A first look at Europe's alternative iPhone app stores

1. App Store rules

2. Notarization of apps outside the App Store

3. System rules like security and task scheduling

They are independent concerns. You’re conflating the limitations of the third point and blaming it on the first two.

Tell me the name of your dispensary because I also want to buy what you've been smoking.

>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.

It sounds counter intuitive because it totally is.

>Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers.

Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms? People(mostly Apple shills) keep harping on about how closed platform = security, but you can secure open platforms too if there's the will for that. Servers exposed to the web run almost exclusively open platforms(linux and FOSS SW stacks) and those who are run by competent companies and people are very secure. The "closed = more secure" argument is totally bullshit and you know it.

Do you think Windows would have been that much better if only Microsoft would have been allowed to decide what you can do with their OS and what apps you can sell/run? Honestly. The correct solution Microsoft implemented was to better secure Windows with firewall, antivirus, virtualization, core isolation, etc., not lock it down so they own it instead of you. It's not perfect, but better than being locked down. If Microsoft can secure Windows against malicious threats to protect its users then so can Apple secure iOS if they want to, instead of selling you the BS argument that the only way to secure it is to lock it down and give them exclusive control.

>Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll.

Not this regulation. You are confused.

>Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.

Super false again. Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because it's not a single 300 million people country with a single culture, language, defense and legal framework, but a collection of 26 countries with different languages, cultures, laws, militaries and spending habits, each doing their own thing, so scaling up a consumer product of one country across that many members is much more difficult to gain escape velocity and become a global leader than it is in the US. And this is after we gloss over the fact that the US is the No. 1 world economy, owns the money printer to the world reserve currency being able to dump trillion in a sector, and is the sole WW1 and WW2 victor and their tech supremacy in SV is an extension of their investments in WW2 tech that continued to bore fruit decades alter and keep them No. 1 while Europe was bombed to shit. This is why the US rules tech, not because EU has some more regulations.

>Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way.

Start-ups have absolutely no chance against Apple in the smartphone space anyway (how many people do you know who will buy a phone today, made by a start-up, that can't run iOS nor Android?), but this regulation will help a little.

And these regulations aren't in palce to create startups to compete with Appel, but to prevent startups ad iOS developers being abused by Apple's ban hammer. Apple won't allow your app on their store? No problem, just distribute it on another store. Why does this seem bad to you? Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?

Neither should matter.

Also, if you think the analogy misleading, please say why rather than calling it dishonest (I need more details than you've given to understand why you don't like it in those ways): this is a sincere comparison, and it's hard to learn from insults.

> they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason?

Doesn't matter. The consequences of the hypothetical in all cases are "the only console games you can buy anywhere are now vetted by one corporation".

Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files).

If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful.

>Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.

They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above.

>say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard

Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store.

>plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in

There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.

I lived both under a communist dictatorship and democracy. My actual vote (well, my parent's, I was too young to vote then) was wasted under both.

But every time I purchase a product I know that I act as natural selection in an ecosystem of companies which cannot exist unless their actions are (partially) aligned with my interests. It works.

I don't know about you, but I've never owned an iPhone. Android phones have worked, and still work, great for me. You don't have to buy an iPhone to have a smartphone.

I have power over Apple by simply not buying their crap, which is exactly what I've done. If other people like you did this instead of expecting someone else to control the company you willingly shovel your money to, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And of course I did. None of the politicians I voted for won. Turns out proposing populist measures, like "be tough on those evil multinational corporations" is much more electable than saying uncomfortable truths like "EU is falling behind on tech - we need to lower taxation and reduce regulation if we want to have a fighting chance of catching up".

> What you have zero of is knowledge of how the EU works

Please teach me then. What you said so far ("vote") is not only well known but is also quite ineffective - if you know how EU works actually, not just apparently.

You see, here is how it worked in my country: populist parties share the power and easily crush competition. They get elected by promising populist measures: higher pensions, higher minimum income and a tougher stance on the only thing they can attack: foreign corporations, which are made to be the scapegoats - root of all evils.

Then in EU elections their list is filled with the most useless, moronic, deeply corrupted and easily controlled politicians. This is because the EU parliament is seen as a well paid, easy comfy job tailor made for politicians too stupid or too visibly corrupt to prepare the next election cycle at home.

Those are "my MEPs". The only people they listen to are the handlers from back home. The only interests they represent is that of the highest bribe.

You simply switch to a producer with more acceptable terms or one that doesn't dictate at all. Unless the competition was curtailed through excessive regulation, of course.

Why is it so hard to understand how the free market works and so hard to accept that different people can make different choice from you and that is ok because you it doesn't impede on your right to make your choices?

Why this desperation to impose your choices on other people?

You go find a new clothing store.

>You're entirely missing the point. Tech companies don't get to dictate what we can do with their products.

No, I'm not, and yes, sometimes they do, if you agree to it. Lots of enterprise vendors dictate how their customers can use their products.

>You think that going to a competitor is the answer but the competitor is doing the same thing and so would every company over time

No, they aren't doing the same thing. I can use other app stores (or side-loaded apps) on Android right now. Why is this SO hard for you to understand? No, there's no evidence this is going to change. If it does, then you have a very good reason for government to step in and force changes.