I find it ironic that the EU goes after Google for allowing third party stores (Samsung, Amazon, Nvidia, etc) and sideloaded APKs and allows you to build your own APKs for free...
... but Apple just randomly removes apps that people have purchased from the Apple Store (thus stealing their money and their product, doing everything short of uninstalling it, but preventing reinstallation), and the EU stays silent?
Not allowing third party stores in the Store is a security feature because they can install APKs that have not passed through Google's security scanner.
Google does not prohibit you from installing third party stores.
Also, how are they using their dominance for search and browsers to do something? I can install Firefox on Android, I cannot install Firefox on iOS. I can do "Hey, Cortana" if I install Cortana on my Android phone and do Bing searches, but not with iOS. I can install the Bing app and get a launcher widget to perform searches with, just like I can with the Nexus Launcher's integration, but not with iOS. I can change the launcher out entirely, I can't on iOS. I can replace the lockscreen, but not with iOS.
And as for taxes, Google paid the taxes that was required of them by Ireland. The EU thinks that they can post-facto change the law to effect Irish companies. This is illegal and immoral.
This is also what the founders of Google have complained about, that US companies can do this, and are forced to do this by their shareholders. They are being punished by the EU for not following the status quo and being made an example of.
So, explain to me, again, how Apple is the bastion of user freedom? Android is a shit OS, but at least it allows me to run whatever I damned please.
>> The EU thinks that they can post-facto change the law to effect Irish companies. This is illegal and immoral.
You are severely misinformed.
Ireland broke rules it agreed to under treaty in order to join the single market that have been enforced for decades, often regarding EU based companies. State aid is defined as giving advantages to one company but not others, thereby distorting competitive markets. Ireland is required to apply the same tax rules to all companies and not deal under the table to certain favourites. If they want to distort their markets in this way fine, they can, they just need to leave the EU first.
I'm in no way a Google fanboy: I'm typing this on my Mac, in Safari, which has DuckDuckGo set its search engine. But I think it's kind of nuts that Google could negotiate a tax arrangement with an entity and abide by it in good faith, then have another entity come along and say "your terms are invalid. You owe more in taxes now."
For instance, suppose I were the CEO of a company that negotiated a deal with, say, Utah. I held up my end of the agreement. I'm happy. Utah's happy. Then the US Gov't comes along and says "Utah, you and I agreed that you were going to charge more than you did." Why is that now my problem? I did everything I was supposed to. I don't why if someone has to be on the hook for the difference, then it's me and not Utah (or Google and not Ireland).
If your lawyers didn't catch that the contract with Utah was in violation of federal law, then they fucked up their due diligence. That's on you. It's also on Utah.
A sports team might win a championship match due to corrupt officials fixing it for a gambling syndicate. Despite the team's innocence, the result still needs to be annulled to preserve the integrity of the game.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Apple and Google negotiators aren't aware that they're bending the laws to their limits? It's pretty far from the innocent 'good faith' that you're suggesting, and better described by the term 'back-room dealing'.
If its the state aid enforcement, then the EU won't. The EU will force Ireland to collect the missing tax because they can't let the infringement succeed i.e. a fair market must be restored.
I don't know which action you are specifically referring to but I know Google have broken any number of accounting rules though e.g. in the UK they claim to carry out no sales activities, all happening in Ireland, despite of course collecting millions of GBP and employing hundreds of UK sales staff...
Before stating as fact what Ireland did or did not do it is worth waiting until the results of the appeal process.
It isn't as clear cut since Ireland is stating that they never offered Apple any unique benefits but rather there were available for any company in a similar situation.
This. It's far from a clear cut case. The Commission is highly political, under pressure from various advocacy groups, and we can't take it for granted that their opinion on law is correct; the judiciary should decide that.
No, the EU commission believes that Ireland gave Google an illegal tax break, which is almost self-evidentiary.
There was no post-facto change of the law. It is simply very normal for illegal acts to be discovered after they were perpetrated. Anything else would border on precognition.
> So, explain to me, again, how Apple is the bastion of user freedom?
Who said Apple was ?
It's hilariously bizarre how you put this strawman up like criticising Google for their legitimately dodgy and anti-competitive practices has anything to do with Apple.
They are using their dominance in search to push chrome on users every chance they get, which has resulted in them dominating the browser space as well. Or do you think Chrome was just good enough to push out IE entirely on merit?
