EU users can't update 3rd party iOS apps if abroad too long It really seems like Apple is doing everything it can to make its new EU compliance rules for third-party iOS app stores a pain for any user or developer that wants to take advantage of them. Hot on the heels of Apple releasing iOS 17.4 to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act rules (which force it to give users …
"an indicator of eligibility"
This is typical of the tech companies thinking that even when they don't get to make the rules, they still get to decide how to interpret the them. However, as Apple lost the case, they are subject to the ruling, which applies to all EU citizens. And it is a right, and not something you have to earn or lose* as decided by a third party. Not doing this could be could be considered contempt, and I'm surprised their lawyers didn't quash this idea immediately to avoid additional difficulties. It would reasonable to ask how the European Commission how to determine this, though proof of id is possible in nealy all, if not all, EU member states, though it won't be that hard.
* It's virtually impossible within the EU to strip someone of their citzenship once granted, unless malice aforethough, fraud, etc. can be demonstrated.
Does it apply to EU citizens or anyone in the EU? GDPR applies to the latter.
What Apple seems to have lost sight of is that they're going to end up pissing off some of their EU customers. It's not unknown for individuals in the EU to take on US companies who try to play fast and loose with EU rules. Paging Max Schrems?
> > Does it apply to EU citizens or anyone in the EU? GDPR applies to the latter.
>
> Yes. Both. And also people in Northern Ireland.
With a recent "legal" event in Northern Ireland highlighting that because of the Windsor Framework people in NI are legally *still* entitled to the (human etc) rights they had as EU citizens *before* Brexit, I was hoping that there might also be something similar that applied regarding (EU) GDPR rights, specifically some way for the EDPB to take action against the ICO for failing to properly investigate complaints made in NI.
Unfortunately it appears that even before Brexit there was nothing (that I can see) in the GDPR permitting the EDPB to "force" supervisory authorities (i.e. ICO) to act properly. More's the pity...
> I was hoping that there might also be something similar that applied regarding (EU) GDPR rights
Quoting myself above.
Turns out that apparently data protection (i.e. EU GDPR) *is* covered by the Windsor Framewor according to https://nihrc.org/publication/detail/nihrc-briefing-on-the-data-protection-and-digital-information-bill
"that, as a fundamental right, the right to personal data protection would fall within the scope of “civil rights” under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. Further, as an essential element of the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 ECHR, any right to personal data protection afforded by EU law, by which the UK was bound on 31 December 2020, falls within the scope of the non-diminution commitment in Windsor Framework Article 2."
So people in Northern Ireland are protected to some extent against UK GDPR / DPDIB divergence from EU GDPR.
Unfortunately that doesn't help as regards to whether EDPB can "tackle" ICO inaction regarding a NI-raised complaint case as it seems they couldn't so before Brexit either.
Also, anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport, and therefore is still an EU citizen.
I very much doubt it works that way. You have a right to get Irish citizenship, but I don't think you legally have it until you successfully claim it. At which point you would also be an EU citizen via your new Irish citizenship.
I believe people born on the island of Ireland or who are first generation descendants of people born on the island of Ireland are automatically Irish citizens. They can apply for a passport proving that they are.
Second generation of people born on the island of Ireland can apply to be Irish citizens. I can't remember if their parents have to have claimed their passports for their application.
My mother-in-law was born in Ireland and my other half has claimed her Irish passport a couple of years ago in addition to her British one - so now she uses whichever is the more convenient!
My father could apply for an Irish passport because his grandparents were Irish citizens. But because he didn't do it before I was born, that means I can't become an Irish citizen by that route.
Ireland in the 1970s wasn't anything like as good as it is now, and he probably couldn't have imagined there being any reason to want to move there.
I would always advise anyone to get any citizenships/passports they are entitled to, unless the country is so bad that having it would be actively harmful to you. Ireland was never that bad.
> I very much doubt it works that way. You have a right to get Irish citizenship, but I don't think you legally have it until you successfully claim it.
Well it works in the opposite direction regarding British Citizenship in Northern Ireland as far as the UK Home Office are concerned - the Home Office believe anyone born in NI is a British Citizen even if they don't have/claim a British passport despite what the Good Friday Agreement stated.
