9 ms·

Devs say Apple still flouting EU's Digital Markets Act six months on

107 points by paulatreides 10mo ago

raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
Funny enough because of the judge’s ruling, anyone can link outside of the App Store in the US to accept payments without paying Apple anything.
- candiddevmike 10mo ago
  What recourse do you have if the app store review process finds "issues" with your app that are "obviously unrelated" to your payment setup but seemingly can't be resolved after multiple review iterations? It seems like the app store review process is designed to be opaque enough to ensure Apple gets their way in their sandbox, regardless of judicial ruling. In my experience, the review process is wildly inconsistent.
  - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
    I know Netflix, Amazon’s Kindle app and DuoLingo have outside links. Apple and Amazon made a deal years ago where you can buy digital videos within Amazon Prime Video using your Amazon account. But let’s be real, the only apps making money directly from in app purchases are pay to win games. It came out in Apple vs Epic that 90% of App Store revenue comes from games. The other companies making money are mostly selling subscriptions to SaaS apps/services that you can use one subscription anywhere and have always been paying outside of the App Store.
    - troupo 10mo ago
      > that you can use one subscription anywhere and have always been paying outside of the App Store. Why can't those services show a link in their app to their page without Apple claiming it's owed 27% of the sale?
      - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        In the US you can because of the judgement against Apple. When you link outside of the store, Apple gets nothing. Even in the store, Apple charges 15% if your revenue is below $1 million and charges 15% for renewals after the first year.
        troupo 10mo ago
        > In the US you can because of the judgement against Apple. Indeed. It took a court battle, and holding Apple in contempt of court, and perjury by one of Apple's executives before Apple was forced to do it (did it comply?). Why not everywhere? > Even in the store, Apple charges 15% if your revenue is below $1 million and charges 15% for renewals after the first year. No, Apple was going to charge 27% on sales happening outside of the App Store, if linked in the app. Also, you keep trying to diminish/dismiss this as if was no big deal. Also, the latest court order was a victory for Apple, not for devs. Apple, again, can charge commission in external links, restrict language in those links etc.
        raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        Apple can not charge for external links In the US. I am saying that if the indie devs didn’t have go pay Apple a dime, it wouldn’t matter. You still aren’t going to stand out and monetize compared to companies selling loot boxes and coins that make up 90% of App Store revenue. You will still have the same discovery problem, people’s unwillingness to pay money for apps on the App Store aside from games and the same race to the bottom. Just like no matter what, the indie band playing at the local bar is not going to make money off of Spotify and all of the money is going to go to Taylor Swift and Drake.
        troupo 10mo ago
        > Apple can not charge for external links In the US. 1. Yes. Yes it can. 2. This was literally my first question you keep dancing around: "Why can't those services show a link in their app to their page without Apple claiming it's owed 27% of the sale?" > You still aren’t going to stand out and monetize What does this have to do with my question? Literally nothing. But we've been at this twice already, and I am not inclined to go for a third round. Adieu.
    - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
      > But let’s be real, the only apps making money directly from in app purchases are pay to win games. It came out in Apple vs Epic that 90% of App Store revenue comes from games. But is that the chicken or the egg? Is it that surprising that when such an oppressively large margin is being extracted, the primary survivors are the things that are themselves scams? Normal businesses typically don't have 30% margins to begin with, much less have that much to spare for a extractive middleman.
      - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        No it’s the same for every marketplace. Profits accrue to a few. Look at YouTube, books, artist on Spotify etc. Software has near 0 marginal costs unless you are dependent on a third party server side AI models (instead of on device models) or other API vendors. 15% (if you are making less than 1 million) is not the reason you aren’t making money on the App Store. That sane person wouldn’t be making money on the web no more than the indie artist isn’t making money on Spotify compared to Drake or Taylor Swift. If Apple reduced in app commissions to 0, the same developers would still fail. Well known publishers have tried the pay $10 once for a premium game on iOS and users wouldn’t pay for it.
        AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
        > No it’s the same for every marketplace. Profits accrue to a few. Look at YouTube, books, artist on Spotify etc. Many of those are things where the value of a single user is very low and then you need a significant audience just to earn an ordinary salary. > Software has near 0 marginal costs But it has significant development costs, and the fact that you're required to use Apple's store makes them even higher, because their restrictions are incompatible with free software licenses, which locks you out of even using LGPL code on iOS, much less anything else. Apple's hardware has those fancy chips in it, right? Suppose you want to create a front end for Blender and run it on iOS. Your front end doesn't have to use the same license as Blender itself if it's a separate program, so you could charge for it. But Blender is GPL so you can't run it on iOS at all. Then you'd have to write Blender yourself, by which point you're talking something that would need a million a year in revenue, and a 30% deadweight loss could very well make the difference between viable and not. It's also incredibly disheartening, because you do the work and take the risk and then if you actually succeed you know someone else is going to cut out a huge chunk of the revenue, which discourages people from making the attempt. > Well known publishers have tried the pay $10 once for a premium game on iOS and users wouldn’t pay for it. Which is kind of weird when they're empirically willing to do it on other platforms, right? But that's what happens when you establish a reputation for being capricious while taking a large cut. Who wants to make a significant investment into a platform when the platform is eroding their profits and there is a non-trivial chance they could be arbitrarily cut off at any time with no recourse? At which point the users come to expect apps to be scummy and become disinclined to pay for them up front.
