Which part? I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS. This isn't malicious compliance, sans the size requirement it's exactly what they asked for.
This keeps happening where people keep hitching "I don't want to pay Apple" to every wagon except a law that requires Apple to make access to iOS free.
"Allow other payment processors": Okay you still pay 27%
"Allow other stores": Okay you still pay a commission, a different one.
"Allow installing from websites": Okay you still pay a commission, you just have to write us a check.
Even if they were allowed to ask for a fee, they would not be allowed to set conditions that they can subjectively rule on. Particularly the "in good standing with Apple" is a blatant violation since it effectively lets them block anyone they want for any reason, which is in violation of the very basic "shall allow and technically enable" language of the DMA.
> I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS.
Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1
I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge mistake if they think they are in position to negociate anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement.
It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that locking access to the market in the EU was fine.
> if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit)
That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the DMA.
GDPR is an improvement though.
Yeah that's why I'm expecting another change. When they tried banning Epic the EU said no, and Apple was forced to move to this point. I expect/hope that the EU comes back with a further "clarification" on Apple's contention that they can gate this to 1,000,000 downloads.
It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.
This is somewhat a naive interpretation. Yes, the EU can enforce certain regulations, ban Apple, etc, but not without repercussions. We live in a global trade environment. It really comes down to whether the US administration would find the EU's actions unreasonable and whether there would be economic repercussions in turn.
A trade war is the last thing the EU wants, especially when they are completely and utterly dependent on the US for technology and protection, so it's very unlikely that the EU will get all extreme on Apple or other US tech companies.
It will push as hard it can but we will not see a protracted ban. The EU understands that it can only push so hard before it starts a trade war and harms itself out of spite.
They'll not ban anyone, the DMA allow fines up to 20% of the international revenue. I think there is enough room to enforce rules without banning anyone.
Sufficiently high fines are no different from a ban. The DMA will never actually fine at 20% because companies would be forced to leave, triggering the above scenario.
Just the size requirement makes it useless, why would anybody bother with a web distribution if they already have 1 million (!) installs on the appstore where they already have all their customers?
The front runners for doing this would probably be Google and Meta. Large companies that publish several ad-supported apps. Side stepping the App Store would let them revert Apple’s privacy protections for tracking
However, I believe another statute of Apple’s implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or Self Distribution— an app cannot be both
If you really have to pay a fee per install, ad-supported apps are probably the worst candidates to go standalone in my opinion. Those don't get much money per user.
The fee is ~50 cents per user.
It’s per install including updates. All apps from Meta and Google update almost weekly. That’s 100s of millions of dollars a year in CTF that they won’t have to pay if they stay in the store.
I don't see how they would. Aren't many of the anti tracking features implemented at the OS level?
Trivially easy. Create an app that generates a random number and store it in the apps local storage. Send that with any interaction to whatever service you're providing. Hiding this feat in plain sight isn't that hard.
Currently there are two things preventing a developer from doing this:
1. you're supposed to be honest and not do that.
2. you could be caught during review by a bot or a human.
Nothing at the OS level to prevent this.
But all that does is let one app track your usage in that app. To do tracking outside of that, you'd need other apps to get access to another apps' local storage. Which you need the OS to give you permission to do.
We have toggles for preventing cell data usage, they could trivially do the same for wifi usage, or accessing other app's local storage.
I think computing devices need to have some kind of zero trust sandbox available for installation (kinda like a VM) where any API and system calls that an app use is spoofed. iOS have done this for files and photos (recently), but some is still all or nothing, like contacts. At least camera and microphone access show an indicator when they're in use.
Sure you can create a sandbox that can cater for some app and keep it completely isolated. And yes, whereas previously any app could basically see and do anything, now there are limits at the OS level.
But an app that shows the latest cat video needs connectivity and the server serving that car video now tracks when you were watching it.
And no one, not even Apple, complains about that kind of tracking nor attempt to stop it.
This is a ridiculous example
Yes, but there’s no way to stop that kind of tracking since those app require you to sign in.
The current App Store already has this kind of tracking.
> Nothing at the OS level to prevent this
This is incredibly common practice and AFAIK not even discouraged by Apple.
The app sandbox constrains the local storage data to the app which created the unique identifier. There is no third-party tracking opportunity here.
Are there any apps from Google/Meta where you _don't_ need to authetnticate?
The only Google application (besides Play store and all the stuff that's more or less part of the system) I use is Google maps and it doesn't require being logged.
The Youtube app works without logging in (on Android).
That's the point of these ridiculous rules
DMA requires free access to the platform
Citation needed
56: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't give themselves special private APIs to do things other apps can't or charge to access them.
Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.
As an example,
Using 'Tile' trackers, ios pops a messages up every so often saying 'Tile' has been accessing the Location API from IOS.
But Apple introduced a competing product, 'AirTags', and this doesn't have the same (annoying) regular popup.
Does this mean that Apple's Product will no longer be allowed to use a special Location API bypassing the security/barriers their competitors have?
