Game Streaming Apps Now Allowed in iOS

[quarkysg]

Again I don’t see why unless you’re saying Apple will relax its security checks beyond what they do now? And yes the primary benefit will be for rich developers but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong that for instance having a platform holder competing on the same services like say music as them while simultaneously charging them commissions is a bad thing. Regulators were never, ever going to let that fly and this is the best compromise that Apple was going to get

At this point, we don’t know what we don’t know. So it’s early days yet, but what I know is that there will be more bugs as Apple develops more APIs to support opening up their OS restrictions. This will present many more opportunities for attacks. As it is, every iOS updates seems to include CVEs.

Besides, I am of the opinion that Apple is being “punished” due to their products popularity. Companies like EPIC does not have automatic entitlement to benefit off iOS popularity for free IMHO.

 

[dada_dave]

It’s not a choice if the app you want to use is only available in a marketplace outside the App Store.

If Meta (for example) decides to move its apps outside the App Store to circumvent privacy restrictions imposed by Apple on the App Store, a user wouldn’t be able to “choose” to keep using the version with privacy restrictions. The only way out would be to stop using their apps completely. That’s immense leverage that third party developers have now, but didn’t have before.

While Apple may not be doing code review for apps outside the App Store to a priori catch malware, they’ve stated that their restrictions on security and privacy remain. A company with a popular app like Meta trying to circumvent those rules would still find their app at risk of being no longer signed and available - moving out of the App Store doesn’t help except that it may give them more time before Apple catches on. While that’s not ideal, in theory, a lack of privacy is not a tradeoff that’s happening under the new system and a priori catching violations doesn’t carry quite the same ramifications as not catching malware before it spreads.

Again I would prefer a system where Apple would still do code review on apps distributed for iOS regardless of venue and charged for it, but it is unclear if this lack is an EU restriction or Apple decided not to do so because they felt they couldn’t or they simply didn’t want to.

In the same way, I can’t “choose” to use Safari if the website I need to access only works of Chrome after the EU deliberately tanks the market share of the only non-Chromium web browser that still has some semblance of popularity.

While I agree up to a point, regulators see it the opposite way: Apple using its iOS market share to artificially boost WebKit usage. Using your power in one field to artificially gain an advantage in another by forcing others to use your own systems when they otherwise wouldn’t has often been the basis for regulatory action and legislation.

At this point, we don’t know what we don’t know. So it’s early days yet, but what I know is that there will be more bugs as Apple develops more APIs to support opening up their OS restrictions. This will present many more opportunities for attacks. As it is, every iOS updates seems to include CVEs.

Besides, I am of the opinion that Apple is being “punished” due to their products popularity. Companies like EPIC does not have automatic entitlement to benefit off iOS popularity for free IMHO.

And they aren’t. Apple is still able to charge for distribution outside the App Store and being popular has never been a pass from legislators or regulators to be able to control or distort a market. Which is why governments around the world have been so concerned with tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc ... They wield way too much power over markets. Those concerns are legitimate even if I don’t always agree with the solutions.

 

[Cmaier]

While Apple may not be doing code review for apps outside the App Store to a priori catch malware, they’ve stated that their restrictions on security and privacy remain. A company with a popular app like Meta trying to circumvent those rules would still find their app at risk of being no longer signed and available - moving out of the App Store doesn’t help except that it may give them more time before Apple catches on. While that’s not ideal, in theory, it’s not a tradeoff that’s happening under the new system and doesn’t carry quite the same ramifications as not catching malware before it spreads.

The problem is the flood of fly-by-night developers who can quickly create new notarization accounts, create apps that masquerade as other apps, etc. There‘s no way the notarization flow can stop that, and that’s not what it’s intended to do. In fact, the notarization security checks, to my understanding, are automated. By the time real problems are caught and the notarization tickets are revoked, the damage is done and new malicious apps are notarized.

Again I would prefer a system where Apple would still do code review on apps distributed for iOS regardless of venue and charged for it, but it is unclear if this lack is an EU restriction or Apple decided not to do so because they felt they couldn’t or they simply didn’t want to.

Pretty clear it is a combination of both. Apple would have to come up with entirely new guidelines for what it won’t allow (since many of the guidelines it uses for its own app store would be forbidden by the EU), then spend a lot of resources checking apps without getting paid to do so. And if they miss something, and It sneaks through, they then assume liability for that (again, without being compensated reasonably for that risk).