utopiah 10mo ago
If I had to develop commercial applications expecting interoperability from the 2nd largest mobile operating system I would be very pissed. As a consumer with the resources to leave, the choice is simple.
- Y-bar 10mo ago
  I disagree that the choice is simple. In reality there are only two mobile operating systems where there is any hardware to purchase in my town. These two operating systems are the only mobile devices where my bank (and as far as I am aware other competing banks in my area) offer banking on. There are many variables that goes into the purchase of a mobile phone, the App Store is only one of many. Google is marginally better at allowing side-loading or alternative stores, there is a degree of flexibility in hardware choices and so on. But on the other hand I trust Apple more (absolutely not fully, mind you) with regards to general privacy for example. This privacy protection in conjunction with significantly better movie recording compared to Android are the two primary reasons I stay on iOS. But at the same time, I am highly critical of Apple’s conduct here. And because it is effectively impossible to vote with my wallet I am voting with my vote so that politicians enact policies that allow me to use my devices the way I want.
  - fsflover 10mo ago
    Alternatively, GNU/Linux phones can be used. But not all banks support them, of course.
    - Silhouette 10mo ago
      Not all banks, government services, travel and ticketing systems, and the list goes on. The unfortunate reality is that we have a duopoly in the mobile device market and having one of those devices are now a practical necessity to live a normal life for most people. Without regulation to force the market to open up there's little to stop organisations that want ever more control over the devices you can use to access their systems. Trying to go outside the two big players just means you're going to get a substandard or completely pointless experience. And even governments are in on it. Which is going to be interesting when both the huge US corporations that form that duopoly and/or the government of their home nation decide to do something that goes against what the government or laws in other places want to happen.
an0malous 10mo ago
> Apple has said it will roll out new App Store terms in January 2026, but developers say the company has provided no clarity on what those changes will involve or whether they will actually comply with the DMA. > "We have seen this playbook before in Europe and beyond," the signatories warn, adding that they suspect any new terms will continue to impose fees that would violate the law. So the complaint is that they might violate the law next month?
- cwillu 10mo ago
  The complaint is that they're violating the law right now.
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  No, the complaint is the established pattern of neglect.
ZeroConcerns 10mo ago
Well, if Apple were really clever, they'd have introduced an 'EU DMA CAPTCHA' by now, requiring anyone EU-adjacent-resident to mark all the evil EU bureaucrats in a picture of room before allowing them to resume their doomscrolling. I mean, it absolutely worked for effectively sinking the GDPR, where pretty much everyone now equates that law with obnoxious 'cookie banners', to the point that these regulations are being relaxed, despite never requiring these banners in any way, shape or form in the first place. But, yeah, despite that, I'd say they'll get away with this as well...
- buzer 10mo ago
  > I mean, it absolutely worked for effectively sinking the DMCA, where pretty much everyone now equites that law with obnoxious 'cookie banners', to the point that these regulations are being relaxed. I don't think DMCA has anything to do with that though I did wish everyone hated it. You probably meant GDPR.
  - ZeroConcerns 10mo ago
    Yes, indeed, thank you! Fixed now, but, well... abbreviation fatigue takes its toll...
    - Silhouette 10mo ago
      Even with the fix that's still not really accurate - though it's a widespread misconception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Directive
      - ZeroConcerns 10mo ago
        No, it's now entirely accurate. Nothing in the GDPR requires 'cookie banners', and your Wikipedia link doesn't 'dispell' that 'misconception', but nice try...
        10mo ago
1123581321 10mo ago
Apple told the European Commission it would roll out the new terms in January 2026. This letter is saying that the uncertainty leading up to January 2026 is causing damage and not in concordance with the European Commission finding in August 2025. Do I understand that right? Did the European Commission agree to the January 2026 deadline or not? Have they been working internally behind the scenes with Apple or are they as in the dark as these developers? What is the legal mechanism to push disclosure a month earlier and why is the letter only being published now? These are sincere questions of mine, in case it's not clear.
- Y-bar 10mo ago
  The commission might have agreed with the timeline. It is unclear. But on the other hand this is not just about the relationship between Apple and the EC. Their understanding might actually have meant that the damage to users and other developers remained as is claimed here so the commission now has to listen to the injured party and adjust their posture. Think of it this way: I am blocking part of your driveway for some reasons, and after a while me and the city inspector agree that I will remedy the situation next year. Would you accept that, or would you tell the inspector that your driveway is still not useable and that I should be quicker?
- enragedcacti 10mo ago
  I think the confusion stems from The Register mixing up two different sets of DMA cases against Apple. The March and August EU actions are regarding hardware and software interoperability under DMA Article 6(7). For these cases, the August specification decision has a number of different deadlines specified, and I don't think any of these have passed yet. The April 2025 non-compliance decision the app devs reference is regarding the DMA anti-steering provisions (Article 5(4)). This decision was that Apple failed to meet their compliance obligations that were specified way back in June 2024, that they would be subject to a fine, and that they would have 60 days to comply before being subject to periodic fines [1]. The Coalition for App Fairness is saying that they don't believe Apple's App Store anti-steering remediation is compliant or timely and that the EU needs to take further action. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
