7 ms·

> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside

> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. To me, this is the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after. It is unfair that Apple restricts Netflix from telling it's users that they can sign up and pay for Netlifx on their own website. It's unfair that Netflix can't even tell its users the rules that Apple enforces on them. It's telling that Gruber is pretty staunchly against EU/DMA interferance in Apple, and broadly thinks they're wrong. But this is the one thing he agrees on > If Apple wants to insist on a cut of in-app purchased subscription revenue, that’s their prerogative. What gets me, though, are the rules that prevent apps that eschew in-app purchases from telling users in plain language how to actually pay. Not only is Netflix not allowed to link to their website, they can’t even tell the user they need to go to netflix.com to sign up https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2019/01/netflix_itunes_billing https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_statement https://daringfireball.net/2020/07/parsing_cooks_opening_sta... (I think Apple now has their 'reader app' carveout for apps like Netflix, but it's still pretty obtuse and inconsistent)

madeofpalk 1y ago
Also, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple failed to comply with this obligation [to allow third party app stores] in view of the conditions it imposes on app (and app store) developers. Developers wanting to use alternative app distribution channels on iOS are disincentivised from doing so as this requires them to opt for business terms which include a new fee (Apple's Core Technology Fee). Apple also introduced overly strict eligibility requirements, hampering developers' ability to distribute their apps through alternative channels. Finally, Apple makes it overly burdensome and confusing for end users to install apps when using such alternative app distribution channels. This is great to hear. It sounds like they've just found Apple non-compliant in making alternate app stores as discouraging for both developers and user as possible. I guess it'll take another 12 months for any fines or changes from Apple.
- stavros 1y ago
  The two companies have two months to comply, or there will be daily fines.
  - madeofpalk 1y ago
    I don't think so - they’ve only been fined for the in-app anti-steering provisions. For the second App Marketplace issue, I think that’s just a preliminary finding and is going to take longer to work out > Apple now has the possibility to exercise its rights of defence by examining the documents in the Commission's investigation file and by responding to the preliminary findings
    - stavros 1y ago
      Hm, maybe, I'm just going by what the article says: > The companies have two months to comply with the orders or risk daily fines. Maybe they got it wrong, though.
      - antasvara 1y ago
        I think you're both sort of right. The orders in question here are 1 for Apple (the one that made circumventing Apple payments super difficult) and 1 for Meta (their ad-free subscription service). Meta and Apple have to comply with those within 2 months. The preliminary finding on sideloading apps isn't subject to that 2 month compliance deadline from what I can tell.
  - Ifkaluva 1y ago
    Will the fines be large enough to matter? The headline number of 570M looks like pocket change.
    - dcow 1y ago
      It only costs 570MM a year to retain my iron grip monopoly on the AppStore? Let me find my checkbook…
Yeul 1y ago
Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?
- mdhb 1y ago
  Just never in a logically consistent manner.
  - NilMostChill 1y ago
    and usually in a context where the concept they are thinking of (the constitution) doesn't apply (anywhere that isn't the government)
    - orangecat 1y ago
      Free speech isn't good because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's good.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Sure it is. Lots of us also go on about private property rights and freedom of association. Apple is restricting the behavior of entities doing business through them on a platform they own. The logic is that you remain free to speak - elsewhere. Meanwhile Apple remains free not to do business with you if you can't or won't accept their terms. (Well really the legal argument is that Apple isn't the government and so the first amendment doesn't bind their policies but there's an ideological aspect in addition to the legal one.) The issue missed by such an analysis is the outsized impact the megacorp has. Without strong competition (ie not a duopoly or even an oligopoly) regulation is required to protect consumers against practices that otherwise would be financially discouraged. There are also a few other blindspots people here tend to have regarding regulation. In particular that sometimes detrimental behaviors exist that are perversely incentivized rather than discouraged by the market despite being obviously worse for consumers. A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget that such things are even within the realm of possibility.
- paxys 1y ago
mrtksn 1y ago
>the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after It's also probably the most dangerous for Apple. It creates a cash incentive to push people outside of Apple's walled garden and show them what's outside. I really really hope Apple gets its act together, they are the greatest "the user experience comes first" company and they actually have great hard tech but they show signs of rent seeking behavior which can destroy them. If Apple just play nice with EU, open up and focus on bringing the greatest experience possible they will keep winning. If not, they will have blunders and they will lose Europe since people are willing to look for alternatives as USA gets increasingly unpopular among the Europeans due to politics. The Apple's AI blunder is mostly a blunder only because they insist to do it all by themselves so to have higher margins on the services revenues. IMHO those blunders will be more damaging as the Americans no longer have the higher moral grounds than Koreans or Chinese. I hope Apple is treading carefully.
- Derbasti 1y ago
  > If not, they will have blunders and they will lose Europe since people are willing to look for alternatives as USA gets increasingly unpopular among the Europeans due to politics. But what alternative? There is no European smartphone OS. Windows and Steam OS and XBox are US-american, too. I suppose Linux, Playstation, and Nintendo, then?
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    The alternatives are Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo and others. Already the dominant brands in Europe. It doesn't have to be European, it has to be good and those are pretty good at much cheaper prices. They also offer premium models that Apple doesn't have a match. People pay a lot extra for the feelings the brand invokes in them. Tesla was like that when it was about the values it used to represent, right after Musk dropped those values they had to start pricing their vehicles based on the specs to compete with similarly specced alternatives. If Apple goes into fight with EU and becomes the "anti-european tech giant" they will have to start selling 300 euro iPhones.
    - reissbaker 1y ago
jader201 1y ago
> It's telling that Gruber is pretty staunchly against EU/DMA interferance in Apple, and broadly thinks they're wrong. But this is the one thing he agree on I’ve stopped seeing Gruber as any sort of authority on Apple for a while now. He’s just a single guy with an opinion like everyone else, and it’s, more times than not, clearly biased in favor of Apple. Some of his analysis of objective data is informative, but when he gets into subjective material, I tune out. I don’t really care any more about what he says than most others sharing their opinion on the internet — it’s just one more data point to consider collectively alongside everyone else’s.
- radlad 1y ago
  I agree with your overall comment, but I think this is basically what OP was getting at: it's not surprising that Gruber is against EU/DMA interference, yet even he has issues with this particular point.
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  I liked his piece on the Apple AI debacle, I figure if he is criticising Apple for that then there is something to the complaints. What I really dislike and the reason I don't subscribe to his feed is the politics.
dcow 1y ago
And to the products that need the carveouts the most, small fledgling apps where the margin matters intensely, it’s not available.
sagarpatil 1y ago
Elon was very vocal about this, he asked subscribers to directly buy from the website. There’s a 30% discount.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
Usually the user should heavily penalize such behavior, but Apple has users and apostles. To a degree that some believe Daddy Apple should shield them from temptation by evil Netflix. It ridiculous and also comes with costs for other customers of that ecosystem. I believe brands really make some people stupid.

