comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
Antitrust Registry
B-1049 Brussels
Belgium
Please indicate your name and address, identify the firms and products concerned and describe clearly the practice you have observed. This will help the European Commission to detect problems in the market and can be the starting point for an investigation.
What can I do if I suspect that a business practice restricts competition?
In your daily life, you may come across situations in which there are signs of business practices which may restrict competition...
QuoteWhat can I do if I suspect that a business practice restricts competition?
In your daily life, you may come across situations in which there are signs of business practices which may restrict competition...
QuoteWhat can I do if I suspect that a business practice restricts competition?
In your daily life, you may come across situations in which there are signs of business practices which may restrict competition...
Like all information of the European union also the web sites of the European Commission are voluminous, complex, confusing and mazelike. Would you mind to provide a link to the information you found?
There is no monopoly abuse when there is no monopoly. OS X has probably 5% of the market of desktop OS - hence the difference from MS's IE issue, as I think most readers here are aware.
Wrong. It is not an OS monopoly this is against, but a monopoly in a certain application market. (for Apple systems). The rest is not relevant.
There is no monopoly abuse when there is no monopoly. OS X has probably 5% of the market of desktop OS - hence the difference from MS's IE issue, as I think most readers here are aware.
Wrong. It is not an OS monopoly (forced on OEMs, as it was with the MS antitrust scheme) this is against, but a monopoly in a certain application market. (for Apple systems).
I've no idea if this is something that anti-trust law applies to, but it is not related to OS vs OS arguments.
QuoteWrong. It is not an OS monopoly this is against, but a monopoly in a certain application market. (for Apple systems). The rest is not relevant.
I would add to what marcov said that Apple's market share is becoming bigger and bigger. For example, in the tablet market I think they are number one on the list. Monopoly abuses should be nipped in the bud, otherwise they may set a precedent.
That what a monopoly is in this case - OS vs. OS.
And even if Apple did have a monopoly (which they're nowhere near close to - approx. 5% desktop share, less than 10% worldwide handset share), how would the things he objects to reinforce the monopoly - wouldn't charging a fee aid other platforms that have no fee?
The game console development world has been done like Apple's dev programs for many years.
Slowly Apple is getting a worse evil empire than MS ever was. Natural process of action and reaction I guess. Anyway, a trial would be popcorn fun. I bet the Jobs Mails about "Destroying Android" will be prominently featured as typical Apple way of doing business.
Your thinking is pretty muddled here. If your interest is in, say, encouraging competition (the heart of the "monopoly" argument), explain how what you object to hurts other platforms.
I would suggest that you take this up elsewhere - this sort of the topic just tends to devolve into a semantic black hole conversation (and between non-attorneys no less, on a technical support forum).
In any case, here's what will happen if you submit something to the EU: at best you'll receive a polite form letter; probably you'll never hear from them.
The answer to your question is elementary: by charging developers in a usurious way, Apple can get a lot of money and become richer than their competitors.
The answer to your question is elementary: by charging developers in a usurious way, Apple can get a lot of money and become richer than their competitors.
I fully understand your anger, but in a free market a company should have the freedom to become richer than its competitors. It cannot be the task of the European Commission to cut these normal market mechanisms (and even incentives).
It may be more promising, however, to use other ways to express your concerns. You could open an online-petition to Apple. And you could abstain from submitting your software to the App Store (giving a hint on your web site or in the documentation of your software how to make it usable).
The purpose of your petition could be to request Apple to either open the GateKeeper to signatures of third-party authorities (which are more expensive than the costs of the Apple Developer Program, however) or to keep the behaviour as it is in Leopard, Snow Leopard or Lion, i.e. informing the user that the program has an unknown source, but letting him or her the choice (without changing the system's preferences).
... in a free market a company should have the freedom to become richer than its competitors. It cannot be the task of the European Commission to cut these normal market mechanisms (and even incentives).Trying to become richer than one's competitors is legitimate as long as one does not use unfair means (i.e. monopoly abuse) to achieve such a target.
It will be a long road, and without Apple coming down from its current cloud (pun intended) will make them flexible and actually simply need 3rd party programmers again, nothing will happen. And, if the previous situation is anything to go by, that can take a very, very long time.That's why we must act now. The sooner we start standing up for our rights, the sooner Apple may be forced to give up their disgusting money-hungry policy.
My question is, how can GateKeeper protect the user from malicious software if all it does is make sure the developer has bought an ID certificate from Apple? Of all the nerve!
What if a certificate is put on the CRL by mistake?