mindcrash 10mo ago
All the while Android users - or at least those on the Samsung Galaxy sub-ecosystem - are happily downloading free, as in open source, software from alternative sources like F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/), Obtainium (https://obtainium.imranr.dev/ https://obtainium.imranr.dev/), Accrescent (https://accrescent.app/ https://accrescent.app/), and even can access the main app store through a more privacy friendly way using Aurora (https://auroraoss.com/ https://auroraoss.com/) - although with the latter you will probably break a license agreement you never read anyway, so fuck that. That, and: * Customization is better -- Apple has nothing like Good Lock, which is developed AND officially supported by Samsung, * AI is better -- And Samsung even gives the choice to run AI features completely locally on your phone -or- in the cloud, * Features for power users are all around better -- As a example did you know Google built a freaking virtualization service which allows you to run a full Linux operating system, with an complete KDE Plasma or GNOME UI on top of Android? Well, now you do. Super fun feature to have on a phone. Even more super fun feature to have on a tablet. And then there's DeX -- at least on the Galaxies, as long as Google is working on the built in desktop features for the next Android release. And for those times you quickly want or need a Linux shell you can launch Termux (https://termux.dev/en/ https://termux.dev/en/). Most notably and importantly: for all these things you don't have to root or jailbreak ANYTHING... They work completely out of the box -- Although you can get a scary sounding warning when downloading stuff from outside the Play store, but if you really understand and can deal with the consequences this can be easily solved using a toggle button. How Apple keeps managing to drive themselves and their developer ecosystem completely in the ground still is completely baffling to me. And that comes from someone who really used to love Apple, back in the Jobs era (Got the first iPod, iPhone, iPad, and first Intel MacBook Pro to prove it). PS: Because lots of people got super pissed about Google abandoning sideloading on Android they walked back on their initial decisions and it will keep working for the foreseeable future
- naian 10mo ago
  Samsung is so good that… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46123747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46123747
- wackget 10mo ago
charcircuit 10mo ago
Give people an inch and they will want a mile. I hope Apple resists these bullies who feel entitled to use all the hardwork Apple put into building their platform.
- schubidubiduba 10mo ago
  You got it the wrong way around: Apple feels entitled to use all the hard work developers put into their apps to bolster their own pockets.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    Developers are free to delete their apps from Apple's store ar any time. Yes, apps bolster their own pockets, but they also bolster the pockets of the developers themselves.
    - troupo 10mo ago
      Devs might have deleted their apps from AppStore, but Apple literally doesn't allow to distribute software any other way, and even in the EU where it oretends to allow competing AppStores, it still interjects itself into the process
      - charcircuit 10mo ago
        Apple owns ios, Apple owns the iPhone. It would make sense that those factions within Apple would still be involved even if the AppStore people are not.
        troupo 10mo ago
        "Apple owns the iPhone". That's quite a statement.
        charcircuit 10mo ago
giancarlostoro 10mo ago
I'll go a step farther. iOS is the only mobile OS that restricts PWA's and I think they do it on purpose to force you out of PWAs and into native apps. I think Apple should 100% support PWAs with no shenanigans, they should work 100% without Apple needing to approve of anything too. Steve Jobs pitched PWAs way back when, I don't know why all we've gotten is a half-baked solution from Apple other than they want you in their App Store with a native app.
- LocalH 10mo ago
  They figured out that the App Store made them more money than PWAs do, that's why
  - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
    It came out in the epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from games. Those were not going to be web apps.
- troupo 10mo ago
  > I think Apple should 100% support PWAs with no shenanigans Where "support PWA" and "no shenanigans" are which of the ever shifting sets of APIs?
  - bsimpson 10mo ago
    I get the point you're making (that standards evolve, and Apple will drag its feet again if it sees a profit), but that doesn't change that they've been gating functionality behind app-only APIs for decades to grow their walled garden and make the rest of us worse off for it. You shouldn't have to install things on your phone. Most "apps" should just be websites, with a bookmark if you so choose.
    - troupo 10mo ago
      > I get the point you're making (that standards evolve, and Apple will drag its feet again if it sees a profit) No, that's not my point. My point is that there's no such thing as PWA. There's a lose collection of standards, and everyone choses a set that benefits their narrative when defining PWAs. For a very long time Apple supported all APIs (except maybe notifications) that even Google defined as necessary for something to be a PWA. Didn't stop people from pretending that this is somehow not PWA. > Most "apps" should just be websites, with a bookmark if you so choose. As Android shows, even there no one wants that, and there are very few PWAs of note.
thomassmith65 10mo ago
This is normal Apple behaviour going at least as far back as the noughties, if not the 1980s. Apple care about the American and Asian markets. They have long treated the EU as a joke whose consumer laws they can ignore. That is why, the past few years, Apple has behaved so petulantly and strangely in reaction to EU stipulations. They feel it's beneath them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43421180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43421180

