8 ms·

When Apple takes the European Commission for fools: An initial overview

74 points by janandonly 3y ago

chucke1992 3y ago
I find it absolutely crazy how openly Apple showed a middle finger to EU.
- skc 3y ago
  Wouldn't dare do that in China funny enough.
  - akmarinov 3y ago
    China won't care - they have competing products, they have Apple by the balls manufacturing-wise, they don't have free speech or democracy and don't fear any fallout from their people - they can do whatever they want. Europe doesn't have any of that.
    - EGreg 3y ago
      Europe still has free speech? https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-speech-fail/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-spee... UK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s I would say may countries are moving to ban end-to-end encryption, which will lead to less free speech even privately: https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-encryption/214 https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        Funny, at least you won't get killed by the police ;)
        rvnx 3y ago
        Free speech in Europe, yes, but don't offend minorities and don't ask any questions, you can (actually) go to jail for that. And free to speak about anything allowed, if the website isn't blocked at DNS-level.
    - c0n5pir4cy 3y ago
      I mean, Europe has competing products. Apple doesn't even have the highest market share here compared to the US - that's actually Samsung¹ although Apple briefly overtook Samsung in sales in Q4 2023. ¹ https://www.statista.com/statistics/632599/smartphone-market-share-by-vendor-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/632599/smartphone-market...
    - zarzavat 3y ago
      Apple doesn’t have the upper hand here. Apple talk a good talk but if Cook actually attempted to pull out of the EU market he would be facing some very angry shareholders. So realistically Apple have to do what the EU wants. The timetable is TBD though.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
It is a view. But to me it is bias. Not because we must have the apple juice but that we should have an option for users yes users not developers to choose what business model we would be in. The concentration on anti-Apple might be on its pricing model. Not the protected garden one. I do not want the other App Store or side loading for my old relatives who cannot even handle password that well. You want that why not create competition by strengthen Android. Cheaper, sideloaded and even must have alternatives in App Store and payment. Go there.
- simion314 3y ago
  Nobody would force your relatives to side load. I did not seen Apple users complaining that their parents are too incompetent so Apple should lock down the laptops, I am sure many no technical people use Apple laptops. And if you are a "admin" for your children/parents devices then you can lock them down.
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    > Nobody would force your relatives to side load. Theoretical counterexample: “Introducing the Facebook App Store for iPhone users; now the only way to get Facebook.app/WhatsApp/Instagram on your phone, and without any of that pesky app tracking transparency.” ——— (As a disclaimer, I’m personally strongly in favour of side-loading, but I recognise how this will make things worse overall for everyone else)
    - InsomniacL 3y ago
      > without any of that pesky app tracking transparency That could still be maintained with side-loading though? If the side-loaded app wants access to the GPS location, then the only way to get it is though the OS Location API which is what presents the Permission Dialog. The same goes for any other permissions. As part of the side-loading, any permissions that will be requested within the App could be presented to the user by the OS.
      - 3y ago
sylware 3y ago
Until EU understand that the only weak spot of Big Tech is to enforce very simple and stable in time protocols/file formats for interop (client and server), they don't stand a chance against big tech planned obsolescence and control. And of course, EU has to use ONLY those.
- difosfor 3y ago
  Not the only weak spot, but a great idea, yes. Certain apps have become like infrastructure, practically impossible to avoid and very valuable to citizens. So it makes sense to regulate it like this to bring into the control of those citizens.
  - sylware 3y ago
    For instance, nearly 100% of those online services can be provided in a more than good enough fashion via http&noscript/basic (x)html (like most were before they broke it... to favor google&apple only apps...).
reddalo 3y ago
The EU must intervene on this thing. This is anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, a malicious compliance that goes against the very principles of the DMA.
- rvnx 3y ago
  Following one idea of regulation to the extreme: banning Apple products in Europe = problem solved. The EU markets can do that. However, in reality, regulations should be very scarcely used. We are entering in a world more and more full of sanctions and artificial borders (like patents who protect a few chosen ones, or customs tariffs which are likely to affect GPU cards in case US<->EU enter competition together). In this case, the message Apple wants to send is just to be left alone, instead of being brought to a planned-economy dream. Apple isn't really a monopoly situation. If users don't like the attitude of Apple, they can vote to close Apple: not buying theirs products. You can perfectly live without Apple products (they don't even have official shops in few European countries), but this isn't the case with real monopolies, you cannot live without them, like WeChat Pay in China for example. (I know that you know, it was just example of how regulations can get wrong)