I understand the need for security, but Apple has no incentive to remove friction from the process when it negatively impacts their competitors and doesn't impact them at all.
That’s strange considering I get those location access popups for the Apple Weather app on my iphone.
The only reason you do is to negate negative commentary or performance around battery usage, and the increased drain of always allowed location.
It seems RAW they could go a few directions:
1. They make AirTags follow the same rules as every other app.
2. They introduce a new toggle that users can grant to Tile that gives them the same abilities as AirTags.
3. They introduce a new entitlement that can be granted to developers who apply for that give them the access that AirTags has.
They've taken #3 for both alternative stores and web downloads so I imagine that would take it here.
If that ends up meaning that competitors can make Bluetooth headphones with the functionalities of Airpods, I'm all for it !
4. They make 'Find My' available to competitors
It's basically saying the same thing. One thing other apps can't do on iOS is... installing packages on the system. This is only a thing that the App Store app can do. So Apple has to open up to third party the possibility to install packages on the device, exactly how on Android any third party can install apps on the device.
By the way, this will impact Android too, since there are permissions that are limited only to Google applications such as the Google Play Services, that (interpreting this rule) now shall be opened to any apps that require them.
Yes. The App "App Store" has special APIs that allow other apps to be installed on the phone that do not experience this charge.
That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores.
This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.
I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading.
Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either.
It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.
Y'all really need to read the whole act. The quote that stated this doesn't even come from (56).
> (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms and the software used to operate those technologies, which can be required for the effective provision of a service provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party undertaking providing such service.
> (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.
They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual act, you can write whatever you want in there (and legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of this is the actual law.
For the relevant bit it's article 6 paragraph 7.
I read that as: if Apple wants to allow installation of programs ("apps") on IOS, it must allow, free of charge, others to do the same. Free of charge to everyone. Free of charge to alternative app stores, free of charge to developers, free of charge to apple customers, ... free of charge to anyone. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but that is definitely a valid interpretation to me.
What exactly is unreasonable about that reading?
"free of charge" is pretty clear, but IANAL.
Using that loophole would be an Article 13 violation
Wow, cool. So how do I get distribution on Mercedes (HQ: Germany) or Renault (HQ: France)'s infotainment systems to install any apps I want on cars?
What? These European companies are exempt? Crazyyy
Petition your representatives to designate those as gatekeepers of a core platform service. But first look up the definitions of those, and the criteria for gatekeeper designation, in the DMA.
This is has nothing to do with the companies being European. DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.
Ahh yes, the "all lightbulbs regardless of their manufacture are required to have at least <this> energy efficiency" style regulation where <this> is set "neutrally" at the efficiency of LED bulbs.
Read article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 and tell me this wasn't written to target like five US tech companies in total.
I have read it. I defines how much money the company needs to be making the EU and how many users they need to have. Sure, it's targeting big companies.
The LED example you gave is actually a great one: I don't think the regulator cares if you're using LED or not. The intention is to reduce the usage of lightbulbs that aren't as energy efficient as modern technology allows them to be. If you can make a incandescent lightbulb that is as efficient, good for you. No one has targeted incandescent light.
Same here. Yes, companies this size are almost only American (and Chinese). That doesn't mean that American companies were the target.
US, with its severe underregulation of oligopolies, allows companies to grow that big. Why do you then complain that they are the ones targeted by laws in countries which are sane enough to understand the need to regulate such things?
Apple is welcome to vacate the EU if it finds it all too onerous.
>DMA doesn't apply to infotainment systems.
Gee, I wonder why. Maybe you should re-examine this statement:
>This is has nothing to do with the companies being European.
If you're going to mindlessly accuse the EU commission of favoritism you should look through the mountain of cases that prove otherwise.
https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartel...
[dead]
Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.
Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world should work opinion?
Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA:
The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes:
> Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself.
> The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited
The CTF is the exact topic of discussion in the context I provided the clause
The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. That's the distinction, and why it isn't automatically illegal. It would only be illegal if it gives Apple's App Store an unfair competitive advantage.
And as you can see from the text of the DMA, in order to declare the CTF illegal, the EC has to conduct a fair, impartial, fact-based investigation that considers Apple's viewpoint. Then they produce a preliminary report which Apple is allowed to rebut. After that they can issue a final ruling, and Apple is allowed to appeal that to the court of justice. Even if the CTF is found to be illegal after all of that, Apple gets 6+ months to make changes unless the EC can prove that they were working in bad faith.
> The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs.
Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies even when not using the App Store... what are they charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's user's devices? That's the only thing that's left
The CTF applies when not using the App Store, because the equivalent of the CTF is baked into Apple's 30%. People asked for unbundling, and this is what Apple came up with.
Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their compilers from their software vendors (the price for the HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
> Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their compilers from their software vendors (the price for the HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
But that doesn't seem to be the case, as Apple hasn't monetized Xcode and the iOS SDK libraries differently since the DMA came up.
Apple can charge for the SDK and all that it entails, but they can't charge for apps getting to run on users' iOS copies, as that's not something IP law contemplates.
