3 ms·

I'm really confused by this story. It is super vague about what is the current state of things vs what is the change. If Apple is going to allow sideloading, h

I'm really confused by this story. It is super vague about what is the current state of things vs what is the change. If Apple is going to allow sideloading, how exactly are they able to charge all these fees? Doesn't this make staying with the App Store even less appealing? Are they trying to force users to sideload or something?

kevingadd 3y ago
Sideloading will still require Apple approval, thus fees
- aftbit 3y ago
  That's insane. The whole point of sideloading is that it should not require approval. Otherwise Apple can use this to block competitors and we're right back where we started.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Correct. And chances are there will be EU proceedings against Apple, because the DMA contains wording explicitly prohibiting this behaviour. I guess they are just trying to stall a little bit more, and maybe make a quick buck, before they're told to stop playing games.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      On the contrary, the DMA explicitly provides for this. Article 6 sub 4, second and third paragraph: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures 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, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are 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, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper. According to Apple, the notarization requirement and the soft requirements for “software application stores” to be able to ensure users are safe, fall within this exception that the DMA provides. Other than that, the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, so Apple would be in the clear here with the fees they intend to charge. Especially when the new fee structure is similar to (or I’d argue, a little bit more competitive than) current market rates.
      - toyg 3y ago
        According to Apple, which doesn't happen to be a court of law. See the anti-circumvention clauses in Article 13: > 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design. [...] > 6. The gatekeeper shall not [...] make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof. > 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement. Applying an unfair price structure might well be considered a contractual measure that undermines effective compliance, as it imposes an unfair burden on businesses and consumers. Notarization might also be considered "making the exercise of rights unduly difficult". This is going to be a long process, and Apple starting it in an adversarial manner (as they did) is not going to help their case.
Hamuko 3y ago
There's no sideloading, just alternative application stores, which are subject to Apple's approval and fees.

kevingadd 3y ago

Sideloading will still require Apple approval, thus fees

aftbit 3y ago
That's insane. The whole point of sideloading is that it should not require approval. Otherwise Apple can use this to block competitors and we're right back where we started.
- toyg 3y ago
  Correct. And chances are there will be EU proceedings against Apple, because the DMA contains wording explicitly prohibiting this behaviour. I guess they are just trying to stall a little bit more, and maybe make a quick buck, before they're told to stop playing games.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    On the contrary, the DMA explicitly provides for this. Article 6 sub 4, second and third paragraph: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures 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, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are 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, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper. According to Apple, the notarization requirement and the soft requirements for “software application stores” to be able to ensure users are safe, fall within this exception that the DMA provides. Other than that, the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, so Apple would be in the clear here with the fees they intend to charge. Especially when the new fee structure is similar to (or I’d argue, a little bit more competitive than) current market rates.
    - toyg 3y ago
      According to Apple, which doesn't happen to be a court of law. See the anti-circumvention clauses in Article 13: > 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design. [...] > 6. The gatekeeper shall not [...] make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof. > 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement. Applying an unfair price structure might well be considered a contractual measure that undermines effective compliance, as it imposes an unfair burden on businesses and consumers. Notarization might also be considered "making the exercise of rights unduly difficult". This is going to be a long process, and Apple starting it in an adversarial manner (as they did) is not going to help their case.

Hamuko 3y ago

There's no sideloading, just alternative application stores, which are subject to Apple's approval and fees.