Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.

[Timo_Existencia]

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/

Of course the EU will find Apple's measures insufficient. That's a given. Apple has to hurt. Nothing else matters.

 

[AlexESP]

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?

Many come to my mind:

• When it comes to all users: your bank, workplace, government, etc. might decide they don’t want to be in the App Store anymore. This doesn’t usually happen in Android, but a. “usually” b. Google is much less strict with Google Play rules.
• If you’re a parent: if your kid wants to play games from i.e. Steam, parental control won’t be available anymore.
• If you’re a small developer: discoverability will decrease as a result of people migrating to other stores.

And besides alternatives app stores, when it comes to other changes mandated by the EU:

• Some users might start using another browser engine and will complain because iPhone’s battery is now not so good (without understanding why).
• Some bank might decide they don’t want to use Apple Pay anymore.

There will be many many more I can’t imagine, since there will be a long list of derivative cases. And you might think the upsides of sideloading still offset all of that, but I think it’s hard to deny that many users who won’t use alternative stores would still be affected.

 

[YoitsTmac]

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.

I think my issue with this stance is that clearly Apple’s model has been, even if not initially anticipated, that they used the App Store fees to help fund all the costs of the hardware. Apple has had class leading SoC’s and I imagine they were able to do this thanks to that additional revenue that can’t be had from hardware sales alone.

Additionally, while other OEMs (excluding Google) just have to make hardware, Apple also has to fund the development of software and APIs that make the device worthwhile. Should they have to charge a subscription for iOS to fund these developments instead? That’s clearly not how Apple wants to frame their product or experience.

Depending on how it works, this seems to then allow developers to use Apple’s APIs for free - in this magical world where App Stores can do whatever they want. That’s before we get into, as someone else said, the social engineering of scams and fraud that will happen on the other stores. It doesn’t matter if the current model is all that 85% of users need.

We don’t even know what the scam looks like because it doesn’t even exist yet, but we’re already seeing scams where people are mailing $20k cash boxes as “refunds.”

I don’t think it’s too crazy to assume new app stores, if allowed to behave freely, won’t encourage most of this, even potentially mimicking the look and feel of the current App Store. Maybe a fake “Face ID to pay” or something that shows one amount but charges another even. I used to do IT support, both B2B and B2C, and I can see a number of my past clients being vulnerable to scams like this.

Then there’s the issue of security. I am very concerned about the security of iOS as a whole with App Stores allowed to do what they want. This could lead to apps that are able to break the sandbox, read from other apps, or read the iOS Kernal - as has been done in the past. I imagine it’s been more difficult due to apples tight sandboxing. I wonder if, by allowing anyone to get any app they want with any code onto “any iPhone,” how secure the kernal and core of iOS will be.

 

[mode11]

Of course the EU will find Apple's measures insufficient. That's a given. Apple has to hurt. Nothing else matters.

When Apple's faced with something they can't avoid, or are likely to be, their solution is to passive-aggressively comply. Right to Repair was a good example of this. Their solution was not to make devices easier to service, it was to rent you a truckload of specialised equipment to facilitate the repair, then charge so much for the parts that it's not worth the bother anyway. The EU is wise to this tactic and no doubt anticipated it.

 

[contacos]

Translated from a German article

EU Interma Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has warned that Apple is threatened with "torce measures" if the EU authorities consider the changes to the App Store to be insufficient. Breton told Reuters that regulators will seek feedback from third parties and "will not hesitate to take tough measures" if Apple's solutions are "not good enough."

The changes in the App Store, which are to come into force together with the Digital Markets Act in March 2024, are intended to comply with the new EU regulations. However, critics say that the measures do not go far enough.

From March, Apple will basically enable developers in the EU to use alternative app stores and payment systems on the iPhone. This eliminates Apple's previous requirement that developers must use the store and the manufacturer's payment processing and incur up to 30 percent commissions for the sale of apps. The fees are now lower.

Critics say the changes are insufficient

There is criticism of the planned changes: The changes were not sufficient to prevent anti-competitive behavior. Companies still have to subject their apps to Apple's security check in order to be released by Apple. Developers also have to pay an annual core technology fee of $0.50 per installation, even if they do not use Apple's store or payment system.

The alternative app stores are also criticized: "In practice, it will be impossible for developers to benefit from [alternative stores]," said Andy Yen, CEO of Proton, the US channel CNBC.

Paulo Trezentos, CEO of the alternative Android app store Aptoide, told the broadcaster that the changes were a "good step" but the fees were still too high. "We are preparing to send a formal letter to the European Commission," says Trezentos.

Edit: ah it’s basically another summary of the Reuters article. Oops me haha

 

[Timo_Existencia]

When Apple's faced with something they can't avoid, or are likely to be, their solution is to passive-aggressively comply. Right to Repair was a good example of this. Their solution was not to make devices easier to service, it was to rent you a truckload of specialised equipment to facilitate the repair, then charge so much for the parts that it's not worth the bother anyway. The EU is wise to this tactic and no doubt anticipated it.

