Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

[sideshowuniqueuser]

The problem is:

• App distribution on iOS/iPadOS locked to a single app store that Apple controls with no other way to get apps, which under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) marks them as a gatekeeper and they must rectify this by allowing alternatives to the Apple App Store on iOS, similarly to how they do on macOS
• WebKit being the only web engine allowed on iOS. (Chrome and FireFox on iOS are just UI skins, as they're still forced to use WebKit which defeats the entire point of using Chrome or FireFox, as people want Chromium and FireFox Quantum, not WebKit) Remember when Microsoft got in trouble for pulling that stunt back in the 90s with United States of America vs Microsoft?

So the solution for both is simple: Just allow alternatives like they do on macOS. That's it. That's all they gotta do. A simple problem with a simple solution that Apple does not want to do as it means their app store monopoly is a *little* bit smaller.



It's not just the EU. Japan also approved similar measures and they will be forcing Apple to allow alternative app distribution as well, and in Japan Apple has a landslide dominance over any other competitor there of almost 70%. Like it's not even close. You gonna tell Apple to stop selling their products there too when they have overwhelming market dominance?



Why? This change benefits consumers as now iOS would have competition in app distribution, and competition breeds innovation. The only people this doesn't benefit...is Apple. Curious. 🤔



You can just choose not to sideload you know. Just like on Android, sideloading is completely optional and can be turned on and off with a toggle in settings. You can stay with the Apple App Store and never touch any alternatives should you so choose to.



Yes adding alternatives to app distribution and other web engines on iOS and other proconsumer measures is a "power grab by the elites." I guess forcing Apple to switch to USB-C on the iPhone, a move millions have begged for, was also a power grab?

PS - You're not related to this project are you?: https://github.com/hubblo-org

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Well there's Hello Fresh the food delivery service which is a German company

There's also one of the biggest video game publishers in the world Ubisoft, which is a French company

A lot of prominent mobile game developers like Supercell and King are from Finland and Sweden

Mojang is Swedish...you know...the people who made Minecraft the biggest video game in the world

You know ShaZam? The music recognition software that Apple bought almost a decade ago? Guess what, they're from the UK (though the UK left the EU so I guess that doesn't count lol)

Spotify is a Swedish company

Arm, the chip design firm responsible for the architecture used in Apple Silicon in our Macs and iPhones, as well as every ARM chip on the planet? Yeah, that's a UK company

So can we stop this myth that "oh Europe has no tech company that can compete against American tech companies" when the bulk of our software and services we use on a daily basis are from European companies?

Plus all the high precision machines that TSMC use to fab all the chips that go into all Apple devices are designed and made in Europe.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

You can be as upset as you want, but the facts are clear.






I think if I was subject to the EU, I'd be a little annoyed that they were concerned about a phone browser rather than taking steps to address the stagnant, rapidly falling behind economies of the member states.

The European and US mentality is different. Europeans want quality of life over profitability. They would rather be the happiest people in the world than have the highest GDP in the world.

You also have to understand that these EU rulings only apply to products sold to EU markets. Apple is free to continue conforming to US rulings in US jurisdictions.

Apple decided it would rather switch ALL iPhones to USB-C, rather than just the ones produced for EU markets. They didn't have to do that.

No one is forcing anything on the US consumers here.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

So, how does this work for them?
arm having the monopoly for arm chips and the highest available tech on foundries… are they gatekeepers on chips?
Can Intel now go and use their platforms for their chips manufacturing, marketing? Etc? Or else they get fined for their worldwide revenue?

Can a random music app go and hinge on Spotify’s platform? (their market share is higher than Apple’s, Amazon and YouTube music services combined!)… by their metrics pretty sure many of these companies blast these gatekeepers thresholds.

When are we fining all of them? Can’t leave all that money on the table.

So much this... Spotify doesn't qualify for "gatekeeper status" because their market cap is only 31Billion. (putting that in perspective, Spotify is more valuable than twitter. The fact that there is a market cap limit on this (that conveniently ignores an EU business of this size) tells me this has zero to do with so-called "monopolies" or the "duopolies" so many of you like to go on and on about even though it has no legal merit. If this is about competition, if this is about the little guys, then Spotify should be wrapped into the DMA. But...it's not about any of that.

Spotify has something like 31% of the Streaming Music Market share; Apple is 2nd at 13%. And yet, Spotify is trying to tell the EU how it needs to better regulate Apple.