107 points by paulatreides 10mo ago

Funny enough because of the judge’s ruling, anyone can link outside of the App Store in the US to accept payments without paying Apple anything.

candiddevmike 10mo ago
What recourse do you have if the app store review process finds "issues" with your app that are "obviously unrelated" to your payment setup but seemingly can't be resolved after multiple review iterations? It seems like the app store review process is designed to be opaque enough to ensure Apple gets their way in their sandbox, regardless of judicial ruling. In my experience, the review process is wildly inconsistent.
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  I know Netflix, Amazon’s Kindle app and DuoLingo have outside links. Apple and Amazon made a deal years ago where you can buy digital videos within Amazon Prime Video using your Amazon account. But let’s be real, the only apps making money directly from in app purchases are pay to win games. It came out in Apple vs Epic that 90% of App Store revenue comes from games. The other companies making money are mostly selling subscriptions to SaaS apps/services that you can use one subscription anywhere and have always been paying outside of the App Store.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    > that you can use one subscription anywhere and have always been paying outside of the App Store. Why can't those services show a link in their app to their page without Apple claiming it's owed 27% of the sale?
    - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
      In the US you can because of the judgement against Apple. When you link outside of the store, Apple gets nothing. Even in the store, Apple charges 15% if your revenue is below $1 million and charges 15% for renewals after the first year.
      - troupo 10mo ago
        > In the US you can because of the judgement against Apple. Indeed. It took a court battle, and holding Apple in contempt of court, and perjury by one of Apple's executives before Apple was forced to do it (did it comply?). Why not everywhere? > Even in the store, Apple charges 15% if your revenue is below $1 million and charges 15% for renewals after the first year. No, Apple was going to charge 27% on sales happening outside of the App Store, if linked in the app. Also, you keep trying to diminish/dismiss this as if was no big deal. Also, the latest court order was a victory for Apple, not for devs. Apple, again, can charge commission in external links, restrict language in those links etc.
        raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        Apple can not charge for external links In the US. I am saying that if the indie devs didn’t have go pay Apple a dime, it wouldn’t matter. You still aren’t going to stand out and monetize compared to companies selling loot boxes and coins that make up 90% of App Store revenue. You will still have the same discovery problem, people’s unwillingness to pay money for apps on the App Store aside from games and the same race to the bottom. Just like no matter what, the indie band playing at the local bar is not going to make money off of Spotify and all of the money is going to go to Taylor Swift and Drake.
        troupo 10mo ago
        > Apple can not charge for external links In the US. 1. Yes. Yes it can. 2. This was literally my first question you keep dancing around: "Why can't those services show a link in their app to their page without Apple claiming it's owed 27% of the sale?" > You still aren’t going to stand out and monetize What does this have to do with my question? Literally nothing. But we've been at this twice already, and I am not inclined to go for a third round. Adieu.
  - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
    > But let’s be real, the only apps making money directly from in app purchases are pay to win games. It came out in Apple vs Epic that 90% of App Store revenue comes from games. But is that the chicken or the egg? Is it that surprising that when such an oppressively large margin is being extracted, the primary survivors are the things that are themselves scams? Normal businesses typically don't have 30% margins to begin with, much less have that much to spare for a extractive middleman.
    - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
