Game Streaming Apps Now Allowed in iOS

[exoticspice1]

But at the same time, Apple requiring a WebKit engine on iOS is considered monopolistic. Even though WebKit browsers have less than 30% market share worldwide.

It is because Apple forces it. Google does not force Chrome engines on Android

 

[Cmaier]

It is because Apple forces it. Google does not force Chrome engines on Android

McDonald’s forces its franchisees to sell Big Macs, and won’t let them sell Whopper Jr’s. Doesn’t mean any laws were broken.

 

[exoticspice1]

McDonald’s forces its franchisees to sell Big Macs, and won’t let them sell Whopper Jr’s. Doesn’t mean any laws were broken.

Why can't Firefox use Gecko in iOS but can in macOS? Good thing in the EU they can't do that anymore.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Why can't Firefox use Gecko in iOS but can in macOS? Good thing in the EU they can't do that anymore.

Yes. I’m sure the EU will get round to forcing Nintendo to allow third party stores or indeed Sony on the PlayStation.

 

[exoticspice1]

I’m sure the EU will get round to forcing Nintendo to allow third party stores or indeed Sony on the PlayStation.

Consoles are sold at loss or barely have any margins and are not considered general computing devices like smartphones are. The EU already said consoles are not effected by the DMA.

Only devices running Windows, Android and iOS are effected because these are considered computing devices.

 

[Cmaier]

Why can't Firefox use Gecko in iOS but can in macOS? Good thing in the EU they can't do that anymore.

Because it’s apple platform and they can do what they like? If they hadn’t done this, we’d be in the same situation we were in with Internet Explorer, but this time it would have been google embracing and extending.

 

[Cmaier]

Consoles are sold at loss or barely have any margins

That is a myth.

 

[exoticspice1]

That is a myth.

No, not a myth. They start off at a loss and then over time they get a bit of profit due to the aging components since consoles stay on sale for a about 7-9 years.

 

[jbailey]

Yikes. I can't imagine Apple will just cave though - they will likely fight that ... interpretation of the DMA in court all the way up.

Honest question. Why would Apple fight this interpretation? Doing notarization costs Apple money and what do they get out of it? Users who are happy to have some level of protection. Now a government comes along and says you can’t do that any longer. Apple can just throw up their hands and say “not our fault”.

This gives them two obvious benefits. First it gives Apple the ability to say that the Apple App Store is safer. Please don’t download from outside our store for your own protection.

Second is that I suspect that Apple wants the DMA to fail spectacularly so that other regions don’t also try such a law.

Apple will probably fight the DMA for one thing, the CTF (core technology fee) of $0.50 per download over 1 million.

 

[dada_dave]

Consoles are sold at loss or barely have any margins and are not considered general computing devices like smartphones are. The EU already said consoles are not effected by the DMA.

Only devices running Windows, Android and iOS are effected because these are considered computing devices.

I have always found those arguments wanting. Consoles are general computing devices. The kinds of applications that drove the EU to mandate changes in the DMA produced by Spotify and Epic are big business on consoles. They are games and a media. Tim Sweeny stated in court that opening up consoles is indeed a long term goal of Epic, he wants Epic to be the universal store on every, and he meant every, device (but don't worry they'd totally be nice and not worry about profit). There is no, as far as I can tell, provision against consoles except that the business isn't big enough in specific areas to fall under the rules. If there is such a restriction that specifically says game consoles aren't affected then I'm even more unhappy with the DMA - some of the US legislation drafts specifically called out mobile devices which is one reason why I think it's even worse than the DMA.

In terms of being sold at a loss, well the Switch was never sold at a loss. Further even if it had been, making low margins or even using the device as a loss leader isn't then an excuse to abuse developers. The whole point is that exercising control over the App Store as Apple does results in unfair business practices within the App Store. That doesn't change if Apple were to sell the iPhone at a loss.

No, not a myth. They start off at a loss and then over time they get a bit of profit due to the aging components since consoles stay on sale for a about 7-9 years.

Oh great so towards the end of the product's life cycle the DMA would apply? And it's more than "a bit of profit" towards the end. Your own statement in support of carving out consoles is why this line of reasoning makes no sense on top of all the other reasons above. There's nothing about selling at a loss that says the law doesn't apply to you, you get to do what you want. As far as I can tell, the DMA set the size of marketplace with some very tight numerical terms and some very vague terms like does it provide a "core platform service" and what exactly is a "business user" is defined as, but the reality is Apple fell under the EU's ire largely due to games and media which are the cornerstones of consoles (and yes a few other things).

Honest question. Why would Apple fight this interpretation? Doing notarization costs Apple money and what do they get out of it? Users who are happy to have some level of protection. Now a government comes along and says you can’t do that any longer. Apple can just throw up their hands and say “not our fault”.

