Under pressure from Europe, Apple makes iOS browser options bit more reasonable Apple has agreed to change the way it implements web browser choice screens and browser capabilities to comply with Europe's monopoly-busting Digital Markets Act. The changes, limited to users of iOS and iPadOS in the 27 EU member countries, follow the European Commission's decision in March to open a probe into Apple's …
This is all very promising but as usual, the pace of legislation is tectonically slow. I think half of us Reg readers will be dead by the time anything of any value is forced on Apple.
Really, all the UE (or any other governing body) needs to do is get together a bunch of knowledgable iOS devs, ask them what needs to be done (I’m sure they could come up with a good list within a week or so) and fucking legislate for it. Taking 2 years to consider “small print” is utterly ludicrous.
An unpopular view, but I like Apple's restrictions. Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone as there are many alternative smartphones on the market; amongst the main reasons to buy one is because you like the way it works. I like it because Apple has a degree of control over iOS and apps - I don't have to fight it to make it do what I need. I support a number of elderly people who need online access to services, and contact with families. Those with iPhones rarely present challenges beyond some simple help in using native apps - iid it's more it's usually a case of a few simple accessibility tweaks, or rearrange the Home Screen to display the apps they need and move those they never will out of the way. It's a different case with Android phones - that's more of a "Wild West" and, more than once it's needed a complete wipe.
I'm not against Android as it's a good OS for those who want to customise, it's just that Apple provides a good system for those who have more basic needs and are not no digitally literate.
I switched over to Apple (iPhone and Mac) a few years ago and I've never found any restrictions that limit what I need to get done. Granted, I have Windows 11 and Ubuntu VMs on my MacBook, but they're so I can keep reasonably up to date with the systems for when helping others, and I spend more time keeping the VMs up to date and secure than I do with macOS.
The cases against Apple (and Google) monopolies are said to be in the interest of consumers but, from where I sit, it appears to be more in the interest of those that want to sell their wares.
I said it was an unpopular view, and this post will get many downvotes...
Apple's restrictions mean that it's basically impossible to support iOS or macOS long term.
Apple forces you to send them a copy of literally everything before you can sell it, moves the goalposts every single year, and almost never documents anything. iOS is all of the above and worse.
I've lost count of the products and companies that Apple has killed by either restricting/removing the APIs (sometimes with a replacement, sometimes not, never with much notice), or even suddenly releasing their own version - after having several years of visibility into the product it was about to kill.
If you can't make a profit in the first year, you cannot afford to release anything for Apple platforms. The cost of merely continuing to exist is massive.
I’m not going to downvote your ‘unpopular opinion’, although it’s a bit disappointing that you chose to go AC. I guess that’s where the ‘C’ comes in. I’ve heard your opinion many times over the years and I’ll paraphrase it as “Apple: it just works”. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I’d say this, very popular one, would be fine if there was a healthy market with real choice.
Personally I have boycotted Apple for over 20 years and Google for about 10. I own an iPhone. I’m forced to have a smartphone compatible with common apps for work. I’m unhappy with the choice I had to make. I went for the control-freak company whose business plan is to sell overpriced hardware, instead of the Do Be Evil tentacle monster who perfected surveillance capitalism (even exploiting the private data of paying customers, not just free service users).
You can spend your money however you want. You can choose to give up autonomy for ease of use if you wish but monopolies do harm consumers, there’s no argument to be had there. Stopping Apple and Google from illegally limiting competition and using their gatekeeper power to reduce choice won’t harm you in any way but will benefit other consumers massively.
I find this sentence odd: “The cases against Apple (and Google) monopolies are said to be in the interest of consumers but, from where I sit, it appears to be more in the interest of those that want to sell their wares.”
I read that as “Limiting monopolies increases competition”. Again this isn’t going to harm you and most consumers will benefit. Apple will still sell your elderly relatives something that just works. I’m surprising myself but I feel like I need to type monopolies are bad.
I use iPhones and Macs, but I don't think Apple has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with them. They've acknowledged that with Macs, and I think they should have to with iPhones. Many people can use Macs perfectly well, using only Apple's store for installing software. The fact that they have root access and could do something else doesn't prevent them from using them productively without it. Apple doesn't have to make their phones any harder to use in order to let other app stores work. If the other app stores are tricky to use, that's their problem, and most of the users you're talking about will not be using them anyway; all the normal apps they might install will stay in the Apple store for ease of use.
Apple does not need to change the experience for the many users who do not care about any of this, and we already know that they won't be changing any more than they have to. I think your concerns about the changes to their business practices may be unfounded.
