Don’t do it at all? On Android, you can just run an app with no involvement whatsoever from Google. There is no customer to “know”.

- App submission and review (standard, priority, exposure, etc)

F-droid apps are neither submitted to nor reviewed by Google.

- App distribution (origin storage and download)

That would be the alternative app store’s job, no?

- Push notifications

This is genuinely tricky due to battery life and data usage considerations.

Which isn't really any of Apples business if I want to make that sacrifice, but rather something they can promote as a win by using their solution if it turns out that alternative push notification services implement it poorly.

Especially if Apple allows others to move it from application layer to system layer (by providing a Kernel interface?) which is required for being really energy efficient.

The path you propose inevitably leads to the exact enshittification we’re trying to avoid.

Stop trying to turn the system WE want into what WE don't. WE don't want android or else we would already be using it.

As soon as you fracture the ecosystem the positive network effects start to fade.

It is far fetched that it will get any industry wide traction, but unifiedpush.org/ provides a solution

Were I Apple's lobbyist, I would be thrilled for this to be the counterargument. Because while noble, it's practically unworkable, generally unpopular and a flytrap for technologists who might otherwise be swayed to a moderate position.

It would be perfectly sensible to force large platform vendors to let you install arbitrary software. No problem at all. Doesn’t mean that also has to apply to, I don’t know, refrigerators with WiFi. Or cars.

General-purpose computing is workable. General-purpose computing on any hardware you own is not. Government regulations prohibit tampering with most emissive hardware, for instance.

Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access. I still think even in those cases there needs to be some regulation that ensures manufacturers allow independent, qualified, repair shops to effectively repair broken tech.

Since when have iPhones been marketed as such? Apple goes out of its way to promote its walled garden.

> Cars, electric scooters, boats, anything where there's other conflicting safety regulations I fully agree that a manufacturer doesn't need to provide the general public with full software access

Delineating this is hard. iPhones contain modem chips, for instance.

Again, I'm not arguing against the principle in general nor even specifically when it comes to Apple. Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."

Prove to me that Apple has never marketed the App Store or the fact that you can run non-Apple software on an iPhone. If you can do that I'll drop this argument immediately.

> Just the framing of being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own."

But I'm specifically not saying that, I'm saying hardware sold to me with the promise that I'll be able to expand its functionality via software. Regardless how you want to try to spin it that's what general-purpose computing means.

I'm saying that if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way, you can't then say "ah but see actually I'm the only one that can decide WHAT can run on your device, and you have to pay ME forever for the pleasure of running anything on it!". You can put up road blocks if you want, but you've sold me a device intended to be expandable via software, a general-purpose computing device, not a purpose-specific device.

Being able to install third-party software does not make the iPhone a general-purpose computer. Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers. The original iPhone didn't even allow third-party apps. (Had they, there would be a false marketing angle to play. But they didn't so there isn't.)

> if you want to sell a product which relies on software written by other people (that are not the vendor) to be successful, then you have to go the whole way

This is the debate. Restating a position isn't argument.

That argument is relevant for the original iPhone, not for any iPhones sold after the advent of the App Store.

> Apple never marketed its devices as general-purpose computers.

Yet they are. It isn't up to the manufacturer to choose which class of regulations they want to play under, that definition is for an external part to decide, otherwise Apple could just classify all of their devices as fidget spinners and do whatever the hell they want.

(At least me, personally, I’d prefer to hit a wall with my car at 60-70kmph than to have a malware on my phone. And I said that after being in more than one serious car accident)

App sandboxing protects you from apps trying to access your information without your say-so, I'm not advocating for Apple to allow these third party apps to bypass the sandbox.

Android definitely fails in this aspect, if you look at stats on viruses etc.

Yeah sure, things that attempt to break out of the sandbox will not be caught before ending up running on a users phone, but this also gives Apple somewhere to learn about novel sandbox escaping techniques from, so they can eventually patch them.

Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.

Here, we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch.

Which then leaves you open to recursive arguments about patches and unpersuasive railing about regulation being ineffective, lobbyists, etc etc.[^1]

I think this situation might be a bit of a wake up call. Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences. Not necessarily negative ones. But this isnt going to get delivered with no changes while the EU stays quiet.

[^1] "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

To be fair, this resembles a lot of lawmaking, too.

> Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences

Agree.

Windows, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, Android. I’m up for including game consoles on this list.

Let everybody else be all closed and only require them to open up when they become more important/widespread.

Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.

I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.

Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device?

> there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android

This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.

Because it can be extended via software to support whole new categories of apps.

Sure, a games console technically is a computer and the above statement is true for it as well, but it wasn't marketed as such.

In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations.

1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install.

2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise)

3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.

(I don't swap it because there are a few minor annoyances with that)

I wish we lived in a world where we could say, "sure but the driver knows not to put that on while driving, so we're all good!", but we very much unfortunately don't...

Hell, I could pull a small grill into the 12V power supply and cook dinner while driving down the road.

The idea that software can police our lives is actually part of the issue we are talking about. Apple doesn't want us to be able to install arbitrary software on our phones "for our safety".

On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.

I'm able to install whatever software I want on my mac, windows, linux, and android device. What exactly about it is "unworkable"?

The unworkable bit is the breadth. Being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own" means every computer is a general computer. That includes the one in your cable box, on your cellular modem chip, in your car.

What does that mean, though? My thermostat updates itself OTA. So does my modem chip. And I can configure, to a degree, optional add-ons on my Subaru.