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > You can perfectly live without Apple products I'm in the US so maybe different, but it's increasingly hard to "live without Apple products." I refuse to buy Apple products, and it has had an affect. My kids keep running into challenges where an app they need for school or something is Apple only. Other times the app will be available on Android, but the teacher only covers the iOS version. Most recently my son has been getting excluded because he is a "green bubble." So I'm not disagreeing with your whole post, but I do disagree with that part.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      Mhh, you're right, I didn't think about that :(
    - nottorp 3y ago
abigail95 3y ago
Where are the citations to the law that shows Apple is not complying? This is just feels. Think you can run the App Store better than Apple can? Show me one with equivalent quality available on Android. The talk about "infringement proceedings" reveals why they have no power. If Apple is doing something against the law, ban the sale of their devices today then.
- freedomben 3y ago
  The entire article is riddled with citations. It literally quotes Apple's official documentation and compares it to quotations from the DMA. Here is just one example that I saw within 10 seconds: > Curiously, Apple claims that “sideloading is one of many reasons why in the EU, the DMA’s changes will result in a system that’s less secure than the model we have in place in the rest of the world,” and uses this as an excuse to introduce a host of controls that will obfuscate its obligations under Article 6(4) the DMA.
- blibble 3y ago
  ultimately Apple isn't fighting another company here, they're fighting a sovereign the sovereign is able to change the rules of the game this is not a war Apple can win over the long term in the US stalling until a change of leadership might work, but in the EU it's universally accepted across the political spectrum that the US tech giants need reigning in
  - asimpletune 3y ago
    Totally agree, but to me it's funny. IMO the EU should be their ability to change the game to actually force other players to be more apple-like by having some kind of liability and being required to provide certain guarantees to protect their customers from predatory developers. As a market, it should be hard to steal/trick/do bad stuff at the interface/technical level, so where money changes hands or resources are requested from the OS. The EU should be asking themselves more why they have never created any significant platform of value, rather than trying to hijack the wealthy platform that apple has created so they can force them to be like android. I live in the EU by the way. There are so many things about life here that are great, but there are a lot of things that the EU is ignorant and bad at. They should actually be regulating Google/Play store not forcing Apple to the lowest common denominator. And you know that the only reason why they're doing this is Spotify anyways. Virtually no Apple customers care about having alternate app stores, and those who do should just get an Android. The real reason why they are doing this is they want the wealthy platform that Apple has created, while at the same time being totally incapable of understanding what made it wealthy to begin with: trust. You don't have to worry as a consumer about apple stuff, because you trust that it will be alright. That's why Apple customers pay a premium, to not care. The alternative is actually the default. Literally all other platforms are freemium, ad-sponsored techno-dystopias. You are given everything for free while there's a race to hack people's brains and turn them to mush, because the only value in such a system is ads and selling people's information. Nobody buys anything because it's a crap platform. The web and android I mean. So, yes, Europe can and will make Apple comply, but they're going to kill the golden goose in the process by ruining what makes the platform valuable for people. They will probably never even understand why, because this isn't really the EU's core competency. If Apple were HQ'd here it would be a totally different story btw.
abigail95 3y ago
> The objectives of the DMA are to bring contestability and fairness in digital markets, and this is not achieved here Build your own iPhone(EU-Phone) and sell it then. It's 18 year old technology, can't be that hard. Build a competing app store. I won't listen to these regulators unless they prove they can do a better job themselves.
- akmarinov 3y ago
  Alternatively - Apple, don't like the law - don't sell in the EU - simple as that. Surely your shareholders can do without the third largest market.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Or the other way around, if apps developers don't like the position of Apple, then don't develop for Apple, and then users will progressively leave the platform at their next phone renewal (~ 2 years).