> This is illegal and immoral
Immoral is exploiting tax loopholes for billions of dollars.
I simply don't understand this either. Sure Android has the larger market share by units, but Apple has a much higher share of revenue & profit in the market. Which is really the proper measure of market power?
For antitrust purpose, pricing power is, as I understand, the "gold standard"; various measures of market share (which isn't itself a single measure) are sometimes evidence which supports a conclusion about the likely existence of pricing power, especially when direct evidence one way or another on pricing power is hard to find.
Apple apologists will pick whichever metric suits the current argument.
Suing Google for running a far more open platform while Apple continues to exert as least as much if not more control on the direction of the market is just another case of misguided European regulatory overreach.
Thing is that laws haven't really followed the state of the market. You hear the excuse commonly here - "They don't have a monopoly so it's ok!". It's not and it's damaging the basic way how free markets do and should function - essentially the integrated, DRMed, lockeddown systems prevent choice which is the basic driving force of market innovation. Right now we're in a state where a few companies (mostly Apple, Amazon, Google) pretty much funnel and lock you into a narrow choice of products and then lock them down in a way to basically make choosing a product that helps you the most as hard as possible.
Which means they just made "voting with the wallet" infinitely harder - you can't choose a phone with headphone jack, because you're locked into iOS ecosystem which means that your choice of phone has resulted in your choice of communication platform (iMessage), house appliances (HouseKit), TV (AppleTV), source of media (iTunes), car (CarPlay and iPod integration) and others. If you want to exercise your choice as a consumer, you're essentially forced to give a lot of things to get a feature you want and that also hides consumer wishes to the corporations themselves.
The state of electronics market is getting pretty dire, sometimes I'm starting to feel like we're back in 1985 on the eastern side of Iron Curtain with a single item of each type on the store shelf.
You can choose your own messaging platform (WhatsApp, Line) home appliance integration (Zigbee), media player (Spotify, Tidal), TV (Plex), car integration (Bluetooth). I use all of those apps and technologies daily and none are dictated by Apple.
Well, I'm afraid you kinda missed my larger point due to a nitpick into an example. Please replace it with something else appropriate (physical keyboard? USB-C or microUSB port? whatever really) and argue about that :/
How about we just don't argue at all, because you're clearly misinformed if you think iTunes is the only way to get music on iOS. Or pretty much any of your other assertions.
Then you should have mention that and not use your weak arguments to try to prove your point.
I have an iPhone and I don't use HomeKit, AppleTV, CarPlay or the iTunes Store, and use Whatsapp instead of iMessage.
And I'm afraid I can't see how replacing the headphone jack with a physical keyboard would make your argument better. If you want to charge your phone using microUSB there are hundreds of options.
From what I understand, Apple doesn't force anyone. It's up to them to use it or not. They can always NOT deliver apps for iOS if they think 30% is too much.
Yes they do. This is why Spotify is more expensive if you subscribe through the app -- because they cannot take payment details through the app for digital goods/services.
So any music streaming service that wants to try to compete with Apple music has to pay a tithe to Apple of 30% or miss out on half of America (or make customers jump through hoops).
The 'you dont have to use it' comment is moot -- iOS accounts for millions upon millions of people; you generally need to use it.
>The 'you dont have to use it' comment is moot -- iOS accounts for millions upon millions of people; you generally need to use it.
No, you don't need to use it. You want to use it, and you want to make money using it -- which is a different thing, and this is what Apple charges for: having built a platform/market with millions upon millions of people in it.
When a company uses their dominance in one market to stifle competition in another market, in the long term, the consumer loses out on both price and innovation. Sure, it was smart and innovative of apple to create the iphone and the app store, but it's in the consumers best interest for there to be many music streaming providers as an example.
>That's … a bit drastic. Why should Apple have any say over whose software I choose to install on a device once I have bought it from them?
So that they can fully control, secure and curate the experience, which is what I am buying Apple phones for.
Well, not really (I'm mostly buying them for the hardware and software combo, which I prefer to Android offerings), but I can appreciate that having a single, sandboxed, signed, etc source of software on a phone, makes it more secure and hassle free thing for users (of which an extremely tiny minority are in any way computer geeks). It also creates a ecosystem that moves in lockstep with the hardware and OS changes -- even if just because it is forced to.
For others, there's always a custom Android install.