What if a certificate is put on the CRL by mistake?
See the (*) in my previous message. Probably you will be very f*cked, since even if there is an appeal, the burden of proof is yours, and nobody is going to compensate your losses. (Apple's conditions probably indemnify them in such case)
What about my second question? (If a developer's certificate is put on the black list, will all of his apps stop working... or will Apple just disable the presumed malicious one?)
upon reading your letter, I see similarities with win7 and drivers. but win7 will let you bypass the rejection of unsigned drivers by pressing F8 (??or F5) when booting and selecting an option of installing unsigned drivers. once installed, you can normal boot with the driver.
this I did not know until recently. does/will apple's OS offer the same?
Do you have an editable version? In ODT or DOC? Because the letter requires editing before sending on my behalf.
Mac OS X Mountain Lion users will have the option of turning on Gatekeeper, a security feature that gives users the ability to choose to install software only from the Mac App Store and identified developers.
This is interesting information.
They writeQuoteMac OS X Mountain Lion users will have the option of turning on Gatekeeper, a security feature that gives users the ability to choose to install software only from the Mac App Store and identified developers.
I thought that this will be the default behaviour and that the users have to actively disable this GateKeeper behaviour, but Apple might have changed their policy.
This is interesting information.
They writeQuoteMac OS X Mountain Lion users will have the option of turning on Gatekeeper, a security feature that gives users the ability to choose to install software only from the Mac App Store and identified developers.
I thought that this will be the default behaviour and that the users have to actively disable this GateKeeper behaviour, but Apple might have changed their policy.
I doubt Apple have changed their mind. On the basis of what I have read so far, the default settings of Mountain Lion will have GateKeeper switched on.
But then, I didn't find GateKeeper to be a problem. Allowing the user the restrict their system to run only signed software is a good thing. And even with Sierra, I can still run unsigned software, it's just a few clicks, and that is totally fine (viewpoint of an IT security guy).
The average Mac user is not accustomed to right-clicking on the app icon and selecting "Open" from the pop-up window. If the app does not run "out-of-the-box" with a normal double-click, he or she will just trash it and look elsewhere. So, you can run unsigned apps, the average user can't. And this seriously penalizes independent developers.It only penalizes developers that do not adhere to the user experience. Re-think. I am with Apple on that one.
I'm sorry but I have to. I'm calling BS!. Code signing your application has nothing to do with user experience.The average Mac user is not accustomed to right-clicking on the app icon and selecting "Open" from the pop-up window. If the app does not run "out-of-the-box" with a normal double-click, he or she will just trash it and look elsewhere. So, you can run unsigned apps, the average user can't. And this seriously penalizes independent developers.It only penalizes developers that do not adhere to the user experience.
It only penalizes developers that do not adhere to the user experience. Re-think. I am with Apple on that one.
Who created the platform? Who created the store? Who guards that store? Who protects the customers? So who can charge a fee for that if you want to participate?It only penalizes developers that do not adhere to the user experience. Re-think. I am with Apple on that one.
Yeah, taking 30% out of the store is REALLY all about user experience. No monopoly here, nothing to see, move along people!
This is simply a developer who don't want to pay App Store fee and blaming Apple instead using false accusations. If your app is so important and safe to its users, why don't you just pay the fee and move on? So everybody is happy. Or, at least, teach your users how to let GateKeeper allows your app. It's not that difficult actually. But, please… don't let them set the GateKeeper off.
I'm with Apple in this case. GateKeeper is a good thing for common non-technical users so they are more protected from potentially bad sofwares (malware, ransomware, etc). Making GateKeeper on by default is the whole point of its existence.
The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.
When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?
Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.
I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.
The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".
The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.
And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".
You keep complaining about a small problem that can be easily solved by simply signing your app. It's a simple and convenience solution. :)
I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.
When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.Why is it bad practice? What difference does it make? To me, the app budle is as good a place as any. Besides, it allows me to make my app easily transportable, since all you have to do is copy a single folder containing the app and the data.
I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?
Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.
Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.
I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?With GateKeeper Apple is playing dirty because the message box you get when you double-click on an unsigned app does not show the "Run" button and tells the user absolutely nothing about what to do if he or she wants to run it anyway. It would be much fairer to inform the user about the potential risks and then allow him or her to click on a "Run" button.
GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.
The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.The App Store has now become so big that the user may just get lost. Selling your apps on your private Web site could be a much better option.
Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".
You keep complaining about a small problem that can be easily solved by simply signing your app. It's a simple and convenience solution. :)That's what you say.