    - goku12 3y ago
      The relationship is asymmetric - the other commenter's point doesn't make its inverse correct. Big players who can negotiate with Apple (like Amazon [1] or Netflix) can avoid the Apple tax. This means that smaller developers are at a disadvantage with respect to revenue and in their ability to work together to make a hostile platform irrelevant. This is why regulators are very important here. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-...
    - fennecbutt 3y ago
      App developers != the suit and tie that runs the show. They only see 70% of 0 being 0.
- j_maffe 3y ago
  I think you might need to understand what a monopoly means and how insanely expensive it is to compete with one.
lynx23 3y ago
The EU, which brought us the cookie-consent-window. Yeah, and they are totally not fools, of course.
- hef19898 3y ago
  If all you took away from GDPR is cookie consent pop-ups, than, well maybe not the EU are the fools...
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    GP just sees the world with what comes up in front of them. They see popups and they think that's what GDPR is.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Wrong. I know what GDPR is, and I support it. But I dont like the cookie-content window implementation since it breaks the flow of browsing.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        This implementation wasn't demanded in the law.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      No, GP doesn't "see" the world at all, GP is blind. Its fascinating how many pro-EU people get aggressive if they are confronted with others not being happy. Let me guess, while we are at unspecific accusations: Are you british perhaps?
- Keyframe 3y ago
  And usb-c on an iphone. Alas, despite consent windows on web, GDPR has been overall good.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
freedomben 3y ago
> This also ignores the fact that the app developers offer immense value to Apple. But for the presence of millions of apps on its App Store, Apple would not be able to sell many iPhones. To illustrate why 20% is excessive use the following thought experiment. Would Apple maintain an App Store if the standard commission was reduced to 5%? It would. And what if the commission was 0%. It still would because it would have no choice. People expect to be able to download Netflix, Uber, Tinder, Spotify and many other apps on their iPhones. No apps mean no iPhone sales, which represent the bulk of Apple’s revenue. In other words, the commission is nothing but an illustration of Apple’s bottleneck power. This is quite an interesting point that really helps to illustrate how over-priced Apple's "commission" is. I don't think it's a generally useful exercise for everything, or maybe even most things, as "market rate" is purely what people will pay. Pricing things based on production costs is a classic newbie mistake. But where I don't think this approach is or should apply to Apple, is in the fact of the monopolistic power they have over the system. It is much more a tax than a sale of an item. When you start talking about taxes, you're no longer talking about market rate because you're not dealing with a free market. We can argue about whether or not Apple is a monopoly/gatekeeper, but for the purposes of the DMA (which is the subject of this article) they have been decided as such, and remember, TFA is talking about Apple's response to the DMA and the European commission.
- falserum 3y ago
  It can be argued that it is not monopolistic, because it dies not have 50% of market share. At the same time, it is a clever technique. Create a walled garden, and subvert free market (act anticompetitively) only there. As long as your garden does not exeed 50% of the land, your golden.
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    > It can be argued that it is not monopolistic Depends where you draw the line. The AppStore has 100% market share of the iPhone platform. Can Microsoft Windows block all web browsers except for Microsoft Edge because it only has a 29% share of device Operating System's?
detourdog 3y ago
The silliest thing about this article is that Apple and the EU have been conferring about this and neither party was surprised by the implementation. I honestly think many people don’t understand retail.
- gumby 3y ago
  Also 30% was pretty common in game consoles and has been for longer than the Apple App Store has existed. Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Game consoles often launching selling at a loss and have to recoup their costs within about 5y. They rarely get more than a few thousand games in their lifetime. Each generation is often incompatible with the last, increasing costs all around. The iPhone is usually backward compatible, sold at a hefty profit each year, and has tens of thousands of games from more developers.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple. That's pretty disingenuous about Tim Sweeney. His main complaint on iOS is that there's no way around the App Store, basically that Apple blocks any app distribution methods besides their official App Store.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      Other than the World Wide Web. Which is a great distribution mechanism.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        If there was anywhere near feature parity between the web and native apps, then "use the web" this would be acceptable answer, but that is absolutely not the case. The web is most definitely not a great distribution mechanism for iOS apps.