While I agree up to a point, regulators see it the opposite way: Apple using its iOS market share to artificially boost WebKit usage.

Not all regulators see it that way. I don’t give the EU regulators a lot of weight - when I spent a week in Italy a month ago, using the web was an absolute joke. So many popups and interstitials every time you do something, each designed to satisfy some regulator in Brussels.

Using your power in one field to artificially gain an advantage in another by forcing others to use your own systems when they otherwise wouldn’t has often been the basis for regulatory action and legislation.

True. The question is whether there is a meaningful “market” for rendering engines and whether Apple’s actions adversely affect consumers. I’d say no. If not for apple,everyone would be using chrome (which already probably has monopolistic power in the rendering engine/browser market).

And they aren’t. Apple is still able to charge for distribution outside the App Store

Maybe. We’ll see what Brussels thinks about that.

 

[dada_dave]

The problem is the flood of fly-by-night developers who can quickly create new notarization accounts, create apps that masquerade as other apps, etc. There‘s no way the notarization flow can stop that, and that’s not what it’s intended to do. In fact, the notarization security checks, to my understanding, are automated. By the time real problems are caught and the notarization tickets are revoked, the damage is done and new malicious apps are notarized.

Absolutely which is why I would prefer stronger safeguards. However! That is not the crux of @Andropov ’s argument here. Those fly-by-night apps have no ability to intrinsically force users outside of Apple’s ecosystem by their mere existence. His concern was that a company like Meta which has massive market power of its own would be able to do so with intention of violating something fundamental like Apple’s privacy rules. If true that would represent an even greater privacy threat than fly-by-nights. However, there is good reason to believe that they would not be able to do so. Apple has stated that their original privacy rules will remain in effect and popular apps like Facebook or Messenger will be under a lot more scrutiny. Now we’ll see in practice what actually happens.

Pretty clear it is a combination of both. Apple would have to come up with entirely new guidelines for what it won’t allow (since many of the guidelines it uses for its own app store would be forbidden by the EU), then spend a lot of resources checking apps without getting paid to do so. And if they miss something, and It sneaks through, they then assume liability for that (again, without being compensated reasonably for that risk).

Hmmm that’s not clear to me. Apple has stated that their rules for privacy and security remain in effect but that their ability to enforce those rules are far more limited pre-launch. What may be the case is that Apple feels that they could not reasonably charge for such a service while remaining within the new rules of anticompetitive practices.

Personally I’d like to see a lot more discussion of this in the media directed at both Apple and the EU. For someone without a law background, it can be difficult to know exactly what rules entail. For instance I’ve seen a lot of people opine that new EU regulations on forcing user removable batteries will apply to Apple and other smartphone makers but I’ve seen language in the bill that was to the effect that “unless it intrinsically impacts the device’s functionality” or something like that. Which to me, Apple could, in good faith argue it does if it compromises water/dust ratings. But I very rarely see people discussing that and it isn’t clear.

Not all regulators see it that way.

That’s a pretty universal “no-no”. After all, it was you and @Nycturne who reminded me that a key difference in the Epic vs Google case was that it was found that Google was abusing its power over Android to artificially boost the use of the GooglePlay store amongst device makers. Regulators and legislators (and juries it turns out) take a rather dim view of those entities using their positions of power to force usage of their preferred services which is ultimately why a lot of these legislations are being considered, debated, and now passed world-wide.

I don’t give the EU regulators a lot of weight - when I spent a week in Italy a month ago, using the web was an absolute joke. So many popups and interstitials every time you do something, each designed to satisfy some regulator in Brussels.

That may be. I certainly have my complaints, as well, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong to try to curb some of the worst Wild West aspects of the interwebs again even if I don’t always agree with everything they do.

True. The question is whether there is a meaningful “market” for rendering engines and whether Apple’s actions adversely affect consumers. I’d say no. If not for apple,everyone would be using chrome (which already probably has monopolistic power in the rendering engine/browser market).

Absolutely which is why I’m less enthused indeed downright skeptical about that particular rule. I’m just stating there is a reason why they did so.

Maybe. We’ll see what Brussels thinks about that.

