No one's being forced to buy an iPhone.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.
- Thread starter Sophisticatednut
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4328:
"In addition, the Commission has opened a market investigation to further assess whether Apple's iPadOS should be designated as gatekeeper, despite not meeting the thresholds. Under the DMA, this investigation should be completed within a maximum of 12 months."
That would be a fair argument if the lack of sideloading was the only distinguishing feature of iPhones.
So you think that it’s perfectly fine that dev A releases their free app on the Apple AppStore and the don’t get to pay anything at all aside the yearly dev fee, no matter how successful the app is; but dev B puts their free app on a perfectly legal secondary AppStore, pays the same developer fee as dev A, but ends up owing Apple potentially millions of dollars in money that they haven’t even made, should the dream become a reality and the app be a success?
You may say ‘just be dev A’ - but aside that not being the spirit of the law, that’s also having to bow to Apples misguided moral compass and having to abide what they think you should be allowed to consume. Like my vape app that I’m not ‘allowed’ to have on iOS. After all Apple says it’s bad for me so no beans.
That’s all ok in your book?
The post I was responding to claimed that sideloading would make the iPhone worse. My point was that it won't, because anyone who's not interested in sideloading will be completely unaffected by any problems it may introduce.
Those who choose to sideload are big boys who can make their own decisions. Personally, I would expect any reputable store to be fine. The fact no one's forcing you to buy an iPhone isn't really relevant to the discussion.
There is absolutely NO feature of the iPhone which compels you to buy it. That you like its feature set and feel it is superior to alternatives does not constitute unfair competition nor coercion on Apple's part.
You assume that people will understand the difference between an app from the Apple Store and one from a side-load store. You assume that people won't be socially engineered into dropping their guard. That works for the upper third of the bell-curve, or at least those in the upper third who are paying attention. The rest are just screwed.
Not buying that. You can buy a Samsung phone, tablet, watch, and a laptop and join that party in a heartbeat. Nobody is stopping you. And at least with Samsung you know your data is safe…
/s 😅
With the EU’s new Digital Markets Act taking effect on March 7, 2024, will Xbox and PlayStation have to open up their boxes to third party downloads via browser because of the companies market cap size? Apple had to due to market cap size. Sony and Microsoft both offer apps on their boxes too like Netflix Disney plus etc. Obviously game pass and PlayStation plus would remain the same, but could Sony be forced in the EU to allow third party apps downloaded from a browser like game pass app? Or Xbox be forced in the EU to allow third party apps downloaded from a browser like PlayStation plus or epic games store?
Just like increasing/decreasing the speed limit affects you even if you’re not planning to drive faster/slower, opening up to 3rd party app stores can affect you even if you’re not planning to use them.
I do think Apple is concerned about losing quite some profit, but also about security and stability. Both things are not mutually exclusive. And it doesn’t matter whether Apple executives care for customers or not; if customers don’t like their products, this will ultimately lead to angry shareholders/board of directors.
It isn’t based on a minority and a market research to the general public and business opinion on the matter. you simply have a misunderstanding of the mission statement of EU in regards to the market. Consumer are only one of many factors that is important.
- The EU takes a broader view and has the goal of maintaining transparent markets and a "level playing field". Thus, the main objectives of the EU competition law are:
- to maintain openness
- to unify the internal market;
- to ensure economic efficiency in the marketplace
- to ensure the conditions of effective competition and competitiveness
- and to protect consumers.
Apple will need to compete on merit to maintain developers in their store. If developers exits the store and chooses to use alternative stores exclusively, then that’s the market working because the AppStore can’t compete etc.
If chrome becomes dominant on safari, EU won’t have an issue with it as long as it was fairly earned and safari lost on merit.
The term "undertaking" is a Eurospeak word for any person(s) or firms in an enterprise, and is used to describe those "engaged in an economic activity".
Well it’s not that I consider it would be better but a fundamental part of ownership and the rights of the users.
And remember in EU the phone+ software is largely seen as a private property issue Apple is interfering with. Apple isn’t ever seen as the owner of iOS if a consumer have purchased it.
A computer and a smartphone isn’t treated differently and EU legislation doesn’t have a reason to treat it differently ether.
Last edited:
Currently no because they aren’t large enough in regards to users and revenue. Plus they already employ alternative platforms where developers can sell their products and consumers can purchase it.
And nether Xbox nor PlayStation have a dominant market position.
Yes, I think it’s perfectly fine. But it’s nothing personal against “dev B”. The problem is that you see third party App Stores as something good, and I (and Apple, and many users) don’t. So I think the morally right thing to do is to hinder the application of the act as much as possible, and be against the spirit of the law.
Of course they have to be smart and try to stay within the limits of the act - because Apple can’t let you buy another phone, but the EU unfortunately can forbid them from selling theirs. And even if I think sideloading is a bad idea for a phone, I would be totally on the side of Google if a law forbids companies from creating mobile OS where you can only install software from 3rd party app stores. That’s the difference: I don’t want anyone else to conform to my model, but I ask the same in reverse.
PlayStation has much higher marketshare in desktop gaming consoles than the iPhone in mobile smartphones. The DMA has targeted the specific products they wanted to via ad-hoc conditions (turnover, business users…).
Well it’s not a moral right. It’s a fundamental principle when it comes to private property. just how I can do what I want with my car, my house or computer without the original sellers having a say.
I don’t see side loading as good, it’s a neutral act consumers and developers have a legal right to engage in.
Wha I see as immoral is apple forcing everyone to go through them as the middlemen in business transactions.