      No it’s the same for every marketplace. Profits accrue to a few. Look at YouTube, books, artist on Spotify etc. Software has near 0 marginal costs unless you are dependent on a third party server side AI models (instead of on device models) or other API vendors. 15% (if you are making less than 1 million) is not the reason you aren’t making money on the App Store. That sane person wouldn’t be making money on the web no more than the indie artist isn’t making money on Spotify compared to Drake or Taylor Swift. If Apple reduced in app commissions to 0, the same developers would still fail. Well known publishers have tried the pay $10 once for a premium game on iOS and users wouldn’t pay for it.
      - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
        > No it’s the same for every marketplace. Profits accrue to a few. Look at YouTube, books, artist on Spotify etc. Many of those are things where the value of a single user is very low and then you need a significant audience just to earn an ordinary salary. > Software has near 0 marginal costs But it has significant development costs, and the fact that you're required to use Apple's store makes them even higher, because their restrictions are incompatible with free software licenses, which locks you out of even using LGPL code on iOS, much less anything else. Apple's hardware has those fancy chips in it, right? Suppose you want to create a front end for Blender and run it on iOS. Your front end doesn't have to use the same license as Blender itself if it's a separate program, so you could charge for it. But Blender is GPL so you can't run it on iOS at all. Then you'd have to write Blender yourself, by which point you're talking something that would need a million a year in revenue, and a 30% deadweight loss could very well make the difference between viable and not. It's also incredibly disheartening, because you do the work and take the risk and then if you actually succeed you know someone else is going to cut out a huge chunk of the revenue, which discourages people from making the attempt. > Well known publishers have tried the pay $10 once for a premium game on iOS and users wouldn’t pay for it. Which is kind of weird when they're empirically willing to do it on other platforms, right? But that's what happens when you establish a reputation for being capricious while taking a large cut. Who wants to make a significant investment into a platform when the platform is eroding their profits and there is a non-trivial chance they could be arbitrarily cut off at any time with no recourse? At which point the users come to expect apps to be scummy and become disinclined to pay for them up front.

utopiah 10mo ago

If I had to develop commercial applications expecting interoperability from the 2nd largest mobile operating system I would be very pissed. As a consumer with the resources to leave, the choice is simple.

Y-bar 10mo ago
I disagree that the choice is simple. In reality there are only two mobile operating systems where there is any hardware to purchase in my town. These two operating systems are the only mobile devices where my bank (and as far as I am aware other competing banks in my area) offer banking on. There are many variables that goes into the purchase of a mobile phone, the App Store is only one of many. Google is marginally better at allowing side-loading or alternative stores, there is a degree of flexibility in hardware choices and so on. But on the other hand I trust Apple more (absolutely not fully, mind you) with regards to general privacy for example. This privacy protection in conjunction with significantly better movie recording compared to Android are the two primary reasons I stay on iOS. But at the same time, I am highly critical of Apple’s conduct here. And because it is effectively impossible to vote with my wallet I am voting with my vote so that politicians enact policies that allow me to use my devices the way I want.
- fsflover 10mo ago
  Alternatively, GNU/Linux phones can be used. But not all banks support them, of course.
  - Silhouette 10mo ago
    Not all banks, government services, travel and ticketing systems, and the list goes on. The unfortunate reality is that we have a duopoly in the mobile device market and having one of those devices are now a practical necessity to live a normal life for most people. Without regulation to force the market to open up there's little to stop organisations that want ever more control over the devices you can use to access their systems. Trying to go outside the two big players just means you're going to get a substandard or completely pointless experience. And even governments are in on it. Which is going to be interesting when both the huge US corporations that form that duopoly and/or the government of their home nation decide to do something that goes against what the government or laws in other places want to happen.

