EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act

[wbeasley]

Tell that to my offline library 🤷🏻‍♂️ PWAs can have offline functionality but Apple has those semi-gimped too...



I'm not moving just because I don't like the shopping mall in my town. I'm not switching platforms just because I disagree with Apple's policies.

If getting apps elsewhere makes your phone bad, I imagine the Mac is downright awful to use.

We've done this to death... MacOS and iOS were created differently. BY DESIGN.

Desktop software has always been more open. Microsoft tried the locked Store and OS approach and it failed. People using desktops have become used to installing anything they like and wont change that habit.

iOS (and Android) started fresh. With locked in apps. That was it. Jobs only wanted web apps. He was talked into what became a very lucrative App Store which was still controlled. Android also allowed apps from elsewhere and then anywhere. Without the costs of checking.

iPhone users (mostly) liked the walled garden approach. Sure there were categories of apps Apple wouldnt allow. They knew that before purchase. But the dev and sales data shows the trust was there and Apple users spend more on apps. and devs reap the benefits.

I might have liked to get a games emulator on my phone. But I could live without it.
The use cases for many apps that werent approved are usually very specific rather than mainstream.
Or would just be awful to use on a handheld small screen.
Even Windows apps can be awful on a Windows tablet.
Jobs was right to say iOS devices are finger first hardware.

So it is wrong to say Mac is downright awful to use because you can install anything.
And it's still better then Windows for security. But not as good as iOS devices.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yeah, because the EU basically handed Apple a "take it or leave it" scenario with the DMA.

No. There’s no rule in the DMA that says Apple has to make things worse for small developers.

The fallout of Apple’s choices and actions may hurt small developers. We’re arguably beginning to see that by Apple’s requirements imposed on third-party app stores and downloading apps from web sites, that only allows it for “bigger” companies. It’s all due to Apple’s choice. They want to limit and restrict competition by making it purposely difficult. And there’s no rule in the DMA that forces them to do so.

hat said, I do not feel it is in the best interests of consumers that iOS becomes more like Android (because what then is the point of having two mobile OSes that are functionally the same thing?)

Restricting app installation for consumers to the App Store isn't a feature. It's only a limitation and restriction.
And there are countless other design features and functionality that makes iOS iOS.

I know what you all basically want Apple to do - open up sideloading and the option to install third party app stores like what Android has always offered since day 1.

Not necessarily, no...

Personally, I would rather Apple just

...stop their arbitrary bullsh*t rules on the App Store that just serve anticompetitive purposes (such as the ban on emulators, the ridiculous rules on game streaming apps, and linking from apps to conduct outside transactions).

And yeah, put apps selling digital and non-digital products on equal footing. Again, it's just anticompetitive rent-seeking. And finally stop spreading FUD about in-app purchasing risks. If apps are secure enough for customers to pay their shopping from AliExpress, Temu, food from DoorDash or book a flight or hotel room without using Apple's In-App Purchasing, they are just as well secure enough for customers to subscribe to Spotify or Netflix.

That's it. I wouldn't even be opposed to Apple operating a single - and the only available - App Store under these circumstances, if other customers like it so much.

 

[wbeasley]

Probably the nuttiest comment i've ever seen on here.

Nah there's a lot of competition for the nuttiest comment on here.

And putting Android on, or giving users the choice at purchase, would have solved a lot of problems for Apple.
It would have been hard for the EU to argue monopoly or steering.

 

[AppliedMicro]

giving users the choice at purchase, would have solved a lot of problems for Apple

If 90% of users choose iOS instead of Android, it would all the same be covered by the regulation.

iOS and the App Store are the relevant core platform services for the regulation.

 

[wbeasley]

You always have the most laughable takes on this subject. Europe is Apple's 2nd biggest market making up 25% of its total revenue. If they abandoned that massive revenue stream their stock would tank right out of the gate. Public perception of the company would suffer worldwide causing even more (possibly irreversible) damage to the brand. Other governments would take note to Apples giving the middle finger to local laws and policies and likely take action of their own.
Apple would never do anything that dumb though. Look at the hoops they'll jump through to keep the Chinese government happy to keep selling there and that market is a good bit smaller than Europe. All they're doing is testing the government's resolve which is a miscalculation on their part considering they'll now be seen as untrustworthy and antagonistic by those governments.

Time will tell but my take is this is a big mistake that could eventually cost Tim his job.

We keep hearing the hoops Apple jump through for China.

The government there dont allow some apps. Many other countries do the same. Users often find ways around that which if authorities discover can lead to consequences.

