Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

This statement is true for their rivals as well, putting them on equal terms, but only one keep 100% of the revenue while the other keeps 70%

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.

Can you develop more what you mean with “naive”? Or you just lack the knowledge and understanding of how legislation is written in civil law countries such as Europe and the EU? Everything is already codified, the regulation includes definitions and explanations of what the intent of the codified law is supposed to do.

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.

Apple isn’t bearing the cost, the AppStore is not forced open, undertakers are just allowed the rights aforditonthem by law to conduct business transactions without Apple needing to be the commissioner at the gate.

===

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.

It isn’t a fallacy of authority to describe the law and how it works. You might disagree with the law, and in the end of the day the law is the ultimate authority of it’s jurisdiction, but thinking it is protectionism is blatantly ignorant of what the legal framework says and tries to accomplish. The US and EU have fundamentally incompatible and different legal philosophy and framework.

I’m not making a moral or philosophical argument , but a legal description​

The DMA don’t care for iOS and isn’t ever going to try and make competition for a new system or OS, and believing that is showing a degree of fatal error in judgment that you should read the papers preceding the DMA.

EU is barely 30 years old, it doesn’t even have a singular currency yet, and building industries is a national issue not done on EU level until very recently.

The DMA isn’t about competition in technology, it’s about market competition between existing undertakers who exist in the single market, and who are limited by gate keepers from competing effectively, whether it’s US company, European or Asian doesn’t matter.

When it comes to regulations and legal philosophy: in their eyes Apple don’t have a fee for themselves and would be asinine to claim such a thing.

Apple can use 100% of their revenue from their AppStore or AppleTV etc to pay the costs. While a rival company such as Netflix if they allowed app subscription would only have access to 70% of their revenue to pay their bills. And Apple can use their rivals money to get an upper hand and always undercut them.

EU looks at it like this if appleTV and Netflix was a rival platform to Apple then their agreement with “appleTV” would be illegal.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So what keeps customers from duplication and black market resale? If they own the software, they can do with it what they like.

Or how can companies then charge for annual subscriptions? Seems odd the way this is setup.

What stops you from selling copies of a computer brand? It’s still illegal to pirate, but it’s not an excuse to violate private property rights and It’s simple contract law. And it’s your duty to do your du diligence before you engage in an agreement you think is legally valid.

A subscription isn’t a purchase or transfer of ownership. Civil law legal traditions are just alien to common law jurisdiction it seems.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

EU don’t have a common law system​

We have civil law through and through, and it makes zero sense to constantly refer to a separate legal framework. It’s makes as much sense as referring to sharia law when you talk about the U.S. constitution

Apple and its customers are being victimized. This is terrible law, setting a terrible precedent, whose only real purpose is protectionism. It's wholly unjustified by any appeal to common laws. The notion of the "gatekeeper" is an invented term that has no parallel in common law. The EU has just tried to set up legalized theft of value.

What the market will support is not arbitrary. That's what a market is. And Apple only has 27% marketshare.

How you all think you can keep saying there's no competition, when clearly, obviously, there is, cracks me up.
One definition of rent-seeking: Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.

Rent-Seeking will be any business that takes advantage of the "free" aspect of using Apple's services and platform without cost. Apple is the one who is improving and growing the property; Apple is the one expending the energy to make the property valuable. The EU is attempting to create a whole class of businesses than can simply set up shop on Apple's property with zero compensation to Apple.

1. It doesn't apply to any company.
2. The term rent seeking has a real definition that certainly doesn't apply since developers get real value from Apple's investment in iOS.
3. If the point was to prevent any company from charging developers for use of their platform, they could have easily and clearly done that.


Hah! That's basic economics. Pricing should be dictated by what the market will support, not the cost of the product. Nothing arbitrary about that. And like I said, there pricing is inline with other platform fees. Particularly game consoles.

And again, none of this is "rent seeking".


I have no idea what you are getting at here. You claimed the point was to reduce rent seeking. Since rent seeking is not the correct term for what we are talking about, I'm asking you what you actually meant.