I’m sure we will. I have to admit the open ended nature of the fees does seem designed to discourage the use of alternative avenues but I’d be hard pressed to agree that the collection of fees overall is against the rules. But as you say we’ll have to see how Brussels reacts. No doubt Apple and Brussels were in intense negotiations as to what constitutes compliance prior to this though that doesn’t mean they see eye to eye.

 

[Jimmyjames]

While I agree up to a point, regulators see it the opposite way: Apple using its iOS market share to artificially boost WebKit usage. Using your power in one field to artificially gain an advantage in another by forcing others to use your own systems when they otherwise wouldn’t has often been the basis for regulatory action and legislation.

WebKit share has been kept artificially high tbh. The problem is while that can be bad judged in isolation, it can be a net good when judged in this market.

There doesn’t seem to be any scrutiny of Chrome’s rise to the top. As I see it, Google used the most popular page on the internet (www.google.com) to promote Chrome. Once market share was big enough, they were free to ride roughshod over the standards bodies. They constantly introduce new “features” for developers with no scrutiny or approval from the industry, but which certainly appealed to web devs. This lead to other browsers being seen as lacking simply because they took a more consultative approach to features. Now we’re in a position where devs are constantly trying to void dealing with anything other than Blink.

iOS being locked to WebKit was the one thing holding that back. That looks to be gone.

Slightly OT: I was just accused of supporting “genocide” for wanting the iOS walled garden. Disturbing
‪

 

[dada_dave]

WebKit share has been kept artificially high tbh. The problem is while that can be bad judged in isolation, it can be a net good when judged in this market.

There doesn’t seem to be any scrutiny of Chrome’s rise to the top. As I see it, Google used the most popular page on the internet (www.google.com) to promote Chrome. Once market share was big enough, they were free to ride roughshod over the standards bodies. They constantly introduce new “features” for developers with no scrutiny or approval from the industry, but which certainly appealed to web devs. This lead to other browsers being seen as lacking simply because they took a more consultative approach to features. Now we’re in a position where devs are constantly trying to void dealing with anything other than Blink.

iOS being locked to WebKit was the one thing holding that back. That looks to be gone.

Here are the two arguments as I see it:

1) The regulators argument: iOS is keeping WebKit usage artificially high. Chromium winning is an example of a virtuous business cycle, more people chose to use it, more web developers chose to support it, so more people chose to use it. Should Google abuse its market position, then those abuses will be what needs to be addressed, but simply gaining the market position is not enough to warrant Apple’s distortions of the market or regulatory scrutiny.

2) The counter argument which is basically just restating @Cmaier ’s argument: if Google having control over the market isn’t a problem then why is Apple’s distortion of it a problem from a consumer point of view. What is that market and where’s the harm that requires remedy? How is the consumer actually harmed? Do they notice or care that WebKit is running on the “mobile version” of websites? If they request Desktop sites certainly they may notice those sites don’t work as well because of the aforementioned prevalence of Chromium, but how critical is that? Perhaps more one could argue for iPadOS than iOS, but even so that’s then weighed against the harm consumers, like me , clinging onto Safari will suffer by clearing the last roadblock to total market domination of Google.

These are not always easy questions and I just want to push back against the notion that what the EU did was arbitrary or clearly wrong. I don’t agree with it, partially because I don’t want to see an all Chromium future as a matter of business and partially because I personally don’t want to have to use Chromium or Google when I can avoid it. In fact, just yesterday, I was having difficulty logging into a website and the customer support solution for the initial problem was “Could you download Chrome? That works best”. “No”. And we went from there. So don’t get me wrong, I get it. But rather than the EU putting their thumb on the scale it’s more that they took Apple’s off. It’s just not clear to me that’s a win for consumers.

Slightly OT: I was just accused of supporting “genocide” for wanting the iOS walled garden. Disturbing
‪View attachment 28121

Yikes … I’d be almost tempted to ask for an elaboration on that point just to see how many steps it takes to link them, but truthfully I don’t think engaging with such a person would be healthy. That’s a definite block.

And I thought the Macrumors user almost outright accusing people buying Apple Silicon of destroying the environment was bad … and I probably shouldn’t have engaged them. “Totally not exaggerating enabling genocide” is another level of unhealthy …

 

[Jimmyjames]

Here are the two arguments as I see it:

1) The regulators argument: iOS is keeping WebKit usage artificially high. Chromium winning is an example of a virtuous business cycle, more people chose to use it, more web developers chose to support it, so more people chose to use it. Should Google abuse its market position, then those abuses will be what needs to be addressed, but simply gaining the market position is not enough to warrant Apple’s distortions of the market or regulatory scrutiny.

