3 ms·

I think it will, unfortunately, be a lot less interesting than people are hoping for. 1. It will almost certainly be EU-exclusive. Maybe tied to an EU SIM card

I think it will, unfortunately, be a lot less interesting than people are hoping for. 1. It will almost certainly be EU-exclusive. Maybe tied to an EU SIM card. 2. It will likely only be on iOS, as that's the only "gatekeeper" operating system that the EU has recognized Apple as having. Apple Watch? iPads? Far less likely to support sideloading. 3. I wouldn't be shocked if sideloading is restricted to Apple-approved 3rd-party App Stores to minimize security risks (no direct installation of an IPA like you would an APK). Which would, arguably, still be compliant. 4. In almost all legal cases including in the US, nobody has recognized Apple's 30% cut as being illegal. Another example is Denmark's dating apps rule, where you can opt-out of using Apple's in-app purchases framework, but Apple will demand a 26% commission through legal contract (basically, you get 4% off for using your own credit card provider). It is possible that apps installed through sideloading will still be legally obligated to give Apple that cut, which would be... very pointless for anything other than emulators and apps that Apple wouldn't normally allow. 5. Apple appears to have successfully argued that iMessage usage, within the EU, is too low to be considered a "gatekeeper," and the EU appears to be in agreement. No interoperability is coming there.

intothemild 3y ago
That last part about iMessage, that's the one where I'm doubtful. I know that Europeans use other apps, I live here. But my point is simple, you buy an iPhone, iMessage is enabled by default. You're going to message someone else on iMessage for sure. So I just don't trust it. Like, here in Norway, iPhones are very common. iMessage is so ubiquitous. Sure that's only a couple mil users, but it's also just one country. The EU is many countries.
- xenonite 3y ago
  And Norway isn’t in the EU ;) In the central EU, I mostly see just WhatsApp, rarely Signal and Telegram. However it might be different up in the north though, I dont know that.
  - intothemild 3y ago
    Yeah I hit submit before I was going to make that point.
- realusername 3y ago
  I never heard of anyone using iMessage daily here in France, the platform is basically dead, maybe facetime managed to survive but that's about it. Everybody is using either Messenger or Whatsapp. The fact that iMessage being marketed as an SMS app and SMS being dead certainly doesn't help.
ko27 3y ago
No. 3 (only Apple-approved 3rd-party App Stores) is definitely not compliant. No. 4 (legally obligated to give Apple cut) is flat out wrong. While it might be true that Apple's 30% cut is not ruled illegal, it's a far cry away from Apple having any legal mechanism to enforce a fee after a transaction has happened. Trying to ban 3rd party apps is going to get them into more trouble.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Well, the Digital Markets Act has a paragraph Apple is going to drive a locomotive through in the courtroom. "In order 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, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system. The integrity of the hardware or the operating system should include any design options that need to be implemented and maintained in order for the hardware or the operating system to be protected against unauthorised access, by ensuring that security controls specified for the hardware or the operating system concerned cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation." Are we really sure that Apple won't argue that permitting only 3rd-party App Stores and not individual apps, and imposing contractual obligations on those third party App stores, isn't "proportionate technical or contractual measures"?
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Did you read the full thing that you posted? It answers your question directly. "The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" So no, Apple would not be allowed to force users to accept such measures.
TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
> It will almost certainly be EU-exclusive Yes, but that will change once Americans see what EU citizens can do with the same devices they use. It may take a few years.
- FactolSarin 3y ago
  They can already see that on Android. Let's be honest, no one cares.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I don’t think that’s the same thing. Here people can see they don’t have to give up or change anything in order to get this functionality. Even if they saw android as having this, that’s a high switching cost.
- callalex 3y ago
  I’m not convinced of that inevitability. I’ve had Republican Americans argue with me until they were blue in the face about how great the free market is for internet service here in America, and absolutely refuse to entertain the idea that other places do it differently and it works out way better for the consumer. That’s just one example. I guarantee you that once this goes through in the EU there will be a huge pile of news in the US about how the Communists are forcing Europeans to install malware on their iPhones, and that it’s really great how Apple has the Freedom to prevent that from happening here.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Your comment seems to assume that Apple will not actually comply in spirit. Not a lot of people have seen this, but the compliance report that gatekeepers need to file anually (plus at the start of thd enforcement period) is pretty heavy on those details. Apple will have to provide: An explanation of how you comply with the obligation, including any supporting data and internal documents, and a detailed description of any measures that were already in place pre-designation or that you have implemented post-designation and that ensure such compliance, including: a) the relevant situation prior to implementation of the measure and how the measure ensures compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925; b) when the measure was implemented; c) the scope of the measure in terms of the products/services covered; d) the geographic scope of the measure (e.g. if the implementation of the measure extends beyond the EEA, please specify); e) any technical/engineering changes that were required for the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. on data flows and internal data usage policies, security aspects, tracking of new metrics, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), operation system (OS) functionalities, or parameters of ranking algorithms and online advertising auctions); f) any changes to the customer experience required by the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. changes in the customer interface, choice screens, consent forms, warning messages, system updates, functionalities available, or customer journey to access functionalities); g) any changes to the terms and conditions for end users and business users required by the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. on the fee structure, level of the fees, introduction of new fees, privacy policy, conditions for access and interoperability and any other relevant clauses); h) any other relevant changes required by the implementation of the measure concerned not covered by the above points e) to g); i) any consultation with end users and/or business users that has been carried out at the stage of the elaboration of the measure and how their input has been taken into account; j) any involvement of external consultants in the elaboration of the measure including a description of the consultantsâ€™ mission, whether they are independent from the Undertaking, and a description of their output; k) any alternative measures whose feasibility or implications has been assessed and the reasons for not choosing them; l) any action taken to inform end users and/or business users of the measure and their feedback; m) where applicable, the interaction with measures you have implemented to ensure compliance with other obligations under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925; n) where applicable, any actions taken to protect security or data pursuant to the relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and why these measures are strictly necessary and justified and there are no less restrictive means to achieve these goals; There's a lot more from where that came from.
stale2002 3y ago
They might try those things. But what if the EU just turns around and fines them x% of global revenue for that? The EU law could effectively force Apple to open up. Ex: who says the law only applies to EU sim cards? What if, the law instead applied to EU citizens, and if an EU citizen happens to have an American sim card, well then that's Apple's problem and they have to allow US sim cards to side load. Playing clever games could just result in billions in fines and Apple being ordered to change anyway.
- klausa 3y ago
  This is _unlikely_; but you're being unfairly downvoted — AFAICT that's the EU's stance to GDPR — that it applies to EU citizens _worldwide_, as well as EU _residents_ so a pure region/geolock is not going to cut it.
  - f001 3y ago
    Interesting. I’m a EU citizen but not resident. Would I be able to convince Meta et al that GDPR applies to me?
    - klausa 3y ago
      You might want to contact some organisations that deal with this, like NOYB [1]. IANAL, and I think the law is... more sophisticated than just "EU citizens worldwide"; but it happens to catch most of bigTech's anyway; because a bunch of their operations are legally running out of Ireland (for tax avoidance reasons) [2]; but I'll readily admit that this mostly something I have seen mentioned online few times and didn't do any deep research on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