Changing the OS and store rules (such as EU demands) is way beyond stopping a few apps or storing user data in their country.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Changing the OS and store rules (such as EU demands) is way beyond stopping a few apps

It's not.

No iOS software change is needed for installation of apps downloaded from websites and/ore "store" type of apps.

There are lots of Android stores and you can load APK files yourself. I've done it. It's not hard at all.
Which is part of the issue really. Anyone from an email attachment or link can install one.

Same as on iOS. Not difficult at all.
Apple just limits it to enterprise certificate that can - and are - often exploited by bad guys.
And they disallow trustworthy software developers for distribution to consumers for purely anticompetitive reasons.

 

[wbeasley]

mostly any fee the market think is fair and non discriminatory and

Well it would essentially be the best and simplest thing for Apple to adopt and achieve real competition with their AppStore.

Indeed, and they aren’t treated any differently in the EU.
Just how EDPB(European Data Protection Board) Reaffirms that personal data cannot be considered as a tradeable commodity, April 17 2024 . The right to data protection is enshrined inter alia in Article 8 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights and is a right that applies to all, regardless of payment or financial status. And essentially killed Metas intention to have only targeted advertising or a subscription to not have adds.

The issue is Apple made a very profitable store they now can’t give up as they risk losing most of the user base.

Nobody is asking for the AppStore to be opened up, but simply the iOS devices to be freely able to pick other services that aren’t provided or controlled by Apple

I think they would be very happy with that as they could have their app in the store, and offer their app from their website or competitors store and offer better services if some functionality isn’t allowed in the AppStore simultaneously. As well as have different prices etc. Just how steam, GOG, and epic store have the same games listed by the same developers.

With only caviat of wanting to link outside the app to their own website or inform them of a better store. Paying 0% and the 99$ yearly developer membership fee.

Well perhaps, the issue is tho it’s all about the ideology of protecting the market’s competitiveness and try to ensure a meritocratic competition instead of underhanded methods.

If Apple wants to keep their market they need to stay competitive and make developers willing to pay the premium. Just how most games are on steam despite it being more expensive than the competition, but they simply offer better services for the price

Yes…. Entrenched as when you have dominant market position. And Xbox/Playstation doesn’t have enough users to relevant for EU. And they allow you to buy games in competing storefronts as of now.

Dominance has been defined under Community law as a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on a relevant market, by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of consumers

Article 82 applies to undertakings which hold a dominant position on one or more relevant markets. Such a position may be held by one undertaking (single dominance) or by
two or more undertakings (collective dominance)

The emphasis of the Commission's enforcement activity in relation to exclusionary conduct is on safeguarding the competitive process in the internal market and ensuring that undertakings which hold a dominant position do not exclude their competitors by other means than competing on the merits of the products or services they provide.

In doing so the Commission is mindful that what really matters is protecting an effective competitive process and not simply protecting competitors. This may well mean that competitors who deliver less to consumers in terms of price, choice, quality and innovation will leave the market.


And nobody is forcing Apple to sell goods and services in EU. They are perfectly capable of selling it somewhere else.

What twaddle. Obviously EU customers want iOS devices.
And apps. And devs are making money.

It is a small bunch of freeloader apps that whinge. Protected by the EU.

And what alt games console stores are you talking about? And are Sony and Nintendo still getting fees from sales?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is a small bunch of freeloader apps that whinge. Protected by the EU.

It's some of the most popular and widely used apps (and their developers) that want that change.

 

[wbeasley]

It's some of the most popular and widely used apps (and their developers) that want that change.

And Apple host their apps FOR FREE.
You can sign up elsewhere. So hard.... geez.

And all the crap about sideloading and new EU rules will make apps cheaper... Spotify just raised their price.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And Apple host their apps FOR FREE.

Yes - cause they (even if downloadable for free) add tremendous value to Apple's platform and make people (keep) buy iPhones.

And all the crap about sideloading and new EU rules will make apps cheaper... Spotify just raised their price.

There's a general trend among many services to increase pricing, independently of Apple's App Store.

 

[wbeasley]

It's not.

No iOS software change is needed for installation of apps downloaded from websites and/ore "store" type of apps.


Same as on iOS. Not difficult at all.
Apple just limits it to enterprise certificate that can - and are - often exploited by bad guys.
And they disallow trustworthy software developers for distribution to consumers for purely anticompetitive reasons.

And we like the certificate process because it means it was checked and instills confidence.