2) The counter argument which is basically just restating @Cmaier ’s argument: if Google having control over the market isn’t a problem then why is Apple’s distortion of it a problem from a consumer point of view. What is that market and where’s the harm that requires remedy? How is the consumer actually harmed? Do they notice or care that WebKit is running on the “mobile version” of websites? If they request Desktop sites certainly they may notice those sites don’t work as well because of the aforementioned prevalence of Chromium, but how critical is that? Perhaps more one could argue for iPadOS than iOS, but even so that’s then weighed against the harm consumers, like me , clinging onto Safari will suffer by clearing the last roadblock to total market domination of Google.

These are not always easy questions and I just want to push back against the notion that what the EU did was arbitrary or clearly wrong. I don’t agree with it, partially because I don’t want to see an all Chromium future as a matter of business and partially because I personally don’t want to have to use Chromium or Google when I can avoid it. In fact, just yesterday, I was having difficulty logging into a website and the customer support solution for the initial problem was “Could you download Chrome? That works best”. “No”. And we went from there. So don’t get me wrong, I get it. But rather than the EU putting their thumb on the scale it’s more that they took Apple’s off. It’s just not clear to me that’s a win for consumers.

Yikes … I’d be almost tempted to ask for an elaboration on that point just to see how many steps it takes to link them, but truthfully I don’t think engaging with such a person would be healthy. That’s a definite block.

And I thought the Macrumors user almost outright accusing people buying Apple Silicon of destroying the environment was bad … and I probably shouldn’t have engaged them. “Totally not exaggerating enabling genocide” is another level of unhealthy …

Yes these are complex arguments and I don’t pretend to have answers to all or most of them. I do maintain that the Chrome dominance wasn’t achieved through merit alone. Google has great engineers and chrome is a technically good browser even if I don’t like it personally, but their search dominance helped them push it onto many people.

The annoying thing is there are so many areas ripe for govt action. Digital media being the most deserving imo. That we have situations where people buy movies and tv shows, and those purchases can be removed with little recourse for the customers is a disgrace. Why aren’t the EU taking action on things like that?

 

[dada_dave]

Yes these are complex arguments and I don’t pretend to have answers to all or most of them. I do maintain that the Chrome dominance wasn’t achieved through merit alone. Google has great engineers and chrome is a technically good browser even if I don’t like it personally, but their search dominance helped them push it onto many people.

The annoying thing is there are so many areas ripe for govt action. Digital media being the most deserving imo. That we have situations where people buy movies and tv shows, and those purchases can be removed with little recourse for the customers is a disgrace. Why aren’t the EU taking action on things like that?

By the way, the second post of that disturbing individual was so bad that I blotted out their first reply which would have been terrible enough without them going full lunacy afterwards. Beyond the name calling, it’s so completely inappropriate to seemingly drag someone (arroz) not involved in the argument or even they were part of the discussion to invoke their name like that. I’m not sure if I ever interacted with arroz on Twitter back when I was still on it but I know of him and my memory was that he always seemed reasonable. What a creep that objc user “Tanner” is (to be clear not arroz, the other guy). Sorry that through marvels of modern technology you “got to” interact with someone like that. As we discussed in the other thread, it’s a minefield out there at the best of times, but some people really don’t know how to behave online. Or perhaps in their case in person either I’d bet. I can respect passion up to a point, but that level of zealousness is disturbing especially for something that doesn’t warrant it.

 

[quarkysg]

And they aren’t. Apple is still able to charge for distribution outside the App Store and being popular has never been a pass from legislators or regulators to be able to control or distort a market. Which is why governments around the world have been so concerned with tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc ... They wield way too much power over markets. Those concerns are legitimate even if I don’t always agree with the solutions.

In your opinion what market is Apple controlling or distorting, at least in the EU?

 

[dada_dave]

In your opinion what market is Apple controlling or distorting, at least in the EU?

? Well we’ve been talking about the App Store - ie the ecosystem of apps on iOS and iPadOS - which is the whole point of this legislation. Of particular concern being apps the compete with Apple itself such as music, TV/movies, messages, and web browsers/search engines off the top of my head … Now some of these may have different nuances and solutions but fundamentally they are all part of this issue which we have all been discussing so I’m not quite sure I understand the thrust of the question?