madeofpalk 1y ago

Also, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1086 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_... > The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple failed to comply with this obligation [to allow third party app stores] in view of the conditions it imposes on app (and app store) developers. Developers wanting to use alternative app distribution channels on iOS are disincentivised from doing so as this requires them to opt for business terms which include a new fee (Apple's Core Technology Fee). Apple also introduced overly strict eligibility requirements, hampering developers' ability to distribute their apps through alternative channels. Finally, Apple makes it overly burdensome and confusing for end users to install apps when using such alternative app distribution channels. This is great to hear. It sounds like they've just found Apple non-compliant in making alternate app stores as discouraging for both developers and user as possible. I guess it'll take another 12 months for any fines or changes from Apple.

stavros 1y ago
The two companies have two months to comply, or there will be daily fines.
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  I don't think so - they’ve only been fined for the in-app anti-steering provisions. For the second App Marketplace issue, I think that’s just a preliminary finding and is going to take longer to work out > Apple now has the possibility to exercise its rights of defence by examining the documents in the Commission's investigation file and by responding to the preliminary findings
  - stavros 1y ago
    Hm, maybe, I'm just going by what the article says: > The companies have two months to comply with the orders or risk daily fines. Maybe they got it wrong, though.
    - antasvara 1y ago
      I think you're both sort of right. The orders in question here are 1 for Apple (the one that made circumventing Apple payments super difficult) and 1 for Meta (their ad-free subscription service). Meta and Apple have to comply with those within 2 months. The preliminary finding on sideloading apps isn't subject to that 2 month compliance deadline from what I can tell.
- Ifkaluva 1y ago
  Will the fines be large enough to matter? The headline number of 570M looks like pocket change.
  - dcow 1y ago
    It only costs 570MM a year to retain my iron grip monopoly on the AppStore? Let me find my checkbook…