It’s not about the consumer, but the market they impact negatively. You can read the founding treaties of EU to understand it and the fundamental legal philosophy that governs EU.
In the U.S. you might have the freedom to do something free from government interference.
In EU you have the freedom from interference from Private AND public entities in your fundamental rights.
Market share isn’t relevant. It’s number of private users, businesses and revenue volume.
This is Ex anti law and nothing strange about it.
EU and USA have completely different philosophy dictating their legal theories
I won't be happy to until I can install Homebrew on my iOS devices and I do not care how scared people are about those bazillions of viruses and trojans just palpitating at the thought of squeezing through apple's gates into the plush gardens of low information users.. just my opinion. 😀
Well...without unpacking all of your self-preferential language and logic...this is one of the core problems to your argument.
The idea that Apple has "no fee for themselves" is to ignore all the costs involved in their business. It ignores infrastructure costs. It ignores development costs. It ignores employment costs. It ignores legal costs. It ignores marketing costs. It ignores R&D costs. It ignores every single cost of business that Apple has.
The statement that Apple has no "fees" is so obviously ridiculous as to question the seriousness of any of these efforts. It's like an activist's fantasy of how business operates. Not a serious discussion.
I've worked in politics my entire professional career. I've seen all sorts of naive discussions of business and policy initiatives proposed, discussed and written by people who have no basic understanding of how things work. And the DMA is right at home in that category of naive regulation.
The actual question is how can Apple compete when it bears all the costs and fees while the DMA is granting these services free to any business who wants to take advantage of Apple.
The DMA is not a serious piece of regulation. That doesn't mean it doesn't have power. It does. It has the power to make a big mess.
===
But the core problem to all the extensive content you're posting is that you're simply relying on the fallacy of authority. You list large swaths of language from the DMA itself; all sorts of bullet points and indented paragraphs and legalese, with the idea that it's impressive enough to back up your arguments. But at core, the basic philopshy of the DMA itself is intellectually bankrupt. It's bald protectionism that is meant to try to help the EU stay relevant in a market that it has failed to cultivate through means of tech innovation and sound business principles. As I've told you before; I get the effort. But it's an attempt to take a shortcut to trying to be relevant in an industry that it has failed to build within its own borders.
Want to compete in Tech? Then compete in tech. The EU will never legislate itself into tech relevance.
Last edited:
For decades, the fight over who “owns” the software has been won in the courts wherein you purchase the hardware and are using the software. And that purchase is contingent on accepting the EULA, which you sign the first time you turn on the machine.
I doubt this will change.
What is going on here is that politicians are unhappy with the control that Big Tech has on the economy and society. That’s it. This isn’t really about opening up anything as there is ample competition from Android.
Remember that other mobile OS companies who didn’t have a gate keeper (REM, Palm, Microsoft) all failed with the exception of Android which is to mobile devices what Windows is to desktops.
The entire purpose of these new laws is to remove power and authority from corporations and put it in the hands of the government bureaucrats. Apple is fighting a good fight because 1. They risk loosing lots of money on a very profitable platform and 2. Apple knows very well that once you open this up, hackers, scammers, sudo applications, data miners, etc. will be able to exploit the public in ways most of us will never fully understand. Just remember how upset Google and Facebook were when Apple killed tracking.
Either way, I think that any changes will take a long time to have any effect as most users love the ease of use of the Apple Store and Apple will market the hell out of the security concerns of installing apps outside the Apple Store.
I doubt this will change.
What is going on here is that politicians are unhappy with the control that Big Tech has on the economy and society. That’s it. This isn’t really about opening up anything as there is ample competition from Android.
Remember that other mobile OS companies who didn’t have a gate keeper (REM, Palm, Microsoft) all failed with the exception of Android which is to mobile devices what Windows is to desktops.
The entire purpose of these new laws is to remove power and authority from corporations and put it in the hands of the government bureaucrats. Apple is fighting a good fight because 1. They risk loosing lots of money on a very profitable platform and 2. Apple knows very well that once you open this up, hackers, scammers, sudo applications, data miners, etc. will be able to exploit the public in ways most of us will never fully understand. Just remember how upset Google and Facebook were when Apple killed tracking.
Either way, I think that any changes will take a long time to have any effect as most users love the ease of use of the Apple Store and Apple will market the hell out of the security concerns of installing apps outside the Apple Store.
Last edited:
Look up AppDB[dot]to. Users sell slots on real dev accounts via what seems to be a mostly automated process. Then you can install apps direct to your phone right through it without the 7 day refresh.
I love your analysis.
And that's the best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that the government is corrupt and the legislators are getting paid to push some shady agenda by regulating the market "for the greater good" (translation: for the benefit of whom is paying them).
Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I am deeply convinced that this DMA is being pushed by Google to take away Apple's competitive advantages and turn the iPhone into "just another phone".
Equally, an iPhone that also has the option to install apps that Apple doesn't approve of (e.g. console emulators) sounds like the best of both worlds. Having said that, I've got no interest in this stuff when it comes to the iPhone; my (limited) needs are met just fine there. The iPad on the other hand would benefit greatly from being opened up in all sorts of ways, rather than just being treated like a big-screen iPhone.
I get how speed limits affect roads, but can you give an example of how my iPhone experience will be made worse when third party app stores become an option in March?
I agree; that's exactly what I said.
True, though it will only matter if people care enough about app stores to buy an Android phone instead. If people merely grumble and still buy iPhones, Apple won't care. Though I don't personally intend to use a 3rd party store on my phone.
There are already first signs that the EU might find Apple’s measures insufficient: https://www.reuters.com/technology/...hanges-fall-short-eus-breton-says-2024-01-26/