True up to a point, the problem is that apple does not allow 3rd parties to become trusted member that cansign applications just like the rest of the world that only establishes a monopoly in all the meaning of the term.I'm sorry because I don't understand your statement above. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to become trusted member? While in fact there are so many third parties and indie devs put their apps into the App Store without problems. Which part of the system that makes it a monopoly?
And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.If Apple is so bad as you suggest, then why are there millions of developers flooded the platform? It's like saying people hesitate to go to Apple (retail) store because everybody is there already, and then you conclude that Apple is doing monopoly. :D
but apple is a monopoly and uses her place on the market to make sure it stays a monopoly. I wouldn't jump the fence to get in there let alone pay..Do whatever you want… nobody misses you anyway. As there are many others who jump the fence and join Apple ecosystem gladly. :)
I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.Just tried it out. I downloaded an app from App Store, copy the app into a flashdrive, delete the app from the Mac, and run the app directly from the flashdrive, and viola… it runs just fine.
Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.As I said, if your app get signed, it can be run from anywhere. Even devs who sell their apps out of the App Store still sign their apps.
Why is it bad practice? What difference does it make? To me, the app budle is as good a place as any. Besides, it allows me to make my app easily transportable, since all you have to do is copy a single folder containing the app and the data.It's a UNIX-based OS we're talking about, not Windows. In unix, there are system space and user space. App bundle is like an executable that its content should not be changed dynamically. You should understand this basic knowledge of system your app run upon.
With GateKeeper Apple is playing dirty because the message box you get when you double-click on an unsigned app does not show the "Run" button and tells the user absolutely nothing about what to do if he or she wants to run it anyway. It would be much fairer to inform the user about the potential risks and then allow him or her to click on a "Run" button.Again, what's the point of a GateKeeper if it's so easy to passed by? Apple prevents non-technical users to accidentically run bad softwares. If they do want to by pass the security, they must know what to do. It's a very simple security logic.
The App Store has now become so big that the user may just get lost. Selling your apps on your private Web site could be a much better option.That's what you say. While the fact is Apple paying more money to developers every year.
I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.
Just tried it out. I downloaded an app from App Store, copy the app into a flashdrive, delete the app from the Mac, and run the app directly from the flashdrive, and viola… it runs just fine.
Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?
As I said, if your app get signed, it can be run from anywhere. Even devs who sell their apps out of the App Store still sign their apps.
True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?True up to a point, the problem is that apple does not allow 3rd parties to become trusted member that cansign applications just like the rest of the world that only establishes a monopoly in all the meaning of the term.I'm sorry because I don't understand your statement above. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to become trusted member? While in fact there are so many third parties and indie devs put their apps into the App Store without problems. Which part of the system that makes it a monopoly?
And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.If Apple is so bad as you suggest, then why are there millions of developers flooded the platform? It's like saying people hesitate to go to Apple (retail) store because everybody is there already, and then you conclude that Apple is doing monopoly. :D
Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.but apple is a monopoly and uses her place on the market to make sure it stays a monopoly. I wouldn't jump the fence to get in there let alone pay..Do whatever you want… nobody misses you anyway. As there are many others who jump the fence and join Apple ecosystem gladly. :)
You should try taking your flashdrive to another Mac and run the app from there. If it is a paid app, you are requested to pay one license per Mac. On the contrary, I want to allow my customers to pay for the app once and then they must be allowed to run it on all of their Macs.If you log into the Mac using different ID from the one used to download the app, then of course it will ask for a license because you're not known to have purchased the app. It's obvious. But if you log into the Mac using the exact same ID, you may use all the apps you've purchased with the ID on every Mac you have.
This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store (https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDistributionGuide/DistributingApplicationsOutside/DistributingApplicationsOutside.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012582-CH12-SW2)
True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?What? If I'm Apple, why wouid I let someone else to sign security certificate for my system? It's ridiculous.
