4 ms·

The DMA is an antitrust statute. While sure, you can argue that Apple operates different stores as a matter of implementation, it strains reason to claim that

by ajross 3y ago

The DMA is an antitrust statute. While sure, you can argue that Apple operates different stores as a matter of implementation, it strains reason to claim that they somehow compete with each other. No, this argument is silly. Silly arguments aren't illegal, but it's hard to imaging this swaying any judges who aren't just looking for an excuse to find in one direction (which happens! which is why lawyers sometimes construct silly arguments to act as excuses).

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Both sides have to be consistent. If they lump all the app stores together to make an argument just about phones, for example, that won’t fly with judges.
crazygringo 3y ago
But that's not what anybody is claiming. This is a simple bar the DMA set up that an app store has to be a particular minimum size for the law to apply. That has nothing to do with whether the app stores compete against each other. They don't have to. That's not the purpose here. There's nothing silly about Apple's argument. It's no different as to whether Microsoft has one app store for Windows and one for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're separate. Same thing for Apple Watch and Apple TV.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > whether Microsoft has one app store for Windows and one for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're separate. At the same time... https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-play-anywhere https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-play-anywhere
- arghwhat 3y ago
  When dealing with antitrust, the general assumption is that you cannot trust the company (heh). It is rather obvious that a company will do their best to interpret themselves in a way where legislation is less applicable. In this particular case, the argument is silly: The users are presented with one storefront under one name, where apps can have different degrees of support, and apps can be installed on platforms they were not made for (e.g., iPhone apps on iPad or macOS) despite that they claim those are served by different "stores". If this argument was valid, you could also say that the Google Play store is not one store, but a gajillion stores for each individual Android device series - e.g., a Google Pixel phone store, a Google Pixel tablet store, a Google TV store, a Samsung phone store, a Samsung tablet store, a... It is incredibly silly, and serves only to avoid applying the legislation to e.g. Apple TV so they can keep avoiding sideloading and forcing subscription cuts there.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    It is also rather obvious that companies are allowed to defend themselves. "Trust" is irrelevant here -- this is a court case about facts. And your Google Play example isn't analogous, because this isn't about "device series", it's about operating systems. Samsung and Pixel phones have the same OS and generally share the same set of installable apps. I'm not saying Apple's argument is necessarily going to win. I'm just saying that it's not "silly" -- we shouldn't dismiss it like that. Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes, it's about how this particular law defines a store, for the purposes of this law only, in technical terms.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. There are all sorts of laws that have words and interpretations which could be argued either way. And the way that we choose between those interpretations is often through things like juries. IE, an every day layman's "common sense". > it's about how this particular law defines a store, And how that law defines a store, and could be interpreted between competing definitions is through common sense. It's through a human, a person, using their common sense to understand the law, and ultimately decide if that is how a store is defined.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        > You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. But common sense isn't all there is. The law is also full of technical definitions, and words which in a legal sense don't correspond to their "common" sense, which is why people spend years in law school. And like I said, there are multiple valid ways of defining the scope of a digital store. What matters here is the technical, legal definition in this particular case. Not the "common sense" of somebody on the street.
        withinboredom 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  The DMA was deliberately written with Apple's app store(s) in mind. Apple's argument is silly because they know their argument directly violates the letter and intent of the DMA. In the unlikely event that Apple wins this argument, the DMA will be updated so they lose.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Yes, and this is going to end up targeting the app store for iPhones no matter what. The question here is whether the DMA was meant to apply to Apple TV's, for instance. Or Apple Watches. If Apple wins, it's not even remotely clear that the DMA will be rewritten to cover Apple TV's. It's not clear the EU cares about Apple TV's at all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  But if they're separate App Stores, why does Apple repeatedly say they're a single App Store? They do it again here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/11/apple-unveils-app-store-award-winners-the-best-apps-and-games-of-2023/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/11/apple-unveils-app-sto... > "This year’s winners include developers from across the world, whose apps and games were chosen by the App Store’s Editorial team for providing users with meaningful experiences and inspiring cultural change." Note: not "the App Stores' Editorial team" > This year’s winners showcase the scope of creativity, technical innovation, and design possible across the App Store and Apple’s ecosystem. That sounds a lot like one App Store for the whole ecosystem?
  - wlesieutre 3y ago
    You half expect them to try saying "Umm actually, the App Store running on each device is a distinct store so we have two billion individual App Stores."
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    They also break out the awards per platform. There are best apps for iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV and Mac, same with games. I seriously doubt that simple grammatical usage examples from a page like this would be enough. More likely the structure of the app stores and whether they're separate or not would have to be outlined in detail in a legal document like their Terms of Service (which admittedly I haven't scoured very thoroughly at all).
    - wlesieutre 3y ago
      Sure, and if my grocery store had an awards ceremony for best foods of the year with separate categories for produce and chips and desserts does that mean each aisle is a separate grocery store?
      - mckn1ght 3y ago
        They wanted to make a point about the usages on that page, I simply provided more usages from the page that run counter to their argument. I’m not arguing the merits of the usages on the page in general; I think it’s not very relevant. The strongest point that I think could relate is that you can’t download an app from the Mac app store onto an iPhone to run. In this light, it’s like a corporation owning separate fruit stand, bakery and butcher shops.

