4 ms·

The most interesting thing here to me is this bit > Apple's new fee structure and other terms and conditions for alternative app stores and distribution of app

The most interesting thing here to me is this bit > Apple's new fee structure and other terms and conditions for alternative app stores and distribution of apps from the web (sideloading) may be defeating the purpose of its obligations under Article 6(4) of the DMA because, well, yeah, that's exactly what they do! When Apple users complain about the DMA forcing Apple to allow other stores and sideloading they often predict that Meta and other nefarious corporations will launch their own distribution as the exclusive source of their popular or near-required apps in order to skirt Apple's privacy rules. That is a possibility (though it hasn't happened on Android), but I feel that the benefit of sideloading community-made apps that break Apple's rules by interoperating with services unofficially would more than offset any losses to privacy. However, as Apple's implementation stands the fees and agreements necessary to distribute apps would keep most FOSS or community-maintained apps from being distributed, while allowing rich bad actors an avenue of further abusing their users. It's the worst possible world; a free-for-all for rich corporations to distribute whatever garbage they want and no balancing pressure from unofficial apps keeping their behavior somewhat in check. Moving from a world where Apple gets to decide what code runs on your phone to one where anyone with sufficiently deep pockets makes the call. I hope that the EC finds that the spirit of the DMA is that users decide what runs on their phones, and that Apple's proposed changes are not in that spirit.

aednichols 3y ago
CTF is waived for nonprofits, which is how a lot of FOSS projects are structured.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  lots is doing a lot of work here. the overwhelming majority of FOSS projects have no structure at all much less non profit corporations behind them. more accurate would be to say "a small number of FOSS projects" or "a lot of the top several FOSS projects".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
giantrobot 3y ago
> That is a possibility (though it hasn't happened on Android) Android as a platform has far fewer default privacy controls as iOS. Meta doesn't need an alternate App Store to slurp up Android users' data. They would need one on iOS which gives them and everyone else impetus to create alternate stores which allow them to slurp up more data. Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  > Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions Unless, of course, the friction introduced by requiring users leave the App Store they're comfortable with costs them more.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    This. Plus Meta can't leave the store since they need it to address non-EU markets, and Apple can definitely force them to keep being available in store in the EU if they want to be available elsewhere.
- jmholla 3y ago
  > Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions. How would a different app store change these OS policies and features?
  - burnerthrow008 3y ago
    Because, as has already been explained ad nauseam, Apple's control measures are partly technological and partly contractual. If Apple catches you tracking users after users opt out of tracking, Apple will de-list you from their store. If Meta can simply set up a different storefront (or directly side load), they merely have to follow the EU laws (which are less restrictive than Apple's).
quitit 3y ago
> Meta and other nefarious… in order to skirt Apple's privacy rules This isn’t hypothetical, it is precisely what Meta (then Facebook) and Google both already did. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252456835/Facebook-and-Google-exploit-Enterprise-Certificate-loophole-on-iOS https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252456835/Fac...
xxpor 3y ago
>Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions. This conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Look at Meta's revenue since the roll out of ATT. They're essentially back to where they were. They've figured out ML based probability targeting. If anything, they're in a better position than they were pre-ATT, because now they really have some secret sauce in there, because no one else seems to have been able to figure it out.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  You are suggesting Facebook doesn't mind valuable information restrictions because they have found other sets/means of valuable information. That just doesn't follow. Facebook wants everything. It is a near certainty that yesterday's restricted information is even more valuable today, since they can also increase its value via machine learning systems. And high profits today don't dampen the need for growth, they accelerate the need by iteratively raising the baseline for next year. The year after. And onward. For the shareholders. For Zuckerberg.
  - rreichman 3y ago
    Similarly to GDPR - ATT is bad for Meta but much worse for Meta's competitors.
  - xxpor 3y ago
    Facebook lobbied against ATT because it was a massive pain in the ass. Plus, they might not have known if the ML based targeting worked out. At this point, they've spent the capital to work around it, and it's a new moat. I doubt they'd want it to be reverted.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Good point. They are going to lean into their advantages in any situation. But given their lead, customer base, tech and capital, they can monetize and leverage surveillance information better than anyone in their space. More information creates more advantages for them than anyone else. Any Facebook killer isn't going to out ad monetize them. The opposite. It is going to be something that provides a better but different experience - and likely to be incompatible with Facebooks surveillance-ad business model. A reverse moat Facebook won't/can't cross.
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
But outside of Europe people still won't be able to use alternative app stores, so Meta has to provide their app through Apple store, where it will be available to EU users too.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bitvoid 3y ago
  You can restrict which countries your app is available in the App Store. Is there something in the policy that states your app can't be outside the App Store in EU but in the App Store elsewhere?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Good news is that Apple can completely enforce a rule against it in their own store, and this one wouldn't bring any scrutiny from the Commission.