Background: https://medium.com/@ecklewchuk/uk-government-refuses-to-recognise-irish-citizenship-458fb70e3659
There was a more recently update to this:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/eu-citizenship-rule-takes-effect-after-northern-ireland-womans-battle/39471634.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/emma-desouza-us-husband-of-derry-woman-who-took-legal-battle-against-home-office-to-gain-irish-citizenship/a55599630.html
Competition law will apply to EU citizens but I suspect that, in practice as katrinab suggests, both apply for when phones are setup: I don't see US citizens suddenly seeing different options when they travel to the EU. But, as I said, it's easier enough to ask for guidance rather than making a criterium up that plainly won't stand legal challenge.
As for Apple being worried about pissing its customers, since when has that bothered them? Most of the fanbois seem happy for the opportunity to be abused and they more than cover the costs for the more recalcitrant ones.
I think there's a further nuance here.
It's essentially the sale of the phone in the EU that constitutes the contract: who buys it isn't relevant. People who travel have a reasonable expectation that their mobile phone will continue to work as normal while they do so. Unless Apple make it clear at the point of sale that the phones are not intended for use outside the EU (and are specific about the circumstances in which they'll stop working), then buyers will be returning them for refunds. Material facts need to be disclosed up front: perhaps the EU should insist their policy is printed in big letters on their pretty, minimalist boxes.
The EU can't force their laws to apply to their citizens when they leave the EU. What if the EU for example passed a referendum guaranteeing a women's right to an abortion? They can't force Texas to abide by that, any more than Texas can enforce the right to open carry an AR-15 for a Texan visiting Brussels.
Ah, extra-terratoritality.
GDPR explicility allows for extra-territoriality and is part of what is known as the "Brussels effect", which sees countries observing EU without being legally required to. But, in general, the EU, unlike the US, does not try and enforce its law outside its borders. However, your example is a poorly conceived strawman. A better example might refer to the rights of an EU citizen whilst in America, perhaps taking medication prescribed in their native country, though abortion would be unlikely. You have this in the US going from state to state sometimes between counties and bigger states, notably California and New York do indeed enjoy some degree of extra-territoriality.
The NY and CA extra territoriality you're talking about are for where companies CHOOSE to comply with California law, for example, nationwide rather than apply them differently to CA residents and elsewhere. They do that because of the size of California's market relative the US is large enough and/or the cost separating the markets is too great.
For example the Supreme Court upheld the right to California to regulate the pork sold there (i.e. how much space they are given when they are raised, that sort of thing) even though pork producers protested arguing that way they purchase and process pork means they'd have to make those changes nationwide. Nothing stops the pork producers from having separate infrastructure for pork produced in California, they chose not to after they lost their legal battle because producing special pork for California was too expensive for them. By contrast, California has special laws regulating gasoline sold there to minimize smog/ozone and gasoline producers chose to produce their fuel separately. That's one of the reasons gas prices are always so much higher there.
The only "Brussels effect" I'm aware of are the stupid cookie dialogs that have affected web sites all over, because it is too difficult to tell where someone is. If it was 100% guaranteed to know someone is in Germany or in the US simply by their IP address, web sites would be free to not inflict that on me but they have decided to err on the side of caution. The EU might think they can make a law that web sites outside the EU have to show that dialog to EU citizens worldwide, but that's not how the law works. This was like the pork producers, it was easier to just show it to everyone, especially since the penalty for getting their geofence wrong and not showing the dialog to someone who was physically inside the EU was so high.
Now the EU might think they can make rules that apply to EU citizens wherever they roam, but that's not how international law works. An EU citizen has certain rights protecting them while they are in the EU. If they go to another country that has different laws they can't say "you can't arrest me for speaking out against your country's leader, I have that right as an EU citizen!"
No. The EU changed the law, retrospectively on the *purchase*. The law is the law, and overrides any statements made by manufacturer. Apple don’t need to regurgitate it on the packaging and have no responsibility to do so. The purchaser is expected to know and apply the law.