• The EU prohibits any agreement or concerted practice that may affect trade between member states and that has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market. The USA, however, only prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce that are unreasonable.
• The EU considers any agreement or practice that restricts competition by its very nature as illegal per se, regardless of its actual or potential effects. The USA, however, applies the per se rule only to certain types of agreements or practices that are deemed to be inherently anticompetitive, such as price fixing, market allocation, bid rigging, etc. For other types of agreements or practices, the USA applies the rule of reason, which involves a case-by-case analysis of the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of the conduct.
• The EU applies a more expansive concept of dominance, which refers to a position of economic strength that enables an undertaking to prevent effective competition in the relevant market. The USA, however, applies a more narrow concept of monopoly, which refers to a firm that possesses market power, i.e., the ability to control prices or exclude competitors.
• The EU prohibits any abuse of a dominant position that may affect trade between member states and that has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market. The USA, however, only prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization or conspiracy to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce, which requires proof of specific intent and predatory or exclusionary conduct.

The fact Apple is in line with the market= zero relevance. And apples is rent seeking, but conducting predatory pricing. But I love the translated word from German.

i.e. the pension-seeking activity, does not try to reduce the scarcity of the good, but to use the pension situation specifically to maximize the individual benefit

Sure:

1. The advent of alt-stores will fragment the App Store experience we enjoy today as a 1 stop shop. Apps will leave the Apple store and join alt-stores or be available only from the devs web site. Just like PC/Mac.
2. The likes of Meta, Epic, Steam, Amazon, Microsoft and others will open their own stores and I predict, remove their apps from the Apple AND Google stores. They will also, especially Epic and Steam, pay other devs for exclusive distribution rights. The big names have not done this so far because they would only have been able to do it for Android. If Apple is forced into this madness then the big names will open their own mobile stores that are able to service the vast majority of users, both Apple and Android.
3. This forces users to create store "accounts" with these other entities, again fragmenting the experience. I may in fact be forced to open a Meta store account for an app I already own and believe me, I do not want a Meta account or anything to do with Meta.
4. This forces users to use normal web searches to find apps instead of them all being in a single location.
5. This forces users to visit multiple stores or web sites to research and compare apps instead of them all being in a single location.
6. There will be no common review or rating process. Bad reviews are easily removed if you own the site/store.
7. Apps will no longer update from a single place, fragmenting the experience.
8. Apps removed from the Apple App store will no longer have privacy scorecards.
9. Payments will be scattered to the winds of cheap processors, further placing our personal information in jeopardy and opening up users to bad actors.
10. Customer service, refunds and subscription cancellations will be hindered when devs bring those functions "in house".

I will add to this as they come to mind.

My argument all along has been Apple provides a unique and different approach to an app store that should be viewed as an alternative to Android and should be protected as such not force regulated into being the same vanilla garbage as Android or Mac/PC.

So point 1-8 is fixed by Apple having a better product
While point 8-10 is already regulated by EU

1. Apple should produce a better product then the competition .
2. Se above and use other software if you value their services only through the AppStore
3. Apple should produce a better product then the competition .
4. That’s already the case, the AppStore is atrocious for finding apps unless you already know what you seek.
   1. Remember when iTunes allowed you to browse the AppStore
5. Kind of the case now, and Apple should make a super product to the competition
6. Apple should produce a better product then the competition .
7. Apple should produce a better product then the competition .
8. EU law will enforce this
9. Eu law forbids this
10. Eu regulations forbids this

So… do you have any actual complaints that isn’t fixed by apple having a superior service?

 

[vantelimus]

That would be something you purchase the right to live in a property ”Condominium”. You never own the “house” because you only purchase the right to live in the property.
EU equivalent to your HOAs are extremely weak in what they can actually do.

