'For too long, Apple has operated a walled garden around its products': The EU forces Apple to open its closed system to third parties
-
This post did not contain any content.
Huge win!
-
you don’t care about how other people are treated
True, I do not care about how apple users are treated. They have - voluntarily - decided to buy a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I'm on board. But Apple? Nah. Nobody forces you to shell out that much money for a smartphone.
The problem is they have critical mass so developers are forced to target iPhone. Its a natural monopoly.
The US won't care as well since they benefit.
-
How do you leave when your friends, family and coworkers are all on iMessage and refuse to use anything cross platform? This literally affects people's professional relationships and close personal connections.
No my friend, Apple has perfected lock-in and turned it into an art. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not an issue.
How do you leave when your friends, family and coworkers are all on iMessage and refuse to use anything cross platform
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
That's what I did when ditching whatsapp. Is it easy? No, ofc not. But it gets other people to think about it. Some will laugh about it and say: "haha my funny nephew who wants to save the world himself (insert laugh emoji here)" while other will be genuinely interested in why you made this decision and might follow it. That's how you get people to think by the way.
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
-
Voting with your wallet doesn’t work in a market dominated by uninformed consumers.
... then maybe the people should just get more informed.
I don't see how we need to regulate something that doesn't benefit anyone as everyone is uninformed anyways and probably doesn't even care?
... then maybe the people should just get more informed.
I hear they also made crimes illegal. Problem fucking solved.
doesn't benefit anyone
But it does? Some Apple users will try something else, and even if you aren't one of them, these practices spread. When Apple gets away with something, others will follow. Android is also getting more locked down with each major release. Maybe you use a linux phone or none at all?
everyone is uninformed anyways and probably doesn't even care?
The fact that this issue is being discussed by us here and meps/commissioners/etc. at Brussels is proof that not everyone is uninformed and don't care.
What's to gain by not regulating this? Do you want the world to collectively suffer from products that are artificially made worse? You can say that ignorant people deserve what they get, but do the others deserve to get dragged down to their level? Everyone should suffer because iphone users are dumb?
-
I literally don’t understand the people downvoting you. There’s a whole reason IT exists because people are fucking stupid and do stupid shit with their freedoms. This, in turn, can really hurt others (viruses, worms, botnets, etc) and opening things up really just means larger attack spaces with many more vectors for entry.
I understand the wallet holding aspect, but we should be expecting informed decisions from consumers. Doesn’t the whole of Lemmy bitch about what we’ve done here in America because of being uninformed? Same principles apply to even lesser things like tech.
I literally don’t understand the people downvoting you
That's just the lemmy hivemind. Nothing to really worry about. When leaving reddit for lemmy, I was 100% expecting that one thing to stay, and I was correct.
I understand the wallet holding aspect, but we should be expecting informed decisions from consumers
Absolutely, I totally agree with that - I'm very sure that many problem we currently have wouldn't even be a thing if consumers made informed decisions and not ordered everything off amazon because "it's easy lol".
-
I dunno, are meals provided in the locked room? The world is a pretty fucking awful place right now.
Yes but only oatmeal (no toppings).
-
... then maybe the people should just get more informed.
I hear they also made crimes illegal. Problem fucking solved.
doesn't benefit anyone
But it does? Some Apple users will try something else, and even if you aren't one of them, these practices spread. When Apple gets away with something, others will follow. Android is also getting more locked down with each major release. Maybe you use a linux phone or none at all?
everyone is uninformed anyways and probably doesn't even care?
The fact that this issue is being discussed by us here and meps/commissioners/etc. at Brussels is proof that not everyone is uninformed and don't care.
What's to gain by not regulating this? Do you want the world to collectively suffer from products that are artificially made worse? You can say that ignorant people deserve what they get, but do the others deserve to get dragged down to their level? Everyone should suffer because iphone users are dumb?
Do you want the world to collectively suffer from products that are artificially made worse
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
Android is also getting more locked down with each major release
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
You can say that ignorant people deserve what they get, but do the others deserve to get dragged down to their level
Nobody is affected by apple devices getting locked down except apple users, and they chose that.
-
The problem is they have critical mass so developers are forced to target iPhone. Its a natural monopoly.
The US won't care as well since they benefit.
Dunno about that critical mass, iOS only has 1/3 of the market in europe while android has the remaining 2/3.
-
We can agree to disagree. I don't think apple devices should be opened up at all. If you want an opened up device, look for a different manufacturer.
