4 ms·

This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission.

This press release details terms which are both a) expressly forbidden in the Digital Rights Act, and b) which have been previously rejected by the Commission. To read now that the Commission approves of these terms is unbelievable to me. I rarely put on a tinfoil hat, but either the Commission has been paid off, or there are some geopolitical discussions we are not privy to. I can see no other explanation. I have been following this legislation from the beginning. [My one and only submission to Hacker News was regarding exactly this.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163704) I have followed progress judiciously. If the Commission agreed to these terms, there is something deeply troubling and sinnister about this. At minimum, these terms are hostile to customers, the market, and developers. Everyone loses here except Apple.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade. The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
  - agos 2mo ago
    improving the legislative mechanism would require even more time, and it does not appear there is the political will for it at this time
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
bonzini 2mo ago
Not knowing anything detailed about the acts, which terms are you referring to? Notarization?
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  Notarization is a grey area. A competent Commission would have successfully argued against it, but there are arguments for it. On the much clearer violations I'll copy my comment to another user: Article 5(4): > “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.” This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes. Article 6(4): > “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.” On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution. And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.
PeterStuer 2mo ago
Apparently they followed an "alternative" reading of the DMA concluding that unless you prove the fees or other obstacles would make alternative distribution commercially unviable or discriminatory, everything is just fine. Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress?
- wongarsu 2mo ago
  > Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?
tehlike 2mo ago
Current administration is strong arming europe in a lot of ways, and it has had impact on how EU Commission handles their own laws at the execution level for DMA, DSA, and probably even GDPR against American companies. Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.
IsTom 2mo ago
I wonder if there's any statement on this from the Commission?
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true: > [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commercial-terms-apple-is-changing-its-rules-to-comply-with-eu-regulations/ https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)
blueTiger33 2mo ago
EU is one of most corrupt places.
- Gareth321 2mo ago
  10 years ago I would have disagreed with you vehemently, but now I agree with you. Every new EU regulation makes my life worse, and very few of them actually address systemic issues re competition which would make my life better. This is one such example. The law is crystal clear, Apple is in clear violation, and the Commission allows them to continue. I cannot believe this. I'm honestly stunned.
- happymellon 2mo ago
  EU is corrupt is not the same as one of the most corrupt. It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.
user_7832 2mo ago
I'd been saying "there's geopolitical/hidden reasons" for ages. The very first one for me was when Apple did that CSAM stunt. Fortunately the outrage was enough for them to peddle back, but it was such an out-of-left-field thing to do that I struggle to imagine 3 letter agencies weren't involved. In this case (where Apple has power), my guess would be more along the lines of "Apple's found a lot of vulns and are ready to patch it; agencies offered a concession in exchange (and either arm twisted EU and/or gave them access to the same vulns)". The funniest thing is there's no reason for any of this to be wrong. Individual parts have been public knowledge for a while, and putting them together doesn't take a lot of logic. Fun reading, if you haven't read it already: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/apple-helped-us-government-build-a-secret-ipod-former-engineer-says/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/apple...

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Commission agreed to it was better to have a shitty deal now, than to let Apple drag this through the courts for a decade. The EU is notoriously bad at enforcing its laws, from GDPR to this.

Gareth321 2mo ago
Which would be the most pathetic but plausible interpretation of this. Instead of working to improve the legislative mechanisms in the EU to prevent malicious abuse of the system, they merely let Apple just do whatever it wants.
- agos 2mo ago
  improving the legislative mechanism would require even more time, and it does not appear there is the political will for it at this time
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

bonzini 2mo ago

Not knowing anything detailed about the acts, which terms are you referring to? Notarization?

