The terms would make something like F-Droid impossible. The fundamental problem is that Apple believes it is owed a fee when people distribute apps for the iPhone, but no legal mechanism entitles them to such a fee; I’m fairly sure it’s possible to make an iPhone app without copying any of Apple’s copyrighted code or using any of their patents.
The only mechanism that allows them to collect one is their technical control over the platform, and that’s what the DMA was intended to remove.
I’m fairly sure it’s possible to make an iPhone app without copying any of Apple’s copyrighted code or using any of their patents.
This sounds wrong, but I was never particularly interested in iOS app development, so take that with a grain of salt.
The GNU GPL prohibits non-GPL software from even dynamically linking to GPL libraries. Assuming that enforcing such a condition is acceptable under relevant copyright law, and that you can’t make an iOS app without linking to any Apple libraries, Apple does have a legal mechanism to enforce this.
French developers may get a pass, with VLC and all.
It’s probably more efficient to tax away most of the fees Apple charges until they fall in line.
I know this is going to be a hot take especially on the lemmyverse, but that’s not the fundamental problem.
The issue in question is: should a company that provides a product, one whose value proposition is focused on a cohesive ecosystem and experience, be forced to break down their walled garden to let people create a new app store or install apps in a way that’s outside that companies vision for their own product.
My personal opinion is that it’s a dumb fight for apple to take, because 99.9% of their users will never deviate from their app store. But I understand why they are fighting it. I’d fight it too. Huge companies that have made a fortune benefiting from the apple ecosystem have gotten so big they want to take even more and forgot how much value apples environment and user based provides them.
I don’t get what part of the value proposition for the customer ought to entail that nobody else may make different choices. If an Android user wants to solely and exclusively use Google apps, they can. Likewise, if people want to install apps from other sources, why is that a problem for someone who wants to stick to Apple’s app store?
This only makes sense for the company, because they benefit from absolute control.
third party apps bad!! viruses and trojans, can you imagine this monstrosity??!
If apple ecosystem is so better then there is no reason to fight over it, people won’t force themselves to download new app store and apps when they are inferior.
But the truth is that iPhone apps made by apple are awesome, the way they works and synchronize with Mac and iCloud, excellent ! but the app store itself is filled with garbage that require very expensive subscription. I was shocked coming from Android to see such low quality and so expensive, and I’m pretty sure apple knows that. So when a new app store offer the same garbage but a little less expensive, and no apple fee, of course people are going to download it.
Funny thing is, the reason I never considered buying an iPhone was because I liked developing small apps and doing this on an iPhone is virtually impossible without paying. And I don’t think I’m alone here, and this problem scales to professionals.
I think you misunderstand what apples value proposition is, at least nowadays. The app store and not being able to use other app stores is not a reason people get iPhones. Maybe back when app stores were first created and the threat of malware was greater people might have considered it but nowadays no one cares. Even the idea of a unified ecosystem isn’t as much a selling point any more because Google and Samsung offer similar seamless integrations with their accessories. You can see this in their marketing, they aren’t focused on how all the apple products work together easily any more. In their marketing you can see what they think their value proposition is, and what was their big Superbowl ad this year, longer battery life …
Apple at this point knows it doesn’t have much of a value proposition for switching from android. So the only way they’re gonna sell new phones is to get the kids who don’t have a phone and convince the people who do have an iPhone to get a new one.
They convince the kids through their tried and true aesthetics and lifestyle marketing, this is about half there marketing these days. This along with iMessage in the U.S. and the general fear of being in the out group and obsession with brands that younger people have moved them towards iPhones.
They convince the current users with incremental upgrades, eg. Better battery life, better camera; and maintaining the walled garden and keeping exit costs high so they don’t turn to androids for those incremental updates.
