it might make it harder to compete due to all the new rules, but I haven't dug into it for the details.
  • alaric410 4y ago
    These rules only apply to large organizations: "gatekeepers" that have massive global revenue and market power.
• theplumber 4y ago
  I think we should enjoy this promise that we may soon be able own/control our computer devices(i.e run the software we want) not just to subscribe to services.
• lucasyvas 4y ago
  Is this basically a done deal? Incredible if so - I'd buy my first iPhone in YEARS.
• nirvgorilla 4y ago
• FridgeSeal 4y ago
  I actually think this is an awful decision, and will likely result in the erosion of the data/privacy guarantees Apple has established, for little to no benefit. “We’ll be able to side load apps” great. Good for you. I eagerly await the proliferation of trash app stores peddling all the apps that were rightfully rejected from the Apple Store for good reasons. “You’ll be able to iMessage android users” fantastic, now I’ll have to trust that whatever random developer added iMessage support to their android app did it properly, and doesn’t violently leak keys everywhere and sell the contents of my conversations with every possible ad company. This is definitely an improvement.
  • refulgentis 4y ago
    Too bad Apple didn't implement RCS
  • alaric410 4y ago
    Apple has not established any meaningful privacy guarantees. It's just PR.
    • pid_0 4y ago
  • ThatPlayer 4y ago
    Then maybe Apple should release an iMessage app for Android officially. So you don't have to worry about random developers.
• barelysapient 4y ago
  Yawn. Let me know when this applies to all locked down devices including video games, security cameras, cars, tvs, farm equipment, and so on.
• ece 4y ago
  The pirate party FTW!
• roamerz 4y ago
  This is not good. I really enjoy the security of the walled garden that IOS is right now. Some say just don’t install a third party app store. My line of thinking is that takes the power away from the individual. Lets take for instance an app that everyone seems to want: TikTok. Right now they must abide by the app store rules and do security the way Apple requires and I want. This is the ONLY way they get onto the most popular mobile platform. Now with this decision from the EU they can stop offering it in the Apple app store and offer something less secure from a 3rd party app store. The user is now forced to make a security concession in order to use that app now. I no longer have a big bully (Apple) standing by my side forcing the issue. I’d say to Apple just stop selling to the EU. See how long it takes them to blink because they would.
  • thefounder 4y ago
    >> I no longer have a big bully (Apple) standing by my side forcing the issue. Perhaps you missed the news but there is a bigger bully in town. The U.S gov is looking to ban tiktok so you may not be able to use it at all. Not that I think tiktok is worth my time but I am pro choice. >> I’d say to Apple just stop selling to the EU. See how long it takes them to blink because they would. That doesn't sound like a good business plan. Are you sure the shareholders would approve it? Perhaps Apple should stop selling in China too instead to handover the approval process to the CCP(btw that's a bigger bully. Do you like it? ) Also although I've been an Apple fan since the ipod I would stay behind EU on this one. First Apple defies us with that open letter about taxes(thinking the siphoning tax money out of Europe is somehow the right thing to do) and now they stop selling in Europe unless we surrender to its monopolistic behaviour? I think we are all good. Hopefully they will focus more on the hardware value and less on pushing users to buy subscriptions(i.e icloud storage).
    • roamerz 4y ago
      I agree probably not the best business plan. Apple has plenty of cash so maybe it comes down to something more important than market share - principal. On the other hand I don’t see how the U.S. banning TikTok has any bearing on Apple being the security gate on IOS. I don’t use TikTok myself but if I decided to at least I would do so with the knowledge that it at least meets Apple’s standards. I wouldn’t even get that if I was forced to use a 3rd party app store.
• cebert 4y ago
  > ensure that the basic functionalities of instant messaging services are interoperable, i.e. enable users to exchange messages, send voice messages or files across messaging apps I am not a cryptography expert, but doesn’t this requirement make it more difficult to have end-to-end encryption unless users take key exchange into their own hands?
• psuresh 4y ago
  This is a big step in the right direction to rein big tech. 100% inter operability based on common and accepted standards should be the next step. For eg. XMPP for messaging etc. I don't use Whatapp, and remain unconnected due to the mass adoption of that product.
• megous 4y ago
  All the panic in this thread about allowing apps without Apple review would make one believe iOS has no technical app security/isolation/restriction mechanisms. These will just have to become an even more of a first class citizen in the new world order. And will have to become even more trustworthy in the new much more adversarial ecosystem. :)
• shanehoban 4y ago
  Great news, this means bloatware on Android will be no more right? Maybe even YT vanced can continue (still works perfectly fine for me at the moment I will say)?
• orloffm 4y ago
  Interestingly, Russia does the same thing at the same time: https://www.reuters.com/technology/russia-says-apple-violates-antitrust-laws-2022-07-19/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/russia-says-apple-violate... Feels as if there is some universal push to force Apple to do these things.
• nopakos 4y ago
  So, there is the theoretical possibility that there could be a Google Play store on iOS, or an Apple App Store on Android! Interesting even as a thought.
• arminsergiony 4y ago
  If I were Apple, I'd sell an open developer phone that allowed users to override the default settings. So that when the inevitable "Apple has been hacked and is no better than Android" media driven hit pieces come out, Apple can point out that this is happening on the open developer phone, not the safe walled garden that most of us normal, non bleeding edge consumers carry in our pockets.. When you just want to use your phone, you don't have to read a 1000-word piece to figure out it's because some man installed some obvious spyware.
  • alaric410 4y ago
    Apple has been hacked and is no better than Android.
    • d12bb 4y ago
      Linux has been hacked and is no better when Windows?
      • alaric410 4y ago
        OP made an unsubstantiated claim that Apple products are more secure. I pointed that out.
        • d12bb 4y ago
          And it is. iPhones have fewer exploits, and (in general) provide longer support with updates fixing them when they occur.
          • alaric410 4y ago
            citation needed.
        • pid_0 4y ago
          They are. You may be seeing more exploits in general because there is monetary incentive to find them, but iPhone is more secure in general especially when it comes to malware. They also have 5 or more years of support for devices and historically patched very old versions for security issues. Unlike android where 10% of the users are on the latest update, if the carrier even supplies it!
• tekknik 4y ago
  The EU is going to keep pumping out laws with massive fines and they’re going to be left with nothing before long.
• kavenkanum 4y ago
  Funnily that gives me an argument to buy an iPhone next year. This is a hit - great hardware without their terrible services. This opens so much more possibilities for everyone!
• bratwurst3000 4y ago
  Honestly the only thing I want is gecko for IOS and alternative payment options.