That is such an unbelievably idiotic statement.
"I don't like it so no one else should have it", is that your argument? You lose absolutely nothing by Apple opening up their platform. You can just continue to use the app store and it will literally be like nothing happened.
-
That is such an unbelievably idiotic statement.
"I don't like it so no one else should have it", is that your argument? You lose absolutely nothing by Apple opening up their platform. You can just continue to use the app store and it will literally be like nothing happened.
I dont want you in my device.
-
you don’t care about how other people are treated
True, I do not care about how apple users are treated. They have - voluntarily - decided to buy a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I'm on board. But Apple? Nah. Nobody forces you to shell out that much money for a smartphone.
a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
Anti-competitive and monopolistic, sure. Anti-consumer? Eh.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple is just as evil as the next guy. Their practices reinforce their market position in an insidious way. But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google. Not in every way, but I wouldn’t call their devices “anti-consumer.”
If one of your primary concerns as a consumer is an open platform then yeah, I can see you rejecting outright Apple devices. This could in turn lead to being dismissive of the concerns of those whose priorities differ from yours, though I would strongly advise against such a lack of empathy over something as insignificant as a platform choice. Regardless, curtailing their practices is still important.
If we don’t stop bad behavior because it doesn’t affect us directly, we set bad precedents. Regulatory actions are an important tool.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I'm on board. But Apple? Nah.
Fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so Y doesn’t matter.” Rent and food prices are important, too, but regulatory bodies don’t operate on a zero sum system. Multiple things can be addressed with multiple efforts. It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
-
a device that is known to be anti-consumer.
Anti-competitive and monopolistic, sure. Anti-consumer? Eh.
Don’t get me wrong, Apple is just as evil as the next guy. Their practices reinforce their market position in an insidious way. But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google. Not in every way, but I wouldn’t call their devices “anti-consumer.”
If one of your primary concerns as a consumer is an open platform then yeah, I can see you rejecting outright Apple devices. This could in turn lead to being dismissive of the concerns of those whose priorities differ from yours, though I would strongly advise against such a lack of empathy over something as insignificant as a platform choice. Regardless, curtailing their practices is still important.
If we don’t stop bad behavior because it doesn’t affect us directly, we set bad precedents. Regulatory actions are an important tool.
If we talk about restricting stuff like rent, food prices etc, so essentials, I'm on board. But Apple? Nah.
Fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so Y doesn’t matter.” Rent and food prices are important, too, but regulatory bodies don’t operate on a zero sum system. Multiple things can be addressed with multiple efforts. It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
Anti-consumer?
Inventing your own "standard" and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit) and preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a "certified technician" at 4x the markup is definitely anti-consumer.
But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically. I bought a used pixel 6 2 years ago, flashed it with graphene and it's the best phone I ever had.
Regulatory actions are an important tool
Yes, but they're the last resort. And it should be treated as such. If apple had like 90% of the market share, okay, we can talk about regulations, but right now, apple only has 1/3 of the market, so people can still easiely choose any android device.
It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
I never said that. I said that these are cases where I would support drastic regulatory actions because this is no longer within the rules of supply and demand - people can't choose to "not eat". People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
-
This is why the only Apple product I've owned was a free iPad. It feels claustrophobic to be trapped in their ecosystem.
The only Apple product I've owned was my first smartphone an iPhone 4, Never again.
-
How do you leave when your friends, family and coworkers are all on iMessage and refuse to use anything cross platform
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
That's what I did when ditching whatsapp. Is it easy? No, ofc not. But it gets other people to think about it. Some will laugh about it and say: "haha my funny nephew who wants to save the world himself (insert laugh emoji here)" while other will be genuinely interested in why you made this decision and might follow it. That's how you get people to think by the way.
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
that only works when a majority of them relies on you. That's rarely the situation in reality
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
thinking like this is ignorant at best and intentionally manipulative at worst
-
Do you want the world to collectively suffer from products that are artificially made worse
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
Android is also getting more locked down with each major release
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
You can say that ignorant people deserve what they get, but do the others deserve to get dragged down to their level
Nobody is affected by apple devices getting locked down except apple users, and they chose that.
I want a world in which corporations are scared to release anti-consumer products because they know it'll tank their income.
I wish. Celebrating customers getting shafted seems counterproductive though. In reality, companies aren't afraid of making anti-consumer products. Regulation can keep them in check and consumers sure as hell won't.
