Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Calls Out EU for Contradictory App Store Rules Under DSA and DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"It's unfair we have to prove our car parts are road worthy while also being forced to allow buyers to use third-party mechanics!" Nice try, Kyle.
Go get ‘em Apple. Stop stupidity in its tracks.
Clever Apple, but digital safety and open markets are the goals here. Not one of them - both. Ask your MacOS devision how to do this.
I wonder what would happen if EU medical giants would tell FDA that their rules are over zealous and bad?
I wonder what would happen if EU medical giants would tell FDA that their rules are over zealous and bad?
Perhaps Apple should hire lawyers that can actually read the legislation so they don't have to embarrass themselves again.
The DMA only applies to large actors.
The DSA applies to EVERY actor, even very tiny side-loading stores.
Other companies are able to protect their customers AND be open to third parties, but obivously not Apple.
The DMA only applies to large actors.
The DSA applies to EVERY actor, even very tiny side-loading stores.
Other companies are able to protect their customers AND be open to third parties, but obivously not Apple.
Open system will be always more vulnerable than closed one.
That’s not an answer that’s whataboutery to deflect from criticism on Apple’s part
The rub of it is simply this the valuation of this company makes them worth about
$495 per individual on planet earth and as a company they hide behind all this smoke and mirrors to justify their actions
It’s very simple
Apple only needs to ban every App related to social media (Meta, TicToc et al.) including every messaging app (yep, it’s own iMessage too)- problem solved. Discussion over. Whatever happens on 3rd party app stores isn’t Apple’s responsibility.
P.S.: same rules apply to other platforms such as Android, obviously.
P.P.S.: hello and welcome to reality.
P.S.: same rules apply to other platforms such as Android, obviously.
P.P.S.: hello and welcome to reality.
Not even close. They’re asking Apple to protect users within the Apple ecosystem. They’ll ask the other app stores to protect them elsewhere, not Apple’s problem.
Apple aren’t the only company able to protect users.
It isn’t contradictory, Apple aren’t just whining because they lost their monopoly. Everyone running an app store or payment gateway is held to the same standard so users are protected. Apple can’t prevent others doing so. How’s that contradictory?
That quote* is from an article from 2016. It talks exclusively about Android and never mentions anything Apple. The Apple app landscape back then (almost a decade ago!) was very different from today regarding sideloading and 3rd party stores. Also, the EU agency removed that article years ago (there is a copy on the Wayback Machine). It is downright dishonest to claim that this withdrawn and outdated article about Android represents the agency's current position on Apple.
* I also note that you modified your quote to better suit your narrative. There is nothing about "App Store" in the original.
Monitor and enforce means more costs and less bonuses for Tim Crook & Co. On a different topic, try to argue with US rules and regulations and democratic tomahawks will be flying your way. Not a big fan of the corporate America and US foreign policy. Ordinary people in the US are very decent though, but they have unfortunately nothing to say.
I don’t think you quite understand the reason why the European Union are asking these questions is to prove a point that apple as a company use smoke and mirrors approach to justify their actions.
EU: "Allow sideloading besides the App Store. Also answer these questions about the security the App Store offers."
Apple: "These crazy Europeans and their contradictory demands!"
Apple: "These crazy Europeans and their contradictory demands!"
This is an Apple lawyer speaking on behalf of his employer.
He would find contradictions in basic laws of physics if his boss asked him to.
He would find contradictions in basic laws of physics if his boss asked him to.
Unfortunately spyware exists even without these rules and Apple couldn’t do anything from the outset to stop it. Apple has implemented some mitigation strategies such as “Lock Down Mode” but those have come months if not years from the actual knowledge of these compromises. Similar to software bugs it’s a cat and mouse situation where one can only address issues if not when exploited as the other option is too time and financially consuming due to manpower.
If I understand this correctly the EU is demanding that Apple keep their devices and the AppStore open to permit 3rd party stores and apps be installed on said devices but is requiring the AppStore to protect users of fraud or scam occurs from Apps purchased from the AppStore, help me understand where the contradiction is.
Thinking one is safe within the Apple AppStore is fallacy as Apple has demonstrated it has approved questionable apps only to remove them shortly after and at that point the damage has already been done. Now is it a bit safer is also a matter of opinion as one could simply download their banking app directly from the bank website and the liability stays with the bank vice Apple AppStore but Apple does not want that due to the effect that people will see promotions, recommendations or ads for other things which provides Apple substantiation to ask for marketing percentage from its developers.
Why am I unable to download an iOS banking app directly from the bank website and or the AppStore or maybe an AppStore page that redirects to the bank website?
It is contradictory (and I would add pointless and unfair) if you don’t apply the same control standards to alt stores.
I think this is where the issue is: there is a lot of hypocrisy in saying that you are enforcing content control standards on Apple because you deeply care about protecting the public, while at the same time forcing Apple to give the same public access to alt stores on which you don’t enforce the same standards which are supposed to protect it.
Of course Apple are also defending their own interest here and it is fair. But as an EU consumer I really don’t see most of the latest EU regulations as benefiting me and I think the European Commission needs to stop wanting to control everything.
Last edited:
imo the issue is rules themselves.
Having a handful of rules is understandable, manageable, clear, and helpful. They provide structure and certainty to what otherwise would be a chaotic free-for-all with many undesirable side effects.
But the more rules you add - which is in many ways inevitable - the more complicated the system gets and more and more conflicts inevitably arise between the rules.
Who will decide in those conflicts? Whoever made the rules 🤡
Apple is also charging a hefty AppStore listing and hosting percentage compared to AltStore which hosts legitimate apps for a fraction of the percentage Apple charges. AltStore is no different if one wanted to download an iOS banking app directly from the bank website.
Like lies the more convoluted the harder it is to keep it on track.
If an alt store is providing an front-end to browse and download a catalogue of third-party Apps, why should it be under different content control rules than the App Store which provides the exact same functionality?
Downloading your bank’s App directly from your bank’s website is a different scenario as the App distribution plateform and the App developer are the same entity which clearly carries all the responsibility for the App you are downloading.
Last edited:
You didn't read the question. If a law is meant to protect ALL customers from said things, how can one provider be held to it when others (a side loading store) isn't? How does it protect ALL if only one has to abide by the law, so where are the protections for side loading customers?
Now read it twice so you don't misunderstand what the word contradiction means in this context.
FYI;
contradiction /kŏn″trə-dĭk′shən/
noun
- The act or an instance of contradicting.
"the witness's contradiction of other testimony." - The state of being contradicted.
"a supervisor who cannot tolerate contradiction from any subordinate." - An inconsistency or discrepancy.
- Inconsistency; discrepancy.
"practices that are in contradiction to human rights." - One that contains elements that oppose or conflict with one another.