jcfrei 3y ago
I'm guessing that one reason why Apple is so reluctant to allow sideloading of apps is that iOS has some fundamental security deficits: It was probably built around the assumption that Apple can always fully scrutinize the binary of each application that makes it onto the device and remotely delete any apps that misbehave.
- Longhanks 3y ago
  This is always how the iOS ecosystem was marketed and one of the reasons I personally give Apple my money. If the EU is taking that away, I solely blame the EU.
  - rxyz 3y ago
    They arent taking that away. No one is going to force you to sideload because most people won't sideload. Only a few Android apps aren't on the play store even though sideloading is very easy.
    - razakel 3y ago
      And they tend to be ones that Google isn't happy with, like ad-free YouTube clients.
      - akmarinov 3y ago
        Thankfully, Apple doesn't own YouTube. What they don't like is porn and gambling.
        freedomben 3y ago
        and apps that have their own Stripe account and/or want to tell customers that they can save 30% by paying through the website, or pay 30% more to use the Apple subscription/payments system. But user education and market competition would mean Apple's 30% is way, way too much, so hardly anybody would actually do that if they had the choice...
contrarian1234 3y ago
I think it's worth point out that these commissions are in effect a progressive fee/tax - with the rich paying more (bc they can afford more apps and in-app purchases) The alternative is Apple in an effort to maintain their profit margin sell some Euro-locked version of their phone that costs 50% more and that fewer people will be able to afford The commission payment structure makes the device affordable/accessible to more people
- madsbuch 3y ago
  > The commission payment structure makes the device affordable/accessible to more people That is a weird conclusion, unless you think that reducing the profit margin would not give the same result.
  - contrarian1234 3y ago
    So then this all is just a roundabout way of saying "your phones are too expensive"?
    - j_maffe 3y ago
      It's a very direct way of saying "your commission is too expensive." Which it is.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      No, this is a way of saying that the market is inefficient. When the profit margin is high it is an indication of an inefficient market. If the market would have been efficient competitors would have gotten in when they see the opportunity for making good money. This is a way to create an efficient market.
jbjbjbjb 3y ago
> As to the core technology fee, this is a new “junk” fee, which will disproportionately affect those app developers that have limited revenues, but whose apps are widely downloaded. What kinds of free app developer is he talking about here? Surely if you are free you will stay on the old terms and never had much incentive to move anyway. Unless you’re another gatekeeper like the Microsoft, Googles and Metas then there might be other incentives. Or does he mean free but can’t be on the App Store? I’m not sure the EU is going to side with pirates and porn.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Surely if you are free you will stay on the old terms and never had much incentive to move anyway. No, there's a lot more to it than just the money (commission and fees, etc). Apple has a strict set of rules and and approval process that apps have to go through. If your app violates any of their rules, you are not allowed to distribute your app. And unlike Android, if Apple says no then there are no other options, let alone good ones.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  The examples that come to mind are FOSS apps that cannot be distributed via the App Stores due to Apple's policies. VM software like UTM, old console emulators like Delta, community clients for services like YouTube or Twitch, and apps that work around system limitations to provide things like a clipboard manager.
  - jbjbjbjb 3y ago
    Yeah that’s what I meant by pirates and porn, the content restrictions that I don’t think the EU will mind.
    - throwitaway1123 3y ago
      I would hardly classify UTM as piracy or porn. It would be nice if I could run Linux on my $1000+ iPad or iPhone without jailbreaking the device.
- 3y ago
miki123211 3y ago
> Apple is also under an obligation to allow “sideloading As far as I understand the DMA, this is false. The DMA requires companies to allow sideloading OR alternative marketplaces, but it doesn't explicitly require both. Apple chose to allow the latter without allowing the former. We will see whether EU regulators agree with this interpretation and will let this stand. Considering how the GDPR is being enforced (they're going after Meta for daring to offer a free service while completely ignoring all the clearly illegal cookie banners with no dismiss button), I suspect no.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Small scale side loading is absolutely available. Side loading marketplaces are not. Apple is insisting that marketplaces have a form of accountability.

