Well it's a good thing that author doesn't get to decide what the benefits are in that case. I'd argue this "regulation" is really a deregulation - ie, removing restrictions for Apple developers - which will lead to a lot of competition and growth in the space. If your imagination only goes so far as what you read in the article then I can't help.
> I'd argue this "regulation" is really a deregulation...
If your argument is an attempt to rebrand something as its antithesis then the argument seems fundamentally disingenuous to me. Arguing the regulation is good is one thing, arguing it is bad is another. But arguing that regulation is deregulation is not an intellectually honest position.
Prior to these laws consumers could delegate certain decisions to Apple. Afterwards, they can't. It is illegal and the regulators will get unhappy if Apple tries to make said decisions. A clear case of regulation. "Deregulation" doesn't mean that everything gets set up the way that a 3rd likes.
And it might be more competitive but if it was I'd have expected to see Android or the Windows phone ecosystems do much better than they do.
They can't let Apple decide what web browser iPhones should default to, what apps are safe to install or a whole bunch of defaults. Article, 3rd sentence.
> They can't let Apple decide what web browser iPhones should default to
User can still choose Safari. If they choose something else then we can't really say that they were ok with delegating that decision to Apple.
> what apps are safe to install
Users can still choose to only use apples app store. If they choose to install software any other way... well they clearly aren't ok with apples choices on what they can install.
> whole bunch of defaults
The user can still choose apple defaults.
It seems that users can still delegate everything to apple.
> It seems that users can still delegate everything to apple.
I don't know what you're trying to do here, but as you might expect me to say... you have to pick one. You can't simultaneously claim that the user makes the choice and that they can delegate the choice. It is pretty obvious that EU users have to make the choice now - it is a regulatory requirement. They can't delegate it. A key part of delegating a choice is that you don't make it yourself. Apple's brand is pretty explicit that they make these choices for their users so that those users don't have to engage with things like what a web browser is - that is a big part of why the Apple users in my family went with Apple.
Think of it like getting a chair that you have to assemble yourself vs preassembled. You end up with the same chair, but one path is more work for the customer.
> You can't simultaneously claim that the user makes the choice and that they can delegate the choice.
The user can still delegate the choice, they can withdraw that delegation which is a new capability users now have. Being able to sell yourself to forever slavery is bad, but being able to temporarily sell your work is good.