All this is to say that apple having a single app store isn’t a sign of consumer sentiment, but a sign of apples desire to milk as much profits out of their current users as they can. Other app stores can only benefit the consumers, either they do get them for lower fees or don’t because they put some value on the “ecosystem”. From a company’s perspective yes your right that they want to be able to do anything to their product they want, but the goal of regulation is to step in when the companies desires are at odds with the people or the consumers desire, this is one of those cases.
The issue in question is: should a company that provides a product, one whose value proposition is focused on a cohesive ecosystem and experience, be forced to break down their walled garden to let people create a new app store or install apps in a way that’s outside that companies vision for their own product.
Yes. Because it’s too big and too popular to be making niche arguments like this. Its customer base is vast and diverse, nearly as diverse as the population of the planet. It’s absurd to suggest that every single one of those customers, or even 80% of them expect everything they do on the device to be taxed by Apple. It’s their device, not Apple’s.
The reason they should be forced to do this is that no one will force users to use this option. They can make it slightly out of way, just like how Android makes you explicitly allow installing apps from anywhere but the Play Store if you want to do that. And just like on Android, most users won’t touch that option. Those that want it would. Just like any other general computing device on the planet.
Apple is openly acting like a government and claims it has the rights to tax anything that goes on in its realm. But it sure as fuck isn’t a democratic government. About fucking time an actual government took it down a peg. Or a hundred.
Edit: FWIW, I’m definitely not singling out Apple here. All big tech companies are acting like governments and they all need to be punished for it. Or they should become actual democracies. That would be nice.
(I don’t think that could ever work, not in my lifetime at least)
Apple said it spent “months in conversation with the European Commission” about the DMA and that its plan reflects the work of “hundreds of Apple team members who spent tens of thousands of hours” on the solution.
This is something I can absolutely believe, attorney spent many hours twisting the law, bending it and figuring it in what way they could avoid it. Just like how Google, Microsoft, Amazon and apple are all evading taxes in Europe by setting companies in Ireland.
The law is simple, allow other app store on iPhones. It didn’t need thousands of hours to figure it
Little tech too.
Big tech is unimpressed by big tech
Let them get fucked by EU fines then? At least they are big enough to not just be a slap on the wrist.
I’m betting they are following the letter of the law perfectly, since the spirit of the law is being violated so blatantly.
They likely had their lawyers pour over things to make sure they are exploiting every possible loophole.
I’m betting they are following the letter of the law perfectly
Have you read the law, or is that just a blind bet? Spoiler, here’s a quote from the legislation (Article 5, item 4):
The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.
I bolded the most obvious point - Apple is charging a core technology fee (50 cents per user per year) even though the letter of the law is “free of charge”.
More broadly, there’s a fundamental problem that apps distributed are required to be submitted to Apple for approval even if they’re distributed out side the store. Apple says they will check less things, but obviously they are still checking some things and will still reject some apps. Developers are also required to a “core platform service” operated by Apple in order to do that submission and pay those fees. Apple can’t require that, as I read the legislation they have to allow developers to distribute apps without using or agreeing to any terms with Apple.
The legislation does allow Apple to block apps that are malware/etc - but the company is going far beyond that.
They likely had their lawyers pour over things to make sure they are exploiting every possible loophole.
I don’t think that’s what has happened. Apple has one of the best legal teams int he world, there’s no way they missed that “free of charge” requirement. I think they had their lawyers poor over things to find some way to avoid complying with the law in a way that will require years of ongoing investigations and lawsuits between Apple and the EU. Meanwhile the status quo continues and all apps go through the App Store.
Are you sure you’re not misunderstanding the quoted section? To me, admittedly not a lawyer, that reads like “Apple has to allow Netflix to say “hey, you can get this cheaper through this other button that is different than the Apple Pay option” without charging the developer for that “privledge”” while you seem to be taking it as “Apple has to allow third party payment without taking a cut.”
This is what I’m talking about. If there is any ambiguity, their lawyers will pounce on it. Even if it means they get a slap on the wrist, they can turn around and say “oh, sorry, the legislation wasn’t totally clear we will get that fixed real quick in a year, these things take time after all.”