74 points by janandonly 3y ago

chucke1992 3y ago

I find it absolutely crazy how openly Apple showed a middle finger to EU.

skc 3y ago
Wouldn't dare do that in China funny enough.
- akmarinov 3y ago
  China won't care - they have competing products, they have Apple by the balls manufacturing-wise, they don't have free speech or democracy and don't fear any fallout from their people - they can do whatever they want. Europe doesn't have any of that.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Europe still has free speech? https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-speech-fail/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-spee... UK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s I would say may countries are moving to ban end-to-end encryption, which will lead to less free speech even privately: https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-encryption/214 https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      Funny, at least you won't get killed by the police ;)
      - rvnx 3y ago
        Free speech in Europe, yes, but don't offend minorities and don't ask any questions, you can (actually) go to jail for that. And free to speak about anything allowed, if the website isn't blocked at DNS-level.
  - c0n5pir4cy 3y ago
    I mean, Europe has competing products. Apple doesn't even have the highest market share here compared to the US - that's actually Samsung¹ although Apple briefly overtook Samsung in sales in Q4 2023. ¹ https://www.statista.com/statistics/632599/smartphone-market-share-by-vendor-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/632599/smartphone-market...
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    Apple doesn’t have the upper hand here. Apple talk a good talk but if Cook actually attempted to pull out of the EU market he would be facing some very angry shareholders. So realistically Apple have to do what the EU wants. The timetable is TBD though.

ngcc_hk 3y ago

It is a view. But to me it is bias. Not because we must have the apple juice but that we should have an option for users yes users not developers to choose what business model we would be in. The concentration on anti-Apple might be on its pricing model. Not the protected garden one. I do not want the other App Store or side loading for my old relatives who cannot even handle password that well. You want that why not create competition by strengthen Android. Cheaper, sideloaded and even must have alternatives in App Store and payment. Go there.

simion314 3y ago
Nobody would force your relatives to side load. I did not seen Apple users complaining that their parents are too incompetent so Apple should lock down the laptops, I am sure many no technical people use Apple laptops. And if you are a "admin" for your children/parents devices then you can lock them down.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > Nobody would force your relatives to side load. Theoretical counterexample: “Introducing the Facebook App Store for iPhone users; now the only way to get Facebook.app/WhatsApp/Instagram on your phone, and without any of that pesky app tracking transparency.” ——— (As a disclaimer, I’m personally strongly in favour of side-loading, but I recognise how this will make things worse overall for everyone else)
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    > without any of that pesky app tracking transparency That could still be maintained with side-loading though? If the side-loaded app wants access to the GPS location, then the only way to get it is though the OS Location API which is what presents the Permission Dialog. The same goes for any other permissions. As part of the side-loading, any permissions that will be requested within the App could be presented to the user by the OS.
    - 3y ago

sylware 3y ago

Until EU understand that the only weak spot of Big Tech is to enforce very simple and stable in time protocols/file formats for interop (client and server), they don't stand a chance against big tech planned obsolescence and control. And of course, EU has to use ONLY those.

difosfor 3y ago
Not the only weak spot, but a great idea, yes. Certain apps have become like infrastructure, practically impossible to avoid and very valuable to citizens. So it makes sense to regulate it like this to bring into the control of those citizens.
- sylware 3y ago
  For instance, nearly 100% of those online services can be provided in a more than good enough fashion via http&noscript/basic (x)html (like most were before they broke it... to favor google&apple only apps...).

reddalo 3y ago

The EU must intervene on this thing. This is anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, a malicious compliance that goes against the very principles of the DMA.