There's very little that can't be avoided here. Just because someone is demanding something of someone, nobody has to comply quietly. Right to repair was being imposed; to assume that outside forces can simply dictate to Apple how they must operate their business is so much ego. Apple is now powerless, and they are going to act in their and their stakeholders best interest. That includes me, and I hope they fight all of these nonsense assumptive actions.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

regulators will seek feedback from third parties and "will not hesitate to take tough measures" if Apple's solutions are "not good enough."

This cracks me up. As though Spotify is a neutral arbiter of what Apple should or should not do.

And who do you consult on what is required by the law? If the law, as written, allows what Apple is doing, that should be the backstop, interpreted by courts. Not 3rd Parties. But again, just reveals that the only real goal here is to slap Apple. No lengthy legal opinions needed.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

My concern was that Apple might just roll over. Their response has shown me they are going to fight. And I'm all in for it. Popcorn at the ready.

 

[Jim Lahey]

My concern was that Apple might just roll over. Their response has shown me they are going to fight. And I'm all in for it. Popcorn at the ready.

I concur. Initially I was super disappointed when it looked like Apple was going to fully acquiesce with this blatant power play masquerading as benevolence. But I’m now cautiously encouraged that it seems they may still have some backbone after all 👍

 

[vantelimus]

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.

Your Rights to do with your house or computer are indeed restricted by law under the conditions of the sale. Computer manufacturer's license you to use hardware and software for restricted purposes (read your T&Cs and EULA. Houses can be restricted based on CC&Rs and on an ongoing basis by mandatory obligations to HOAs. So, you may wish your fundamental principle were true, but it isn‘t.

 

[mode11]

There's very little that can't be avoided here. Just because someone is demanding something of someone, nobody has to comply quietly. Right to repair was being imposed; to assume that outside forces can simply dictate to Apple how they must operate their business is so much ego. Apple is now powerless, and they are going to act in their and their stakeholders best interest. That includes me, and I hope they fight all of these nonsense assumptive actions.

Sure, but the claim was that nothing would ever be good enough for the EU, because they hate Apple. My point was that just as Apple are free to resist legislation, the EU aren’t compelled to fall for their obvious ploys, and can take steps to thwart them.

Also - what do you have against RTR? You like paying through the nose for repairs?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

My point was that just as Apple are free to resist legislation, the EU aren’t compelled to fall for their obvious ploys, and can take steps to thwart them.

Governments trying to single out a legally operating company with only 27% marketshare and crafting laws to specifically target and harm just that one company is so out of bounds in my philosophy that I don't call what Apple is doing "a ploy."

 

[mode11]

Governments trying to single out a legally operating company with only 27% marketshare and crafting laws to specifically target and harm just that one company is so out of bounds in my philosophy that I don't call what Apple is doing "a ploy."

It would apply to Android too, but that platform already has multiple app stores etc.

Plus Apple’s market share is going to essentially be the richest quarter of the population, so they have an outsized impact on the market.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

It would apply to Android too, but that platform already has multiple app stores etc.

Plus Apple’s market share is going to essentially be the richest quarter of the population, so they have an outsized impact on the market.

Again, crafting laws to specifically target a single company, that is nowhere near what anyone would consider a "monopoly" is to me the height of state robbery.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

In fact, in common law, the term "Bill of Attainder" is applied to laws that are meant to specifically deny due process to single individuals or entities. And I consider the DMA to be specifically crafted to target specific companies for acts that otherwise are completely legal. Note that the EU hasn't claimed "monopoly" so they crafted this new standard called "gatekeeper" that allows them to tailor-target laws even at Apple, who only has 27% of the marketshare. Wholly distorting the ideas of monopoly power. It's gutter law, naked protectionism.

And the OP is trying to paper you all over with legalese trying to make it sound legit. He dares call self-defense against this horrible abuse of law "malicious."

 

[h.gilbert]

Here is the thing that no one has mentioned yet… this is all based on a minority of people with a loud voice saying this will be better for consumers.

It won’t. Why?

Because the main argument is “well if you don’t want to use an alternative App Store, you won’t have to”.

Hmmm… how is that going to play out? Everyone is going to go “exclusive”. The theory that developers will push their apps to all stores is laughable.

What will happen? It will be HARDER for average folk to get the apps they want and more likely to get scammed in the process.

Look at premier league rights in the UK: “it’s better for consumers to have competition to lower prices and no monopoly”. Ask any football fan if that’s how they feel, or if they would actually like an MLS pass like setup from 1 company, 1 way to watch and 1 bill to pay…

I love the EU but this really is such a silly move…

Is there not a better comparison than the Premier League... Android, perhaps?

For the majority of Android users there is only one app store that exists - the Google Play Store, the App store thats installed on all Android phones out of the box where you have every app you need. For the tech savvy (for lack of a better term) you have easily accessible third party app stores like F-droid and APK mirror.