intothemild 3y ago

That last part about iMessage, that's the one where I'm doubtful. I know that Europeans use other apps, I live here. But my point is simple, you buy an iPhone, iMessage is enabled by default. You're going to message someone else on iMessage for sure. So I just don't trust it. Like, here in Norway, iPhones are very common. iMessage is so ubiquitous. Sure that's only a couple mil users, but it's also just one country. The EU is many countries.

xenonite 3y ago
And Norway isn’t in the EU ;) In the central EU, I mostly see just WhatsApp, rarely Signal and Telegram. However it might be different up in the north though, I dont know that.
- intothemild 3y ago
  Yeah I hit submit before I was going to make that point.
realusername 3y ago
I never heard of anyone using iMessage daily here in France, the platform is basically dead, maybe facetime managed to survive but that's about it. Everybody is using either Messenger or Whatsapp. The fact that iMessage being marketed as an SMS app and SMS being dead certainly doesn't help.

ko27 3y ago

No. 3 (only Apple-approved 3rd-party App Stores) is definitely not compliant. No. 4 (legally obligated to give Apple cut) is flat out wrong. While it might be true that Apple's 30% cut is not ruled illegal, it's a far cry away from Apple having any legal mechanism to enforce a fee after a transaction has happened. Trying to ban 3rd party apps is going to get them into more trouble.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Well, the Digital Markets Act has a paragraph Apple is going to drive a locomotive through in the courtroom. "In order 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, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system. The integrity of the hardware or the operating system should include any design options that need to be implemented and maintained in order for the hardware or the operating system to be protected against unauthorised access, by ensuring that security controls specified for the hardware or the operating system concerned cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation." Are we really sure that Apple won't argue that permitting only 3rd-party App Stores and not individual apps, and imposing contractual obligations on those third party App stores, isn't "proportionate technical or contractual measures"?
- stale2002 3y ago
  Did you read the full thing that you posted? It answers your question directly. "The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" So no, Apple would not be allowed to force users to accept such measures.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago

> It will almost certainly be EU-exclusive Yes, but that will change once Americans see what EU citizens can do with the same devices they use. It may take a few years.