 

[Cmaier]

? Well we’ve been talking about the App Store - ie the ecosystem of apps on iOS and iPadOS - which is the whole point of this legislation.

Of course, under US law (so far), that’s not a market. (in the antitrust sense)

 

[dada_dave]

Of course, under US law (so far), that’s not a market. (in the antitrust sense)

True and a major reason why Apple (correctly) prevailed in court against Epic. However there are draft bills to change that. But as you said whether those see the light of day is a different story. Depending on how the EU situation shakes out that may accelerate or shelve those or not affect them at all because our legislative bodies aren’t exactly operating normally (not to get this into politics, News, and society territory).

Hell there are even some individual states proposing some … shall we say creative laws. Did one of those actually pass? I can’t remember - something like “app developers in Georgia don’t have to be part of no dang App Store”. I just remember being amused by it.

However, going back to the federal ones, frankly what I saw of those US-federal anti-tech bills didn’t impress me. Again, not a legal scholar in the slightest but seemed much worse than the EU ones with even more arbitrary rules and distinctions.

 

[Andropov]

While I agree up to a point, regulators see it the opposite way: Apple using its iOS market share to artificially boost WebKit usage. Using your power in one field to artificially gain an advantage in another by forcing others to use your own systems when they otherwise wouldn’t has often been the basis for regulatory action and legislation.

Well there's no doubt Apple is using their iOS market share to boost WebKit usage. But regulatory action should require something more than using your power in one field to artificially gain advantage in another. That's just basic business. Some sort of control over the majority of a market, for example, seems like a reasonable requisite for before calling anything "monopolistic".

The issue here is that EU has decided that "web browsers on iOS" is a market. It therefore follows that Apple is monopolizing its control with Safari. What they are apparently failing to realize is that their narrow definition encompasses only a *subset* of a much bigger market (web browsers in general) where Apple is not only far from being the biggest player, but instead is the *only* player preventing an actual monopoly (with Google's Chrome).

So, forcing more competition in the market of "iOS web browsers" would make sense, or even be a good thing, if it existed in a vacuum. It doesn't. They're fixing a minor issue by worsening the situation of a much bigger one.

Absolutely which is why I would prefer stronger safeguards. However! That is not the crux of @Andropov ’s argument here. Those fly-by-night apps have no ability to intrinsically force users outside of Apple’s ecosystem by their mere existence. His concern was that a company like Meta which has massive market power of its own would be able to do so with intention of violating something fundamental like Apple’s privacy rules. If true that would represent an even greater privacy threat than fly-by-nights. However, there is good reason to believe that they would not be able to do so. Apple has stated that their original privacy rules will remain in effect and popular apps like Facebook or Messenger will be under a lot more scrutiny. Now we’ll see in practice what actually happens.

There are system-wide privacy protections that apps won't be able to disable even when outside the App Store: things like the camera ON / microphone ON indicator, Photo library access... and those are important things, that likely will remain mostly the same outside the App Store.

However, some other privacy expectations were set by App Store rules, not system limitations. Will apps outside the App Store be required to ask the user before tracking them in other websites? Will there be privacy labels there as well? Things like that can't be easily policed with an automatic static code analysis tool, which is likely the only thing Apple will run as part of their notarization process.

In any case, this does not extend to privacy concerns only. People love to point out how macOS is not the hellscape we're saying the future of a more open iOS could be, but it actually kinda is... for some things. For example: I'd like to not have 18 Adobe software processes running on my MacBook at all times. Or to be able to have them updated automatically like other apps, instead of having to manually launch their shitty hub app to update. None of this is affected by the *current* required changes to iOS, but this openness does lead to developers doing user-hostile things on macOS already. I genuinely don't want that on iOS.

 

[Jimmyjames]

By the way, the second post of that disturbing individual was so bad that I blotted out their first reply which would have been terrible enough without them going full lunacy afterwards. Beyond the name calling, it’s so completely inappropriate to seemingly drag someone (arroz) not involved in the argument or even they were part of the discussion to invoke their name like that. I’m not sure if I ever interacted with arroz on Twitter back when I was still on it but I know of him and my memory was that he always seemed reasonable. What a creep that objc user “Tanner” is (to be clear not arroz, the other guy). Sorry that through marvels of modern technology you “got to” interact with someone like that. As we discussed in the other thread, it’s a minefield out there at the best of times, but some people really don’t know how to behave online. Or perhaps in their case in person either I’d bet. I can respect passion up to a point, but that level of zealousness is disturbing especially for something that doesn’t warrant it.

