EU approves legislation to regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other tech firms

The regulators disagree.

> So who will be these companies? Who are they for? A small, vocal minority of users?

Startups! App discovery companies like AppGratis and Chomp, which were killed off by App Store guidelines. A potential industry for app discoverability, curated app experiences, app lists for specialists. There is potential there for entirely new industries to be built for the iOS app ecosystem, for dynamic change and new frontiers!

> Will I have to download 3 versions of Instagram? The neutered App Store version, the version on the Meta store, and the privacy focused version?

Most people will use the App Store version. Few die-hards will bother to migrate to the Meta store, as such purists most likely already view as the Facebook acquisition and subsequent ad/brands push as compromising the indie nature of Instagram. Certainly some savvy power users may opt for the privacy-focused version, just as people already do with alternatives to the official Twitter or Reddit clients. It is fine to stick to the default option; let people have choice.

> I don't know what you're talking about here.

If Apple is making claims that go as far that its devices are life-saving, then they are not some minor player who is beyond the purview of regulators and antitrust legislation. Thus you cannot claim that "just use Android" is a valid dodge to prevent Apple from having its power checked.

> Apple's collective bargaining on behalf of users against developers as it relates to the App Store

Your arguments still relies on hypotheticals about Facebook or Google, companies who have clearly questionable abilities to launch new compelling products and platforms, being able to steal users away. Again, I find that to be dubious, especially when you examine the modern state of the industry, and the increasing sclerosis of these companies from a product perspective. I find the "data funnel 3rd party app store" threat vector to be debatable and worth examining in detail, before we base our entire policy upon this hypothetical scenario.

Basically, you are saying that Apple is protecting us from giants, when they are actually windmills.

> That doesn't mean the user experience won't be degraded for the vast majority of people who just want to pick up their phone and use it.

I disagree. I believe if Apple embraces a partial opening up, they can manage it with minimal degrading of UX, and in fact will open up many new potential to breathe freshness into iOS and smartphones in general. All of this FUD is really just covert anti-Apple skepticism.

It used to be very common for individual developers, or small teams, to publish native programs. WinZip, Winamp, 7Zip, TreeSize, Tag & Rename, Beyond Compare, Nero, PuTTY, all just off the top of my head.

It is very, very possible to create performant, maintainable native software with no larger a developer team than it takes to build web software. We're just collectively too lazy to try.

Sure but that's not a good argument. When it comes to technology so far regulators don't have a great track record IMO. Even if they did, that's still not a good argument.

> Startups! App discovery companies like AppGratis and Chomp, which were killed off by App Store guidelines. A potential industry for app discoverability, curated app experiences, app lists for specialists. There is potential there for entirely new industries to be built for the iOS app ecosystem, for dynamic change and new frontiers!

I don't find this compelling enough to give up everything I enjoy about the iPhone. I'd rather these startups just never exist, or they can exist on Android and prove their business model successful.

> Most people will use the App Store version. Few die-hards will bother to migrate to the Meta store, as such purists most likely already view as the Facebook acquisition and subsequent ad/brands push as compromising the indie nature of Instagram. Certainly some savvy power users may opt for the privacy-focused version, just as people already do with alternatives to the official Twitter or Reddit clients. It is fine to stick to the default option; let people have choice.

Or so you think. Most likely scenario is that people will have 2-5 app stores installed because these companies have enough pull that they can get a user to click through a few buttons. You can see these kinds of user-hostile patterns all over the place where companies will interact with you initially and then stop. Take Affirm. Payment processing. They send you an email when you have an upcoming payment and then you click the email, each link takes you to an app download. Eventually users just give in and download the app because they make it hard to view payments on the web. No reason to think that a company such as Meta won't/can't transition all of their products to their own App Store even if they maintain a neutered version on Apple's App Store that constantly bothers users to switch stores. Companies such as Spotify or Netflix will move to a third-party store so they don't have to pay Apple for using the platform. So now Apple has less incentive to improve software because if they make gains then other mega corporations like Netflix will be able to access those gains without any sort of payment - in other words, they get access to the users and platform without having to pay anything to do so. You might believe that to be fair, but I don't think that's up to regulators to decide and should be left to the mega corporations to fight it out amongst themselves.

> If Apple is making claims that go as far that its devices are life-saving, then they are not some minor player who is beyond the purview of regulators and antitrust legislation. Thus you cannot claim that "just use Android" is a valid dodge to prevent Apple from having its power checked.

I think you're confused.

First, I have never stated that Apple was a minor player. You can safely retract that thought.

Second, creating "life saving devices" isn't relevant here. Medical manufacturers create life saving devices too. Seatbelts save lives. So what?

Finally, you can just use Android because there are lots of mega corporations such as Google and Samsung that manufacture phones that compete with the iPhone, and you can use various distributions of Android including completely free and open source versions.

There's a very healthy and competitive marketplace. Open-source software and the Android + manufacturer business model has turned out to be less competitive and weaker than Apple's approach. In fact, Apple's model of locked-down software and tight integration is so superior to open source software that even you use the iPhone.

> Your arguments

Look I've already explained it. You don't have to accept it but there's nothing else for me to say here. I've described the mechanics in a satisfactory way as it pertains to these conversations and it's impossible to change my mind on it and I'm not interested in discussing it further because there's no new information being presented that I haven't already considered.

> I disagree. I believe if Apple embraces a partial opening up, they can manage it with minimal degrading of UX, and in fact will open up many new potential to breathe freshness into iOS and smartphones in general. All of this FUD is really just covert anti-Apple skepticism.

Nothing stops this on Android now. If third-party stores were a breath of fresh air you wouldn't be here complaining that you need them on yet another device. It's like someone who burns down a house playing with matches and shows up to someone else's house with matches.

Nowadays, short of exploits, there is no way for a user to simply load a program into a mainstream console and have it run out of the box without the manufacturer's blessing.