There's stuff like graphene or other open source OS's - installing graphene is literally connecting your phone to a PC and opening a website, something even a chimp can do.
I know, I run a custom rom too. I also know that custom roms are still Android, meaning they aren't safe. What do they do when Google makes some restrictive bullshit change again, for example to the android API? Fork it and become incompatible with apps meant for stock android?
Nobody is affected ... except apple users
Yes they are. All large companies are constantly looking for more things they can get away with and are ratcheting towards user hostility.
When the non-hostile options are gone, or reduced to a few crappy ones, the educated consumer is fucked. Because what else are they gonna do, not buy a phone? How is a chimp gonna install Graphene when unlocked bootloaders are extinct?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s a shame Epic lost this lawsuit in the US because “just switch to Android”
-
Not skilled enough hackerboy
🫶
Mod your damn consoles!
While I don’t think people get consoles without homebrew being unlocked first it is still better for homebrew to be unlocked on day 1
It will also give the possibility of open development
-
"Hey, since I don't want to use apple devices anymore because the company sucks, I've decided to ditch it, therefore, I will not longer have access to iMessage. If you need to contact me, you can use XYZ (insert alternative here) or just call me/send a SMS."
that only works when a majority of them relies on you. That's rarely the situation in reality
Pretending like you need a specific messenger like iMessage for communication is dishonest at best and straightup stupid and manipulative at worst.
thinking like this is ignorant at best and intentionally manipulative at worst
a majority of them relies on you
Imagine friends and family only want to stay in touch because they "rely" on you. Bro that's outright sad.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well, they did get them to switch to USB-C, so I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that this will lead to more interoperability. I'm tired of Apple making Android/non-Apple users feel like second-class citizens.
-
Anti-consumer?
Inventing your own "standard" and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit) and preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a "certified technician" at 4x the markup is definitely anti-consumer.
But in many respects Apple performs better on the consumer front than, say, their primary competitor Google.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically. I bought a used pixel 6 2 years ago, flashed it with graphene and it's the best phone I ever had.
Regulatory actions are an important tool
Yes, but they're the last resort. And it should be treated as such. If apple had like 90% of the market share, okay, we can talk about regulations, but right now, apple only has 1/3 of the market, so people can still easiely choose any android device.
It’s not like the EU is saying “we can ignore starvation and homelessness because at least we cracked down on Apple.”
I never said that. I said that these are cases where I would support drastic regulatory actions because this is no longer within the rules of supply and demand - people can't choose to "not eat". People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
Inventing your own "standard" and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit)
It’s like people don’t remember history anymore. WebKit was a joint venture between many groups. It wasn’t “inventing your own standard” any more than any web browser engine. The restriction to WebKit on iOS devices can be frustrating, but this practice is anti-competitive.
And Lightning replaced another proprietary port, the iPod 30-pin connector. That 30-pin connector was born in a time when standards for device-side connections were not very often utilized. Many devices used proprietary connectors. When Apple transitioned away from the 30-pin, the industry at large was operating with both Mini-USB and Micro-USB, which were both straight-up inferior to Lightning.
The problem with Apple and Lightning is that they didn’t drop it when they should’ve. When USB-C became the clear de facto standard, and they began transitioning all of their other devices to it, they should’ve moved the iPhone over and bit the bullet then. Not doing so, and continuing to charge for MFi certification was, again, anti-competitive. But the existence of Lightning wasn’t anti-consumer.
preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a "certified technician" at 4x the markup
Right-to-repair is an important issue and Apple are really shitty about it. I agree. They are not unique, and this also needs to be addressed.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically.
Like I said, “in many respects.” For your use-case, one that you must admit is infrequently utilized, statistically speaking, Google makes a better product that fits your needs. The vast, vast majority of smartphone users are not flashing alternate ROMs to their devices. Most people aren’t power-users, and even most power-users don’t bother. That’s not to say your use-case isn’t meaningful; I’m glad there are still solid options available for a world I used to be a part of!
People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
Sure, but does that mean Apple should be allowed to get away with anti-competitive behavior? With practices that seek to force others to use their systems, or to keep users they have from exploring other options? I don’t think so. Bad business practices need to be addressed regardless of whether users have an option to look elsewhere. Especially when the company has a sufficiently large percentage of the smartphone market to force developers to work within their walled garden to hit target audiences.
