Live data from Hacker News

EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

appleinsider.com

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't use adobe? Why you are writing like you are forced to sideload? You can just not sideload and stay in the apple's ecosystem and be safe. Don't install chrome if it's worse experience than safari? That's the thing with freedom: if you value your privacy, you'll still get it without sideloading/not using products that are screwing you

> So don't use adobe? Why you are writing like you are forced to sideload? Because it doesn't matter if they don't threaten to kill you. If you need the apps and they only offer them via sideload, then you're still forced.

dont use their apps at all? They already have scammy behavior for cancelation. It's like saying if you need medicine and you can only find it on dark market: the action isn't buying medicine on dark market, it's finding/asking for a replacement that is easy to buy. If adobe will exit appstore, another players will pop out with similar functions and that are present on the store

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#702
post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] you have the freedom to not install them What if Instagram decides to require side loading to install their app — in order to increase ad revenue?

They don't on Android, why would they on iOS?

BuT wHAt iF TheY CoUld?

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#703
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open Apple has never been big on the web. Google has the world's most popular web properties which it has used to both push Chrome and sabotage competition.

> Apple has never been big on the web. At some point they had a new browser that they provided to windows as well and could have expanded way further. They could have made Safari a true alternative to IE, Chrome, Firefox. They didn't, it didn't make sense for them. So yes, Apple isn't big on the web, but it's in part of their own doing. Safari not being a viable browser outside of the mac and iOS is nobody's fault ex…

> at one point they killed their stock value overnight through a single policy change on iOS

Facebook is destroyed I tell you, completely obliterated.

> they could probably force Google to change on any front they're competing on.

Is Apple competing with Google in:

- web search?

- user generated content (Youtube)?

- email?

- developer tools (GCP)?

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you say iphone can offer alternate stores/sideload and still keep old behavior for users that want to stay in apple's ecosystem? So why lock down iphone then? Consumers that want it locked down, will keep their old routines...

If governments force Apple's hand so be it what can Apple do then, but if I could help it, I'd not want it to be opened up for 3rd parties.

why? id doesn't affect your freedom to use only appstore

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Those who argue that forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem is a good thing appear to believe that increased user freedom will lead to more option for all and increase freedom further. Those of us who argue that being forced to open their ecosystem is a bad thing believe (speaking personally) that any user freedom added would quickly be lost an…

I think it comes down to what we expect the second order effects to be. Yes, and when the first order effect is that a giant corporation gets total control over how you use "your" property, you need to be very confident in your predictions to outweigh that. Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom Apple certainly doesn't.

(just about app stores) I'd love a middle ground, but if I'm forced to choose, I'd prefer that there weren't other "app stores" on the iPhone, for many of the reasons stated above.

But the funny thing is, both of us have the same argument of "I want the cake and eat it too".

> "Why does it harm you to have another app store? If you don't like it don't use it!" > But I want to use Whatsapp / etc! I just want to have the Apple policies protect me from what those apps can do on my phone![]

> "Why does it bother you that Apple sells phones under the condition of 'my app store or nothing'? If you don't like it, buy another brand! > But I want to use the quality of iPhones and iOS!

[] This is what I mean by "middle ground". Today, I """trust""" Apple to protect me (somewhat) against random developers. If there are alternative appstores, but either they must follow the same protection policies from the one from Apple[*] or their apps must also be listed in the Apple store, I'd be happy with multiple app stores. But that would defeat the purpose of other stores.

[*] (eg I must be able to use Apple Pay, the code still goes through Apple review, etc)

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#706
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open Apple has never been big on the web. Google has the world's most popular web properties which it has used to both push Chrome and sabotage competition.

> Apple has never been big on the web. That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps that connect to third-party services.[1][2] It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web. [1] https://www.youtube.com/wat…

> That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps

That was 2007. Can you show me how exactly Apple was big on the web in 2007?

> It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web

They never de-prioritised the web. Implementing Chrome-only non-standards isn't what being big on the web means.

Open a list of most-visited websites and show me Apple properties on it.