I don't trust Apple to have my best interests at heart. Out of all the people and organisations in the world, only I have my best interests at heart. Thus, only I can be trusted to control, secure and curate my experience.
>I don't trust Apple to have my best interests at heart. Out of all the people and organisations in the world, only I have my best interests at heart. Thus, only I can be trusted to control, secure and curate my experience.
Yes, but it's not about individual interests. It's about the aggregate interests of users of a platform, the majority of which are average Joes which would otherwise get every malware possible in their phone.
It's kind of like democracy: you may know your best interests yourself, but you only get one vote. So what laws get passed etc, is what the majority decides. Only in this case Apple makes their political platform (iOS) and people vote with their wallets whether they like it or not.
For lone-wolfs that tend to their own personal interests, there's always Android, or even OpenMoko.
>On my devices it sure as heck is about my individual interests.
And you're always free to individually buy something else.
>I hate that a generation is being raised without the freedom to tinker, to own their hardware and to own their data.
You mean the same generation that has all kinds of compilers and developers tools for free (unlike back in the 80s and 90s), can reach the whole globe with a simple $5/month server app, and has hardware platforms like Arduino and Pi for less than $100 backs?
I lived in the 80s. We didn't tinker on our smartphones because we didn't have any. Now we have something like 10,000 PDP-11s on our pockets, and an environment so accessible that there are 1,500,000 apps for it. And if we don't like forking $100 to the gatekeeper to get to publish apps for it, there are also web-apps, and Android, where we can just publish anything.
> Thus, only I can be trusted to control, secure and curate my experience.
I think this is conflating two different meanings of trust. Apple hopes that you will trust them to choose to respect your best interests; but what I think most people are inclined to trust is that they are able to respect your best interests. The vast majority of non-techie users are not able to act in their best interests, even though they (presumably) want to do so.
>Why should Apple have any say over whose software I choose to install on a device once I have bought it from them?
A valid reason is that you trust them to curate available programs according to values that you agree with. This reduces your risk considerably. (Consider the state of Windows executables in the bad old days.)
Problems arise when a) you don't agree with their values, b) they don't actually act on their values. A lot of people are content to make the uninformed choice to trust Apple, and will continue to do so until their is an obviously better alternative.
In 20 years? That doesn't make any sense. Until iOS, Apple had no say in what you installed on your device. And even on desktop, the App Store is completely optional.
So basically, you haven't bought an Apple product in 20 years for reasons that really have nothing at all to do with this discussion, and that aren't even indicative of anything wrong on Apple's part, merely that you like Linux (although many people seem to think that Apple's laptops are the best laptops to use even for Windows and Linux, so it's surprising to me that you'd consider this a reason to avoid Apple's hardware, even if you don't use their software).
> So basically, you haven't bought an Apple product in 20 years for reasons that really have nothing at all to do with this discussion
No, Apple's control of the iPhone was perhaps the major reason I never bought one, way back before I had a smart phone (or even a cell phone).
I have several major problems with Apple: I prefer Linux; their software is not free (this is related to the previous item); they control your devices (this is related to the previous item); since they got rid of the old iBooks and iMacs their design language has been boring and, frankly, ugly; I dislike the cult aspects of Apple (having once been a True Believer); I am tired of Apple's high opinion of itself (this is related to the previous item); I think their hardware is over-priced. I could probably think of more.
Now, some of that is just a matter of taste (some people like Jony Ives's rectangles and circles — that's OK), but some of that is indicative of things which are, from my perspective at least, 'wrong on Apple's part,' to use your phrase.
I don't get why people downvote this comment, it is factually correct. You are not entitled to do whatever you feel is right on the platform of someone else.
I don't like giving Apple a cut but I recognise that it is their property and I cannot dictate that Apple has to change their rules to accommodate me.
> From what I understand, Apple doesn't force anyone. It's up to them to use it or not. They can always NOT deliver apps for iOS if they think 30% is too much.
Is it not clear that he is talking about the 30% cut that Apple takes for distributing apps on their app store? Do you own the app store if you buy an iPhone? Is it this what you are saying?
> Do you own the app store if you buy an iPhone? Is that what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that if I bought an iPhone, then it would be my right to install software written by anyone I pleased on it. I'm also saying that any software developer who wishes to has a right to write software for that putative iPhone. Apple simply isn't a party to such transactions.
