3 ms·

Read recital 62 on page 16 of the DMA. Then read Article 6(4) on page 35. Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is fairly applied. That includes

Read recital 62 on page 16 of the DMA. Then read Article 6(4) on page 35. Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is fairly applied. That includes charging money for access to the platform and to install software. Article 6(7) on page 36, says that once software is installed, access to the system services, APIs and ABIs must be free of charge. BUT THAT IS ONLY AFTER THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED. You are conflating two different things.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
That applies to software application stores (AKA the App Store), OSes (AKA iOS) are notably absent from that recital. Artivle 6(7) also does not make any distinctions about "once software is installed".
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  The second paragraph of 6(7) certainly allows the gatekeeper to prevent any access to system services/ABIs/APIs except from installed software.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    It allows for security measures, that's the only justification for restricting interoperability at all. The "free of charge" for when it's allowed still stands.
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. My best guess is that you are either confused as to what "installed" means, or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. If you want to make a complaint that access to the system services are supposed to be free of charge but aren't, the EC is just going to throw your complaint in the trash. If you want to make a complaint that the Core Technology Fee is an unfair general access condition, you might actually get somewhere :)
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        > Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. The security requirements differ depending on the specific API/feature we talk about. The API that allows for app installation is itself covered by the provision, as the App Store is a service that Apple provides. The security measures Apple could implement here are enforced notarization and source restriction settable by the user. > or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. Please refrain from doing personal accusations here, as per the guidelines.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

That applies to software application stores (AKA the App Store), OSes (AKA iOS) are notably absent from that recital. Artivle 6(7) also does not make any distinctions about "once software is installed".

Kon-Peki 3y ago
The second paragraph of 6(7) certainly allows the gatekeeper to prevent any access to system services/ABIs/APIs except from installed software.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  It allows for security measures, that's the only justification for restricting interoperability at all. The "free of charge" for when it's allowed still stands.
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. My best guess is that you are either confused as to what "installed" means, or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. If you want to make a complaint that access to the system services are supposed to be free of charge but aren't, the EC is just going to throw your complaint in the trash. If you want to make a complaint that the Core Technology Fee is an unfair general access condition, you might actually get somewhere :)
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      > Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. The security requirements differ depending on the specific API/feature we talk about. The API that allows for app installation is itself covered by the provision, as the App Store is a service that Apple provides. The security measures Apple could implement here are enforced notarization and source restriction settable by the user. > or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. Please refrain from doing personal accusations here, as per the guidelines.