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Blink becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome. Especially when combined with the fact the big G can't keep directly funding Firefox to create a fake competition anymore under the new rules from the digital markets act. Google should've been hit with an antitrust case on Chrome years ago and their recent shenanigans with the topics api o…

> If V8 becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome V8 isn't a monopoly in the antitrust sense, at all. Google gives away the source code to most of Chrome that allows other people to make browsers with it, and they do. Something being popular doesn't indicate a monopoly. Microsoft could choose to make a browser engine, but they don't, and it'…

Yeah I reworded it - I meant Blink. And no, I'd argue that just because it's open source doesn't change that it's an antitrust-worthy browser. The obvious problem being the conflict of interest in developing a browser (which is meant to serve users) and an advertising platform (which is meant to serve business customers). That alone should have prevented Google from entering that field, but here we are.

---

In a technical sense, Chrome is a monopoly though. The development of Chrome moves at such a rapid pace that only Firefox can keep up (kind of, Firefox had to give up on anything involving PWAs to do it and they take a large sum of money from the big G for putting their search engine as the default).

Similarly, just look at how many web RFCs amount to "this was implemented by Chrome and technically a Chrome fork is a second implementation, so it can be OK stamped", which has squeezed the market for third parties to be able to develop their own browser just by making the amount of "required" features so large nobody could meaningfully implement them.[0]

And then there's the utterly dismal state of the Android platform, where Google just uses their control over OEMs and the ROM to outright prevent anyone from easily replacing the System WebView (the browser Android uses to render stuff "in-apps", basically if you've ever used an app that seemingly opens external links without launching chrome, that's the System WebView) with a non-chrome engine (basically, Google lets OEMs specify a hash on what the System WebView should be - almost all mainstream OEMs lock it to the Google implementation -or Chrome Canary which is just the same fucking browser-, leaving the only option to circumvent it to be rooting, which has its own issues and limitations).

There's no meaningful maintained alternatives to it either (Mozilla's work on GeckoView only targets individual apps, not the system version; Vanadium and Mulch are both just Chrome forks that implement it as part of a larger custom ROM but in the end are only competition in the same way GNU IceCat is technically a competing browser - they're openly tied to the Chromium upstream because they lack the manpower to do it on their own. The Vanadium dev also stopped anyone from using his work in the future by setting his System WebView implementation to GPLv2-only to prevent folks from forking it), since nobody wants to bother.

Just being open source doesn't prevent a company from using their leading position and size to muscle away all the competition.

[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#708

Good lord, this is the whinge that never ends, isn’t it? If you want an Android phone, dozens if not hundreds of companies will sell you one. You can quite literally choose the level of openness you desire. Personally I prefer the Apple ecosystem where things just tend to work well. It would be difficult to care less about running something other than Safari on an iPhone. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy Apple’s produ…

I downvoted this because you're ignoring iMessage. The fact that Apple purposefully not only gives Android users a shitty experience when communicating with iOS users, but also ensures that the presence of an Android user can break the experience for everyone else in a group chat (e.g. degraded videos now for everyone) in iMessage is a blatant attempt to abuse their monopoly power (in the US at least where iMessage d…

> Apple doesn't even need to make an Android version of iMessage, they just need to support RCS instead of SMS/MMS: https://www.android.com/get-the-message/

Or Google could have just licensed iMessage.

RCS is not a consumer benefit: RCS gives strange powers to the carrier that your phone connects to (as opposed to the company you contract with; i.e. your mobile carrier), powers over your camera, microphone, radio, power levels, and motion sensors. I don't care if T-Mobile can offer "true" 4G video calling with it with other T-mobile customers. Nobody fucking wants that.

Google deciding to partner with American Telcos and the American Government to get RCS standardized has confused you into thinking Apple did something wrong, or is continuing to do something wrong by not adopting Google's RCS (and paying Google's license fees for RCS, integrating with every carrier, and so on) instead of Google paying Apple for iMessage (and paying Apple's license fees for iMessage). This isn't your fault, you're just proof that Google's advertising is working and that Google is really good at advertising and marketing.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/25/20931699/android-messagi...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23297951/google-apple-rcs-...

Re: EU tells Apple to open everything up to its rivals

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this goes through, you can be 100% sure there will be a Meta-only iOS store along with a Google iOS store and all their apps will move there. After that if you want to use apps to access any Google or Meta service, you'll need to get it from their store - that doesn't have any pesky limitations on user profiling or stupid guidelines for privacy.

So don't install meta apps then since they want to fk you?

This is not just about me or us on Hacker News.

You really think you can stop your $relative from using Facebook or Instagram just because they moved the app to a store that has zero limits for privacy intrusions?

Post reply on HN