Claim you buy a house and also be legally required to follow the HOAs rules would be contradictory in terms

It's a little bit different in the US. You actually do own the condominium or house, but you agree the follow the rules of the HOA as a condition of the contract to buy, which includes the payment of dues and fines for violating regulations. If you fail to pay such dues and fines, depending on the jurisdiction, a lien can be placed against the house and in some jurisdiction foreclose on the property for unpaid assessments. It is a good reason not to buy a house within an HOA.

Even in communities which don't have HOAs, there can be CC&Rs attached to ownership which express conditions which much be abided. Such conditions can be as trivial as not parking on your driveway to restrictions on the sale of your property. The CC&Rs for many homes in the US, at one time, often forbade sales to people of color. Such covenants have been found illegal to enforce, but they remain in the documents covering the sale and purchase of houses.

Mitigating this, of course, is that no one is forced to buy a house if they don't like the CC&Rs or the HOA, just as no one is forced to buy an iPhone. Sales of smartphones in Europe confirm that fact as there are twice as many android phones in the EU as there are iOS phones.

 

[icanhazmac]

"Se above and use other software if you value their services only through the AppStore"


LOL, that's funny.

The person who gets mad when people tell him to buy an Android to fix his alt-store fixation tells me to use other apps if the ones I like leave the Apple App store.

Hypocrite much?

 

[dk001]

"Se above and use other software if you value their services only through the AppStore"


LOL, that's funny.

The person who gets mad when people tell him to buy an Android to fix his alt-store fixation tells me to use other apps if the ones I like leave the Apple App store.

Hypocrite much?

Color me confused. I’ve been following your conversation here and ….

For apps that become unavailable…

I do that with my iPhone/iPad. I look for an alternative app. No other choice.
On Android, if it leaves the Play Store and it is not available on the handful of Alt Stores I use, then I look for an alternative app. No other choice.

In both cases, if the app I use becomes unavailable, I look for an alternative.

 

[icanhazmac]

There is a difference between apps that become unavailable because the dev abandons them and apps that might be removed from one store and exclusively available on another because of a fragmented store experience.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of some that don’t like being told to “buy Android “ if they want flexibility Apple doesn’t accommodate but think nothing of telling the people on my side of the fence to “just find another app” if the one we like moves to another store.

 

[dk001]

There is a difference between apps that become unavailable because the dev abandons them and apps that might be removed from one store and exclusively available on another because of a fragmented store experience.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of some that don’t like being told to “buy Android “ if they want flexibility Apple doesn’t accommodate but think nothing of telling the people on my side of the fence to “just find another app” if the one we like moves to another store.

Thanks - I can see your point.

As a long time user of both worlds, I didn’t buy into either based on ”where I can get apps”.

 

[icanhazmac]

Thanks - I can see your point.

As a long time user of both worlds, I didn’t buy into either based on ”where I can get apps”.

I did not buy into the iOS ecosystem because of where I could get apps but I have come to appreciate its benefits over the way one gets apps/software in the PC/Mac world. I like it better and I wish the Mac App store was a walled garden like the iOS one.

Admittedly I have never had an Android phone or tablet but that is only because I refuse to have Google's bloat and spyware in my life, at least to the extent I can control that.

I would not want a world where every ecosystem was a walled garden, nor do I want one where no walled garden exists, why can't we have both to choose from? Let the market decide, if Apple is too controlling and restrictive people will leave, if too many leave they will loose market share and re-evaluate their practices. If no one leaves then obviously the walled garden is appreciated and valued by its users.

 

[dk001]

I did not buy into the iOS ecosystem because of where I could get apps but I have come to appreciate its benefits over the way one gets apps/software in the PC/Mac world. I like it better and I wish the Mac App store was a walled garden like the iOS one.

Admittedly I have never had an Android phone or tablet but that is only because I refuse to have Google's bloat and spyware in my life, at least to the extent I can control that.

I would not want a world where every ecosystem was a walled garden, nor do I want one where no walled garden exists, why can't we have both to choose from? Let the market decide, if Apple is too controlling and restrictive people will leave, if too many leave they will loose market share and re-evaluate their practices. If no one leaves then obviously the walled garden is appreciated and valued by its users.