an0malous 10mo ago

> Apple has said it will roll out new App Store terms in January 2026, but developers say the company has provided no clarity on what those changes will involve or whether they will actually comply with the DMA. > "We have seen this playbook before in Europe and beyond," the signatories warn, adding that they suspect any new terms will continue to impose fees that would violate the law. So the complaint is that they might violate the law next month?

cwillu 10mo ago
The complaint is that they're violating the law right now.
bigyabai 10mo ago
No, the complaint is the established pattern of neglect.

ZeroConcerns 10mo ago

Well, if Apple were really clever, they'd have introduced an 'EU DMA CAPTCHA' by now, requiring anyone EU-adjacent-resident to mark all the evil EU bureaucrats in a picture of room before allowing them to resume their doomscrolling. I mean, it absolutely worked for effectively sinking the GDPR, where pretty much everyone now equates that law with obnoxious 'cookie banners', to the point that these regulations are being relaxed, despite never requiring these banners in any way, shape or form in the first place. But, yeah, despite that, I'd say they'll get away with this as well...

buzer 10mo ago
> I mean, it absolutely worked for effectively sinking the DMCA, where pretty much everyone now equites that law with obnoxious 'cookie banners', to the point that these regulations are being relaxed. I don't think DMCA has anything to do with that though I did wish everyone hated it. You probably meant GDPR.
- ZeroConcerns 10mo ago
  Yes, indeed, thank you! Fixed now, but, well... abbreviation fatigue takes its toll...
  - Silhouette 10mo ago
    Even with the fix that's still not really accurate - though it's a widespread misconception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Directive
    - ZeroConcerns 10mo ago
      No, it's now entirely accurate. Nothing in the GDPR requires 'cookie banners', and your Wikipedia link doesn't 'dispell' that 'misconception', but nice try...
      - 10mo ago

1123581321 10mo ago

Apple told the European Commission it would roll out the new terms in January 2026. This letter is saying that the uncertainty leading up to January 2026 is causing damage and not in concordance with the European Commission finding in August 2025. Do I understand that right? Did the European Commission agree to the January 2026 deadline or not? Have they been working internally behind the scenes with Apple or are they as in the dark as these developers? What is the legal mechanism to push disclosure a month earlier and why is the letter only being published now? These are sincere questions of mine, in case it's not clear.

Y-bar 10mo ago
The commission might have agreed with the timeline. It is unclear. But on the other hand this is not just about the relationship between Apple and the EC. Their understanding might actually have meant that the damage to users and other developers remained as is claimed here so the commission now has to listen to the injured party and adjust their posture. Think of it this way: I am blocking part of your driveway for some reasons, and after a while me and the city inspector agree that I will remedy the situation next year. Would you accept that, or would you tell the inspector that your driveway is still not useable and that I should be quicker?
enragedcacti 10mo ago
I think the confusion stems from The Register mixing up two different sets of DMA cases against Apple. The March and August EU actions are regarding hardware and software interoperability under DMA Article 6(7). For these cases, the August specification decision has a number of different deadlines specified, and I don't think any of these have passed yet. The April 2025 non-compliance decision the app devs reference is regarding the DMA anti-steering provisions (Article 5(4)). This decision was that Apple failed to meet their compliance obligations that were specified way back in June 2024, that they would be subject to a fine, and that they would have 60 days to comply before being subject to periodic fines [1]. The Coalition for App Fairness is saying that they don't believe Apple's App Store anti-steering remediation is compliant or timely and that the EU needs to take further action. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...

