They are deeply involved. If it’s that bad for developers, drop the iPhone and develop solely for Android.
Developers need the iPhone and Apple needs developers.
Developers need the iPhone and Apple needs developers.
Put another way: Devs don't need iPhones, they need users to have freedom to install the apps they choose to on the computing devices those users own; regardless of the three manufacturers of those devices.
I wonder how this all works for Nintendo wrt the Switch?
Traditionally, console manufacturers have lost money on hardware, and made it up in license fees for software and accessories. It is a bit more complicated in reality, and I think that situation should change, but the DMA as currently written won't have any impact on it.
Smart phones are universal, 90% penetration. Game consoles are at best at 20% or similar.
Yet they are constantly making the case that third-party developers are value sponges that use “their” platform and access “their” customers for free, and give back nothing in return. They said the same towards Spotify in response to the recent ruling about anti-competitiveness in music apps.
What Apple conveniently fails to acknowledge is that they make an obscene amount of money from selling hardware, and their motivation for investing in the platform and SDKs is that more and better software leads to higher sales of hardware. (I am aware that iPhone sales have effectively peaked, which is likely exactly why they have decided that they are the sole enabler of all digital commerce on the iPhone)
EU: "No."
It's called teleological interpretation, here's an EU document with a bit more background: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...
Key quote:
> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).
Facebook, too, tried rules-lawyering EU regulations only to be slapped with a huge fine. This shit doesn't fly here.
People on HN, sure; we aren't all lawyers. But companies? The EU is the second biggest market on the planet, might pass the USA any year now. They really should be familiar with the basics of EU lawmaking.
In this case, Apple is dragging their feet screaming trying to do their best not to comply with the intent.
What's going to happen next, they'll get a notice of nonconformity where they're asked to fix their behaviour. If they don't show good intent, they'll get hit with a fine. If they fix it and adhere to the laws here, then we'll all end up better - well, maybe the poor shareholders won't survive this hit...
If you're a company operating in the EU, just a little bit of willingness to adhere to the laws goes a very long way.
That's easy. Make a good faith interpretation of the intent of the law and follow that.
And don't try to find loop holes that only work in your favor.
Apple just appears to be hard of hearing, perhaps purposely.
That's the law. Not some linguistic technicalities in some document somewhere.
That's what I've done personally but that's not something you can ask most companies.
It's not like you can install android apps on iphone or iphone apps on android.
Sure in a market you might tell the consumer "shop somewhere else" but that's not an option here since they can't.
It's nowhere like shops where you can price compare and pick the shop you want every week.
In an actual market, both marketplace would compete.
What's why I'm saying it's not a market, phone users can't price compare stores.
I'm building a house, I'm going to buy the floor at shop B and the walls at shop A because it's a better value.
I want to buy some groceries, I can buy bread at shop A and eggs at shop B.
When you're on mobile you buy everything either at the play store or the appstore depending on your phone, that's it, zero choice, it's either everything in one or the other.
So first a grand total of two stores for the entire world isn't going cut it regardless and then those stores don't even compete with each other anyways because you are locked in to just one with your phone.
Is that any clearer now why it's not a market or still not?
Especially when both do their best to make migration to the other difficult.
Buying a cheap Android phone is $200-300 and selling an iPhone will more than pay for that. Switching from iCloud to something else for backups will actually save a little bit per month.
Average London rent is equivalent to 40K USD per year, as a random "richer country" example. It's not in the same ballpark, is it?
Average London rent is $3333 per month per person? I’m struggling to believe that.
greater london: ~£2600/mo (~US$3200)
inner london: ~£3100/mo (~US$3900)
outer london: ~£2200/mo (~US$2800)
Not per person, I haven't ever been charged per person except in student accommodation and Japanese hotel rooms, not sure how we'd know what that would be.
I'm not sure what you are doing with your phone but you should lower your dependencies on tech gadget if switching from iPhone to Android would cost you so much. The law can't regulate primarily for people making unreasonable decisions.
I might judge you based on your decision and chose to ignore you in future. This again would not violate your personal freedom I think