How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?
Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience
iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them?
There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.
No, this is not allowed and currently also not the case. When you're setting up a new iPhone, one of the questions during setup is which browser do you want to use.
Your argument would be equally true, you could just scroll and scroll until you find the app you’re looking for, but surely you’d agree the experience would be worse?
Depending on particular user design goals, the experience could be far superior at the expense of being limited.
For DMA specifically, see Apple withholding Screen Mirroring (a feature I would enjoy tremendously) from EU for fear (IMHO quite reasonable) that the vaguely written DMA could be interpreted as requiring them to open mirroring to 3rd parties.
It's been just a few months and already DMA impacted my enjoyment of my devices, no?
If you also don't care about yourself, it's worse for you but many others now have the chance to deny providers of their scummy way to make money off unwitting users.
There is a banner.
The European Commission on data protection https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_e...
There is a banner.
The press release for the current enforcement against Apple https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
There is a banner.
> the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users.
If this is true, it says a lot about the organization running those websites.
3. Analytics cookies
We use these purely for internal research on how we can improve the service we provide for all our users.
The cookies simply assess how you interact with our website – as an anonymous user (they data gathered does not identify you personally).
Also, this data is not shared with any third parties or used for any other purpose. The anonymised statistics could be shared with contractors working on communication projects under contractual agreement with the European Commission.
However, you are free to refuse these types of cookies – either via the cookie banner you will see on the first page you visit or at Europa Analytics.
Given that analytics is used, and that has cookies that track information, they're required to have that notification somehow. That page doesn't appear to be a "developers following the crowd like sheep" but rather "the requirements of the law are followed to the spirit and letter and the easiest and most accessible way to provide that functionality is with a banner."
>the easiest and most accessible way to provide that functionality is with a banner.
I read that as 'the laziest way'.
The banner works for its requirements with GDPR and meets the requirements for accessibility.
Surely, one cannot expect that companies trying to save costs will go through great lengths to implement something that they don't know if it will work or not or if they'll get sued in the EU if they implement a different solution when the EU themselves implement it this way.
If there is a better way of doing it that doesn't lead to lawsuits, the EU's website should be the first ones to implement and demonstrate an easier and more accessible way to comply with the GPDR.
As it is, the websites of europa.eu are setting the standard for companies to follow when they want to make sure that they don't get sued for failure to comply with the GPDR for website notifications and accessibility within the EU.
I urge you to go and read it, and then come back and continue the conversation.
This is an issue I regulary face, people not being educated on what the damn thing actually is. A general catchall banner on intial website load is the laziest and most intrusive way to get compliance, but its the easiest for developers so they generally take that way out.
The way to ensure that you don't get sued is to copy the structure of the one website that you know is in compliance with the GPDR and follow their lead.
When reading the GPDR text from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html I see a cookie banner. If it works there and that is the example of how to be in compliance with the obligations of a website for cookies? Would some other implementation that isn't done that way be risky in that the courts in Europe could decide that it wasn't done correctly?
Until the websites of europa.eu change to show an alternative way to be in compliance with cookie notification for the GDPR, banners remain the least risky (and yes, easiest and laziest) way to try to remain in compliance.
Nothing in the GPDR says "thou shalt have a banner" - but that's not the issue at hand. What is the least risky way for a company to implement the requirements of GDPR given that's the way europa.eu does it?