This gives them two obvious benefits. First it gives Apple the ability to say that the Apple App Store is safer. Please don’t download from outside our store for your own protection.

Second is that I suspect that Apple wants the DMA to fail spectacularly so that other regions don’t also try such a law.

Apple will probably fight the DMA for one thing, the CTF (core technology fee) of $0.50 per download over 1 million.

Because of potential spillover, the more malware and other problems that are generated in the non-Apple EU marketplaces won't stay in there. If it exists, someone will try to submit and will force Apple to spend more resources. Apple already lets stuff slip though, it happens, no one is perfect. But a deluge could overwhelm them.

However, this is why I said later in the unquoted part of the post you referenced that truly malicious compliance would be giving these companies, and apparently the EC, everything they want.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Consoles are sold at loss or barely have any margins and are not considered general computing devices like smartphones are. The EU already said consoles are not effected by the DMA.

Only devices running Windows, Android and iOS are effected because these are considered computing devices.

Completely irrelevant. The judge in the US case stated it as such, and in any case, Nintendo consoles are not sold at a loss

 

[Jimmyjames]

That is a myth.

Indeed. Nintendo doesn’t sell at a loss. This nonsense was a poorly made argument used as a justification for forcing the most profitable customer base to be opened up to devs, while other less profitable customer bases are ignored.

 

[Cmaier]

I have always found those arguments wanting. Consoles are general computing devices. The kinds of applications that drove the EU to mandate changes in the DMA produced by Spotify and Epic are big business on consoles. They are games and a media. Tim Sweeny stated in court that opening up consoles is indeed a long term goal of Epic, he wants Epic to be the universal store on every, and he meant every, device (but don't worry they'd totally be nice and not worry about profit). There is no, as far as I can tell, provision against consoles except that the business isn't big enough in specific areas to fall under the rules. If there is such a restriction that specifically says game consoles aren't affected then I'm even more unhappy with the DMA - some of the US legislation drafts specifically called out mobile devices which is one reason why I think it's even worse than the DMA.

In terms of being sold at a loss, well the Switch was never sold at a loss. Further even if it had been, making low margins or even using the device as a loss leader isn't then an excuse to abuse developers. The whole point is that exercising control over the App Store as Apple does results in unfair business practices within the App Store. That doesn't change if Apple were to sell the iPhone at a loss.



Oh great so towards the end of the product's life cycle the DMA would apply? And it's more than "a bit of profit" towards the end. Your own statement in support of carving out consoles is why this line of reasoning makes no sense on top of all the other reasons above. There's nothing about selling at a loss that says the law doesn't apply to you, you get to do what you want. As far as I can tell, the DMA set the size of marketplace with some very tight numerical terms and some very vague terms like does it provide a "core platform service" and what exactly is a "business user" is defined as, but the reality is Apple fell under the EU's ire largely due to games and media which are the cornerstones of consoles (and yes a few other things).



Because of potential spillover, the more malware and other problems that are generated in the non-Apple EU marketplaces won't stay in there. If it exists, someone will try to submit and will force Apple to spend more resources. Apple already lets stuff slip though, it happens, no one is perfect. But a deluge could overwhelm them.

However, this is why I said later in the unquoted part of the post you referenced that truly malicious compliance would be giving these companies, and apparently the EC, everything they want.

Another problem is that now apple has to worry about attacks on its own apps or App Store apps from apps downloaded from other stores.

For example, imagine some rogue app on Epic’s store that, when installed, uses some exploits to scan for your banking app (downloaded form Apple’s stor) and intercept keystrokes. Apple didn’t really have to worry about that before because it had some amount of control over what could be installed. Think of all the iOS exploits in the past that weren’t too much of a threat because they required you to download an enterprise certificate or jailbreak. Now all that stuff can just be installed from some random store.

 

[Cmaier]

Indeed. Nintendo doesn’t sell at a loss. This nonsense was a poorly made argument used as a justification for forcing the most profitable customer base to be opened up to devs, while other less profitable customer bases are ignored.

It also shows the hypocrisy of the apple haters. Console makers should be allowed to choose their revenue model - give away the razors and charge for the blades. But Apple isn’t allowed to choose ITS revenue model.

 

[dada_dave]

Another problem is that now apple has to worry about attacks on its own apps or App Store apps from apps downloaded from other stores.

For example, imagine some rogue app on Epic’s store that, when installed, uses some exploits to scan for your banking app (downloaded form Apple’s stor) and intercept keystrokes. Apple didn’t really have to worry about that before because it had some amount of control over what could be installed. Think of all the iOS exploits in the past that weren’t too much of a threat because they required you to download an enterprise certificate or jailbreak. Now all that stuff can just be installed from some random store.