And it does require an iOS change to allow that to happen.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And it does require an iOS change to allow that to happen.

It does not.
If you disagree: What change would that be?

(note: setting a default app store actually would require a change - but that's a very minor one)

 

[wbeasley]

It does not.
If you disagree: What change would that be?

(note: setting a default app store actually would require a change - but that's a very minor one)

setting a Default App Store will also mean enabling a process to swap between stores.

and disabling all the builtin security certificate checks.

And where are the alt game stores?
I've Googled and nothing shows up. It's not mainstream if they exist.
And booting my Switch or Xbox or PlayStation offers me no choice of store...

 

[d686546s]

So here's the thing.

I cannot find anything in the DMA which says outright that Apple is barred from charging developers who offer their apps through third party app stores. In fact, it's intentionally vague on this (it's almost as though the EU doesn't dare to say the ugly part out loud because they know it would be a blatant violation of Apple's property rights).

That's why Apple came up with the CTF in the first place. It solves the problem of charging developers for access to their iOS platform (again, something Apple is not technically barred from doing under the DMA), while making it easy for Apple to calculate how much to bill developers (since they don't need to keep track of revenue earned, something Apple would struggle to accomplish without iTunes billing). It's a pretty elegant solution to me to an ugly problem brought about by the DMA.

However, by your interpretation, the CTF shouldn't be allowed because it discourages developers from venturing outside the App Store (or at least, developers of free apps).

The problem with the CTF is that it only selectively applies without being internally consistent.

If Apple sees it necessary to charge developers for use of their IP, why does it only apply to third party app stores? Why doesn't it also apply to App Store apps, or at least those that are distributed for free?

In my view, Apple will need to draw a clearer line between the 'iOS platform,' as you call it, and the App Store itself, which is a separate commercial activity to sell and distribute apps on that platform.

Apple has obviously centred how it wants to be compensated for all of this around the App Store, but there's no fundamental reason why this would be the only way of doing things.

Charge the CTF across the board, including for app on the App Store, and I'm convinced it's DMA compliant.

In an earlier response, you also asserted that Apple should have no business billing developers whose apps are sold outside of the App Store. In other words, they should be allowed to keep 100% of revenue.

Plenty of App Store apps already keep all of their revenue by just not using any of Apple's payment systems.

What's the justification for charging apps in third party app stores but not in the App Store? That's where it becomes a steering mechanism and quite obviously so.

Does this then not contradict the DMA? Like the EU doesn't expressly prohibit Apple from trying to charge developers, yet at the same time, it seems like the EU is going to reject any proposal made by Apple that would attempt to charge them even a single cent. There's also the question of determining how much to bill developers for.

The test won't be whether Apple is charging developers, but whether it has put in place unfair fee structures that favour its own services.

 

[wbeasley]

Yes - cause they (even if downloadable for free) add tremendous value to Apple's platform and make people (keep) buy iPhones.


There's a general trend among many services to increase pricing, independently of Apple's App Store.

and Spotify and Epic complained they couldnt offer lower prices with the current app store rules.

EU force Apple to rules change. The prices go up.

End of story.

 

[AppliedMicro]

setting a Default App Store will also mean enabling a process to swap between stores.

Swapping?
They're separate.
What do you mean by swapping?

and disabling all the builtin security certificate checks.

Nonsense. Alternative "App Marketplaces" will still be subject to certificate checks - they just use a different certificate.
So will third-party apps downloaded from developer sites (otherwise Apple couldn't enforce their notarisation process).

You have to approve alternative app marketplaces similarly to how you approve enterprise apps.
Just with slightly different and scarier wording (because, you know, anti-competition)

EU force Apple to rules change. The prices go up.

You must have missed equations with more than one variable in school.
You must have also missed inflation over the last few years.
You must have missed introductory pricing that doesn't cover costs in marketing.

Most notably, you must have also missed Apple's own price increases for Apple Music.
It increased before EU regulation came into force.
That proves prices can increase independent of regulation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What twaddle. Obviously EU customers want iOS devices.
And apps. And devs are making money.

And in what way does it goes against anything I stated?

It is a small bunch of freeloader apps that whinge. Protected by the EU.

My bet these apps are largely developed by American companies. Why is it only Apple that should be protected tho?

And what alt games console stores are you talking about? And are Sony and Nintendo still getting fees from sales?

Physical stores you can go to, purchasing second hand games etc. And their impact and importance to the economy is minuscule and likely a rounding error.