FactolSarin 3y ago
They can already see that on Android. Let's be honest, no one cares.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s the same thing. Here people can see they don’t have to give up or change anything in order to get this functionality. Even if they saw android as having this, that’s a high switching cost.
callalex 3y ago
I’m not convinced of that inevitability. I’ve had Republican Americans argue with me until they were blue in the face about how great the free market is for internet service here in America, and absolutely refuse to entertain the idea that other places do it differently and it works out way better for the consumer. That’s just one example. I guarantee you that once this goes through in the EU there will be a huge pile of news in the US about how the Communists are forcing Europeans to install malware on their iPhones, and that it’s really great how Apple has the Freedom to prevent that from happening here.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

Your comment seems to assume that Apple will not actually comply in spirit. Not a lot of people have seen this, but the compliance report that gatekeepers need to file anually (plus at the start of thd enforcement period) is pretty heavy on those details. Apple will have to provide: An explanation of how you comply with the obligation, including any supporting data and internal documents, and a detailed description of any measures that were already in place pre-designation or that you have implemented post-designation and that ensure such compliance, including: a) the relevant situation prior to implementation of the measure and how the measure ensures compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925; b) when the measure was implemented; c) the scope of the measure in terms of the products/services covered; d) the geographic scope of the measure (e.g. if the implementation of the measure extends beyond the EEA, please specify); e) any technical/engineering changes that were required for the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. on data flows and internal data usage policies, security aspects, tracking of new metrics, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), operation system (OS) functionalities, or parameters of ranking algorithms and online advertising auctions); f) any changes to the customer experience required by the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. changes in the customer interface, choice screens, consent forms, warning messages, system updates, functionalities available, or customer journey to access functionalities); g) any changes to the terms and conditions for end users and business users required by the implementation of the measure concerned (e.g. on the fee structure, level of the fees, introduction of new fees, privacy policy, conditions for access and interoperability and any other relevant clauses); h) any other relevant changes required by the implementation of the measure concerned not covered by the above points e) to g); i) any consultation with end users and/or business users that has been carried out at the stage of the elaboration of the measure and how their input has been taken into account; j) any involvement of external consultants in the elaboration of the measure including a description of the consultantsâ€™ mission, whether they are independent from the Undertaking, and a description of their output; k) any alternative measures whose feasibility or implications has been assessed and the reasons for not choosing them; l) any action taken to inform end users and/or business users of the measure and their feedback; m) where applicable, the interaction with measures you have implemented to ensure compliance with other obligations under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925; n) where applicable, any actions taken to protect security or data pursuant to the relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and why these measures are strictly necessary and justified and there are no less restrictive means to achieve these goals; There's a lot more from where that came from.

stale2002 3y ago

They might try those things. But what if the EU just turns around and fines them x% of global revenue for that? The EU law could effectively force Apple to open up. Ex: who says the law only applies to EU sim cards? What if, the law instead applied to EU citizens, and if an EU citizen happens to have an American sim card, well then that's Apple's problem and they have to allow US sim cards to side load. Playing clever games could just result in billions in fines and Apple being ordered to change anyway.

klausa 3y ago
This is _unlikely_; but you're being unfairly downvoted — AFAICT that's the EU's stance to GDPR — that it applies to EU citizens _worldwide_, as well as EU _residents_ so a pure region/geolock is not going to cut it.
- f001 3y ago
  Interesting. I’m a EU citizen but not resident. Would I be able to convince Meta et al that GDPR applies to me?
  - klausa 3y ago
    You might want to contact some organisations that deal with this, like NOYB [1]. IANAL, and I think the law is... more sophisticated than just "EU citizens worldwide"; but it happens to catch most of bigTech's anyway; because a bunch of their operations are legally running out of Ireland (for tax avoidance reasons) [2]; but I'll readily admit that this mostly something I have seen mentioned online few times and didn't do any deep research on. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOYB [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement