https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
"Article 13: Anti-circumvention
4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.
7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement."
2,000,000 installs acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees, even if you don't make any money
That's up from $0 USD.
Can't imagine that flying with the EU...
The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came with a license for iOS)
Rather than protecting the interests of users, they are more interested in obstructing the DMA and its attempt to promote competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.
The serious issue is for apps having more than 1 million installs (YouTube, Zoom, Slack, Outlook, Amazon, etc.). Strong "coincidence": these are the companies you don't want to allow to create alternative stores to, because they have their own payments methods: how long would it take Amazon, Google or Microsoft (the only one without a payment service, AFAIK) to run their brand new "Google/Amazon Store for iOS"? Probably they have it already half baked there waiting to be released.
Now, they will have to either accept to use the App Store "way" (the current way, so all good) or pay huge fees for their own apps. Will they do it? Is it worth it? I am very curious!
Alternative, smaller stores for smaller apps, instead, will be there and should be OK, as long as the apps don't exceed 1 million installs in a year (which is a lot, I guess).
EDIT: I missed Meta Pay, apparently another payment method from one of the companies with the most downloaded apps. Yeah, it seems really that Apple doesn't want other stores from big companies.
Also, what is this Core Technology Fee for all apps? Maybe Apple has been losing money on the App Store infrastructure so they want to make it up? Or is this just a bid to try and keep as much control as possible? Seems that Apple wants to go into this kicking and screaming...
As someone in cybersecurity, I understand the need for secure apps, but I think Apple has been going about it in the wrong way.
Does anyone know if notarization is something you could turn off? If you can't, then I'm pretty sure the EU won't like this; obviously "malicious compliance."
kicking and screaming. i mean, yes, that is "complying". but it is ridiculous. and, am i getting this right, just gonna create a bunch of "[browser name] EU Edition" apps, which is just gonna be wonderful. users can look forward to having something like Chrome (International) and Chrome EU (limited EU edition) be installed side by side, i guess. can we look forward to "[browser name] [country name] edition" per each country that'd fancy to have itself some regulation similar to that? that'd be so many browsers! dozens, hundreds! what an optimal solution.
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketpl...
Any idea if this means you can actually choose a different browser, or are you choosing a different WebKit wrapper (e.g. the current version of Chrome on iOS)?
The reason for apple doing something is not that it wants its users to be safe or to protect them. It just wants to make more money by preventing other companies from doing stuff on its phones. This is it. If it would be possible then it would ask for 50 or 79% of sales on the app store, if it could it would take a % of every transaction done in Safari
I download the Netflix app for $0 and my business with Netflix is done directly with them after that. And Netflix can pay Apple some reasonable fee for hosting and reviewing the apps themselves. Apple have already lost the AppStore they just haven’t realized it yet. They should try to rescue the 1 good store before the app market is fractured with side markets. Eventually it’ll affect the perception of their hardware and that’s a worse place for Apple than just losing the entire app tax.
This seems unusually high. I would expect that a large number of apps meet this threshold. Am I correct in thinking this applies to apps that aren't monetized?
They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide. Clearly they feel that their service doesn't justify the fees in a competitive market (even though any competition will be minimal with the anticompetitive measures they're still clinging to in these changes).
The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines.
[1] On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.
That said the content on the App Store is already pretty bad privacy-wise, this is more of a money issue and whether Apple deserves to get paid for their role as an app channel.
> To help keep users safe online, Apple will only authorize developers to implement alternative browser engines after meeting specific criteria and committing to a number of ongoing privacy and security requirements, including timely security updates to address emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
This criteria seems arbitrary. Doesn't this allow Apple to arbitrarily prevent competitor engines like Blink and Gecko?
But, this is still better than not doing it at all.
Maybe call it the MacPhone Pro and have the same level of security/customizability/install your own store as a full Mac.
That way Apple can keep the iPhone/iOS branding as the OS for customers that just want a phone that works, is fully iOS wall gardened and don't want to tinker/potentially see blue screens.
Then let the market decide. Perhaps the MacPhone would actually be more popular.
"Sssh, Apple will take care of you. We know what's best for you, don't leave the house it's safer inside. Don't see your friends when I'm not there, I need to keep you safe, you know how you get"
Christ, Apple's literally turning into an abusive partner.
This seems like an understated gotcha.
For a simple reason: Most iOS users don't want it and won't use them. If your app isn't available in the main store, the vast majority of users simply won't install it.
The exceptions would be perhaps extremely popular games like FortNite / Epic.
Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed even people sideloaded it?
Also will iOS launch an un-notarized app that you side load? Probably not knowing apple, but if it won't I am not sure I consider that side loading in my opinion. This is because then that code still has be reviewed by apple to get notarized. This still gives apple the power to reject apps it does not like which negates the whole point of side loading.
> [...]
> Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users.
Just let us sideload IPAs, please.
Why do playstation, nintendo, and xbox not need to allow sideloading?
"New business terms available for apps in the EU — to reflect the DMA’s requirements for alternative distribution and payment processing, Apple is also sharing new business terms for apps in the EU. Developers have a choice to remain on Apple’s existing terms or adopt new terms that reflect the new capabilities."
So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved.
So… if I’m understanding right, I need to take the app down, or start charging an up front fee to school children? Nice one Apple. I hope I’m allowed to add a pop up explaining to users why the app will now incur a mandatory charge.
The best way I can interpret this: it only applies to new downloads each year. In that case, it’s still concerning —- what happens if there is a surge of downloads? I’m on the hook for $50k overnight?
And if updates are included in this number like some comments here suggest, users aren’t going to get any bug fixes.
Wow. HN, please tell me I’m interpreting this wrong.
That seems way too low out of 2 billion devices as per Apple to cause any splintering of iOS, it seems to be.
Devs will be targeting the lowest common denominator and also iOS usually goes as the US goes, so other than the EU getting a couple of neat alternative apps - this won’t amount to much in the grand scheme.
Seriously though, I expect Apple to do something to differentiate them.
With users able to access bleeding edge browser technologies like WASM and WebGPU, developers and users will finally get an alternative to native apps.
Rolling out the big guns!
I’m guessing this has significantly rattled Apple’s cage.
> “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow.
I think this essentially means that large developers pay €0.50 * (num apps they publish) * (num devices each app is installed on) per year. There are 2 billion active iOS devices [1], so I think that for the biggest apps like YouTube the fees could be in the hundreds of million USD per year.
4 of the top 5 most downloaded apps of all time [2] are published by Meta (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp), and I think they will pay this fee for each app?
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/02/apple-two-billion-activ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(Apple)#Of_all_time
"n) where applicable, all actions taken to protect integrity, security or privacy (e.g., data access, data retention policies) pursuant to the relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and why these measures are strictly necessary and justified and there are no less restrictive means to achieve these goals"
As a bonus, just to really hammer it in:
"o) any type of market analysis or testing (in particular A/B testing), business user surveys or consumer surveys or end user consent rates that have been carried out to estimate the expected impact of the measure on the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925"
[1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9...
Now Apple needs to provide the APIs for alternative markets which is a waste of time as well as making more vulnerability vectors and potentially confusing users. And app developers who decided for whatever reason to use their own distribution channel would still have to pay apple on every purchase.
What is the point of this change?
Jesus. Not only is Apple serving us a shit sandwich with this press release, they're telling us it's filet mignon, for our own good.
Is anyone who has been in tech for the past 25 years or so not completely disillusioned with the state of tech as a business? The "tech optimism" of the late 90s seems like another universe. It feels like every single big tech company is only worried about their business and profits, service to the user be damned. They're all "evil", rotten to the core, 100%, across the board.
New technology (and I'm not talking about how we usually refer to it as Internet/silicon tech these days) used to be about making people's lives better. I think the piece of tech that I most value these days is probably my dishwasher. So much other tech is just actively hostile - think of the HP CEO's recent announcement that we should all owe HP money per page. Like there is a person on the planet who wants that.
As someone who's worked in tech since the .com boom, my disillusionment is on the verge of depression. I'm honestly ashamed at the forces I've contributed to, even if only a minuscule bit.
A push notification app that allows users with self hosted stuff to send push notifications for free without Apple’s blessing.
Open source browser with ublock origin
Is it a 10-max 20% fee to Apple, no matter the distributor, in the EU? Or are those rules only for the App Store, and anything else won't be touched by commissions to Apple?
“ These safeguards will be in place when users download iOS 17.4 or later, beginning in March, and include:
Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review.
App installation sheets — that use information from the Notarization process to provide at-a-glance descriptions of apps and their functionality before download, including the developer, screenshots, and other essential information.
Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers. Additional malware protections — that prevent iOS apps from launching if they’re found to contain malware after being installed to a user’s device.”
Straight out of the claim-enormous-damages playbook to anchor the figure higher.
With hardware, the EU can demand adherence to standards like USB-C.
With software and terms of service, the EU can ban specific things, and Apple can come up with other terms to keep control of the platform.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39132487
Apple is allowing alternative browser engines in iOS 17.4 – but only in the EU
Apple will get slapped for this.
How will users be able to understand the options in front of them unless they are presented with it in the first place?
I'm afraid this announcement will turn out to be disastrous for the open web as we know it. Even if some enthusiasts now will be able to use Firefox proper, the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over night. After this I guess the rendering engine market share will be roughly 80/20 Chromium/Webkit with Gecko as some rounding error.
For how long will it be defensible for the average company to test their site on anything but Chromium?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If only Apple had deigned to try this before regulators appeared.
And furthermore, I - as an EU based developer - have an App that is currently distributed worldwide. After agreeing to the alternate fees, they are only applied to the portion of sales from EU customers. Customers in the rest of the world are handled with the standard fees?
One of the requirements for third party App Store use by developers is maintaining a standby letter of credit of 1M euros from an A rated financial institution
Edit: was mistaken, this is a requirement for the operator of a third party App Store.
If Steve Jobs was still around there might be a PR blitz with some YouTube videos of him doing a very persuasive ad about why the EU is wrong. And why Apple is right. Hahaha! :)
Apple's total failure to build popular new products has forced it to defend/grow it's services revenue in unethical and anti-user ways. The only winners here are $aapl stock holders and at great cost to global progress and fairness.
Tim Cook of all people should sympathize with developers everywhere getting it in the ass without consent.
A different browser engine on my iPad Pro (UK).
(Don’t pitch it as a go between from iPhone and Mac, while giving it a essentially a mobile browser engine)
On the other hand Chrome gaining further marketshare and having a browser monopoly seems bad.
I guess we’ll see what happens.
We had this discussion with Unity already.
Could be ok for fortnite though, epic should be pretty happy.
Also, who needs apple pay, Poland uses blik payments everywhere and it is just fine (and you have to autorise each payment with an alert from your bank app).
If you have a F2P game app averaging 50€ revenue per user per year and you introduce a limitation to 1M users, you can avoid the Core Technology Fee and end up with 0€ fees, as opposed to 15M€ yearly fees under the current terms.
It's starting to get on my nerves that these basic freedoms are being locked to specific regions. It's obvious why it happens, but it upsets me as a consumer.
I already see numerous sites that with chrome variations on the old "we only support IE", but at least until now devs had to at least allow at least one other browser. Now they'll just say "here's a link explaining how to install chrome".
So we’ll still not be able to purchase Kindle books from the app, it seems.
Example: I make a free App that gets very popular but has a rather seasonal character. Then there is a possibility, that many users will reinstall the App each year for a short time. Then I would have to pay the 50ct per install each year?
'Your iPhone is currently in Apple-only mode. To allow installation of apps not reviewed by Apple, you must disable this mode. Doing so requires a device reset and some apps may only function in Apple only mode'.
Now those in non EU countries won't be able to acess other browser's too which will present similar challenge.
Do you also complain about security risks related to roads hence why you don't even cross a road?
I have yet to see a convincing argument that this was really necessary from a User prospective. The only argument I will buy is the limitations in what could be on the store like Adult apps, emulation, and similar. Which is valid, but not something requiring a separate store.
The day that an app requires me to install a separate App Store to use is the day my smartphone becomes less useful and I stop using that particular app. Being on the App Store has benefits to me as a User, particularly when it comes to privacy and billing. Do we really need to bring up just how much companies like Facebook pushed back on the app tracking bulletin and the scary popups many apps put up to try to convince you to allow them to track you?
Or the dark patterns that many companies continue to engage in regarding billing? Right now we are dealing with Cable companies complaining about yearly notices of renewal and being able to easily cancel, and you are going to try to tell me that companies won't find a way to abuse this?
Literally today I was trying to cancel a task management app that I mistakenly signed up on the web instead of through the app, and I have to email them to do so. But they are more than happy to let me increase the cost of my subscription with a single click.
So no this is not about choice for Users as this continues to be framed as, my choice was to go with an iOS Device in the first place for this walled garden. In the coming years the choice will be more and more made for me by developers. There is basically zero chance that Facebook, maybe Amazon, and companies big enough to try it won't jump at this chance when they have a big enough name to be able to leave the App Store and other developers can just piggy back on that.
Look at Android, where alternative app stores have existed for years with little adoption. You have three kinds:
1. Open Source Markets (F-Droid), These are great for free apps but if you sideload this on your dads phone all you'll get are texts like "Where do I get YouTube"
2. Megacorporation Bazaars (Amazon App Store), this means nothing to developers except who you pay your exorbitant fee to, with the added problem of less eyes on your actual product (which users will go out of their way to install an alternative app store?)
3. Sketchy Side Markets / Piracy Stores (APKPure): These will be the main ones people choose to download under the promise of "free apps", and Apple is right to be nervous of the security of these. People will brick their phones trying to get free Robux.
If you don't understand how bad these get I recommend downloading APKPure and using it as your primary app source for a month.
Aurora store does not count, since it is simply an alternative UI for apps hosted on Google Play.
Maybe, maybe, if people can buy apps directly in browser on a developers site, people will do that. But not many.
I appreciate the EU moving towards more open market legislation but this in particular is just window dressing. It'll be just like Cookie Notices - ignored, and everyone moves on.
There is no "security" or "privacy" for the _owner_ of a computer that is locked down so that the _owner_ of that computer cannot control it. There could be "security" and "privacy" for whomever is controlling the computer. That would be Apple. This could even be "security" and "privacy" as against the computer's owner.
1. Will banned categories like emulators, apps with adult content, or apps competing with apple’s products be available for iOS?
2. One step further, what about apps using internal apis?
Backport to iOS 15.
Apply generally the same rules for computer manufacturers. Pre-Installing Windows and forcing them to use it? No.
Lenovo allows me to order a system without any operating-system or Linux. And I can spend the saved money to GNOME or other people in need. That should be standard, default shall be operating-system.
And for Google. Visiting Google or YouTube and they try lure me to install Chrome. Android must ask if I want a better browser. Like Safari or Firefox. I appreciate a port of WebKitGtk (needs more developers).
Actually I would appreciate if the EU generally stops thinking in “free markets” and thinks instead of “free citizens”. If I own something it is mine.
If you accidentally went viral on the AppStore you could go bankrupt
This seems like it would completely eliminate popular ad-free and low cost free apps?
I’m already looking forward to the “I lost my bookmarks!” call because they chose a different browser and the “my battery is dying so fast!” call because they sideloaded the new Facebook app with unprecedented crap in it from Facebook’s marketplace.
Can you install software yourself?
> Authorization for marketplace developers...
> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
Amazing. All this regulation and hand-wringing to just to make it exactly the same developer experience as before but now you can click the download button in another app. Plus now every app not just ones that use IAP for digital goods is gonna get a $500k annual fee once they hit 2M users. The EU really showed em who's boss.
EDIT: It was the CloudFlare DNS issue. NVM.
They will need a second, even stronger slap to finally understand it. Actually insane that they believe they will get away with this garbage.
Instead they are legitimizing these companies ?!?
(Also, we'll never see serious competition from EU companies as long as these giants are allowed to operate here... and also just buy any potential competition.)
Not malicious.
Protecting their users in as much as is possible given the ill-conceived DMA.
Wait a minute, did the EU tried enforcing key escrow or something?
> The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats.
Ah, I see. Apple gate keeps everything for our own good. Nothing to do with money. Nothing at all…
Now I have a relative that for some reason always gets their computer full of malware. Had to reset their Android phone last week, presumably for this very reason. Nobody has any idea how that stuff gets in, but with him, it always does. We started to jokingly accuse him of getting to shady web sites, but he won’t admit to anything. Anyone knows someone like him, and how they might be helped?
Besides locking his computer like we would a child, that is.
Look past it all and will see it’s just a desperate attempt to hold on to their profits in wake of the App Store exodus.
He rants one day, few months later EU creates policy and Apple conforms. Nice reality bending powers.
Apple and Google have a chequered history of cherry-picking which social networking apps are allowed on their platform, based on content in those apps.
Some apps may, for cultural reasons, have the lion's share of toxic content, such is the nature of a free society where cultures are allowed to differ. But users should be free to decide what apps they consider "toxic," because peoples' definitions of "toxic" differ.
Free speech is a first amendment right because it's a fundamental pre-requisite of a free society.
Why should two corporates in California (subject to all the political biases that exist in that state) be gatekeepers of freedom of expression and association for the rest of the world?
If a corporate chooses what opinions and discussions are "appropriate" for us, then our thoughts and worldviews are subtly shaped by the whims of that corporate.
It wouldn't be so bad if there were multiple corporates who differentiated their approach, but unfortunately we've seen Big Tech acting in concert on certain issues (certain apps that were banned), and that should concern us all.
They may suppress rightwing views today, but we can't predict what Big Tech will deny us access to tomorrow. Tomorrow's target might be something we value (but is inconvenient for the Big Tech establishment)
If you're on the left-hand side of politics, try to imagine a world where two companies in Wyoming controlled your access to information and discussion. And an app was banned if it was seen to be too leftwing... too "risky" and "disruptive" to "public order?"
I understand Apple's arguments about the integrity of its ecosystem, and for what it's worth, I value Apple's vertically-integrated and curated approach. But I lost a lot of faith in Apple when they started cherry-picking social networks. Now I recognise that users need a side-channel so they can choose to sacrifice a degree of safety in order to retain access to free speech.
Reading Apple's announcement doesn't fill me with confidence though. "Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers."
Inevitably, this means that if a developer dares to build a marketplace that hosts a free speech app, Apple can simply refuse to allow the marketplace to run on their phones.
Big Tech will not relinquish control without a fight.
from https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
I have not seen this important aspect mentioned yet. Once you have opted in to Apple's new business terms, you will be locked in to those terms forever.
Because of this restriction, given the ridiculous €0.50 per year per install fees, no developer who hopes their new app will one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.
<checks where he lives>
"... Fuck Brexit with a rake ..."
Google: "While we support many of the DMA's ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, the new rules involve difficult trade-offs, and we're concerned that some of these rules will reduce the choices available to people and businesses in Europe."
Apple: “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings."
Android and Windows have lived in the chaos of open platforms so much that they can shrug off most of these regulations. Apple's entire business model is being a walled garden.
Not even Google is close to that amount of data collection and greed...
It's hilarious how much a trillion dollar company can act like a petulant child when they get worried about losing their financial grip.
Instead, they've gone for hostility and pettiness and, no doubt, fully intend to maliciously comply.
> The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari
And it will be the last time.
> Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party web browser — other than Safari — as their default.
make me wonder if anyone proof-read this thing at all. That said, this is a good day for EU users, and I applaud everyone who worked so hard to make this happen.
The notarization requirement seems quite reasonable, and honestly better than I expected.
Toddler level pouting + just Ivy League levels of "we know what's good for you more than you do".
If I'm reading this right (and I did double check this with ChatGPT [0]) if you have an app with two million unique installs annually, you owe Apple 500 000 euros. That seems to include free apps as well.
[0]: https://chat.openai.com/share/905c5c45-657b-477c-a746-0468dd...
What a line...
* Apple has 22 percent market share in EU [1]. * EU Economy is 15 percent of World Economy [2]. * EU population is 5.5 percent of World Population [3].
[1] https://appleworld.today/apple-now-has-22-of-the-smartphone-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
[3] https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
I abandoned iOS development for the web in the 2010s because app review roulette made it too unreliable and stressful to build software on iOS. I had a few semi-successful apps, but it was simply not worth dealing with Apple's opaque review process and restrictive rules to access a limited userbase with bad unit economics. I could make more money building the same software elsewhere with fewer headaches.
I'm very excited to play with new interaction modalities on the Vision Pro, and the device itself looks amazing, but all of this recent news from Apple is not making the Vision Pro seem like an attractive place to think about developing a serious business. It's a shame - I've been a diehard Mac fan for 20+ years, but feel increasingly concerned about their approach here. I hope they change tack.
Apple: How about we re-write all the rules while maintaining absolute control.
> new risks the DMA poses to EU users
Oh wow. Just wow.
Thank you based Apple for '''protecting''' the EU users from the bad, evil Digital Marketing Act. You are so awesome and great!
Truly evil stuff this DMA, you can read more about it here: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
Easy fix. Don't make apple apps.
From other comments I am suspecting this won't be possible so this new regulation is the worst of both worlds: we will be forced to install 3rd-party stores for some apps but we won't be able to install any app we want outside of stores. And on top of that, one of those browser selection popups whenever we set up our device.
T-thanks EU!
Apps outside official app store may force you to enable permissions it does not really need, refusing to work without it. Apps in official store should work with the permissions approved by the store. The “should” is enforced by the store.
Edit: Actually I realize my thoughts on this are too emotional and my words aren’t coming out in a way that clearly communicates the issues I see.
Isn't this change going to allow China to roll out a shitty knock-off app store and make the iPhone experience just as horrible as Android over there? :(
And if this lets us run real Chrome on iOS, there goes any need for cross-browser testing for smaller websites (and Google themselves). This would make Firefox even less tested and give Google all the power.
Not an iPhone/iOS user myself, but I think this is bad news.
Could someone explain why the EU forced Apple to allow alternative browser engines in their own eco-system ("walled garden")? It's theirs, shouldn't they do whatever they want with it? It's not like there aren't any alternatives to iOS - Android is excellent and you can use many different browsers on Android. So... where's the problem?
That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this spreads beyond the EU, that’s practically handing Chrome a monopoly on a silver platter. What’s to stop them?
I would just like to retroactively reply to the objection that the government can just antitrust regulate Google. Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free market, I would like to point out how long it took the EU to implement these changes since Apple started these behaviors. If Chrome does obtain a monopoly, we’re looking at years before the government even does anything.
Worrying about browser engines was always misguided. Letting 5 people use Gecko will be fantastic until Gecko is so irrelevant that even those people give up.
Vendors like Microsoft having a large userbase attracted to good, reliable software to counter another browser’s overt influence was always the solution. It’s all about users.
25 million people on Firefox is not enough. Neither is 5,000 that switch their rendering engine in iOS. Firefox needs users for relevancy, not its own engine.
To be clear, I’m not outraged by this EU edict. I’m saying it’s irrelevant and misguided as most regulations are.