by ajross 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Both sides have to be consistent. If they lump all the app stores together to make an argument just about phones, for example, that won’t fly with judges.

crazygringo 3y ago

But that's not what anybody is claiming. This is a simple bar the DMA set up that an app store has to be a particular minimum size for the law to apply. That has nothing to do with whether the app stores compete against each other. They don't have to. That's not the purpose here. There's nothing silly about Apple's argument. It's no different as to whether Microsoft has one app store for Windows and one for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're separate. Same thing for Apple Watch and Apple TV.

smoldesu 3y ago
> whether Microsoft has one app store for Windows and one for Xbox. It's not silly to say they're separate. At the same time... https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-play-anywhere https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-play-anywhere
arghwhat 3y ago
When dealing with antitrust, the general assumption is that you cannot trust the company (heh). It is rather obvious that a company will do their best to interpret themselves in a way where legislation is less applicable. In this particular case, the argument is silly: The users are presented with one storefront under one name, where apps can have different degrees of support, and apps can be installed on platforms they were not made for (e.g., iPhone apps on iPad or macOS) despite that they claim those are served by different "stores". If this argument was valid, you could also say that the Google Play store is not one store, but a gajillion stores for each individual Android device series - e.g., a Google Pixel phone store, a Google Pixel tablet store, a Google TV store, a Samsung phone store, a Samsung tablet store, a... It is incredibly silly, and serves only to avoid applying the legislation to e.g. Apple TV so they can keep avoiding sideloading and forcing subscription cuts there.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  It is also rather obvious that companies are allowed to defend themselves. "Trust" is irrelevant here -- this is a court case about facts. And your Google Play example isn't analogous, because this isn't about "device series", it's about operating systems. Samsung and Pixel phones have the same OS and generally share the same set of installable apps. I'm not saying Apple's argument is necessarily going to win. I'm just saying that it's not "silly" -- we shouldn't dismiss it like that. Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes, it's about how this particular law defines a store, for the purposes of this law only, in technical terms.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Because this isn't about some "common sense" idea of what constitutes a store in consumer's eyes You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. There are all sorts of laws that have words and interpretations which could be argued either way. And the way that we choose between those interpretations is often through things like juries. IE, an every day layman's "common sense". > it's about how this particular law defines a store, And how that law defines a store, and could be interpreted between competing definitions is through common sense. It's through a human, a person, using their common sense to understand the law, and ultimately decide if that is how a store is defined.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      > You misunderstand the law. Common sense is bedrock defining feature of the law. But common sense isn't all there is. The law is also full of technical definitions, and words which in a legal sense don't correspond to their "common" sense, which is why people spend years in law school. And like I said, there are multiple valid ways of defining the scope of a digital store. What matters here is the technical, legal definition in this particular case. Not the "common sense" of somebody on the street.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lukeschlather 3y ago
The DMA was deliberately written with Apple's app store(s) in mind. Apple's argument is silly because they know their argument directly violates the letter and intent of the DMA. In the unlikely event that Apple wins this argument, the DMA will be updated so they lose.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Yes, and this is going to end up targeting the app store for iPhones no matter what. The question here is whether the DMA was meant to apply to Apple TV's, for instance. Or Apple Watches. If Apple wins, it's not even remotely clear that the DMA will be rewritten to cover Apple TV's. It's not clear the EU cares about Apple TV's at all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wlesieutre 3y ago
But if they're separate App Stores, why does Apple repeatedly say they're a single App Store? They do it again here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/11/apple-unveils-app-store-award-winners-the-best-apps-and-games-of-2023/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/11/apple-unveils-app-sto... > "This year’s winners include developers from across the world, whose apps and games were chosen by the App Store’s Editorial team for providing users with meaningful experiences and inspiring cultural change." Note: not "the App Stores' Editorial team" > This year’s winners showcase the scope of creativity, technical innovation, and design possible across the App Store and Apple’s ecosystem. That sounds a lot like one App Store for the whole ecosystem?
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  You half expect them to try saying "Umm actually, the App Store running on each device is a distinct store so we have two billion individual App Stores."
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  They also break out the awards per platform. There are best apps for iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV and Mac, same with games. I seriously doubt that simple grammatical usage examples from a page like this would be enough. More likely the structure of the app stores and whether they're separate or not would have to be outlined in detail in a legal document like their Terms of Service (which admittedly I haven't scoured very thoroughly at all).
  - wlesieutre 3y ago
    Sure, and if my grocery store had an awards ceremony for best foods of the year with separate categories for produce and chips and desserts does that mean each aisle is a separate grocery store?
    - mckn1ght 3y ago
      They wanted to make a point about the usages on that page, I simply provided more usages from the page that run counter to their argument. I’m not arguing the merits of the usages on the page in general; I think it’s not very relevant. The strongest point that I think could relate is that you can’t download an app from the Mac app store onto an iPhone to run. In this light, it’s like a corporation owning separate fruit stand, bakery and butcher shops.