rvnx 3y ago
Following one idea of regulation to the extreme: banning Apple products in Europe = problem solved. The EU markets can do that. However, in reality, regulations should be very scarcely used. We are entering in a world more and more full of sanctions and artificial borders (like patents who protect a few chosen ones, or customs tariffs which are likely to affect GPU cards in case US<->EU enter competition together). In this case, the message Apple wants to send is just to be left alone, instead of being brought to a planned-economy dream. Apple isn't really a monopoly situation. If users don't like the attitude of Apple, they can vote to close Apple: not buying theirs products. You can perfectly live without Apple products (they don't even have official shops in few European countries), but this isn't the case with real monopolies, you cannot live without them, like WeChat Pay in China for example. (I know that you know, it was just example of how regulations can get wrong)
- freedomben 3y ago
  > You can perfectly live without Apple products I'm in the US so maybe different, but it's increasingly hard to "live without Apple products." I refuse to buy Apple products, and it has had an affect. My kids keep running into challenges where an app they need for school or something is Apple only. Other times the app will be available on Android, but the teacher only covers the iOS version. Most recently my son has been getting excluded because he is a "green bubble." So I'm not disagreeing with your whole post, but I do disagree with that part.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Mhh, you're right, I didn't think about that :(
  - nottorp 3y ago

abigail95 3y ago

Where are the citations to the law that shows Apple is not complying? This is just feels. Think you can run the App Store better than Apple can? Show me one with equivalent quality available on Android. The talk about "infringement proceedings" reveals why they have no power. If Apple is doing something against the law, ban the sale of their devices today then.

freedomben 3y ago
The entire article is riddled with citations. It literally quotes Apple's official documentation and compares it to quotations from the DMA. Here is just one example that I saw within 10 seconds: > Curiously, Apple claims that “sideloading is one of many reasons why in the EU, the DMA’s changes will result in a system that’s less secure than the model we have in place in the rest of the world,” and uses this as an excuse to introduce a host of controls that will obfuscate its obligations under Article 6(4) the DMA.
blibble 3y ago
ultimately Apple isn't fighting another company here, they're fighting a sovereign the sovereign is able to change the rules of the game this is not a war Apple can win over the long term in the US stalling until a change of leadership might work, but in the EU it's universally accepted across the political spectrum that the US tech giants need reigning in
- asimpletune 3y ago
  Totally agree, but to me it's funny. IMO the EU should be their ability to change the game to actually force other players to be more apple-like by having some kind of liability and being required to provide certain guarantees to protect their customers from predatory developers. As a market, it should be hard to steal/trick/do bad stuff at the interface/technical level, so where money changes hands or resources are requested from the OS. The EU should be asking themselves more why they have never created any significant platform of value, rather than trying to hijack the wealthy platform that apple has created so they can force them to be like android. I live in the EU by the way. There are so many things about life here that are great, but there are a lot of things that the EU is ignorant and bad at. They should actually be regulating Google/Play store not forcing Apple to the lowest common denominator. And you know that the only reason why they're doing this is Spotify anyways. Virtually no Apple customers care about having alternate app stores, and those who do should just get an Android. The real reason why they are doing this is they want the wealthy platform that Apple has created, while at the same time being totally incapable of understanding what made it wealthy to begin with: trust. You don't have to worry as a consumer about apple stuff, because you trust that it will be alright. That's why Apple customers pay a premium, to not care. The alternative is actually the default. Literally all other platforms are freemium, ad-sponsored techno-dystopias. You are given everything for free while there's a race to hack people's brains and turn them to mush, because the only value in such a system is ads and selling people's information. Nobody buys anything because it's a crap platform. The web and android I mean. So, yes, Europe can and will make Apple comply, but they're going to kill the golden goose in the process by ruining what makes the platform valuable for people. They will probably never even understand why, because this isn't really the EU's core competency. If Apple were HQ'd here it would be a totally different story btw.

abigail95 3y ago

> The objectives of the DMA are to bring contestability and fairness in digital markets, and this is not achieved here Build your own iPhone(EU-Phone) and sell it then. It's 18 year old technology, can't be that hard. Build a competing app store. I won't listen to these regulators unless they prove they can do a better job themselves.