The AppStore and play store and the other listed gatekeeper services have actual large and stifling impact on the market

The AppStore never had that option. But as you know, if you’re stubborn enough and thinks you can outsmart the government and think you can get away with your shenanigans… well I’m sorry but it never ends well for the company involved.

Apple could have chosen to lead instead of being pushed

 

[britboyj]

It's a bit of a mickey mouse show there in the EU.

For example, the EU is giving state funding to push for green energy such as solar panels, but at the same time they are trying to punish China by making accusations that China is giving state funding. How does that make any sense?

They are not only incapable of writing laws, they also seem to bend them to whatever they see fit.

Spotify should be fined out of business for the way it handles consumer data, especially on the ad side, not even getting into hosting hate speech banned in several EU jurisdictions via its podcast network. Including Joe Rogan.

But no, they're European, so they get a pass apparently.

considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.

Thanks for proving my point. Modern regulations should be proscriptive and not require interpretation after the fact to decide if someone has broken the law. If someone can't tell if they're breaking the law, charging them with a crime is immoral (this is not the same as ignorance of a law).

Half the problem with any law governing technology when you're writing legislating in 27 languages is some people interpret the local meaning and intent of a word differently, even though the literal translations are accurate.

Nevermind that punitive action always seems to land at the feet of US companies, when you have Spotify absolutely running roughshod over consumer privacy rights, digital ownership, and so forth. Rules for thee, not for me.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Half the problem with any law governing technology when you're writing legislating in 27 languages is some people interpret the local meaning and intent of a word differently, even though the literal translations are accurate.

Much more than half the problem is accounting for the complexity and fast-moving technical (and economic) progress in modern digital products/services - and the anticipating the countless ways billion-dollar companies will try to avoid and circumvent narrowly-worded legislation.

Also, the DMA competition law. Which is inevitably interpretable, when it comes to companies with considerable market power or monopoly power (that is, when different rules should apply to - only - the biggest and most powerful companies than any small operation).

If someone can't tell if they're breaking the law, charging them with a crime is immoral

That's why it doesn't happen. The legislation (the DMA) provides for a constructive discussion and feedback process before anyone is charged with a crime - or fined for it.

 

[wbeasley]

Swapping?
They're separate.
What do you mean by swapping?

Nonsense. Alternative "App Marketplaces" will still be subject to certificate checks - they just use a different certificate.
So will third-party apps downloaded from developer sites (otherwise Apple couldn't enforce their notarisation process).

You have to approve alternative app marketplaces similarly to how you approve enterprise apps.
Just with slightly different and scarier wording (because, you know, anti-competition)


You must have missed equations with more than one variable in school.
You must have also missed inflation over the last few years.
You must have missed introductory pricing that doesn't cover costs in marketing.

Most notably, you must have also missed Apple's own price increases for Apple Music.
It increased before EU regulation came into force.
That proves prices can increase independent of regulation.

Well it's pretty simple... you set a default store BUT at some stage you might want to buy/load something from ANOTHER store... you follow?

It's a different process to what happens now. So it would need... CODE.

But the checking by Apple is not what you and others here want. You want to load any code. Unchecked.
Repeatedly it has been pushed here that Apple bans certain types of code.
These people want anything they can compile to load. Without Apple checking.
Like Android allows.

You must have missed the arguments the EU put up about consumers winning because prices will go down...
Apple never said Apple Music would be cheaper or remain the same.
Spotify notified me AFTER the EU decision not before.

EDIT: I will ask again, where are the alt games console stores you mentioned? (sorry other person mentioned these)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And we like the certificate process because it means it was checked and instills confidence.

And it does require an iOS change to allow that to happen.

That’s not mutually exclusive. Apple could offer that as paying service and allow the rest to not use it if they want.

setting a Default App Store will also mean enabling a process to swap between stores.

and disabling all the builtin security certificate checks.

This have been a non issue for a decade already. You can use enterprise certificates to install whatever you want. No ifs no buts.

And where are the alt game stores?
I've Googled and nothing shows up. It's not mainstream if they exist.

Steam is the most popular one. And the Macappstore can’t compete with it as apple is terrible at store design.

And booting my Switch or Xbox or PlayStation offers me no choice of store...

Go to GameStop or Amazon etc. Comeback when you can purchase angry birds outside the AppStore.

 

[wbeasley]

And in what way does it goes against anything I stated?

My bet these apps are largely developed by American companies. Why is it only Apple that should be protected tho?

Physical stores you can go to, purchasing second hand games etc. And their impact and importance to the economy is minuscule and likely a rounding error.

