This attitude is exactly why Apple should be compelled to allow different browsers.

You've shown me the door. Guess what? We took it. We've opened a new door right through the wall. Hello there!

Lightning cables from Apple are equally bad. Guess what? Competitor cables are more resilient in real world use. But yes, bring on usb.

> Apple's products don't fit your needs, the solution is trivial - don't buy Apple products.

If you don't want to install alternative app stores or browsers, then you should simply choose to not install them.

With the new digital markets act being passed in the EU, everyone will be able to install whatever app store or browser that they want.

And you can't complain because you should listen to your own advice by not installing those other app stores or browsers.

Does this digital markets act apply to game consoles and smart TV platforms? What about in-dash car systems?

The digital markets act only applies to certain companies, called "gatekeepers" that are large enough, have a certain very large amount of users, and have enough market power.

Generally speaking, the purpose of anti-trust law is not to effect small players, who do not control any markets.

Instead, the purpose of anti-trust law is to prevent multi-trillion dollar companies who control half of a duopoly, from doing anti-competitive actions.

So, for the examples that you gave, if those markets became multi-trillion dollar markets, in 2 company duopolies, then there would be laws created that would apply to them.

But before that happens, there is no need.

But sure, instead of having phone manufacturers compete with open competition in an open marketplace, let's have governments decide how my phone works. That sounds like a great idea. (Note: that is sarcasm.)

I wonder, is the EU promising to replace Apple's effective private regulatory environment around privacy control with something its equal or better? Given that "open markets" in software isn't a concept that respects national borders, I don't see how they could. Or are they just going to crack the nut open at the behest of lobbying efforts by other (mostly foreign) multi-billion dollar companies who stand to gain?

The point being, that in a situation where there is a 2 company duopoly, with multi trillion dollar companies, then there is going to be laws that regulate these multi trillion dollar companies that have significant market power.

> compete with open competition

They can compete all they want. They simply can't use their market power to anti competitively prevent users from installing other app stores or browsers, of their own choice.

A user is free to not install other app stores or browsers, if they don't want.

> let's have governments decide how my phone works

It is actually the user who will now be free to decide which app stores or browsers run on their own phone. Feel free to not install them, if you don't like those options.

Anyways this conversation doesn't much matter because the laws are about to be passed. I look forward to people crying about being unable to prevent other people from doing what they want with their own phone in the future.

Because there is nothing you or apple can do now, to prevent people from installing other app stores or browsers, on their own phone, pretty soon.

The app store/browser war is over. Apple lost. And users will soon be able to actually do what they want with their own phone, and Apple will no longer be able to force users, against their will, from install other app stores or browsers.

> It is actually the user who will now be free to decide

The user will be free to decide? Really? The user, most of whom are understandably ignorant to and/or disinterested in the nuances of privacy and tracking, won't remain captive to decisions implemented by programmers, hidden in code, concealed behind encryption and not exposed as a choice?

Free to decide. I can't fathom that anyone actually might seriously believe this overly simplistic fairytale. This kind of freedom doesn't exist and the kind of rules the EU plans to implement don't change that. All they do is shuffle around influence from one set of global billion-dollar companies to another set of global billion-dollar companies.

Or are you telling me that the EU will require mobile operating systems, app stores on those operating systems and all third party apps running on those operating systems to give users absolute freedom to control all aspects of how their privacy is handled?

At least now we have Apple in a position to (and motivated to) enforce privacy standards on behalf of its ecosystem. It's not often that capitalistic forces are so squarely focused at the consumer interest; dismiss it at our collective peril.

> The user will be free to decide? Really?

Yes, they can choose to not install whatever app store or browser that they want.

> or disinterested in the nuances of privacy and tracking

It sounds like you just don't like the user's choice. You could have just said that you disagree with what the user will do, and want to take away their choice to install whatever browser or app store that they want.

Don't pretend like you care about user choice, if you are then going to pivot and say that you disagree with the choice of the user, because you think the user is dumb, or would choose different than your personal preference.

Thats the problem. Just own your position. If you hate competition, and hate giving power to the user to choose whatever they want, and think that there needs to be a monopoly that anti-competitively controls everything that the user does, against their will, then just say that.

Just take your mask off, and say that you think that you know better than everyone else, about their own property, and want to force everyone else to do what you want, and you want to take away their ability to choose for themselves.

Don't dress it up like you were doing previously, like pretending like you care about markets. Just say that you hate the user's opinion, and you want to take away their freedoms to choose what they want to do with their own device, and stop hiding behind fake arguments that you don't believe in.

> to give users absolute freedom to control all aspects of how their privacy is handled?

Users will be given the choice to install whatever browser or app store that they want.

If a user prefers whatever it is that you are talking about, then they are free to not install those app stores or browsers, and continue to use the Apple recommended choice.

But once again, I look forward to people crying more about this soon. Because there is nothing you or Apple can do to stop users from installing alternative app stores and browser in the future, as the laws are about to be passed.

Apple lost. You can't change that.

It is doubtful whether there's any point in me replying as little of what you've said has anything to do with anything I said. It appears you read my post and entirely misunderstood it. I will nonetheless offer a response to what you have written.