Gareth321 2mo ago
Notarization is a grey area. A competent Commission would have successfully argued against it, but there are arguments for it. On the much clearer violations I'll copy my comment to another user: Article 5(4): > “The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.” This means the 15% commission on purchases made after linking out is explicitly forbidden by the legislation. Article 5(4) says gatekeepers must let developers, free of charge, communicate and promote alternative offers and conclude contracts with those users. More importantly, in a June 2025 Apple compliance workshop, the Commission explicitly said Apple had been ordered to ensure that both promotion and “the conclusion of contracts following steering” are free of charge. It said Apple could receive only limited remuneration for the initial acquisition of a customer, and prohibited other fees linked to customer acquisition. Yet Apple now says that an App Store app linking to the web will pay Apple 15% of the resulting transaction, or 10% for certain programmes. Article 6(4): > “The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.” On the 5% “Core Technology Commission” on apps distributed outside the App Store, the Commission previously issued preliminary findings that Apple violated Article 6(4) specifically because its Core Technology Fee disincentivised alternative distribution. And then we have the eligibility restrictions for web distribution. Apple still requires developers to satisfy criteria such as a financial-stability threshold, being publicly traded, having established venture funding, having undergone a financial audit, or falling within certain institutional categories. The Commission’s previous findings criticised Apple’s “overly strict eligibility requirements” for alternative distribution. Article 6(4) allows Apple to impose measures protecting hardware/OS integrity only where they are strictly necessary and proportionate. How the fuck is it strictly necessary and proportionate to protect iOS that developers have venture funding? OBVIOUSLY, these terms are a form of malicious compliance, intended to deter anyone from using this distribution method.

PeterStuer 2mo ago

Apparently they followed an "alternative" reading of the DMA concluding that unless you prove the fees or other obstacles would make alternative distribution commercially unviable or discriminatory, everything is just fine. Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress?

wongarsu 2mo ago
> Isn't it "interesting" how do many of these EU regulations always have these side doors that allow the very practices they promoted to adress You mean it's "interesting" that enforcement of EU regulations is not immune to political pressure?

tehlike 2mo ago

Current administration is strong arming europe in a lot of ways, and it has had impact on how EU Commission handles their own laws at the execution level for DMA, DSA, and probably even GDPR against American companies. Rumor is that they EU Commission even has to work on the weekends, and it's not a joke.

IsTom 2mo ago

I wonder if there's any statement on this from the Commission?

Gareth321 2mo ago
Sadly and unbelievably, it appears to be true: > [“The Commission welcomes the changes made by Apple to its commercial terms,” commented a spokesperson for the European Commission. This announcement, the spokesperson continues, is “the result of close dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” after the tech giant was found in April 2025 to have breached the rules of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and ordered to take the necessary corrective measures. In light of these developments and the changes to be introduced, “the Commission will monitor Apple’s effective implementation of the new conditions.”](https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commercial-terms-apple-is-changing-its-rules-to-comply-with-eu-regulations/ https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/08/18/tracking-and-new-commerc...)

blueTiger33 2mo ago

EU is one of most corrupt places.

Gareth321 2mo ago
10 years ago I would have disagreed with you vehemently, but now I agree with you. Every new EU regulation makes my life worse, and very few of them actually address systemic issues re competition which would make my life better. This is one such example. The law is crystal clear, Apple is in clear violation, and the Commission allows them to continue. I cannot believe this. I'm honestly stunned.
happymellon 2mo ago
EU is corrupt is not the same as one of the most corrupt. It is certainly not one of the most corrupt.

user_7832 2mo ago

I'd been saying "there's geopolitical/hidden reasons" for ages. The very first one for me was when Apple did that CSAM stunt. Fortunately the outrage was enough for them to peddle back, but it was such an out-of-left-field thing to do that I struggle to imagine 3 letter agencies weren't involved. In this case (where Apple has power), my guess would be more along the lines of "Apple's found a lot of vulns and are ready to patch it; agencies offered a concession in exchange (and either arm twisted EU and/or gave them access to the same vulns)". The funniest thing is there's no reason for any of this to be wrong. Individual parts have been public knowledge for a while, and putting them together doesn't take a lot of logic. Fun reading, if you haven't read it already: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/apple-helped-us-government-build-a-secret-ipod-former-engineer-says/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/apple...