akmarinov 3y ago
Alternatively - Apple, don't like the law - don't sell in the EU - simple as that. Surely your shareholders can do without the third largest market.
- rvnx 3y ago
  Or the other way around, if apps developers don't like the position of Apple, then don't develop for Apple, and then users will progressively leave the platform at their next phone renewal (~ 2 years).
  - goku12 3y ago
    The relationship is asymmetric - the other commenter's point doesn't make its inverse correct. Big players who can negotiate with Apple (like Amazon [1] or Netflix) can avoid the Apple tax. This means that smaller developers are at a disadvantage with respect to revenue and in their ability to work together to make a hostile platform irrelevant. This is why regulators are very important here. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-...
  - fennecbutt 3y ago
    App developers != the suit and tie that runs the show. They only see 70% of 0 being 0.
j_maffe 3y ago
I think you might need to understand what a monopoly means and how insanely expensive it is to compete with one.

lynx23 3y ago

The EU, which brought us the cookie-consent-window. Yeah, and they are totally not fools, of course.

hef19898 3y ago
If all you took away from GDPR is cookie consent pop-ups, than, well maybe not the EU are the fools...
- j_maffe 3y ago
  GP just sees the world with what comes up in front of them. They see popups and they think that's what GDPR is.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Wrong. I know what GDPR is, and I support it. But I dont like the cookie-content window implementation since it breaks the flow of browsing.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      This implementation wasn't demanded in the law.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    No, GP doesn't "see" the world at all, GP is blind. Its fascinating how many pro-EU people get aggressive if they are confronted with others not being happy. Let me guess, while we are at unspecific accusations: Are you british perhaps?
Keyframe 3y ago
And usb-c on an iphone. Alas, despite consent windows on web, GDPR has been overall good.
- joshstrange 3y ago

freedomben 3y ago

> This also ignores the fact that the app developers offer immense value to Apple. But for the presence of millions of apps on its App Store, Apple would not be able to sell many iPhones. To illustrate why 20% is excessive use the following thought experiment. Would Apple maintain an App Store if the standard commission was reduced to 5%? It would. And what if the commission was 0%. It still would because it would have no choice. People expect to be able to download Netflix, Uber, Tinder, Spotify and many other apps on their iPhones. No apps mean no iPhone sales, which represent the bulk of Apple’s revenue. In other words, the commission is nothing but an illustration of Apple’s bottleneck power. This is quite an interesting point that really helps to illustrate how over-priced Apple's "commission" is. I don't think it's a generally useful exercise for everything, or maybe even most things, as "market rate" is purely what people will pay. Pricing things based on production costs is a classic newbie mistake. But where I don't think this approach is or should apply to Apple, is in the fact of the monopolistic power they have over the system. It is much more a tax than a sale of an item. When you start talking about taxes, you're no longer talking about market rate because you're not dealing with a free market. We can argue about whether or not Apple is a monopoly/gatekeeper, but for the purposes of the DMA (which is the subject of this article) they have been decided as such, and remember, TFA is talking about Apple's response to the DMA and the European commission.

falserum 3y ago
It can be argued that it is not monopolistic, because it dies not have 50% of market share. At the same time, it is a clever technique. Create a walled garden, and subvert free market (act anticompetitively) only there. As long as your garden does not exeed 50% of the land, your golden.
- InsomniacL 3y ago
  > It can be argued that it is not monopolistic Depends where you draw the line. The AppStore has 100% market share of the iPhone platform. Can Microsoft Windows block all web browsers except for Microsoft Edge because it only has a 29% share of device Operating System's?

detourdog 3y ago

The silliest thing about this article is that Apple and the EU have been conferring about this and neither party was surprised by the implementation. I honestly think many people don’t understand retail.

gumby 3y ago
Also 30% was pretty common in game consoles and has been for longer than the Apple App Store has existed. Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Game consoles often launching selling at a loss and have to recoup their costs within about 5y. They rarely get more than a few thousand games in their lifetime. Each generation is often incompatible with the last, increasing costs all around. The iPhone is usually backward compatible, sold at a hefty profit each year, and has tens of thousands of games from more developers.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Tim Sweeney’s complaint about Apple isn’t that the fee is too high but that he wants to charge that fee rather than Apple. That's pretty disingenuous about Tim Sweeney. His main complaint on iOS is that there's no way around the App Store, basically that Apple blocks any app distribution methods besides their official App Store.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Other than the World Wide Web. Which is a great distribution mechanism.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      If there was anywhere near feature parity between the web and native apps, then "use the web" this would be acceptable answer, but that is absolutely not the case. The web is most definitely not a great distribution mechanism for iOS apps.

jcfrei 3y ago

I'm guessing that one reason why Apple is so reluctant to allow sideloading of apps is that iOS has some fundamental security deficits: It was probably built around the assumption that Apple can always fully scrutinize the binary of each application that makes it onto the device and remotely delete any apps that misbehave.