For me it isn’t so much walled vs unwalled, rather the extreme limitations Apple places on what it allows within the “walls”. Google too but with Android there is a work-around.

Still, I enjoy both platforms.

 

[icanhazmac]

For me it isn’t so much walled vs unwalled, rather the extreme limitations Apple places on what it allows within the “walls”. Google too but with Android there is a work-around.

Still, I enjoy both platforms.

That is the one point I dislike about the Apple approach, playing the moral judge and jury over what apps can/cannot be in the store. It is unclear to me why they don't have an 18+ section of the store.

@dk001 thank you for the constructive and civil dialogue, unlike some others.

 

[mode11]

 

[dk001]

I so needed a good laugh this morning!

Is early morning popcorn allowed?

 

[icanhazmac]

I am so happy right now! Thanks for this!

Avatar directed at the brainless bureaucrats of the EU that are systematically ruining the iOS experience.

 

[haunt]

If Android blocked sideloading?

 

[BaldiMac]

What if Android also didn't allow sideloading? Would you feel something's not right here in the phone sphere, something's got to give?

If Google leveraged their control of 70% of the market to force their competitors to only use the Play Store as part of their anticompetitive agreements with other manufacturers, then I would consider that a bad thing. But I also consider their current anticompetitive agreements with their competitors that effectively makes the Play Store the only option to be a bad thing.

You would if your Mac suddenly flipped that Gatekeeper macOS switch. I know that for sure. Windows already tried it before.

I certainly wouldn't, but I don't think I'm representative.

 

[dk001]

What if Android also didn't allow sideloading? Would you feel something's not right here in the phone sphere, something's got to give?

You would if your Mac suddenly flipped that Gatekeeper macOS switch. I know that for sure. Windows already tried it before.

Define side-loading.
Play Store, OEM Store(s), Alt Stores, Devs, Corps, Swamp, etc...

It isn’t as clear cut as many think it is. For Google to do that would be highly difficult.

 

[haunt]

In an alternate timeline.

 

[cupcakes2000]

In an alternate timeline where Android was developed to be closed and controlled the same way as iOS. Your tune would be different. There would be no way to point and say "just get that". You would have to have a different position. What is that position?

I think you need to rethink your thought process. The thing is is that iOS is the only mainstream general computing os that demands you only can instal from one place. It’s the odd one out. If somehow Android was also like iOS, then everyone would still be demand change across both systems. It’s much more normal to get software from multiple places than the other way round.

 

[coredev]

My feeling is that concessions were made in return for something else. Something else that will never be made public.

Woohoo, let's start the conspiracy theories

 

[coredev]

Currently all apps have to be signed by Apple even if they are distributed through third-party app stores, effectively giving Apple control of what is available on other app stores. Is this legal under DMA?

All Apps being signed is an important security feature, giving Apple a chance to disable detected malware, by revoking the certificate. I cannot imagine Apple disabling this really cool feature.

 

[coredev]

iOS is the only mainstream general computing os that demands you only can instal from one place.

This in itself is false. I can build an App on my machine and install it on my iOS hardware, admittedly with Apple's blessing (certificate). Also, companies can build their in-house apps and distribute them to employees' devices. The limitation comes into place for developers distributing to an unknown wide audience. You can argue this is bad, but I fail to see how several stores (or direct download) would actually benefit the end user.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Woohoo, let's start the conspiracy theories

Yes very original.

 

[dk001]

In an alternate timeline where Android was developed to be closed and controlled the same way as iOS. Your tune would be different. There would be no way to point and say "just get that". You would have to have a different position. What is that position?

Considering it was an alternative timeline I would just go ahead be using my Windows phone…. Nokia Lumia XL 9999 😁

 

[dk001]

All Apps being signed is an important security feature, giving Apple a chance to disable detected malware, by revoking the certificate. I cannot imagine Apple disabling this really cool feature.

That depends on what Apple limits it to. Malware - ok. non-Apple controlled API - not ok.