Manufacturer of a knife doesn’t have to write to previous knife purchasers “your previous rights to stab people have been made illegal; if that’s what you bought the knife for, you can return it for a refund”
In response to all the down votes: Maybe I should have said "less likely", not "unlikely".
The Leave campaign made lots of impossible claims, that were not delivered. For example: We'd still have full, easy access to the EU markets. The extra millions for the NHS. We'd take back control of our fisheries. We'd sign great trade deals with other countries.
It's now a matter of record that the UK government couldn't deliver on those things.
If another country considers leaving the EU, then their "Remain" campaign could use that evidence to support their case.
There are some UK Leave supporters who are happy with what was actually achieved. However, there are plenty of Leave voters who believed those claims and voted Leave because of it. Bearing in mind how close the vote was, that information would have changed the UK referendum result to Remain.
It's still possible for politicians to persuade people to do stupid things. But given evidence of what will happen, that does make it harder for the politicians to do that.
The Remain campaign also was catastrophically bad. The outcome of the 2016 referendum was not just because of the Leave campaign.
Remain arrogantly assumed a win was assured, they could not conceive of the possibility that anyone would not see the EU as anything but perfect. People voted Leave for a plethora of different reasons and the questions was very simple, in or out. There was no agreement on what leaving would be. For many who voted leave remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market was fine. What actually happened is that as the vote loomed it became clear that the Remain victory was far from assured.
At that point Remain made a mindbogglingly stupid error. Instead of pushing the advantages they attacked Leave. The media was full of statements about how shelves would be empty, house prices would crash, millions would be jobless. All fear-mongering, just as bad as those from the other side.
Then to put the cream topping on the unfolding disaster we had big businesses writing to their employees telling them how to vote. In true British form people will most likely have done the exact opposite simply because they were told to vote remain.
Then we have the 28% of mostly younger voters who allegedly all supported Remain who could not even be bothered to get off their arses and vote.
Once the result was in we had politicians on all sides of the EU and political divide doing their best to ensure the worst possible outcome. Any possible compromise to give a better outcome was systematically blocked by anyone. Hard core Remain MPs voted against everything on a matter of principal. The likes of the ERG voted against anything that was not "pull the shutters down and walk.. Combined they ensured that nothing progressed. That directly led to the 2019 GE with Johnson and "Get Brexit Done".
If politicians had not been so pig-headed and incompetent from the very start at best Brexit could have been avoided and at worst, the UK would still be in the CU & SM. That fixes 99% of the issues we are lumbered with.
There are calls to "Rejoin", we cannot do that, the UK can apply to join. All the benefits the had negotiated have been thrown away and are very unlikely to be clawed back. Equally those claiming that 56% of the population think Brexit was a mistake is conjecture. It is based on a poll, polls that have been notorious for being wrong. Then comparing those numbers with the 32% of the population that voted leave is also wrong. If you take the poll sample and compare that to the population it is a tiny percentage.
I don't like Brexit but it is not correct to lay the blame on those who voted leave. That is with those who did not vote and the politicians. The outcome we are stuck with is fair and square with politicians.
"The media was full of statements about how shelves would be empty, house prices would crash, millions would be jobless."
Well house prices haven't crashed yet, but it it is only a matter of time given the increase in mortgage rates...
Shelves are empty, and the number of people in employment has fallen by millions.
The stupid part about the vote was that it was claimed to be "non binding" but was treated as binding after the fact. How many more people would have voted if they were told that if 50.00001% voted "leave" that the UK would undertake massive irreversible economic change? The people who wanted to leave had all the incentive in the world to vote because they wanted their voice heard about their dissatisfaction with one of the many things leavers claimed leaving would fix. The people who wanted to stay had much less incentive. That was the status quo, and it is hard to get people excited to stand up and shout "I don't want anything to change!" But the kicker was that the vote was advertised as non binding, so why bother to vote if you're OK with the way things are?
Basically the leavers hoodwinked the public. I'm sure it was their plan all along the treat the vote as binding if it went their way, and if it didn't claim "look 30% 40% whatever of people want to leave, this proves things really have to change!"