This is pure silliness. Spotify kicks Apple in the streaming business, and yet Spotify is trying to sell the idea that Apple is somehow harming them. And let's be clear here: Spotify takes a 30% cut of streaming revenue from artists. You know, that "tax" as so many of you like to call it.

Here's an article outlining how Spotify is telling the EU how Apple should operate its business:
Spotify says Apple’s DMA compliance must include these changes

Apple should, by this same logic, be able to have a 3rd party music store inside of Spotify's App, no? Or, say, a small musician should be able to open up their own sales channel within Spotify, no? I mean, it's outrageous that this dominant EU company would charge small artists a 30% tax to sell their music, no?

Again and again, this is just big players trying to use Government overreach to give them an unfair advantage. Has nothing to do with competition: again, Spotify is kicking Apple's a** in streaming.

It's disingenuous in the extreme to imply that Spotify have the market power that Apple and Google do.

 

[bluecoast]

If Apple left the EU the EU would most likely change its laws.

I’m not pro eu but doubtful.

I’m not an expert on the US political system but I think that a generation has grown up seeing no meaningful regulation in this area and many others due to the dysfunctional political system.

 

[bluecoast]

If only the world were black and white. I’m pro regulation for the most part. I’m against specific parts of this regulation because I don’t believe they will actually significantly increase competition. And they will be worse for me personally.

Ok fair enough, but how?

You won’t have to install another App Store most likely. Unless you really want to play Fortnite on iPad or iPhone.

And you won’t need to install a chromium browser or ff.

An area that is a little more murky is opening up iMessage. So much of that will depend on the details.

 

[AlexMaximus]

I am not sure if I get this right. The EU is complaining that there is not enough competition to the App Store?

Here is a refresher:

Vote with your wallet.

Its that simple.

The EU is confused..

 

[wanha]

Yes, so they need double regulation.

Or regulation squared

 

[amartinez1660]

I am not sure if I get this right. The EU is complaining that there is not enough competition to the App Store?

Here is a refresher:

Vote with your wallet.

Its that simple.

The EU is confused..

This should be pinned as the top comment… the thing is, it’s really hard to compete with the droves that are ready to comment even before the article is published.

Some people are voting with their wallets (iOS vs Android for example), but some other people don’t like that at all.
That second batch of people starts curbing the choices of votes and force the whole thing to be one single vote, the one they want…
It is also worth to note that they are the same ones that chip away at your wallet by coming up with “reasons” where the outcome is: you keep less and less of your earnings per year, everything is more expensive every year, each little paper thingy in your wallet is less valuable every year.
Taking also away your ability to vote with your wallet little by little.

 

[sdz]

F-Droid for iOS here it comes....
Happy news.

Finally you can download a Torrent on your $1000+ device and see some tits.

 

[Beautyspin]

If apps are required to be in the AppStore and have the option of third party stores then fine.

I think such a stipulation defeats the purpose of alternate app stores. Supposing Google and Firefox want to release their browsers with their engines and there is a rule that they cannot be on the other stores unless they are on App Store, then things would not change. Similarly, I am hoping that somebody comes up with a good file browser. Also, apps that can access common storage (like downloads) may come up. Those are the pain points for me that are not allowing me to use the iPad as my main machine. They will be rejected by the App Store. I want the alternative stores to carry them so that I can use my iPad the way I want to.

 

[East India Company]

I am not so in favour of these “gatekeepers” arbitrary chosen, however I think it’s long overdue that the big tech are broken up in different entities using the antitrust laws. These giant companies are now actively reducing innovation by buying out startups and often not coming out with the product at all. Moreover existing smaller companies providing a service where a big tech would enter have no hope of remaining alive, thus removing customer choice. There is no debate about this, it is a fact.
I cannot imagine what would have happened at the beginning of the 20th century if the giant American Petroleum company would not have been broken up..

Apple has no business providing a fitness service, a movie streaming service or a music streaming service. Apple Services would 😉

 

[Beautyspin]

Which Apple will likely pay regardless. Just like the Dutch dating game thing, they would rather just pay the fine than comply.

And yes, even with it’s 10 or 20% or company’s global turnover for fine, Apple can afford it because most of profit comes from hardware and they’ll keep making enough from the sale to just keep paying the fine and still make profit.

Apple may have the money, but the CEO who allows Apple to pay 10% of global turnover as fine will be kicked out and he will not get a job anywhere else. And this will happen to CEO after CEO. Let us see who blinks first.

