Those were ex-post regulations. These are ex ante regulations. The chances of these getting resolved quickly are high and mostly in favor of the government as the ex-ante regulations specify the desired outcomes and the companies have to self-certify that they are compliant in delivering those outcomes.
And that's the rub. Apple thinks the are compliant, the EU seems to disagree. Now they need to sit down and determine what exactly is compliant.
DMA will tell Apple to sell parts of its business. Imagine MS, epic, or some other company buying it.
Imagine Apple simply deciding to comply by closing the EU App Store. Then there is no unfair competition with alternative stores. I'm not saying the would do that, but it is an option beyond a forced sale.
Why will there be a problem?
Why would Apple want to give anyone unfettered access to its user base? Once Apple sells it, the buyer now has all the customer data; unless the EU decides it's privacy protections prohibit the transfer of that data, in which case teh buyer gets a a bunch of apps but no way of knowing who d/l'd what, who to bill, etc.
It's not, IMHO, as simple as the EU saying "Sell the App Store," despite the DMA's rules.
As for the buyer, they are all of a sudden deciding to become a gatekeeper, with all the ramifications that go along with that. Does Epic want to risk being forced to open the Fortnight store? Even if tehy don't think the DMA will require that, is it worth the risk?
If Apple does not allow the Appstore access to its APIs, then there will be no apps and hence there will be no buyers for iPhones. If the charge the company for API access, then the true market value of the APIs will be known to all. Apple has to be careful it will not price its APIs so that its HW business will tank.
Apple can allow developers on alternative stores access to APIs regardless of who owns the App Store or even if it still exists in the EU.
There is also the whole question of what is the actual return on the App Store? Can a new buyer afford to allow free apps or will they start to charge a base fee, similar to Apple's developer fee, which is not part of the App Store.
Consider this. A buyer of the APP Store has no reason to take actions that cost money but whose sole effect is to increase the popularity of the iPhone. Free apps cost money, and the more popular they are the more they cost. Nixing them or charging developers to host them bumps profits. Subscription apps that bypass the App Store payment process make no money either, so the way they pay to be on the App Store needs to change. Limited signing and review for 99 Euros? Sorry but that's now a la carte.
Apple can afford to run the App Store at whatever margin they want because it supports iPhone sales; a buyer has different interests. ironically, nothing in the DMA would prevent Apple from divesting the current App Store and then starting over as just one more competitor in the marketplace.
I see no reason to believe the EU will blink first. Apple has already blinked first in a couple of cases (The Dutch ACM case, The Spotify case, The reinstatement of EPICs account, etc.,)
The EU will explain clearly to Apple how it is failing to comply. If Apple does not correct its behavior, then the fines will start. It is all in Apple's hand whether it wants fines or whether it wants to comply.
It's not about blinking but getting clarity about what must be done to comply and not play whack a mole. Once the EU says do this, they shouldn't come back and say, "Oh, we really meant this other thing because we do not like how our first one turned out..."
Yes, there is some collateral damage here too. Apple's revenue from Appstore might shrink but there can be a positive outcome for Apple.
The collateral damage I am concerned about is to small developers, who ultimately may see more up front expenses, lower revenues due to piracy, a fragmented marketed that requires them to do things such as taxes that Apple currently does, etc.
As for the average consumer, unless prices drop, what tangible benefits do they get? A fragmented marketplace and confusion over app installation?
Because it becomes less walled garden type, some of the premium Android phone buyers might opt for iPhones and hence their sales may increase.
I doubt the walled garden is the impediment to switching, especially since even in Android you have Google's App Store as the major source of apps; most users don't seem to care about things like side loading, etc.
Well to be fair a company leaving because of GDPR is a good thing as they can’t bother to respect user privacy
True, but some companies may have decided the risks of being found non-compliant, even if they really want to be, are not worth it. By blocking EU access they avoid the GDPR and the need to comply.
But irrespective of the U.S. federal system, they are extremely slow in making decisions, perhaps because you end in in deadlocks while eu have wide coalitions with road support.
I would argue the EU decision making process is equally as slow, especially since 1 member can block progress or veto legislation, depending on the issue. Hungary has shown it can wield power beyond its political weight.
In addition, the EU can only legislate on things called out by treaty, not anything they might want to rule on.
A federal system, with majority rule, can act quickly when needed and an executive can take unilateral action if they deem it necessary; and of course, just as with the EU, there are plenty of ways to slow things down or stop them.
Neither system is inherently better or worse, just different. All have pluses and minuses.
Interestingly, the US started with a confederation similar to the EU's but replaced it with the federal system.