Your first misunderstanding is this assumption that competition and user choice hinges on the axis of "browsers and app stores". This isn't an objective fact, it's an opinion. A different and (at minimum) equally valid opinion is that user choice can hinge on the axis of phone ecosystems. Yet another axis could hinge on apps themselves — perhaps none of us are "free" until Facebook, Instagram, etc are all required by the EU to allow anyone to write fully featured native front-ends. Perhaps the freest of all is a marketplace with a diversity of axes, which is precisely what laws tend to demolish.

Your second misunderstanding is your continued smuggling in of the concept of "user choice" in a marketplace where users do not and cannot have anything remotely resembling real freedom of choice, no matter how many browser engines or app stores are available. Open source ecosystems aside, >99% of "choices" are made by the software developer exclusively. Choosing to acquire the same corporate-capitalist closed source spyware from vendor A or vendor B is an illusion of choice.

Your third misunderstanding is this absurd and self-evidently false claim that people who like the status quo will be able to simply ignore the new alternative app stores and browsers. If loading alternative app stores really does become seamless, companies like Facebook and Google will have absolutely no incentive to list their apps in Apple's store. In fact given that Apple's pro-privacy policies (like App Tracking Transparency) are causing these companies to lose enormous amounts of revenue, they have a MASSIVE commercial incentive to abandon the Apple App Store.

You say these laws are about to be passed. I haven't seen how any of these EU laws get around the reality of Apple's ownership of its own intellectual property. I can't imagine how the EU could force Apple to supply its intellectual property to app developers under different terms. So even if the EU does force open iOS to alternative stores, I'm really not sure how developers are going to legally build apps to put in those stores.

As for your continued barbs implying that I oppose user choice, I'm wearing a "mask", that I hate markets, that I hate opinions, that I'm taking away freedoms, that I am offering "fake arguments" which I "don't believe" and will be "crying" about EU laws. All I can say is that rejecting the possibility that someone can sincerely hold a different opinion to you is disappointing — and represents a barrier to intellectual curiosity.

> . I haven't seen how any of these EU laws get around the reality of Apple's ownership of its own intellectual property. I can't imagine how the EU could force Apple to supply its intellectual property to app developers under different terms

It is pretty simple. Companies that want to operate in the EU have to follow certain laws, or pay a huge fine.

Technically speaking, these are requirements to operate in the market. So I guess if Apple wants to pull out of international markets, and never sell an iPhone again in the EU, that would also be an option. But, my guess is that they don't want to lose those billions of dollars.

> I'm really not sure how developers are going to legally build apps to put in those stores.

Its simple. Either Apple follows the law and gives app developers the ability to build apps, pays a huge fine, or leaves the entire EU market. Those are Apple's only 3 choices. And if they try a clever way to get around the law by using some sort of intellectual property strategy that you are hinting at, then they pay the huge fine, which is calculated based on a large percentage of global revenue.

Enjoy thoses laws that you cannot stop! They will likely come into effect in less than a year. They can't be stopped. Apple should have addressed its own anti-competitive behavior before it got to the point where this was necessary. Its way too late now though.

Your lack of response to any of the substantive points is noted. But you are right, we’re all going to see. It will be interesting to see how it does play out. Nobody knows for sure how the chips will fall, but I’d wager that it won’t be nearly as simplistic as you’re imagining. Especially since your version of future events doesn’t even align with mainstream analysis of the DMA.

> Nobody knows for sure how the chips will fall

We pretty much do know how things will work out, actually. That's why people made these laws.

The laws were made to force Apple, and similar, to open up their app stores.

And if Apple doesn't follow the law, then they will be fined billions of dollars. Because that's why they made these laws in the first place.

You saying that people don't know, is cope on your part, because you can't handled that Apple lost, and cannot win against governments.

Cope? Seriously? I’m trying to have a considered conversation, I’m not interested in engaging you in an irrelevant battle of Twitter-derived smack talk.

I’ll say again, your version of future events doesn’t even align with mainstream analysis of the DMA.

Yes basically it is cope. Law makers created these laws, specifically for the purpose of opening up these app stores, among other things. And then you are saying that actually the law won't do what it is directly intending on doing.

The point of all of these laws are to open up these app stores. That is the direct goal. And clever attempts to get around them, will result in billions of dollars in fines to Apple.

I am happy to come back to your posts, months later when the laws are in effect, and make fun of you for being wrong on that though.

Really, I am more of a "I told you so" kind of person, though.

Because when I come back, and say "I told you so", you won't be able to make any cope/reaching/bad counterarguments. You'll know, definitively, that you were wrong, and you won't be able to hide from that.

These are falsifiable claims about how things will turn out. And since they are falsifiable, I can make fun of someone, when the statements are falsified, and the laws are in effect.

And there will be no hiding from how bad your predictions were, when I can show it to your face, when it happens.

When someone writes a law saying that Apple is required to give their intellectual property away for free and forcefully open the floodgates of third party app stores, and this law passes, and this law survives challenge in the relevant court, then you'll be entitled to be that "I told you so" kind of person.

Happy to wait.

In the meantime it seems you're operating under a misapprehension that any of that has occurred when in fact none of that has. Even the most optimistic reading of DMA doesn't support your fan fiction.

>I don't want to install additional browsers, app stores, or other crap on my phone, I just want it to work well, out of the box with reasonably high security.

I don't see these as mutually exclusive.