This is the problem with changing the argument to being "able to install whatever software we want on hardware we own." It's unworkable not because it's fundamentally flawed, but because its edges are fractally messy. You can absorb an infinite amount of time into delineating it. In the meantime, the thing you were actually going for--a competitive App Store--is forgotten.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse. It's pretty obvious from the discussion I am not talking about anything that has updatable software, I'm talking about things sold with the promise to be able to add broad new functionality in multiple fields. A thermostat may be able to add new methods of scheduling, energy saving, other means of control, integrations with other smart devices, but all with the singular purpose of controlling a radiator, under-floor heating or other heating device.

But if we're gonna entertain the notion somewhat, yes, if the thermostat allowed installation of non-thermostat related things like video streaming services, games, Twitter, or other apps that were allowed to run on the device to give it more use than at point of sale, and it was also marketed as such when sold, then yes, it was being sold as a (rather silly) general-purpose computing device and should be required to give users access to what they need to build their own software and run it on it, sans manufacturer control.

I want some of what you're smoking mate.

That's how almost everything worked before the user hostile mobile takeover, not sure why it's not possible anymore. It's the previous state of affair and worked fine.

Unlockable bootloader should 100% be a thing, but I doubt it'll happen, and in its absence Apple will probably need to open up their walled garden more to actually be DMA compliant.

On the other hand I understand why people (myself being one of them) want to use the hardware they bought for something other than running iOS. This seems especially important once Apple drops support for the device.

My solution is meant to solve for this situation.

That can also mean "wipe the device of the OS, and install your own".

Ownership of hardware, has never implied ownership of software. Usage rights, with first sale in most countries, but not ownership of the software.

But where do usage rights end, and where does "right to use the device as purchased" start? Certainly, Apple advertises the security, safety of their locked down ecosystem.

I suspect Apple's next move might be disabling their apps, and ecosystem, leaving a bare OS, if you move to a competing app store.

Or maybe leaving core apps, and prohibiting installation of other apps while removing their app store.

They might have a case for that. And Google for the longest time, will not allow the play store in a legit way, unless the OS is validated by them. So in this Apple wouldn't be an outlier.

Unfortunately this advertisement is just an illusion designed to lure naive customers, as has been amply proven by the long list of CVE's revealed at the end of 2023, due to which the Apple devices have been completely insecure against those who had known them many years before the public.

After such a precedent, any argument that Apple prevents third party applications for the benefit of the customers has become completely baseless.

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/in-app_purchase_scams_in_...

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/apples-response-hey-sh...

Apple can easily argue that people full well know its ecosystem is a walled garden, and that it is a selling point.

This isn't a legit argument. Sadly, like it or not, no software on the planet escapes CVEs. You'd never successfully argue what you're suggesting in court.

First, on what Apple calls their "Core Technology Fee" in Europe.

Ethically, I believe its really obvious that this fee is something that is paid by users. When I buy an iPhone, I am buying the operating system, which includes the core technology that iPhone ships with. Apple absolutely charges users for this; they also double-charge developers for it, as its part of their 30% fee structure.

Apple has also made the argument that the 30% fee structure also includes App Store marketing services. This is a more-reasonable argument from Apple, specifically in the situation where the sale is DIRECTLY attributable to an action within the App Store application (e.g. searching for an app to buy, home page marketing, etc). This differentiation is not a new idea: the Windows app store formalizes this model by taking a larger cut of sales that came from the store channel versus external channels [1].

However, Apple's cut is universal, regardless of channel. In their infinite ability to double-dip, they also charge for advertising services within the App Store; so, developers may pay for a click-through within the App Store home page or search results, then also pay the 30% cut when that ad converts into a sale.

A few years ago, Apple reduced their cut on subscription revenue to, effectively, 15%. This is still extremely high for the level of service Apple is providing to justify that 15%; but it makes sense from the perspective that what Apple definitely and obviously isn't doing is any kind of customer support or marketing to maintain that customer. Apple has never been willing to admit that the same thing holds true for any piecemeal purchase where the primary marketing channel is the app itself, and not the App Store. If I buy an audiobook on Spotify, Apple did nothing to push that sale forward, similar to how they did nothing to convince me to renew my Spotify subscription. Yet, they would in theory get an additional 15% of the sale.

All of this is also, please do not forget, in addition to the $99/year fee Apple charges all developers. Its not a lot, especially for companies like Spotify. But, that supposedly includes things like the core technology license; so in some sense Apple is actually triple-dipping on these sales.

Oh, and also: A some of these numbers are different and worse for games. Why? Because I guess games are, just, different? For some reason. Unclear. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple is the world's largest gaming company by revenue.

Here's what I strongly feel is ethical:

- Apple can charge whatever percentage they want for IAP. Its their product, do what you will.

- Apple can require applications distributed through the App Store to only leverage Apple IAP. Its their App Store, do what you will.

- Apple must allow the installation of applications via a web browser outside of the App Store channel. Apple may elect to scan these applications with some kind of on-device threat classification, and present the results of that scan to the user. Apple may also elect to change the wording of this installation prompt to account for whether the app is signed by Apple, and the developer is within the Apple Developer program. All of these protection systems must be user-overrideable, point in time, without any additional navigation or payment from the user.

Here's the thing: I think, under a system like this, Spotify still doesn't change. I think most major apps don't change.

[1] https://appetiser.com.au/blog/microsoft-store-revenue-now-gi...

But what about security? Apple developers should handle that, they are well paid to implemnt sandboxing and other safety stuff.