The AppStore and play store and the other listed gatekeeper services have actual large and stifling impact on the market

The AppStore never had that option. But as you know, if you’re stubborn enough and thinks you can outsmart the government and think you can get away with your shenanigans… well I’m sorry but it never ends well for the company involved.

Apple could have chosen to lead instead of being pushed

Physical stores are an alter app store? Really???

They are just media. You load them. They pay even more commission.
That is the silliest argument as console makers have actively tried many times to remove them from the equation.
But they need them for hardware sales.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well it's pretty simple... you set a default store BUT at some stage you might want to buy/load something from ANOTHER store... you follow?

It's a different process to what happens now. So it would need... CODE.

Wrong

You just open the other app marketplace, buy/download and install.
Just as you can download and install apps from different sources today.
Even in the US or in Australia, no change of default needed - and no DMA either.

But the checking by Apple is not what you and others here want. You want to load any code. Unchecked.

The funny thing is: Apple allows that today. They’ve been allowing it for more than a decade.

But no, I don‘t take issue with Apple‘s review process. Just as I can live with the notarisation they‘re doing on macOS today.

You must have missed the arguments the EU put up about consumers winning because prices will go down...

Let’s say : They won‘t increase as much as they would otherwise.

Did the EU say this about the Spotify app in particular? 👉🏻 When and where?

When legislator pass legislation intended to bring consumer prices down, when did they ever mean every single price for every single service/product covered by every single manufacturer/provider would go down? (Answer: never).

The average pricing can still go down, even with individual products / services increasing in price.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Spotify notified me AFTER the EU decision not before.

Apple said their app review and notarisation process keeps users safe.
And yet AFTER that they still approved fake password managers and apps with spyware.

👉🏻Does that prove that Apple‘s review and notarisation process is useless?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Spotify should be fined out of business for the way it handles consumer data, especially on the ad side,

IMY issues an administrative fine against Spotify for shortcomings regarding transparency | European Data Protection Board

www.edpb.europa.eu

Perhaps you should know what you’re talking about. EU companies gets fined all the time for breaking privacy laws etc.

not even getting into hosting hate speech banned in several EU jurisdictions via its podcast network. Including Joe Rogan.

But no, they're European, so they get a pass apparently.

Spotify is in Sweden, and we have very weak hate speech laws compared to other EU countries. Eu itself doesn’t have any laws against hate speech.

If you think they actually host hate speech you have to file a criminal complaint.

Thanks for proving my point. Modern regulations should be proscriptive and not require interpretation after the fact to decide if someone has broken the law.

Why should modern law be only proscriptive? prescriptive and proscriptive both serve a legal purpose. Both legal do and don’t are necessary.

If someone can't tell if they're breaking the law, charging them with a crime is immoral (this is not the same as ignorance of a law).

Then you should perhaps read up on how an antitrust proceeding or legal procedure actually works in EU. It a very administrative procedure.

But here I have written it up in easy to understand steps.
EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

The General Court’s ruling process involves:

1. Written Phase: The parties submit written observations to the Court.
2. Oral Phase: A public hearing may be held where lawyers present their case, and judges may ask questions.
3. Deliberation: The judges deliberate based on the evidence and arguments presented5.
4. Judgment: The Court issues its judgment, which can be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Half the problem with any law governing technology when you're writing legislating in 27 languages is some people interpret the local meaning and intent of a word differently, even though the literal translations are accurate.

Hence why the literal translation isn’t the important part. We have done this for 60 years. It’s not that hard to do.

Nevermind that punitive action always seems to land at the feet of US companies,

Perhaps because they break the law in the most egregious ways? Or do you think fines shouldn’t be harsh to discourage further actions? To be way more expensive than the profits made?

when you have Spotify absolutely running roughshod over consumer privacy rights, digital ownership, and so forth. Rules for thee, not for me.

Digital ownership? They have been fined at multiple times.
And here you can see GDPR related fines in EU. https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

Physical stores are an alter app store? Really???

They are alternative stores. Them being physical or digital doesn’t make a difference legally speaking.

They are just media. You load them. They pay even more commission.

They are goods you can purchase from multiple sources to function on your device.

That is the silliest argument as console makers have actively tried many times to remove them from the equation.
But they need them for hardware sales.

Well when that changes we will see what happens, but currently they aren’t

And as I forget to mention before , you have had the ability to use certificates you get from enterprise source for a few dollars the last decade or so. Everything is already in place. Apple is just to stubborn for their own good.