4 ms·

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In t

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Jensson 3y ago
They did that for credit cards, but for app stores I think opening up for competition is probably better than capping the fees because here a big problem isn't just the fees but also the control and influence these big corporations has as digital gatekeepers.
lxgr 3y ago
Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Laws being generic is usually a good thing. Those targeting only a specific company are often thrown out by higher/constitutional courts as violating fairness principles.
_ph_ 3y ago
Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any download limits. But with competing App Stores it isn't.
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  I think you’re right, but my take is that the user freedom bit is a regulatory overreach. Couldn’t Apple literally turn off the App Store tomorrow, or replace everything with first party applications? There’s no law saying they have to support all these developers, though the DMA may require this indirectly. It feels like a slippery slope to “you need to be able to run Android on your iPhone hardware” or something like that. It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!” What I think is within regulatory oversight is the fees people charge within certain jurisdictions, because governments should regulate commerce. Similar to how they regulate bank fees, real estate transactions, VAT, etc. They could set a maximum, prevent charging fees for free software, or all sorts of other things that would help developers and consumers without forcing Apple to support weird 3rd party app distributors.
  - ossyrial 3y ago
    > It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!” If a local movie theater doesn't play the movie you like, you can go to a competitor. If no such competitor exists, and movie theaters would be essential to daily life, such a method would make more sense. The DMA targets "gatekeepers", ie not local movie theaters, but enormous companies that have done their best to entrench their market position by making competition difficult or impossible. I would keep that in mind when comparing to other industries. You can of course buy an Android, and I am not an expert on the DMA or economics, but the playfield of a group of local movie theaters is wildly different from Apple's Apple Store (or browser, or Apple Music store, etc).
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Because they’re trying to solve a class of problems and targeting individual companies with draconian requirements isn’t procedural and on the surface is punitive with no regulatory or legal reason. The regulation creates the context to specify something like this. Writing ad hoc rules for named entities without a law or regulation behind it isn’t how our system of governance works. You first have to have a framework to judge against, either in law or regulation. You then assess the compliance of each in scope entity and issue findings. Btw the term “malicious compliance” isn’t really a thing. The right term is “willful noncompliance.” For this they need to prove intent to be a defensible finding, which they probably could. However it would be easier to just find them in non-compliance. I would also note this is a back and forth. What surprises me is Apple went public with their plans rather than developing them directly with the regulators. Going public with their plan creates all sorts of problems for Apple. This is surprising because Apple is a pretty sophisticated regulatory player. For all their devices they go through many regulatory processes and regimes. They have tons of experience dealing with regulators across many regions and regulatory domains, including these sorts of policies. This is a shocking lack of cooperative behavior that won’t work for Apple. Apple is flush with cash, but governments have unlimited resources and the ability for forcibly enforce their will. It’s usually smart money to invest in appeasing your regulators in private.
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  Yeah I see what you mean, I just think these regulatory frameworks are themselves somewhat draconian, indirect, and lead to obnoxious and bad user experiences despite their good intentions, like cookie consent popups. Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but wouldn’t it be easier if the EU simply said, “We have the power to regulate commerce in the EU, including software marketplaces. We have decided X.” That would be pretty similar to how many governments set maximum credit card interest rates (as someone mentioned below) as well as other transaction fees in industries that are vulnerable to cartel-like behavior like real estate.
  - jacobsimon 3y ago
    In fact, I’m almost convinced that this regulatory framework was suggested by Apple themselves, because it doesn’t really accomplish anything. No one wanted to use third party app stores, they just want Apple to stop charging them so much. It’s fundamentally a payment processing issue, and they’ve spun it into a user freedom issue.

Jensson 3y ago

They did that for credit cards, but for app stores I think opening up for competition is probably better than capping the fees because here a big problem isn't just the fees but also the control and influence these big corporations has as digital gatekeepers.

lxgr 3y ago

Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".

jacobsimon 3y ago
That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Laws being generic is usually a good thing. Those targeting only a specific company are often thrown out by higher/constitutional courts as violating fairness principles.

_ph_ 3y ago

Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any download limits. But with competing App Stores it isn't.

jacobsimon 3y ago
I think you’re right, but my take is that the user freedom bit is a regulatory overreach. Couldn’t Apple literally turn off the App Store tomorrow, or replace everything with first party applications? There’s no law saying they have to support all these developers, though the DMA may require this indirectly. It feels like a slippery slope to “you need to be able to run Android on your iPhone hardware” or something like that. It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!” What I think is within regulatory oversight is the fees people charge within certain jurisdictions, because governments should regulate commerce. Similar to how they regulate bank fees, real estate transactions, VAT, etc. They could set a maximum, prevent charging fees for free software, or all sorts of other things that would help developers and consumers without forcing Apple to support weird 3rd party app distributors.
- ossyrial 3y ago
  > It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!” If a local movie theater doesn't play the movie you like, you can go to a competitor. If no such competitor exists, and movie theaters would be essential to daily life, such a method would make more sense. The DMA targets "gatekeepers", ie not local movie theaters, but enormous companies that have done their best to entrench their market position by making competition difficult or impossible. I would keep that in mind when comparing to other industries. You can of course buy an Android, and I am not an expert on the DMA or economics, but the playfield of a group of local movie theaters is wildly different from Apple's Apple Store (or browser, or Apple Music store, etc).

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Because they’re trying to solve a class of problems and targeting individual companies with draconian requirements isn’t procedural and on the surface is punitive with no regulatory or legal reason. The regulation creates the context to specify something like this. Writing ad hoc rules for named entities without a law or regulation behind it isn’t how our system of governance works. You first have to have a framework to judge against, either in law or regulation. You then assess the compliance of each in scope entity and issue findings. Btw the term “malicious compliance” isn’t really a thing. The right term is “willful noncompliance.” For this they need to prove intent to be a defensible finding, which they probably could. However it would be easier to just find them in non-compliance. I would also note this is a back and forth. What surprises me is Apple went public with their plans rather than developing them directly with the regulators. Going public with their plan creates all sorts of problems for Apple. This is surprising because Apple is a pretty sophisticated regulatory player. For all their devices they go through many regulatory processes and regimes. They have tons of experience dealing with regulators across many regions and regulatory domains, including these sorts of policies. This is a shocking lack of cooperative behavior that won’t work for Apple. Apple is flush with cash, but governments have unlimited resources and the ability for forcibly enforce their will. It’s usually smart money to invest in appeasing your regulators in private.

jacobsimon 3y ago
Yeah I see what you mean, I just think these regulatory frameworks are themselves somewhat draconian, indirect, and lead to obnoxious and bad user experiences despite their good intentions, like cookie consent popups. Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but wouldn’t it be easier if the EU simply said, “We have the power to regulate commerce in the EU, including software marketplaces. We have decided X.” That would be pretty similar to how many governments set maximum credit card interest rates (as someone mentioned below) as well as other transaction fees in industries that are vulnerable to cartel-like behavior like real estate.
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  In fact, I’m almost convinced that this regulatory framework was suggested by Apple themselves, because it doesn’t really accomplish anything. No one wanted to use third party app stores, they just want Apple to stop charging them so much. It’s fundamentally a payment processing issue, and they’ve spun it into a user freedom issue.