"I don't like Brexit but it is not correct to lay the blame on those who voted leave.". I dont like to split hairs but logically you do have to blame those who voted to leave for us actually leaving! However I agree that Remain ran a remarkably sloppy ship. They were fat, dumb and happy because they had so many of the economic facts stacked in their favour. They simply could not see that feelings and fears would dominate the referendum until it was all over. If I was of the Red Wall or a fisherman I could well understand why Leave won on the day. They heard and loved the Leave messages about the left behind, sunny uplands, big new deals with US etc. but forgot to look at who was feeding it to them. If they had they might have reflected on just how well the Tory Party had ever looked after the poor and the North and thought twice!
The outcome was not 'fair' given the remarkable width and breadth of untruths told by both leave organizations as well as their significant financial overspend. Don't forget the iffy mysteriously funded FB scare campaigns that supported Leave either. Come to think of it the Russia report still hasn't been published in full either!
Jon, it doesn't matter how accurate your post is, brexitters will downvote anyone who doesn't claim brexit was amazing. Yes, even at this late stage.
These people think that this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VxygMpm830 is a documentary.
Legally, there is no EU citizenship. We are all citizens of member states. The UK left and, yes, much to their surprise many UK citizens living in EU countries (Spain, France, Portugal, etc.) who hadn't bothered to apply for citizenship in their chosen country of residence, did lose the rights that they had previously held.
> who hadn't bothered to apply for citizenship in their chosen country of residence, did lose the rights that they had previously held
Also residency. I wasn't eligible for citizenship but I am officially a "resident foreigner". It means I do still benefit from some stuff like not needing stamps on my UK passport when I go in/out of Schengen*, as well as other things.
* I do this several times a week, so it's very handy.
No one lost their citizenship as a result of the UK leaving the EU.
Charlie Clark,
I think you're technically wrong here.
The Lisbon Treaty instituted a new EU citizenship. Which you automatically have/aquire on the possession/aquisition of citizenship of any EU member state. As Giscard d'Estaing said, it was just the European constitution with the order of the words changed.
So every UK citizen became an EU citizen in 2007 and stopped being one the day we left the EU. Unless they're a dual-citizen of another EU country of course.
captain veg,
We are not subjects. Was pretty sure you were wrong, but did a quick bit of Googlewooglywoo:
In 1949 almost everyone in the UK, Empire and Commonwealth were subjects. UK citizen was then introduced. So everyone with UK citizenship was at that point both.
In 1983 subject was mostly got rid of. But there are a few people who fall into the category of subjects, and not British citizens - so the status still exists. Mostly for people who didn't get a citizenship within the empire / commonwealth but also didn't qualify as British citizens and for some reason Irish citizens who applied to retain British subject status. Linky to government site.
We used to legally be EU citizens. Now we are not, thanks to brexit.
Your original message I replied to said "It's virtually impossible within the EU to strip someone of their citzenship once granted, unless malice aforethough, fraud, etc. can be demonstrated."
Yet they did strip us of citizenship. Ok, I'm still a UK citizen. but you were talking about the EU. If your comment mentioned the US stripping someones citizenship, no-one would think you were talking about them removing someones Australian citizenship"
And my original reply wasn't being pedantic - I really assumed you thought we had retained our EU citizenship.
"Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. This enables you to enjoy certain additional rights and benefits, including participation in the democratic process."
The law *doesn’t* apply to EU citizens, as indeed it can’t. Countries can’t make laws that apply outside their sovereign boundaries, citizenship is irrelevant. In just the same way that an Afghan citizen attempting to claim protection for marriage to a child by Sharia law within the borders of France will get short shrift.
By the way “EU citizenship”’ is a very slippery legal concept, and not in the end a useful one. First off, it’s not recognised at all outside the EU - as far as the USA or Switzerland or anyone else is concerned, you are a French or German citizen. If, for example, you were detained by in a 3rd country, you have a right to contact your national consulate, but not the EU consulate. Second, the citizenship criteria can diverge subtly but importantly from national citizenship. There are a dozen edge cases where people can be eg French citizens but not EU citizens, and people who are EU citizens who are not nationals of any member state. And in every single case, the legal rights follow the national citizenship(s), not the EU one. EU citizenship in itself can’t confer any rights in circumstances that national citizenship doesn’t cover, so it’s a redundant concept.