Oh the millions of developers argument, yeah I haven't found any compelling reason to use apple myself what makes you think I can find any reason why some one else uses their products?Oh, so you don't use Apple products yourself. I see. But you expect everyone to see Apple like the way you see it. Everyone has their own opinion, perspective, need, etc that might be very different from yours, you know. ;) If you think Apple products aren't for you, for whatever reasons, good for you. I respect that. But that doesn't mean there's noone else that need or even love Apple products. In fact, there are millions of them. :)
Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.You don't use nor need Apple products. And Apple with all of the users also don't seem to need your apps too. So, why bother with this discusssion at all? Why don't you just use whatever system you prefer and make some peace with it? :)
True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?What? If I'm Apple, why wouid I let someone else to sign security certificate for my system? It's ridiculous.
fair enough.Oh the millions of developers argument, yeah I haven't found any compelling reason to use apple myself what makes you think I can find any reason why some one else uses their products?Oh, so you don't use Apple products yourself. I see. But you expect everyone to see Apple like the way you see it. Everyone has their own opinion, perspective, need, etc that might be very different from yours, you know. ;) If you think Apple products aren't for you, for whatever reasons, good for you. I respect that. But that doesn't mean there's noone else that need or even love Apple products. In fact, there are millions of them. :)
I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.You don't use nor need Apple products. And Apple with all of the users also don't seem to need your apps too. So, why bother with this discusssion at all? Why don't you just use whatever system you prefer and make some peace with it? :)
This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store (https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDistributionGuide/DistributingApplicationsOutside/DistributingApplicationsOutside.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012582-CH12-SW2)
And that is what is known as a monopoly.Code signing is common practice in security. Even open source world encourage this technique although not really popular. And nope, it's not a monopoly. If it's really a monopoly, Apple won't be allowed to do business in western countries which we all know forbid monopoly practice. It's a business model, a closed walled garden business model. It might not suit your need, but it's legal in this capitalism world.
I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.Good for you. Avoid Apple as you like. I hope you enjoy your preferred system. And let Apple users enjoy their preferred system as well. Everybody wins.
Is the creation of an Apple ID free or is it charged by Apple? In other words, if you just want to code sign your app and distribute it outside the App Store, can you do it at no cost?AFAIK, no it's not free. Well, you may have developer ID for free and you can use it to self-signed your app, but it doesn't make your developer ID becomes known and trusted by GateKeeper.
It is not free, but cheap. And the costs go in verifying who you are, what your program(s) do, etc. It is not a moneymaker. Distributing outside the appstore is only interesting for a closed - private- customer application (say, a single company).This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store (https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDistributionGuide/DistributingApplicationsOutside/DistributingApplicationsOutside.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012582-CH12-SW2)
Is the creation of an Apple ID free or is it charged by Apple? In other words, if you just want to code sign your app and distribute it outside the App Store, can you do it at no cost?
Developing for Apple products takes a little more effort.I disagree. I found Xcode, Swift, and Apple's SDKs and frameworks are great and very helpful. It's not really take more effort. It's like in other platforms, in some cases it's even more effortless. Every platform has its own way managing its system and users, with all its restrictions and flaws. There's no such a perfect platform for everybody. However, we as developers should respect the policy of each platform. So we should either follow it or leave it.
Distributing for Apple products even more.
That's a GOOD thing!I would rather say it's NECESSARY thing. Payment wall is an economy barrier to developers and also a commitment bound between Apple and its developers. By paying, most developers will be more responsible to give the best app they could make, and then maintain the app along the way. Of course there always will be unresponsible developers anyway, no matter what, but they'll be naturally selected so only the best remain on the top list. And that's all the users need, the best devs with best apps for their needs. Everybody's happy! :)
I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.Good for you. Avoid Apple as you like. I hope you enjoy your preferred system. And let Apple users enjoy their preferred system as well. Everybody wins.
A song called "Excitable Boy" by Zevon is playing in the background, like an ear worm, is recommended for everyone else while reading this post. During the previous decade I witnessed a lot of PR work done for dictators literally massacring their people. Business is business, you know.Yeah, whatever. We're talking about software business and platforms, not politics. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. :)
I would like to congratulate you for your PR work, here, for Apple. Awesome! I really enjoyed reading it. I just happened to have a little issue: You mentioned western countries and laws, but Apple products are manufactured in China - A place where people use strange glyphs like 秩 - am I right? I am not sure if the western term is "cheap labor" or "slave labor", or maybe a more positive term?Almost everything is made and manufactured in China these days. I suspect almost all electronic things in your house are also made or manufactured in China. Do you realize that?
Do you think Apple, and similar giants, care about Chinese workers, for instance? What about you, do you care about little Suzie, or is it normalized?Do you? What have you done about it? What do you do to Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Lenovo, LG, HTC, and all electronic makers out there? Not being an Apple user doesn't make you any better or more noble or superior over Apple users, or vice versa.
If there is no law against it, then it must be OK.In term of legal action, sure it is. Unless you wanna be a dictator who don't respect the law and making your own laws then force them to everyone in the world (with "gun"). Do you? :)
What? If I'm Apple, why wouid I let someone else to sign security certificate for my system? It's ridiculous.In order not to offend laws.