What happens when a fully FOSS iOS dev environment comes out, like the way you can compile Windows binaries on Linux right now? What would Apple be charging for then?
> What would Apple be charging for then?
The CTF offsets Apple's costs in developing and maintaining the "core technology": the OS and the frameworks that the developer uses in their application.
Those costs are paid by the users when they buy their devices.
Dev kits for consoles are so even more insanely controlled and costed.
GCC works on HP-UX, so I don't know what this is trying to prove. They can charge for Xcode whatever they want, but what does that have to do with installing apps.
Back when I was working with HP-UX, GCC worked if you wanted something completely independent and didn't need to link against system libraries. For the companies I worked for when using AIX, that wasn't an option.
At least on AIX and other UNIXes, the system compiler and GCC worked together. HP-UX was a special kind of hell.
A sibling reply pointed out that developer kits and distribution deals for consoles (which are general purpose computers, regardless of how they are presented, as much as modern smartphones are) are extremely expensive (and there are no alternatives for distribution).
The point that I am making is that the idea that you can develop and distribute for free on any platform is a relatively new one.
It is not new on microcomputers, though, and those have essentially defined the expectations for consumer devices going forward. That is why it was such a big deal back when Apple first introduced the app store with all the restrictions - that was new, even compared to other mobile devices in the market (even feature phones had J2ME by then).
But regardless, it seems like a good idea in general, and proven to work, so why shouldn't we want more of it? I don't see the problem with applying the same logic to game consoles etc - that racket also needs to go down.
Exactly. Not to mention, the HP-UX business model famously flopped in the face of Linux, BSD and Free Software. It's almost the perfect example of how Open software distribution provided a better experience than the alternatives.
The CTF is it's own refutation. A competitive market should not need to kiss anyone's ring in order to function.
> The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs
So the distinction is that they're charging devs to be allowed to run their app on iOS period, rather than charging for access to a particular set of APIs (which would be illegal)?
Because if so, there's a hole in that argument. Right now I can run any web app I want on my iPhone and the developer need pay no platform access fee. However, that app is blocked by Apple from accessing many native APIs, despite it running on my hardware. And to access those APIs it would need to pay Apple a fee...
So in conclusion, Apple should charge every website operator a per-user annual fee for using the Apple's platform.
Web apps are forced to use webkit, and the EC is fine with it. Because apparently web apps are not a core platform regulated by the DMA.
Why do you say the EC is fine with it? I bet you can't produce any statement from the EC even marginally supporting it. All you know is that Apple proposed something blatantly illegal, and then backed down from that plan.
It's impossible for the EC to have given Apple any kind of guarantees about it being fine to restrict PWAs to just Safari. That's just not how the process works.
Well, is there a legal basis for Apple charging this fee? I'm licensed to use Xcode presently, which means I can legally produce iOS binaries without paying them. I'm legally allowed to distribute those binaries because I own the rights to them, the apps being original works (and not derived works).
What, specifically, is the core technology fee for other than dissuading competition? It's not for using Xcode (I already have that now), and it's not for redistributing Apple software (iOS binaries aren't that). What technology specifically? Is it a software license? Is it for a patent license? Is it payment for a service? What is it?
Have you actually read the licensing terms you agreed to for Xcode and Apple SDKs?
> Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section 2.2.B., You may not distribute any Applications developed using the Apple SDKs (excluding the macOS SDK) absent entering into a separate written agreement with Apple.
> I don't think the EU can rule that Apple can't charge publishers to be on iOS
Why not? Maybe they can't rule that Apple must make the App Store free for developers, but they can rule that the App Store can't be the only way to install apps.
> App Store can't be the only way to install apps.
Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.
> But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.
Yes, it is. For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores, so effectively it's just their App Store under a different name. Hopefully this won't fly under DMA.
For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores
No, they just need a legally binding agreement.
> 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.
> 7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system…
More about DMA here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-co...
Yes, people keep quoting these sections but it doesn't say what folks want it to say.
4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications from outside the App Store. That has no relationship at all to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of developers, number of users, etc..
7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless still charge developers to access iOS. But from there Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.
I think the intent is clear. If apple is allowed to charge, they could charge 1000 USD per install and the whole law would be moot.
Here's something to blow your brain: perhaps the English version is incorrectly translated. With Ireland now the only Anglophone country in the EU, I would trust the French and German versions of the text to have far more clear intent.
English is still the lingua franca of the EU. I'd trust the English version.
usually all translations of eu law are canonical.
all officially translated versions of the EUPL are too.
I'm not saying they don't have force of law. I'm saying the EU did not write them as strongly as the other versions, making them harder to understand and potentially steering the law in a different direction.
I'm reading the French version, and I find it clear that Apple is not following the DMA with its fee it cannot charge itself.
It’s intentional. Replace EU with Apple and law with AppStore rules and you’ll see the parallels.
> I'm saying the EU did not write them as strongly as the other versions, making them harder to understand and potentially steering the law in a different direction.