The only time you see the phrase used is as an inaccurate shorthand by people who don’t really understand it, and EU Commission. The courts themselves are always really careful in the rulings to use phrases like “violates rights laid down in EU law”. Occasionally you do see something like “violates the rights defined for EU citizens”, which if you think really carefully with your legal word telescope, does not mean the court is handing down the judgement *because* this particular person is an EU citizen. Merely that it applies to all EU citizens (of whom this person is a part of an overlapping set) and (who in this particular case is covered by national adoption of this EU law)
“It's virtually impossible within the EU to strip someone of their citzenship once granted, unless malice aforethough, fraud, etc. can be demonstrated.”
That’s simply not true. Never mind Brexit; the many cases of UK & other citizens stripped of citizenship show otherwise. Including citizens from birth.
From what I can see they're on extremely dodgy ground. A European consumer of a company with a large EU presence remains their customer regardless of their location.
There's also a double edged sword in that if Apple are trying to restrict customers in this way, if a non EU customer is then at a location where they're not in the EU, logically they should gain the benefits of that location, if any.
"A European consumer of a company with a large EU presence remains their customer regardless of their location.
Uhhh.... No.
Citizens of a given country are only protected / subjected to the laws of that country while they are within its borders. Travel to a foreign country and their laws apply. For example, Americans love their guns and are permitted to own & carry them compliant to the laws of their various states. That does not, however, entitle American citizens to legally possess or carry firearms while traveling to the European Union.
The same thing applies here. Just because an EU citizen has a certain right within the geographic boundaries of the EU, does not mean they are entitled to the same right when visiting a foreign country.
Apple is actually being quite flexible and accommodating. Laws of the EU do not apply in other countries and they would be well within their rights to be more aggressive.
Take a gun to the EU, go immediately to jail. By that standard, bring an EU iPhone to the US, and the 3rd party app store & associated apps get immediately deleted. It would be trivial for Apple to implement that logic based off an iPhone's GPS location. Land in JFK, turn off Airplane mode, and the apps disappear.
>>> Apple is actually being quite flexible and accommodating <<<
Whilst your comment on the law is correct, your ridiculous apple fanboyism earns you a downvote. If the EU rules were illegal in the USA, you'd have a point, otherwise you are just sticking up for apples needlessly abusive petulant behaviour.
Citizens of a given country are only protected / subjected to the laws of that country while they are within its borders. Travel to a foreign country and their laws apply.
Not as easy as that. Where do you have residency? Where do you have fiscal residency?
And... since when does Apple get to decide where someone has residency?
No, it doesn't work like that.
Though laws don't usually apply outside of the country that made the law, they can. The law just has to say it does that. And as a practical matter, there has to be a way to enforce the law.
E.g. If a US citizen travels abroad, they still have to pay US income tax on their foreign earnings. Depending on the law of the country they are working in, they also have to pay local taxes.
As another example, the GDPR applies to personal details of EU citizens, regardless of where the data is being processed, even if the EU citizen is travelling outside the EU.
Now, there are practical difficulties enforcing that on companies that don't have an EU presence. But Apple does have an EU presence and can have judgements against it in the EU.
For example, Americans love their guns and are permitted to own & carry them compliant to the laws of their various states. That does not, however, entitle American citizens to legally possess or carry firearms while traveling to the European Union.
Actually Americans are permitted by American law to have guns in the EU. It is the EU which prevents them. Not a corporation.
Now if the US govt wanted to ban alternative app stores being accessed from the US they could do so. That does not give Apple the legal right to do so - they are no (yet) a soverign power.
If you sell a product in one place with certain consumer protections, and it fails to work, the consumer law of the country of sale generally applies. You will of course have to take legal action in that country, and have legal standing it that countries legal system to do so. Both of which definitely are true for an EU citizen buying in the EU, and living and using the phone anywhere else on earth.