Thanks for your reply. I agree (obviously) completely. Beyond the rights and wrongs of the argument, accusing the opponent of participating in a genocide and trying to question a follower is really low. I agree with your comments on Arroz too. Very knowledgeable and decent.

I’ve said it so many times it’s boring, but the kindness and quality of the discussions here really stand out in these times.

Edit: really if I had any sense, I’d just come here and avoid other more toxic places. Perhaps it should be a Newish Years Resolution?

 

[dada_dave]

Well there's no doubt Apple is using their iOS market share to boost WebKit usage. But regulatory action should require something more than using your power in one field to artificially gain advantage in another. That's just basic business. Some sort of control over the majority of a market, for example, seems like a reasonable requisite for before calling anything "monopolistic".

The issue here is that EU has decided that "web browsers on iOS" is a market. It therefore follows that Apple is monopolizing its control with Safari. What they are apparently failing to realize is that their narrow definition encompasses only a *subset* of a much bigger market (web browsers in general) where Apple is not only far from being the biggest player, but instead is the *only* player preventing an actual monopoly (with Google's Chrome).

So, forcing more competition in the market of "iOS web browsers" would make sense, or even be a good thing, if it existed in a vacuum. It doesn't. They're fixing a minor issue by worsening the situation of a much bigger one.

No particular disagreement, but unfortunately if they define iOS apps as a market then it follows that browsers on iOS are a market. And then you have Apple pressing its thumb on the scale. Unfortunately they look at it this way: Apple by restricting the web engines are restricting user choice on their platform and therefore harming users by not giving them what might be better options. And that argument has merit.

Where I agree with you and others here is that are other questions about how this plays out in the larger web browser market and whether the trade off is worth it.

There are system-wide privacy protections that apps won't be able to disable even when outside the App Store: things like the camera ON / microphone ON indicator, Photo library access... and those are important things, that likely will remain mostly the same outside the App Store.

However, some other privacy expectations were set by App Store rules, not system limitations. Will apps outside the App Store be required to ask the user before tracking them in other websites? Will there be privacy labels there as well? Things like that can't be easily policed with an automatic static code analysis tool, which is likely the only thing Apple will run as part of their notarization process.

We don’t know the practical implications of this, and may not for some time. But unfortunately what I think is going to happen is largely going to be after the fact policing, knowledgeable users and Apple for larger apps using telemetry of their own to track down violators and Apple pulling approval from developers. This is much less effective, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So as previously stated, this is less than I would’ve liked (Apple continuing pre-screening for malware and privacy with fees) and based on my own initial misreading thought we were getting. But huge apps like Facebook and others capable of themselves breaking off from the App Store should be less able to violate written rules. And some of Apple’s statements make it sound like that 3rd party App Stores that flagrantly violate Apple’s rules or allow such amongst their apps will be pulled. Policing that will be … interesting.

In any case, this does not extend to privacy concerns only. People love to point out how macOS is not the hellscape we're saying the future of a more open iOS could be, but it actually kinda is... for some things. For example: I'd like to not have 18 Adobe software processes running on my MacBook at all times. Or to be able to have them updated automatically like other apps, instead of having to manually launch their shitty hub app to update. None of this is affected by the *current* required changes to iOS, but this openness does lead to developers doing user-hostile things on macOS already. I genuinely don't want that on iOS.

I understand but I think some of this wouldn’t be worst tradeoff for a more open marketplace. That said, thankfully for me in the US we get to see what happens over there first in practice.

 

[quarkysg]

However there are draft bills to change that.

So it's like goal post moving to target Apple?

Edit:
Then do you think that the entertainment systems say for BMW or Mercedes' cars two separate markets as well?

 

[Cmaier]

So it's like goal post moving to target Apple?

Edit:
Then do you think that the entertainment systems say for BMW or Mercedes' cars two separate markets as well?

And why can’t my washing machine run a different operating system? My smart toaster? How come my Ring camera doesn’t have to support homekit? How come McDonald’s doesn’t have to sell Big Macs? They have a monopoly on food sales in each store, after all.