It's not like you have to get your Gmail app from the Google Play Store but then you need to go over to F-droid to get your Natwest app, then have to jump over to APK mirror to get your Nectar points app.

 

[mode11]

Again, crafting laws to specifically target a single company

There are only two mobile platforms. One already has multiple app stores. The math isn’t difficult.

Is there not a better comparison than the Premier League... Android, perhaps?

Yeah, there seems to be little need to make analogies when you can simply look to a massive mobile platform that does have multiple apps stores.

Having said that, Android does seem riddled with viruses, many of which come via unofficial app stores. Though the Play Store seems to be a major vector as well, so perhaps Android is just fundamentally insecure.

 

[Grey Area]

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.

That is not true in Europe, quite the opposite. The first sale doctrine applies to software. Consumers who buy software become the owners of their copy - not just the medium (if any), but the software itself. And "sale" is interpreted very generously in favor of the buyer. The Court of Justice of the EU has been explicit in that there shall not be any weaseling around this by sellers declaring the transfer to be just a license or similar. If money exchanges hands without any other terms discussed beforehand, it is a sale, no matter how it is called. Basically, companies would have to clearly state in advance that they are handing over the software as a time-limited rental agreement. Single payment and no set end date means sale/transfer of ownership. Updates later on, "click-agree-to-continue" upon boot, that stuff does not matter, the sale is done.

And this is not new or controversial. The past twenty years or so, software giants like Microsoft, Oracle and Adobe have lost in European courts time and time again over this. They had sold their software, their license terms were void. European iPhone buyers own their iOS.

Your Rights to do with your house or computer are indeed restricted by law under the conditions of the sale. Computer manufacturer's license you to use hardware and software for restricted purposes (read your T&Cs and EULA. Houses can be restricted based on CC&Rs and on an ongoing basis by mandatory obligations to HOAs. So, you may wish your fundamental principle were true, but it isn‘t.

EULAs are not law, they are just things companies would like to be true. Often they are just legally meaningless. Software buyers own their purchases, and there is only so much the vendors are allowed to restrict the usage of what is no longer their property. E.g., Hackintoshes are likely legal in the EU, as vendors can only restrict usage to certain hardware when it comes to specific rental agreements, not purchases.

 

[Jim Lahey]

It would apply to Android too, but that platform already has multiple app stores etc.

Problem solved. Move to Android. Despite protestations to the contrary, it really is exactly that simple.

 

[mode11]

Problem solved. Move to Android. Despite protestations to the contrary, it really is exactly that simple.

Only it's not, because that wouldn't be a level playing field. That's like saying it's fine if Apple use a Lightning connector on their phones, because there are other companies using USB-C. Something else that certain people were worried would cause their favourite megacorp to lose a few dollars, but which didn't turn out too bad.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Only it's not…

It literally is though. Competition already exists 👍

 

[therationalist]

Salute apple for doing this. EU is really trying to punch above it's weight.

 

[mode11]

If it were the US Government doing this, would it change how you feel about it?

Were you disappointed when anti-trust proceedings were brought against Microsoft in the late 90's?

 

[Ctrlos]

For the record, I think Apple's 15/30% commission isn't such a bad deal for developers. The service charge pays for unlimited hosting, API security, bug finding, marketing and payment processing amongst other things. Some may argue that the $99 annual fee is enough but this is just the membership fee; you still have to pay for drinks.

But Apple seem to be insecure about the whole thing. If they truly believed they had the best offer on the table they wouldn't be making it so difficult for alternate storefronts to set up. They don't seem confident in their product or brand which is unusual. Why is that?

Apple's 50c/user CTF runs alongside the Unity runtime fee and Juicero cartridges as being one of the most boneheaded tech business ideas in a long time.

I get why the $1m credit setup clause exists: it protects customers from some random dev setting up a malware store. I've seen some of the .ipa repositories out there and you do not want to go anywhere near them.

Apple vetting all apps on 3rd parties isn't really a bad thing either. Its no different to the CE mark we have in europe that guarantees all products meet minimum H&S requirements so they don't blow up in your face or injure your kids. This is similar to the UL marking you have in the states except it is not voluntary for manufacturers to comply with.

 

[Ctrlos]

Problem solved. Move to Android. Despite protestations to the contrary, it really is exactly that simple.

This remains a huge oversimplification.

There is very little app parity between iOS and Android. All your written notes are in Ulysses? Your favourite game is Tiny Wings? These apps do not exist on Android. Whilst Google offer all their core apps for iOS users, Apple do not do the same thing. I can migrate over my photos from iCloud in the background but what about my decades of iTunes purchases? PDFs in Books? Thousands of Apple Notes? Extracting iCloud data is not so easy.

Its like telling someone who dislikes the current government to just go live somewhere else because its just that simple to up sticks and leave behind your entire life and move abroad. Ironically, it actually is pretty easy in the EU!)