You don't use nor need Apple products. And Apple with all of the users also don't seem to need your apps too. So, why bother with this discusssion at all? Why don't you just use whatever system you prefer and make some peace with it? :)Why are you so narrow minded? An end-user has the choice which system he wants to use, but a developer is bound to the system chosen by the end-users. One shouldn't have to change profession, because of the stupidity of end-users.
In order not to offend laws.How come an effort to secure a system and protect the users is offending the laws? What laws? I think it's the other way around, it's defending the laws. Because every user has the right to be in secure and convenience ecosystem. It's a choice for us too.
Why are you so narrow minded?What? I thought the one who never use Apple products nor get into Apple's walled garden ecosystem nor understand Apple's business model, yet accusing Apple with FUDs is the narrow minded one. I'm not asking you or anyone in this group to use nor avoid Apple products. Just use whatever products you prefer, as long as the law allows it. I respect whatever systems/products everybody choose.
An end-user has the choice which system he wants to use, but a developer is bound to the system chosen by the end-users.Exactly! Apple products is just one option over many others that any end users can choose. If you think Apple products suit you, then use it. If not, leave it. As simple as that.
The app-markets are obviously against market laws in europe. But there are several reasons why they still can do it.If you really sure app store is against the law, then show them to the police and your government. If they don't listen to you and let a law-breaking system keeps running, then your government is also part of the problem. Have you done that?
1. They are an american company.Then your police and government are weak against american. Apple/Google isn't even a state company. :)
2. There are the security aspectsSo the security aspect is against the law? %)
3. The market thing was fading in, in the beginning it was just small enough so that it wasn't neccessary to be controlledIt has been in control since the beginning, by the author of each system. Play Store is controlled by Google, App Store is controlled by Apple, etc. And each of the authors are controlled by the government and the laws.
4. They have a huge crowd of supporters. Take away Apple/Google and there will be a bloody revolution.What? So, now people love and obey Apple/Google more than their own laws and government? Is it now Apple/Google above the law? Wow?! :D
How come an effort to secure a system and protect the users is offending the laws?Thats what they use as argument. If you consider this as actual reason for the app-jailing, then they couldn't charge money from the sellings, charges would be limited to their actual efforts for checking the security of the provided app. Also they are not allowed to turn down any unpleasant app (unless it conflicts with any laws, as trojans etc. do).
What laws?It's not that easy to outline a certain article. It's within the monopoly abuse, but the EU-article (EU Art.81) that I know only holds for abuses which "may affect trade between Member States" (developers in the complete EU have the same bad conditions). Nevertheless national laws do forbid monopoly abuse also if it doesn't affect other member states of the EU. For example the German GWB §19 Art2/2. It roughly says: An abuse exists if a market-dominating company [...] requests charges or trading conditions, which defer from those which are considered to result under normal competition.
I think it's the other way around, it's defending the laws. Because every user has the right to be in secure and convenience ecosystem.The opposit of braking the law is obaying it and not defending it. A company is not allowed to break a law in order to defend another one (only if a third law allows to do so).
[...] understand Apple's business model [...]Here we go. You're right, security comes second behind business. But sorry for taking your quote out of context.
I respect whatever systems/products everybody choose.So do I. But:
[...] a developer is bound to the system chosen by the end-users.
If we really don't want to support the system, then simply don't make any apps for the system and ask the users to find other solutions for their system. It's a so simple logic.The solution, i.e. app, is done anyways. The question is just who is the one to do it. It's about market shares. For OP it may not be valuable any more if he has to dispense 30% of "protection money". But someone else will still do it. The quality may get worse, the retail price may get higher or the profit of the developer just drops. The first two possibilities are direct disadvantages to the end-user. Does apple write it on the box when selling the system that they collect 30% tax for each sold app? I doubt so. The 30% I just read in the thread, may be wrong, it actually sounds really absurd to me...
Just FYI, I don't like Windows.This is not about like or dislike. OP stated that he even loves Mac.
If you really sure app store is against the law, then show them to the police and your government.I don't have the financial background to sue a megacompany like apple.
If they don't listen to you and let a law-breaking system keeps running, then your government is also part of the problem.In which kind of super democratic paradise do you life?
So, now people love and obey Apple/Google more than their own laws and government? Is it now Apple/Google above the law? Wow?! :DYes. Not above all laws, though. Whatsapp/Facebook is obviously violating privacy laws, but that'd be another topic :)