4 ms·

No. 3 (only Apple-approved 3rd-party App Stores) is definitely not compliant. No. 4 (legally obligated to give Apple cut) is flat out wrong. While it might be

by ko27 3y ago

No. 3 (only Apple-approved 3rd-party App Stores) is definitely not compliant. No. 4 (legally obligated to give Apple cut) is flat out wrong. While it might be true that Apple's 30% cut is not ruled illegal, it's a far cry away from Apple having any legal mechanism to enforce a fee after a transaction has happened. Trying to ban 3rd party apps is going to get them into more trouble.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Well, the Digital Markets Act has a paragraph Apple is going to drive a locomotive through in the courtroom. "In order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system. The integrity of the hardware or the operating system should include any design options that need to be implemented and maintained in order for the hardware or the operating system to be protected against unauthorised access, by ensuring that security controls specified for the hardware or the operating system concerned cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation." Are we really sure that Apple won't argue that permitting only 3rd-party App Stores and not individual apps, and imposing contractual obligations on those third party App stores, isn't "proportionate technical or contractual measures"?
- stale2002 3y ago
  Did you read the full thing that you posted? It answers your question directly. "The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" So no, Apple would not be allowed to force users to accept such measures.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Did you read it in full before posting your reply? That was a response to the mid-paragraph statement beginning with "Furthermore," which addresses a different exception than the first half.
- ko27 3y ago
  > demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system Example how this would play out: 1. Apple bans every 3rd party app except the ones they approved 2. EU many years later finds that Apple did not hold to the spirit of the law (it was not necessary or justified) 3. Apple is fined for an absurd amount of money I am willing to bet that Apple has enough smart lawyers to not even try something like this in the first place
- wmf 3y ago
  Payments have nothing to do with the integrity of the hardware or operating system IMO.

by ko27 3y ago

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Well, the Digital Markets Act has a paragraph Apple is going to drive a locomotive through in the courtroom. "In order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system. The integrity of the hardware or the operating system should include any design options that need to be implemented and maintained in order for the hardware or the operating system to be protected against unauthorised access, by ensuring that security controls specified for the hardware or the operating system concerned cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation." Are we really sure that Apple won't argue that permitting only 3rd-party App Stores and not individual apps, and imposing contractual obligations on those third party App stores, isn't "proportionate technical or contractual measures"?

stale2002 3y ago
Did you read the full thing that you posted? It answers your question directly. "The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation" So no, Apple would not be allowed to force users to accept such measures.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Did you read it in full before posting your reply? That was a response to the mid-paragraph statement beginning with "Furthermore," which addresses a different exception than the first half.
ko27 3y ago
> demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system Example how this would play out: 1. Apple bans every 3rd party app except the ones they approved 2. EU many years later finds that Apple did not hold to the spirit of the law (it was not necessary or justified) 3. Apple is fined for an absurd amount of money I am willing to bet that Apple has enough smart lawyers to not even try something like this in the first place
wmf 3y ago
Payments have nothing to do with the integrity of the hardware or operating system IMO.