Apple is actually being quite flexible and accommodating. Laws of the EU do not apply in other countries and they would be well within their rights to be more aggressive.
Not if they wish to continue trading in the EU they wouldn't. All companies wishing to trade in another country must be subject to its jurisdiction.
“Apple is actually being quite flexible and accommodating. Laws of the EU do not apply in other countries and they would be well within their rights to be more aggressive.”
IANAL but Thomson Reuters seem to disagree:
“EU competition law applies to any collusive or abusive conduct that has the necessary effects on competition in the EU and trade between member states, regardless of the nationality or geographic location of the enterprises concerned or where the conduct occurred.”
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-016-5380
Enforcement of extraterritorial laws can sometimes be tricky, but unless Apple are prepared to pull out of the EU and their execs never want to visit or do a transfer in an EU airport, I don’t think it would be a problem in this case.
Apple has quite the nerve to try to decide when you'r eligible to your citizen rights or not. Vendors offering 3rd party marketplaces have to deal with intermittently "loosing" customers because Apple doesn't think people remain EU citizens when they travel abroad?
All Apple had to do was enable tools for app makers to offer their apps on equal grounds. This entire complex story with popups and whatnot wasn't necessary, it's a mess created by Apple. I really hope they get properly fined and sanctioned for all this.
Apple found this out in Australia in 2013. When ordered to put information about how Australian consumer law overrides their limited warranty on their website, they buried it at the bottom of an obscure page in a small font.
The judge was not amused. Hauled them back in and told them exactly where they needed to put the information, what it needed to say and what size font they needed to use.
Apple is nicely designed, functional, bling that might seem a bit overpriced but it all works. For many people that's all they need.
Unfortunately its also nicely designed American bling. So the actions of the US government appear to have caused a bit of a problem for Apple -- I'm waiting for the official report in ElReg but it appears that their sales in China have dipped by about 25% year on year, despite their price cuts.
You might not like Apple (I don't, for a start) but they are the home team and we'd miss them if they went away. (Personally, I'm more interested in Huawei and Harmony OS... Andriod's getting a bit klunky for its own good, iOS is, as this article tells us, far too interested in Apple's interests to truly reflect what customers need and, anyway, my English background means I always root for the underdog, especially if its a later generation technology underdog.)
What "basic peripherals" does an iPhone need a dongle for? In fact, what basic peripherals are there for a smartphone? Other than a charger (which can be done wirelessly but most people use a wire) I can't think of anything I do with my phone that requires plugging in anything. I haven't connected anything other than a charger for years, and if I had to use magsafe/Qi2 for charging it wouldn't be an issue other than having to spend a few bucks to get a couple spare chargers to have around.
“Because Google is an even more odious company.”
This. And also, has anyone actually heard an iPhone user say “I wish I could use Firefox’ rendering engine on iPhone”? I sure haven’t. Safari is okay. WebKit is okay.
There is essentially no user demand for this.
We’re okay with the ‘walled garden’. If we weren’t, we would’ve held our noses and gotten Android. But we aren’t obsessed with fiddling like fandroids are.
has anyone actually heard an iPhone user say “I wish I could use Firefox’ rendering engine on iPhone”?
I wish I could use Firefox rendering engine on iPhone.
Safari is okay. WebKit is okay.
Perhaps you are fine with just "okay". Not all are.
We’re okay with the ‘walled garden’. If we weren’t, we would’ve held our noses and gotten Android.
I would like to use my iPhone in a way that Apple doesn't currently allow. Something really simple like setting an audio file to a ringtone is trivial with Android. Whoever is responsible for the ringtone management with iPhone should be hanged, drawn and quartered.
I'm can manage just fine with the walled garden on my iPhone because nothing exists outside of it for iPhone, but I am surely interested in changing the web browser with another engine. I am using iPhone not because it is Apple, but because it ain't Google. Apple has some things done better than Android. And vice versa.
“I wish I could use Firefox rendering engine on iPhone.”
Honest question — what for? You think it’s faster? Better in some way?
I’m not that hostile to fiddling but if it provides no benefit I don’t see the point.
Do you see a lot of consumer excitement over browser engines on iOS?