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Apple may have the money, but the CEO who allows Apple to pay 10% of global turnover as fine will be kicked out and he will not get a job anywhere else. And this will happen to CEO after CEO. Let us see who blinks first.

Except Apple board members would likely approve the motion if brought up. Even if unpopular with stock holders, board members also values privacy and security of the product more and are willing to sacrifice the global turnover to keep it that way.

Most of the board members don’t care about the money. They care about image of Apple. They will do whatever to protect it. Which means sticking up for company and approve the motion for the company to NOT comply to government orders if possible. Even if it means paying fines. (China though, unfortunately due to manufacturing they had to give up concession. But in EU, they would rather not comply, they have nothing to lose really since they don’t have any manufacturing there)

 

[Beautyspin]

I have the same issue with EU regulation of tech that I do with USA regulation of tech. These people don't know what they are doing. Fortunately, the USA government generally can't get anything done.

The ios app store is "open enough" that there is a reasonableness to that policy and not solely as a power grab by Apple. Even if it weren't an architecture I would choose, it is justifiable as it simplifies/stabilizes the ecosystem over time in a number of ways.

If it is "Open enough" then the alternative stores will fall by the wayside, right? Why would anyone want to go to another store that will not be any more open to make a difference (as according to you App Store is already open enough). Problem will be solved on its own.

Fortunately, the EU government works for the people, not corporates. So, they are doing what they think is good for people. If you think it is bad for Apple, it does not have to be if Apple had cared enough to bring changes to its policies and become more consumer friendly. For example, what exactly is Apple trying to achieve by insisting on Webkit for all browsers?

 

[Beautyspin]

Just reiterating my concern here from an earlier thread.

I recently had to help a friend remove an app from his android phone that allowed his wife to track his location, listen in on his microphone, read his text messages, record his calls... this app was able to be sideloaded onto the device and all she needed was his phone's password. Nothing warned him because nothing was out of place.

The way iOS works nowadays, that app would never be allowed on the app store (just like google would never allow it on play store), and the person trying to install it would need to jailbreak your iPhone in order to load it - a process that takes time and often breaks on software updates. It also reveals itself elsewhere, where banking apps and MDM apps stop working because your device is compromised.

The nanosecond you can sideload software onto your iPhone, the threat plane for this stuff expands dramatically. And unless they provide rock-solid ways to lock the device down beyond simple passcodes or face ID to reject all non-app store software, or some very strong visual indicators that non-validated stuff has been installed... one of the actual security advantages of iOS goes away.

It is easy to do so on iPhone too, currently. No alternate app store needed.

Best Spy Apps for iPhone | Top 10 Reviewed In-Depth for 2023

Are you on the hunt for one of the best spy apps for iPhone? Here we review and compare the best on the market to help you on your quest.

www.techopedia.com

 

[bluecoast]

Except Apple board members would likely approve the motion if brought up. Even if unpopular with stock holders, board members also values privacy and security of the product more and are willing to sacrifice the global turnover to keep it that way.

Most of the board members don’t care about the money. They care about image of Apple. They will do whatever to protect it. Which means sticking up for company and approve the motion for the company to NOT comply to government orders if possible. Even if it means paying fines. (China though, unfortunately due to manufacturing they had to give up concession. But in EU, they would rather not comply, they have nothing to lose really since they don’t have any manufacturing there)

Ummm I’m not sure if Apple is going to walk away from their second biggest market region.

Take a look at the graph called :

‘Apple regional revenue (four-quarter avg.)’

Apple Q3 2023 Charts: $81.8B revenue, down 1%

Apple announced its results for its fiscal third quarter on Thursday. As expected, it was a down quarter–though at a 1% drop over the year-ago quarter, it’s a better result than the pre…

sixcolors.com

 

[webkit]

I am not sure if I get this right. The EU is complaining that there is not enough competition to the App Store?

The EU's issue is that there is no competition to the App Store on iOS, a dominant player (part of a duopoly with Android) in the mobile OS market. They want less restricted app access/competition by having both mobile operating systems let users sideload and/or have access to multiple app stores.

 

[Treq]

California is a toilet. Godzilla can't arrive soon enough.

Come on, CA is great! Most prosperous state in the nation. Absolutely beautiful as well. It's not like those s***-hole states like Texas or Florida.

 

[Gudi]

When was the last time a tech company of any substance came from there?

There are three US tech companies I envy America for: Apple, Netflix and Lockheed Martin.