Longhanks 3y ago
This is always how the iOS ecosystem was marketed and one of the reasons I personally give Apple my money. If the EU is taking that away, I solely blame the EU.
- rxyz 3y ago
  They arent taking that away. No one is going to force you to sideload because most people won't sideload. Only a few Android apps aren't on the play store even though sideloading is very easy.
  - razakel 3y ago
    And they tend to be ones that Google isn't happy with, like ad-free YouTube clients.
    - akmarinov 3y ago
      Thankfully, Apple doesn't own YouTube. What they don't like is porn and gambling.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        and apps that have their own Stripe account and/or want to tell customers that they can save 30% by paying through the website, or pay 30% more to use the Apple subscription/payments system. But user education and market competition would mean Apple's 30% is way, way too much, so hardly anybody would actually do that if they had the choice...

contrarian1234 3y ago

I think it's worth point out that these commissions are in effect a progressive fee/tax - with the rich paying more (bc they can afford more apps and in-app purchases) The alternative is Apple in an effort to maintain their profit margin sell some Euro-locked version of their phone that costs 50% more and that fewer people will be able to afford The commission payment structure makes the device affordable/accessible to more people

madsbuch 3y ago
> The commission payment structure makes the device affordable/accessible to more people That is a weird conclusion, unless you think that reducing the profit margin would not give the same result.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  So then this all is just a roundabout way of saying "your phones are too expensive"?
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    It's a very direct way of saying "your commission is too expensive." Which it is.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    No, this is a way of saying that the market is inefficient. When the profit margin is high it is an indication of an inefficient market. If the market would have been efficient competitors would have gotten in when they see the opportunity for making good money. This is a way to create an efficient market.

jbjbjbjb 3y ago

> As to the core technology fee, this is a new “junk” fee, which will disproportionately affect those app developers that have limited revenues, but whose apps are widely downloaded. What kinds of free app developer is he talking about here? Surely if you are free you will stay on the old terms and never had much incentive to move anyway. Unless you’re another gatekeeper like the Microsoft, Googles and Metas then there might be other incentives. Or does he mean free but can’t be on the App Store? I’m not sure the EU is going to side with pirates and porn.

freedomben 3y ago
> Surely if you are free you will stay on the old terms and never had much incentive to move anyway. No, there's a lot more to it than just the money (commission and fees, etc). Apple has a strict set of rules and and approval process that apps have to go through. If your app violates any of their rules, you are not allowed to distribute your app. And unlike Android, if Apple says no then there are no other options, let alone good ones.
idle_zealot 3y ago
The examples that come to mind are FOSS apps that cannot be distributed via the App Stores due to Apple's policies. VM software like UTM, old console emulators like Delta, community clients for services like YouTube or Twitch, and apps that work around system limitations to provide things like a clipboard manager.
- jbjbjbjb 3y ago
  Yeah that’s what I meant by pirates and porn, the content restrictions that I don’t think the EU will mind.
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    I would hardly classify UTM as piracy or porn. It would be nice if I could run Linux on my $1000+ iPad or iPhone without jailbreaking the device.
3y ago

miki123211 3y ago

> Apple is also under an obligation to allow “sideloading As far as I understand the DMA, this is false. The DMA requires companies to allow sideloading OR alternative marketplaces, but it doesn't explicitly require both. Apple chose to allow the latter without allowing the former. We will see whether EU regulators agree with this interpretation and will let this stand. Considering how the GDPR is being enforced (they're going after Meta for daring to offer a free service while completely ignoring all the clearly illegal cookie banners with no dismiss button), I suspect no.

detourdog 3y ago
Small scale side loading is absolutely available. Side loading marketplaces are not. Apple is insisting that marketplaces have a form of accountability.