Yeul 1y ago

Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?

mdhb 1y ago
Just never in a logically consistent manner.
- NilMostChill 1y ago
  and usually in a context where the concept they are thinking of (the constitution) doesn't apply (anywhere that isn't the government)
  - orangecat 1y ago
    Free speech isn't good because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's good.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Sure it is. Lots of us also go on about private property rights and freedom of association. Apple is restricting the behavior of entities doing business through them on a platform they own. The logic is that you remain free to speak - elsewhere. Meanwhile Apple remains free not to do business with you if you can't or won't accept their terms. (Well really the legal argument is that Apple isn't the government and so the first amendment doesn't bind their policies but there's an ideological aspect in addition to the legal one.) The issue missed by such an analysis is the outsized impact the megacorp has. Without strong competition (ie not a duopoly or even an oligopoly) regulation is required to protect consumers against practices that otherwise would be financially discouraged. There are also a few other blindspots people here tend to have regarding regulation. In particular that sometimes detrimental behaviors exist that are perversely incentivized rather than discouraged by the market despite being obviously worse for consumers. A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget that such things are even within the realm of possibility.
paxys 1y ago

mrtksn 1y ago

>the most easily agreeable part of what the EU has been after It's also probably the most dangerous for Apple. It creates a cash incentive to push people outside of Apple's walled garden and show them what's outside. I really really hope Apple gets its act together, they are the greatest "the user experience comes first" company and they actually have great hard tech but they show signs of rent seeking behavior which can destroy them. If Apple just play nice with EU, open up and focus on bringing the greatest experience possible they will keep winning. If not, they will have blunders and they will lose Europe since people are willing to look for alternatives as USA gets increasingly unpopular among the Europeans due to politics. The Apple's AI blunder is mostly a blunder only because they insist to do it all by themselves so to have higher margins on the services revenues. IMHO those blunders will be more damaging as the Americans no longer have the higher moral grounds than Koreans or Chinese. I hope Apple is treading carefully.

Derbasti 1y ago
> If not, they will have blunders and they will lose Europe since people are willing to look for alternatives as USA gets increasingly unpopular among the Europeans due to politics. But what alternative? There is no European smartphone OS. Windows and Steam OS and XBox are US-american, too. I suppose Linux, Playstation, and Nintendo, then?
- mrtksn 1y ago
  The alternatives are Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo and others. Already the dominant brands in Europe. It doesn't have to be European, it has to be good and those are pretty good at much cheaper prices. They also offer premium models that Apple doesn't have a match. People pay a lot extra for the feelings the brand invokes in them. Tesla was like that when it was about the values it used to represent, right after Musk dropped those values they had to start pricing their vehicles based on the specs to compete with similarly specced alternatives. If Apple goes into fight with EU and becomes the "anti-european tech giant" they will have to start selling 300 euro iPhones.
  - reissbaker 1y ago

jader201 1y ago

> It's telling that Gruber is pretty staunchly against EU/DMA interferance in Apple, and broadly thinks they're wrong. But this is the one thing he agree on I’ve stopped seeing Gruber as any sort of authority on Apple for a while now. He’s just a single guy with an opinion like everyone else, and it’s, more times than not, clearly biased in favor of Apple. Some of his analysis of objective data is informative, but when he gets into subjective material, I tune out. I don’t really care any more about what he says than most others sharing their opinion on the internet — it’s just one more data point to consider collectively alongside everyone else’s.

radlad 1y ago
I agree with your overall comment, but I think this is basically what OP was getting at: it's not surprising that Gruber is against EU/DMA interference, yet even he has issues with this particular point.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
I liked his piece on the Apple AI debacle, I figure if he is criticising Apple for that then there is something to the complaints. What I really dislike and the reason I don't subscribe to his feed is the politics.

dcow 1y ago

And to the products that need the carveouts the most, small fledgling apps where the margin matters intensely, it’s not available.

sagarpatil 1y ago

Elon was very vocal about this, he asked subscribers to directly buy from the website. There’s a 30% discount.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

Usually the user should heavily penalize such behavior, but Apple has users and apostles. To a degree that some believe Daddy Apple should shield them from temptation by evil Netflix. It ridiculous and also comes with costs for other customers of that ecosystem. I believe brands really make some people stupid.