Also left unmentioned is that Apple's browser and practices in general are more resistant than most against “surveillance capitalism” techniques that many web sites that employ these developers thrive on. When the Internet information brokers complained to Google about blocking third-party cookies in Chrome, Google relented because Google is also in the surveillance capitalism business and has to worry about antitrust rules. When the Internet information brokers complained to Apple about blocking third-party cookies in Safari, Apple essentially told them "We understand your concerns and couldn't possibly care less. If you have further problems with this, please feel free to print out written copy of your complaint and then cram it up your own ass. Oh, and while we're at it we're providing OS-level VPN support to all iCloud+ subscribers. Have a nice day."
Say what you will about Apple, but they ship all of their devices with pretty good "privacy by default" settings enabled, they try to make it easy for customers to control their privacy, and one of the key levers for this is control of the web browser. For technically unsophisticated users, this adds a lot of value. The reason most of these companies are so hell-bent on replacing Safari is so they can work around Apple's privacy restrictions. For technically-sophisticated users that are capable of locking down a browser I can see where this is a restrictive pain. But for most users, this openness will have a lot of privacy downsides as the Internet peeping tom companies start forcing them to use more vulnerable browsers.
there are many alternative smartphones on the market
There are NOT "many alternative smartphones on the market".
The fact that there are a bazillion different companies that manufacture hardware that ships with ANDROID OS on them doesn't change that when it comes to actual smartphone PLATFORMS, there are literally, for all practical purposes, a sum total of TWO.
And THAT is the problem.
I remember the days when there was quite active development going on amongst a variety of smartphone platforms, from PalmOS, to Symbian, to BlackBerry, Windows Mobile/Windows Phone, to Meego, to FirefoxOS, and some Linux handheld variants etc etc etc, in addition to the two platforms we know today.
Yeah there are some microscopic experimental projects out there like Sailfish, but they do not even begin to compete with the duopoly platforms in terms of full functionality and availability.
I sort of agree with you but generally don't. I could, until a shoty time ago have used the same argument about cars - there are only two fuels (now three). It might even be better if there was only one, but not run by a mega corp (what could take its place I do not know). For me the main problem is there are umpteen different hardware manufacturers all wanting to piss into the bucket resulting in little commonality once you get above the base level. Not to mention the customized apps that they all stuff on.
Apple generally gets a lot of things right – sensible defaults – but not everything, particularly when it comes to security. And the fact that there is no a setting for ad permissions suggests that things may change at any time.
My own anecdotal survey suggests that there is little difference between Android and IOS for the less technically literate. I know plenty of older people who are whizzes on Android phones, at least when it comes to taking pictures and using chat apps. And I know people with I-Phones who can't get it to use wifi easily. I have a friend of long-standing who went Apple for everything and still complains about the many restrictions he faces and the almost inevitable serial and expensive updates when Apple bring out new versions.
Just because you think things are okay, doesn't mean they are. You go on to conflate completely different legal cases: Epic has indeed taken Apple to court over the AppStore and is well within its right to do so: as a monopoly Apple has been free to set an exorbitant rate of commission. But the browser choice and other app choices are brought by consumer advocacy groups. Apple's justification for the restrictions over which preinstalled applications could be replaced was always a figleaf for truely anti-competitive behaviour, and it's good that this is finally being rolled back. Apple largely stopped work on Safari years ago and has been preventing users from some of the significant improvements in other browsers as a result.
Let's hope other jurisdictions decide to follow the EU's lead and force Apple to play fairly.
Legislation is hard...
Just look at something as trivial as UK bike lighting regulations, for some bizarre reason the technical means of producing light was specified, meaning that LEDs where actually not allowed for more than a decade after they became ubiquitous.
You also need implementation times etc...
I'm not saying that the pace isn't glacial - but you don't legislate against one company, you specify a minimum standard of treatment of customers by all companies.
"Just look at something as trivial as UK bike lighting regulations, for some bizarre reason the technical means of producing light was specified, meaning that LEDs where actually not allowed for more than a decade after they became ubiquitous."
And the opposite is true with motor vehicles, where the brightness isn't specified or properly limited so we now have cars with abnormally bright lights, which technically are breaking the law because they dazzle other road users, but no one is doing anything about because they are factory fitted and the car companies have lawyers.
However if you go the American route of the 50s-90s you end up with one single permissible headlight design with specified bulbs, sizes, positions, heights above the ground etc.
Great, until you are 40 years on from it being introduced and the standard hasn't been revised (well they revised it once to allow for rectangular lights instead of round ones) which limits car design.
This is what one of the drawbacks of forcing everyone to use USB-C for phones is - if the standard doesn't keep up with technology then it may end up holding everything back.
That about sums up the entire situation right there.
A lot of people using Patreon to support their favorite internet folks are hating Apple. Apple has really shit on how Patreon can collect their money, so some of the Apple fanbois are actually finally realizing what assholes Apple are.