But what's the substance behind Twitter/X, Facebook/Meta or Google/Alphabet? Any company that needs more than one name has nothing of substance to offer. ARM, ASML, SAP. That's substance, three four letters and you know what it's good for. But buying a short message service for $44bn and then figuring out how to "monetize" it with blue checkmarks? Gimme a break, land of substance.

 

[OneBar]

I realize these companies are quite wealthy but paying a fine is meant to be a deterrent to engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the same way a speeding ticket, parking ticket, etc. is meant to be a deterrent. It very well may work (e.g., it looks like Apple will comply and allow sideloading or alternative app stores for iOS) but perhaps you feel the fines should be a lot higher?

No it's just a money grab by the EU. They don't actually care about the consumer or know what they're talking about for the most part. They just see an opportunity to make a little free money to bolster their economy. If fining people actually deterred behavior then getting one would result in never getting one again. But you said:

...but at least those things will now be based on competition in more of a free and open market instead of more of a closed market with restrictions on app access.
...

How do fines accomplish competition and a freer or more open market? That money isn't being given to start-ups. It's going in the government coffer. Hurting the big guy doesn't cause a little guy to emerge. If the options are spend hundreds of millions in R&D to change all the things they want or spend a few million in a fine to keep the status quo, you really think they'll choose to make changes?

 

[BaldiMac]

Or maybe developers will reduce the price of their app. Think about this way. If a developer wants to charge X for an app, with Apple app store, the developer will charge X plus Apple margin (15-30%). However, without apple app store, the developer may charge you X plus 5-10%. And the consumer wins!

In my experience, in most cases app pricing is based on maximizing revenue, not gross margins. If you make more revenue at $8 than $10, then you should price your app at $8 regardless of the store's cut.

Ok fair enough, but how?

Our app will inevitably be pirated. It happens on every other platform other than iOS. Heck, we don't even offer an Android app, and we still have to deal with support requests from fake apps that steal our name and icons.

You won’t have to install another App Store most likely. Unless you really want to play Fortnite on iPad or iPhone.

Unless any app that I need or want becomes a third-party exclusive.

And you won’t need to install a chromium browser or ff.

Unless any app with a web view decides to bundle their preferred browser engine.

An area that is a little more murky is opening up iMessage. So much of that will depend on the details.

I've said it before, message interoperability is the worst regulation in the DMA. It will lead to more spam, more confusion, less privacy, and less security.

 

[webkit]

There are three US tech companies I envy America for: Apple, Netflix and Lockheed Martin.

But what's the substance behind Twitter/X, Facebook/Meta or Google/Alphabet? Any company that needs more than one name has nothing of substance to offer. ARM, ASML, SAP. That's substance, three four letters and you know what it's good for. But buying a short message service for $44bn and then figuring out how to "monetize" it with blue checkmarks? Gimme a break, land of substance.

Twitter doesn't have more than one name, the name is changing (has changed) from Twitter to X.

Meta doesn’t have more than one name. Meta is the parent company of Facebook. Same with Google. Alphabet is the parent company of Google. It’s similar to Volkswagen being the parent company of Bentley, SAP being the parent company of Signavio, etc.

 

[webkit]

No it's just a money grab by the EU. They don't actually care about the consumer or know what they're talking about for the most part. They just see an opportunity to make a little free money to bolster their economy. If fining people actually deterred behavior then getting one would result in never getting one again. But you said:

It’s not "just a money grab", it's how antitrust laws and regulations are supposed to work. If the companies comply (as some already are), there is no money for EU. Companies could also try to fight the laws (which could COST the EU money in courts), companies could leave EU countries, etc.

How do fines accomplish competition and a freer or more open market? That money isn't being given to start-ups. It's going in the government coffer. Hurting the big guy doesn't cause a little guy to emerge. If the options are spend hundreds of millions in R&D to change all the things they want or spend a few million in a fine to keep the status quo, you really think they'll choose to make changes?

The "money" isn't necessarily meant to be going anywhere, it's about giving smaller companies the opportunity to do business on dominant platforms like iOS instead of being blocked/restricted from doing so or being required to use only one store (App Store), etc. It also gives consumers more app store, browser engine, etc. choices on iOS.

 

[BuffaloTF]

It's disingenuous in the extreme to imply that Spotify have the market power that Apple and Google do.

They don’t? They pay the worst royalties to the labels and artists of these services, yet nobody is pulling their content off of them. Seems like abusing a market position… almost a textbook example of one.