Microsoft must do some sort of notarization for developers for Windows, no? If the EC's position, untested in courts, is truly that Apple isn't allowed to do any kind of notarization (which is bullshit IMO given the text of the DMA), not even say the kind of automated checks they do on macOS ... wouldn't MS' abilities to do the same be affected? Macs may or may not be a big enough business in the EU, but Windows PCs surely are. It's already bad on the Windows side, maybe not as bad as it used to be, but I can't imagine ...

It also shows the hypocrisy of the apple haters. Console makers should be allowed to choose their revenue model - give away the razors and charge for the blades. But Apple isn’t allowed to choose ITS revenue model.

As you know, my position is that, if we're going to rewrite the rules regarding digital marketplaces, then I'm all for applying the DMA to everyone equally. And to be fair I have seen others moot the same concerns while still supporting the overall idea behind the DMA. Online there are dozens of us, dozens! But yeah a lot of the discourse surrounding these regulations is pretty bad (EDIT: I would say @Jimmyjames takes the unwanted prize home of being on the receiving end of one of the worst interactions on this topic I've ever seen).

 

[exoticspice1]

Nintendo doesn’t sell at a loss. This nonsense was a poorly made argument used as a justification for forcing the most profitable customer base to be opened up to devs, while other less profitable customer bases are ignored.

In Nintendo's case their primary business is games. If Steam or PS Store was allowed on the Switch/Switch 2 it would cause losses for the company as most would just use the Steam Store for third partys and get first party from the eshop.

Nintendo would lose most of the third party sales to Valve or Sony. It should not be applied to consoles. Nintendo should have their own ecosystem because its whole business depends on the success on the console.


Apple has the iPhone and its other hardware. App Store profit loss will not cause major loss to Apple.

 

[Jimmyjames]

In Nintendo's case their primary business is games. If Steam or PS Store was allowed on the Switch/Switch 2 it would cause losses for the company as most would just use the Steam Store for third partys and get first party from the eshop.

Nintendo would lose most of the third party sales to Valve or Sony. It should not be applied to consoles. Nintendo should have their own ecosystem because its whole business depends on the success on the console.


Apple has the iPhone and its other hardware. App Store profit loss will not cause major loss to Apple.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the exceptions you raised to the proof your initial statement was incorrect.

You seem to be willing to grant everyone else a pardon to do the things Apple is accused of.

 

[dada_dave]

In Nintendo's case their primary business is games. If Steam or PS Store was allowed on the Switch/Switch 2 it would cause losses for the company as most would just use the Steam Store for third partys and get first party from the eshop.

Nintendo would lose most of the third party sales to Valve or Sony. It should not be applied to consoles. Nintendo should have their own ecosystem because its whole business depends on the success on the console.


Apple has the iPhone and its other hardware. App Store profit loss will not cause major loss to Apple.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a business model is found to be predatory or abusive, then alleging that a company would fail without employing that business model shouldn't protect that company. If the model isn't predatory or abusive, then Apple should be allowed to use it as well. Where I diverge strongly from the DMA is that even size of the company shouldn't be a concern as to whether or not a business model is wrong. However, profitability absolutely should not be concern for applying the regulations and, let's be clear, even in the DMA, it is not. The boundary concerning business income in the DMA is for revenue not profits. Again, I would even do away with the boundary altogether but at least they don't specify that business has to be profitable to fall under the DMA as a gatekeeper, they specify it simply has to do a lot of business and be "entrenched" and yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Cmaier]

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If a business model is found to be predatory or abusive, then alleging that a company would fail without employing that business model shouldn't protect that company. If the model isn't predatory or abusive, then Apple should be allowed to use it as well. Where I diverge strongly from the DMA is that even size of the company shouldn't be a concern as to whether or not a business model is wrong. However, profitability absolutely should not be concern for applying the regulations and, let's be clear, even in the DMA, it is not. The boundary concerning business income in the DMA is for revenue not profits. Again, I would even do away with the boundary altogether but at least they don't specify that business has to be profitable to fall under the DMA as a gatekeeper, they specify it simply has to do a lot of business and be "entrenched" and yadda yadda yadda.

The EU had to put some sort of $$ boundary on it, because they wanted to make sure it only applied to foreign companies. It’s a protectionist scheme, and clearly has nothing to do with helping consumers.

 

[dada_dave]

The EU had to put some sort of $$ boundary on it, because they wanted to make sure it only applied to foreign companies. It’s a protectionist scheme, and clearly has nothing to do with helping consumers.

I'm not sure I agree, after all EU companies have to do business with all sorts of foreign companies that don't fall under the DMA and those markets are still billions of Euros large. But I do take your point that the large FAANG and FAANG-sized companies are all American which gives the EU extra incentive here. However, even the US draft legislation had size limits and even worse named market limits (one of them specifically specified mobile devices). Of course you and I had that discussion that legislation may never get out of committee never mind pass, but still. It shows that our own lawmakers are thinking on similar lines [insert joke about thinking and US lawmakers].