"Honest question — what for? You think it’s faster? Better in some way?"
Do I think it's faster? Impossible to say because 3rd party engines are not permitted on iPhone.
I certainly think Firefox browser is better than Safari on my iPhone already with features, better UI.
Apple does not have any real competition for browsers on iOS so what's their excuse of lagging on all HTML5 features, for example?
Do I and everyone else think that Safari is the best possible browser on macOS? No. Why would it be any different on iPhone?
"Do you see a lot of consumer excitement over browser engines on iOS?"
No. I do not generally interview people about their browser habits. What's your sampling size?
Impossible to say because 3rd party engines are not permitted on iPhone.
It is quite easy to say. Install Firefox on a Mac and compare. They use the exact same CPU cores iPhones do (just clocked a tiny bit faster) so the A to B comparison would be identical to what it would be if you ran the test on an iPhone.
Apple is protecting you from yourself. When a million tinkerers start messing with things like this, battery life will go down the drain, and security will suffer too. The possibilities for spyware are endless.
Even Android is a pretty closed system for most users.
Apple knows what users want, and the users get what they need. And I say that as an Android phone user. (But I have a few iPads and an M1 Air.)
I wish I could use Firefox's rendering engine on iPhone.
There, you've heard it. Safari and Webkit are NOT ok. I want NoScript and uBlock on my iPhone.
I'm also NOT ok with the stupid walled garden. If there were a viable jailbreak for modern iPhones, I'd have already done it.
At this point, the ONLY reason I still have an iPhone is because Google is a more odious company.
I had a discussion only yesterday where I was trying to work out what value there is in a stupendously expensive iPad if you're going to give it to kids.
I never really got a proper answer.
They're aren't more manageable, they aren't more robust, they don't have access to software that others don't, they aren't better in any practical way... and for the cost of each one I can buy several of their competitors and throw them away if they break.
Ignoring the "stupendously expensive" iPads, there is value in giving kids and especially those with learning difficulties "normal" iPads instead of Android tablets.
Manageability is always a problem when dealing with very small cost constrained user groups... Once you are into a few dozen devices, MDM tools like JAMF are a no brainer.
Having investigated and used both Android and iOS tablets with children and adults with learning disabilities and/or are deaf, my preference is for Apple. Okay with this user group you do need to go for the more rugged cases and lightning/wireless charging rather than USB-C (or the old 30-pin spade connector), otherwise you will see a higher level of device failure.
This is going to be fun to watch. That's pretty much the bingo card for getting yourself in EU courts.
I see what they are doing though, using the broadness of law to push it as far as they can, so the wording will end up getting so specific after rewrites to pin it down, they will then just rename/switch technology and the ultra specific laws now won't apply to them any more and the circus starts again.
No, no, Apple said it would track your location without using location tracking data...
So, I suppose every Apple customer in EU will get an Apple employee following him/her 24/7.
It will solve any unemployment issue everywhere in the world, we may even have to import Aliens...
Perhaps we'll see.
I'm really sick of Safari, I'd like to be able to run Firefox. And since I'm in the US, I still can't.
I may try switching my account to Ireland and using a VPN on the phone. If that doesn't work, plan B is set up a separate WiFi network that's VPN'd to the EU inside a Faraday cage. Location services won't be able to tell I'm not in the EU by GPS or other WiFi networks, and I'll only have to use the phone in the box long enough to install or update apps.
I'm so tired of Apple's bad behavior.
That sounds like an awful lot of effort – I mean, I certainly want Firefox on my phone, but surely it's just easier to get a non-Apple phone? Sure, I'll admit that Google are evil – but so is Apple, just in different ways. At least with Android, you have the option to root your phone and strip out all of the nonsense you don't want, including most of Google's tracking (that's what I've done: after over a decade of dumb-phone use, I finally gave in).
And when the fabled alternative app stores arrive... The apps will be as locked down as tightly as before apart from payment, as Apple controls the OS API.
A VPN with split tunneling? A WiFi scanner that shows empty channels in the vicinity? An EQ app that applies to audio on all apps? Nope, nope and nope.
Android apps can do all of the above.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