aednichols 3y ago

CTF is waived for nonprofits, which is how a lot of FOSS projects are structured.

asadotzler 3y ago
lots is doing a lot of work here. the overwhelming majority of FOSS projects have no structure at all much less non profit corporations behind them. more accurate would be to say "a small number of FOSS projects" or "a lot of the top several FOSS projects".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

giantrobot 3y ago

> That is a possibility (though it hasn't happened on Android) Android as a platform has far fewer default privacy controls as iOS. Meta doesn't need an alternate App Store to slurp up Android users' data. They would need one on iOS which gives them and everyone else impetus to create alternate stores which allow them to slurp up more data. Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions.

idle_zealot 3y ago
> Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions Unless, of course, the friction introduced by requiring users leave the App Store they're comfortable with costs them more.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  This. Plus Meta can't leave the store since they need it to address non-EU markets, and Apple can definitely force them to keep being available in store in the EU if they want to be available elsewhere.
jmholla 3y ago
> Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions. How would a different app store change these OS policies and features?
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  Because, as has already been explained ad nauseam, Apple's control measures are partly technological and partly contractual. If Apple catches you tracking users after users opt out of tracking, Apple will de-list you from their store. If Meta can simply set up a different storefront (or directly side load), they merely have to follow the EU laws (which are less restrictive than Apple's).

quitit 3y ago

> Meta and other nefarious… in order to skirt Apple's privacy rules This isn’t hypothetical, it is precisely what Meta (then Facebook) and Google both already did. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252456835/Facebook-and-Google-exploit-Enterprise-Certificate-loophole-on-iOS https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252456835/Fac...

xxpor 3y ago

>Apple's opt-out by default data policies cost Meta billions of dollars the quarter it was introduced in the OS update. Meta would assuredly restrict their apps to a Meta store to get back those billions. This conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Look at Meta's revenue since the roll out of ATT. They're essentially back to where they were. They've figured out ML based probability targeting. If anything, they're in a better position than they were pre-ATT, because now they really have some secret sauce in there, because no one else seems to have been able to figure it out.

Nevermark 3y ago
You are suggesting Facebook doesn't mind valuable information restrictions because they have found other sets/means of valuable information. That just doesn't follow. Facebook wants everything. It is a near certainty that yesterday's restricted information is even more valuable today, since they can also increase its value via machine learning systems. And high profits today don't dampen the need for growth, they accelerate the need by iteratively raising the baseline for next year. The year after. And onward. For the shareholders. For Zuckerberg.
- rreichman 3y ago
  Similarly to GDPR - ATT is bad for Meta but much worse for Meta's competitors.
- xxpor 3y ago
  Facebook lobbied against ATT because it was a massive pain in the ass. Plus, they might not have known if the ML based targeting worked out. At this point, they've spent the capital to work around it, and it's a new moat. I doubt they'd want it to be reverted.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Good point. They are going to lean into their advantages in any situation. But given their lead, customer base, tech and capital, they can monetize and leverage surveillance information better than anyone in their space. More information creates more advantages for them than anyone else. Any Facebook killer isn't going to out ad monetize them. The opposite. It is going to be something that provides a better but different experience - and likely to be incompatible with Facebooks surveillance-ad business model. A reverse moat Facebook won't/can't cross.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

But outside of Europe people still won't be able to use alternative app stores, so Meta has to provide their app through Apple store, where it will be available to EU users too.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bitvoid 3y ago
You can restrict which countries your app is available in the App Store. Is there something in the policy that states your app can't be outside the App Store in EU but in the App Store elsewhere?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Good news is that Apple can completely enforce a rule against it in their own store, and this one wouldn't bring any scrutiny from the Commission.