mindcrash 10mo ago

All the while Android users - or at least those on the Samsung Galaxy sub-ecosystem - are happily downloading free, as in open source, software from alternative sources like F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/), Obtainium (https://obtainium.imranr.dev/ https://obtainium.imranr.dev/), Accrescent (https://accrescent.app/ https://accrescent.app/), and even can access the main app store through a more privacy friendly way using Aurora (https://auroraoss.com/ https://auroraoss.com/) - although with the latter you will probably break a license agreement you never read anyway, so fuck that. That, and: * Customization is better -- Apple has nothing like Good Lock, which is developed AND officially supported by Samsung, * AI is better -- And Samsung even gives the choice to run AI features completely locally on your phone -or- in the cloud, * Features for power users are all around better -- As a example did you know Google built a freaking virtualization service which allows you to run a full Linux operating system, with an complete KDE Plasma or GNOME UI on top of Android? Well, now you do. Super fun feature to have on a phone. Even more super fun feature to have on a tablet. And then there's DeX -- at least on the Galaxies, as long as Google is working on the built in desktop features for the next Android release. And for those times you quickly want or need a Linux shell you can launch Termux (https://termux.dev/en/ https://termux.dev/en/). Most notably and importantly: for all these things you don't have to root or jailbreak ANYTHING... They work completely out of the box -- Although you can get a scary sounding warning when downloading stuff from outside the Play store, but if you really understand and can deal with the consequences this can be easily solved using a toggle button. How Apple keeps managing to drive themselves and their developer ecosystem completely in the ground still is completely baffling to me. And that comes from someone who really used to love Apple, back in the Jobs era (Got the first iPod, iPhone, iPad, and first Intel MacBook Pro to prove it). PS: Because lots of people got super pissed about Google abandoning sideloading on Android they walked back on their initial decisions and it will keep working for the foreseeable future

naian 10mo ago
Samsung is so good that… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46123747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46123747
wackget 10mo ago

charcircuit 10mo ago

Give people an inch and they will want a mile. I hope Apple resists these bullies who feel entitled to use all the hardwork Apple put into building their platform.

schubidubiduba 10mo ago
You got it the wrong way around: Apple feels entitled to use all the hard work developers put into their apps to bolster their own pockets.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  Developers are free to delete their apps from Apple's store ar any time. Yes, apps bolster their own pockets, but they also bolster the pockets of the developers themselves.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    Devs might have deleted their apps from AppStore, but Apple literally doesn't allow to distribute software any other way, and even in the EU where it oretends to allow competing AppStores, it still interjects itself into the process
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      Apple owns ios, Apple owns the iPhone. It would make sense that those factions within Apple would still be involved even if the AppStore people are not.
      - troupo 10mo ago
        "Apple owns the iPhone". That's quite a statement.
        charcircuit 10mo ago

giancarlostoro 10mo ago

I'll go a step farther. iOS is the only mobile OS that restricts PWA's and I think they do it on purpose to force you out of PWAs and into native apps. I think Apple should 100% support PWAs with no shenanigans, they should work 100% without Apple needing to approve of anything too. Steve Jobs pitched PWAs way back when, I don't know why all we've gotten is a half-baked solution from Apple other than they want you in their App Store with a native app.

LocalH 10mo ago
They figured out that the App Store made them more money than PWAs do, that's why
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  It came out in the epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue came from games. Those were not going to be web apps.
troupo 10mo ago
> I think Apple should 100% support PWAs with no shenanigans Where "support PWA" and "no shenanigans" are which of the ever shifting sets of APIs?
- bsimpson 10mo ago
  I get the point you're making (that standards evolve, and Apple will drag its feet again if it sees a profit), but that doesn't change that they've been gating functionality behind app-only APIs for decades to grow their walled garden and make the rest of us worse off for it. You shouldn't have to install things on your phone. Most "apps" should just be websites, with a bookmark if you so choose.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    > I get the point you're making (that standards evolve, and Apple will drag its feet again if it sees a profit) No, that's not my point. My point is that there's no such thing as PWA. There's a lose collection of standards, and everyone choses a set that benefits their narrative when defining PWAs. For a very long time Apple supported all APIs (except maybe notifications) that even Google defined as necessary for something to be a PWA. Didn't stop people from pretending that this is somehow not PWA. > Most "apps" should just be websites, with a bookmark if you so choose. As Android shows, even there no one wants that, and there are very few PWAs of note.

thomassmith65 10mo ago

This is normal Apple behaviour going at least as far back as the noughties, if not the 1980s. Apple care about the American and Asian markets. They have long treated the EU as a joke whose consumer laws they can ignore. That is why, the past few years, Apple has behaved so petulantly and strangely in reaction to EU stipulations. They feel it's beneath them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43421180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43421180