And it’s baffling that some governments are arguing customers are hurt - does nobody remember what software cost BEFORE the App Store? Software has never been so cheap, and consumers have never had so many choices.

Notice that it’s developers, not customers, who whine about this stuff. Because they want to shift that 30% into their own pocket.

 

[Jimmyjames]

And why can’t my washing machine run a different operating system? My smart toaster? How come my Ring camera doesn’t have to support homekit? How come McDonald’s doesn’t have to sell Big Macs? They have a monopoly on food sales in each store, after all.

And it’s baffling that some governments are arguing customers are hurt - does nobody remember what software cost BEFORE the App Store? Software has never been so cheap, and consumers have never had so many choices.

Notice that it’s developers, not customers, who whine about this stuff. Because they want to shift that 30% into their own pocket.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Everyone I’ve seen complaining, is a dev. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but I think the customer has been left out of the calculus.

 

[dada_dave]

So it's like goal post moving to target Apple?

Specifically? No. Though I make no allowance for the US legislation since as I said, the various drafts seemed more than a little half baked. It’s more a belief that big tech, including but not only Apple, have evolved business models that outmoded a lot of the previous regulations meant to control anticompetitive behavior so there is a drive to “do something” to restore competition where it is needed.

Edit:
Then do you think that the entertainment systems say for BMW or Mercedes' cars two separate markets as well?

Do I? Do they sell apps? Do they sell 3rd party apps which compete against their own? If you added the market share of BMW and Mercedes entertainment systems do they have an effective monopoly or duopoly on the market? The EU defined what platforms and gatekeepers are. I have my own opinions on how they should be regulated but these are what they came up with.

And why can’t my washing machine run a different operating system? My smart toaster? How come my Ring camera doesn’t have to support homekit? How come McDonald’s doesn’t have to sell Big Macs? They have a monopoly on food sales in each store, after all.

And it’s baffling that some governments are arguing customers are hurt - does nobody remember what software cost BEFORE the App Store? Software has never been so cheap, and consumers have never had so many choices.

Notice that it’s developers, not customers, who whine about this stuff. Because they want to shift that 30% into their own pocket.

Oh for sure and we have Tim Sweeney on tape saying exactly that about a decade ago I believe, before trying to launch his own store of course. But fundamentally that’s part of the discussion, is what was a vast improvement still optimal? The EU has said no and many governments are considering similar proposals. The arguments have merit.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Everyone I’ve seen complaining, is a dev. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but I think the customer has been left out of the calculus.

To some extent (and I’m on the record that a lot of these devs in the complaining camp are the just the fucking worst - that App alliance or whatever it’s called is a rogues gallery in my opinion).

But while I hate arguing by analogy, a similar situation in California was when the major big box stores including assholes like Walmart successfully lobbied the California legislature to require Amazon and other online retailers to charge sales tax at checkout. Now theoretically consumers were supposed tabulate their purchases, calculate the sales tax they owed, and pay it. You’ll be shocked to discover that no one did that and that gave Amazon a massive advantage compared to brick and mortar. Why was this the system?Because the relevant laws were written before online commerce existed and interstate sales to consumers were a trivial amount relegated to the Sears catalog.

Now obviously there are a lot of differences here to our current situation but the relevant factor to this line of argument being proffered in the last couple of posts is that it was primarily businesses not consumers who were complaining (after all who is going to call their representative to pay more money?). Further nobody believed either side cared one whit about “the little guy” though both sides were quick to invoke them in their arguments. And finally just because it was businesses who were complaining didn’t mean it was wrong to change the laws to adapt them to current conditions. Again there are more differences than similarities but I wanted to drive home the point that even though this is primarily a fight between businesses needing to adapt laws and regulations to new conditions happens and is not always led by consumers.

 

[Cmaier]

But fundamentally that’s part of the discussion, is what was a vast improvement still optimal? The EU has said no and many governments are considering similar proposals. The arguments have merit.

Do they? Is software that costs 70 cents instead of a dollar (which is pretty much what we’re talking about here) truly even “optimal” if it comes with much higher risks of security problems, inability to cancel subscriptions without waiting on hold for two hours and sacrificing a goat, etc. etc.?

And are we supposed to believe EU bureaucrats when they say they know what’s optimal? Or should we rely on what experience tells us has already happened?

And once iOS becomes the rank cesspool of malignant apps that Android is, are consumers better off? Did we give them more choice or less in that case?