You can jailbreak it and install whatever you want. But Apples app store has rules to primarily make Apple profit and also create an ecosystem with certain standards that Apple believes users would appreciate. (and judging by the sales numbers average users do)
You have the right to do with your property as you please, but what you really want is that Apple changes their product so it's easier for you to install what you like. You simply do not have this right. This limitation is well known and advertised so you should have known before you bought an iPhone, and even if you didn't - you can return the iPhone and get your money back.
this year there needs to be another option next to the downvote button.
1) Upvote
2) Downvote
3) User made a politically charged comment in a thread that has nothing to do with politics as a way to insert opinions.
As for what the third button does. I don't know. It doesn't really even have to do anything, it'd make me feel better just being able to count the appearances of such comments in every thread this election year.
To be honest, I was really on the fence about making that comment because of exactly this. It's that raw "slimy but legal so it's ok" attitude that I'm trying to capture.
It's unfortunate that a presidential candidate epitomizes that sentiment, but that's what comes to mind when I hear something like "It's just business".
Edit: now I need to go and rewatch "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"
I don't think the parent comment was actually agreeing but instead of mocking Donald Trump's response to Hillary's comment about him not paying federal income tax. But I could be wrong.
I suspect the comment you replied to was also quoting Trump, specifically a moment during the first debate when he leaned into the mic and whispered "wrong" repeatedly to counter something Hillary had said. Surprisingly, I can't find the gif right now considering how rampant it was.
Atttibuting 1-word quotations is a guessing game, I might as well be...wrong
Android also has the similar ToS regarding in app purchase, the only difference is that they do not currently enforce it.
For an indie developer it doesn't sound like a big issue, but for big corporations uncertainty in the business model is a big deal. Often large budgets and many jobs depend on it.
Android does not have a ToS regarding in-app purchases, the Play Store does. You are free to distribute your android app outside the play store.
And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app. This means that a companies like netflix or spotify are free to collect payments for their services without giving google a 30% cut, like they have to give apple. This is not an unenforced clause, a grey area, or a cause for uncertainty; the play store terms are very clear.
> Android does not have a ToS regarding in-app purchases, the Play Store does.
I think you know very well that I was talking about the Play Store.
> And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app
Apple in app purchase ToS:
3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than IAP to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions.
It is not identical (I wrote it is _similar_) as Netflix does have to give Apple a cut, but there are many exceptions both on Apple's side just as there are other exceptions on Google's side.
What really annoys me about your comment though is that my comment wasn't about saying Apple is better or Google is better (clearly some people here can't even mentally handle anyone criticising their beloved company), I'm not even interested in such a conversation.
My comment was about the issues companies have with the fact that Google doesn't enforce their own ToS. (or even worse, maybe they do in some cases and most developers don't know)
Small developers are incentivised to ignore the rules while larger businesses can't risk allocating large budgets towards a business model that contains such uncertainty.
Maybe you can next go through my comments and correct me on grammar errors. English is not my native language after all so I'm certain there's lots of material to find there. Have a nice day!
Typically when they remove something from the App Store, people who already downloaded or bought it can still download it again. In the past, even things that were blatantly against the TOS for the App Store were simply removed from sale, including emulators, proxy/tethering apps, etc.
So if Apple really leaves Dash off of the Purchases tab (I can't find it here), it would be the first time I'm aware they've done this.
Hopefully they'll work things out soon one way or another.
Being removed for fraudulent activity is one of the times where it makes sense for Apple to remove the download completely from the store, because you don't want the fraudulent activity to continue. Obviously it was a mistake in this case though. But I bet Apple's done this before, just not with any app that people actually gave a shit about.
"... but Apple just randomly removes apps that people have purchased from the Apple Store (thus stealing their money and their product, doing everything short of uninstalling it, but preventing reinstallation), and the EU stays silent?"
That's never been true. If you bought it, you can still download it.
Head over to /r/androiddev sometime. You'll see constant wailing and gnashing of teeth from people because Google banned their account or sent them a warning over their app.
>... but Apple just randomly removes apps that people have purchased from the Apple Store (thus stealing their money and their product, doing everything short of uninstalling it, but preventing reinstallation), and the EU stays silent?
Because it's not a monopoly, and they can do whatever the damn they like while not one?
... but Apple just randomly removes apps that people have purchased from the Apple Store (thus stealing their money and their product, doing everything short of uninstalling it, but preventing reinstallation), and the EU stays silent?
This is some bullshit.