Why would you assume the legislation won’t stop it, they have iteratively corrected legislation to mandate it’s original intent plenty of times, most recently they’ve begun looking at cookies because the banner wasn’t the intention of the lawmakers.
Why would you assume the legislation won’t stop it, they have iteratively corrected legislation to mandate it’s original intent plenty of times
Because just for starters Apple even tried to argue they shouldn’t be subject to the legislation because they didn’t have one store but multiple stores. Same with iMessage and whatnot.
If you read the legal document about side-loading then Apple could be considered in compliance if they just decided to create a “sideloading program” where you can apply and pay for a special certificate with a vetting process and a lot of restrictions (being a company over a certain size etc). Essentially the same as the current Enterprise program but extended to allow 3rd party stores and distribution of App to random users not part of the same organization.
most recently they’ve begun looking at cookies because the banner wasn’t the intention of the lawmakers.
Yes but do you know what happens? Due to the way the EU works and our constitutions and agreements work we’re talking about at least one year of discussions about the issue and then a 3 year period where countries will have to study what was decided by the European Commission and pass national legislation about it. Then you’ll have a transition period like (2 more years) until such legislation goes in effect (deadline). So we’re talking about around 5 years to get anything practical. We’ve seen this with USB-C - even before there was USB-C the EU was in talks to adopt a single port (at the time Micro/Mini USB) and it all took about 10 years to unfold.
Apple is very good as twisting things and what’s currently written on the proposal doesn’t force Apple to open up iOS to be a generic platform like macOS or Windows - it simply asks them to allow 3rd party stores and sideloading of applications outside their store. Doesn’t say that anyone should be able do it, doesn’t set the terms, doesn’t say it should be free.
So they adapt their policies throughout the process to make sure they are modern?
You’re taking a very pessimistic view of this process.
Because just for starters Apple even tried to argue they shouldn’t be subject to the legislation because they didn’t have one store but multiple stores. Same with iMessage and whatnot
But it didn’t work, did you expect apple not to claim they were compliant and didn’t need regulation?
You’re taking a very pessimistic view of this process.
No, no, I’m taking a realistic view. I know exactly how and why it works this way and it makes it somehow more democratic and productive while appeasing the lobbying efforts and capabilities of big companies.
It just takes a lot of time, and you’ll remember my post whenever Apple finally decides to announce sideloading.
It isn’t realistic, you’re complaining. You’re giving out that apple will fight their case, in what world would they not? Companies will try to find workarounds to laws and lawmakers will try to close loopholes. Is their lobbying influence? Absolutely. But it’s hasn’t stopped the creation of the legislation.
Apple side loading will be proof the law is working, that is the intention of the law to facilitate side loading. If they find a way to make it difficult there are avenues that can be taken from anti competition cases to changing the law.
I honestly cannot see what you’re giving out about. Do you want laws passed in a day with no oversight?
You’re giving out that apple will fight their case, in what world would they not?
No, I’m giving out they’ll bypass the intent of the law while complaining. Or at least they’ll bypass your interpretation of the law because in mine it doesn’t say anything about against restricting it, about having a vetting process or requiring payments.
Why would you assume the legislation won’t stop it, they have iteratively corrected legislation to mandate it’s original intent plenty of times, most recently they’ve begun looking at cookies because the banner wasn’t the intention of the lawmakers.
Because just for starters Apple even tried to argue they shouldn’t be subject to the legislation because they didn’t have one store but multiple stores. Same with iMessage and whatnot.
If you read the legal document about side-loading then Apple could be considered in compliance if they just decided to create a “sideloading program” where you can apply and pay for a special certificate with a vetting process and a lot of restrictions (being a company over a certain size etc). Essentially the same as the current Enterprise program but extended to allow 3rd party stores and distribution of App to random users not part of the same organization.
Yes but do you know what happens? Due to the way the EU works and our constitutions and agreements work we’re talking about at least one year of discussions about the issue and then a 3 year period where countries will have to study what was decided by the European Commission and pass national legislation about it. Then you’ll have a transition period like (2 more years) until such legislation goes in effect (deadline). So we’re talking about around 5 years to get anything practical. We’ve seen this with USB-C - even before there was USB-C the EU was in talks to adopt a single port (at the time Micro/Mini USB) and it all took about 10 years to unfold.
Apple is very good as twisting things and what’s currently written on the proposal doesn’t force Apple to open up iOS to be a generic platform like macOS or Windows - it simply asks them to allow 3rd party stores and sideloading of applications outside their store. Doesn’t say that anyone should be able do it, doesn’t set the terms, doesn’t say it should be free.
So they adapt their policies throughout the process to make sure they are modern?
You’re taking a very pessimistic view of this process.
But it didn’t work, did you expect apple not to claim they were compliant and didn’t need regulation?
No, no, I’m taking a realistic view. I know exactly how and why it works this way and it makes it somehow more democratic and productive while appeasing the lobbying efforts and capabilities of big companies.
It just takes a lot of time, and you’ll remember my post whenever Apple finally decides to announce sideloading.
It isn’t realistic, you’re complaining. You’re giving out that apple will fight their case, in what world would they not? Companies will try to find workarounds to laws and lawmakers will try to close loopholes. Is their lobbying influence? Absolutely. But it’s hasn’t stopped the creation of the legislation.
Apple side loading will be proof the law is working, that is the intention of the law to facilitate side loading. If they find a way to make it difficult there are avenues that can be taken from anti competition cases to changing the law.
I honestly cannot see what you’re giving out about. Do you want laws passed in a day with no oversight?
No, I’m giving out they’ll bypass the intent of the law while complaining. Or at least they’ll bypass your interpretation of the law because in mine it doesn’t say anything about against restricting it, about having a vetting process or requiring payments.
You were right:
https://edri.org/our-work/delay-depress-destroy-how-tech-corporations-subvert-the-eus-new-digital-laws/