Apple Calls Out EU for Contradictory App Store Rules Under DSA and DMA

[MilaM]

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?

It's not a contradiction, because the Digital Services Act applies to all market participants who offer services covered by it.

 

[bob24]

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?

To my knowledge this is not correct. There is a specific set of rules which only applies to what is referred to as “VLOPs”.

And while there are some criteria the European Commission has somewhat of a discretionary power to choose which platforms they designate as VLOPs; and to date has only designated the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. So those 2 are in effect not bound to the same set of rules as alt stores.

 

[lusty]

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?

That’s where you’re confused. Apple is only being asked to protect users of its own payment and app systems. Those running the others are held to the same standard.

Your confusion is understandable, you read Apple’s statement and took them at their word. They intentionally misinterpreted this to help their own business remain a monopoly, it’s what the EU are trying to stop.

 

[lusty]

To my knowledge this is not correct. There is a specific set of rules which only applies to what is referred to as “VLOPs”.

And while there are some criteria the European Commission has somewhat of a discretionary power to choose which platforms they designate as VLOPs; and to date has only designated the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. So those 2 are in effect not bound to the same set of rules as alt stores.

That’s a fair comment. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to aim resources where they do the most good though. A store with 300 users can do what it likes as it’s probably community driven and only affects that community. A store with 300,000,000 users can do a lot of harm to the population and is given more trust by those users (especially with the vendor screaming “trust us, we check everything!”).

 

[bob24]

That’s where you’re confused. Apple is only being asked to protect users of its own payment and app systems. Those running the others are held to the same standard.

Your confusion is understandable, you read Apple’s statement and took them at their word. They intentionally misinterpreted this to help their own business remain a monopoly, it’s what the EU are trying to stop.

You are not correct in saying others are held to the same standard - see my previous reply to you.

Amongst App stores, the European Commissions has only designated the Apple App Store and Google Play Store as VLOPs: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413

What this means is that those two stores are subjected to a different set of (more restrictive) rules than any other App Store. A summary of the specific rules is also mentioned on the link from the EC I shared.

So while obviously Apple will present things in a way which suits them, it is correct to say there are multiple standards here.

Personally I do have a problem with the fact that the European Commissions wants to enforce rules on the App Stores which they say are essential to protecting consumers, while at the same time forcing Apple to give the same consumers access to other stores on which those rules are not enforced. There is clearly a level of hypocrisy here and if it really was about consumer protection the same rules would apply to all App Stores.

 

[MilaM]

So while obviously Apple will present things in a way which suits them, it is correct to say there are multiple standards here.

Yes, larger platforms have to do more to enforce the law. But that makes sense when you take into account where most illegal activity will occur. For a scammer it's not attractive to be active on a store that only has a few hundred users. It's a numbers game and larger stores will also be more attractive targets.

 

[vOne1]

People love to say “Apple only locks things down for profit.” But that’s a really short-sighted take. There’s more to it than greed.

Apple’s tight control over hardware, repairs, and the App Store isn’t just about money — it’s also about security, usability, and reducing abuse.

Take the hardware side. Apple ties components (like cameras and screens) to each other through pairing and calibration. Critics call that anti-repair, but if every part could be swapped freely, iPhones would be way more valuable to steal and strip for parts. The system makes theft less profitable — which helps users, not just Apple’s bottom line.

Now, with the Right to Repair and EU regulations like the DMA/DSA, Apple is being pushed to open up while still being held responsible for protecting users from fraud. That’s a tough balance. You can’t demand total openness and total security at the same time.


And yes — the App Store isn’t perfect. But it is safer than a completely open model. Many other companies “open up,” but they also offload the risk to users. Apple, for all its flaws, at least takes responsibility for the user experience.

There should absolutely be room for a closed ecosystem in tech — not everyone wants to tinker, sideload, or troubleshoot security issues. Some of us just want our devices to work reliably and safely.

So yeah, Apple makes money — but its closed approach also delivers real security, less theft, and a smoother experience. Pretending it’s all about greed ignores the real trade-offs that comes

 

[lusty]

Apple’s tight control over hardware, repairs, and the App Store isn’t just about money — it’s also about security, usability, and reducing abuse.

If that were true they’d apply it to all of their platforms. They don’t.

 

[contacos]

Typical EU, they just have no clue about technology. They also want companies to push for end-to-end encryption but at the same time they have been discussing real time access to messaging to scan for "child p0rn". You can't have it both ways.

 

[MilaM]

Typical EU, they just have no clue about technology. They also want companies to push for end-to-end encryption but at the same time they have been discussing real time access to messaging to scan for "child p0rn". You can't have it both ways.

I'm not a fan of client side scanning, because it's technology that could potentially be abused in the future.

But let's also not forget that Apple tried to introduce client side scanning, and only scrapped their plans after a massive backlash.

 

[bob24]

Yes, larger platforms have to do more to enforce the law. But that makes sense when you take into account where most illegal activity will occur. For a scammer it's not attractive to be active on a store that only has a few hundred users. It's a numbers game and larger stores will also be more attractive targets.

Two comments here:
- many people are obviously misinformed and/or biased as they refuse to acknowledge those different standards (which factually exist regardless of whether they make sense)
- activity (and especially criminal activity) naturally flows to the plateforms with the lowest standard. So it is both unfair and unproductive to set different standards for different platforms: it will just push activity (especially illegal one) to the plateforms where standards aren’t as strict. Plus more generally I would argue there are many countries which have lower crime levels than the EU without this type of online content control regulations, so I would question what will be achieved here in terms of protecting citizens.

 

[MilaM]

Plus more generally I would argue there are many countries which have lower crime levels than the EU without this type of online content control, so I would question what will be achieved here in terms of protecting citizens.

Are you referring specifically to online scams? If yes, I would like to see numbers for this claim.

 

[bob24]

I'm not a fan of client side scanning, because it's technology that could potentially be abused in the future.

But let's not forget that Apple tried to introduce client side scanning, and only scrapped their plans after a massive backlash.

You’re both right here. The difference though is that Apple doesn’t have the power to impose it on the population of a whole continent and there are alternatives available to whatever products they offer. While if the EU had gone ahead with this crazy Chat Control thing, they would effectively have imposed a full private correspondance surveillance mechanism to all residents of the EU. The fact that they even considered the idea and it was only avoided due to citizen lobbying in Germany forcing the German government to use its strong influence to stop it is quite worrying to start with.

 

[ThailandToo]

Wow, it’s interesting to see Apple’s response here being questioned. Apple is getting right to the heart of what it means to tear down the walled garden. You can’t insist that everyone keep their back doors unlocked and then ask them to prove they’re protecting people from burglary.

And “Apple’s big and rich” isn’t a counter argument here. If the goal is a level playing field (DMA), different rules for big companies are inherently unlevel. If the goal was consumer protection (DSA) then making it easier for consumers to go to unregulated vendors is inherently less safe.

Doesn’t matter if it’s less safe. Why does Apple get to decide what’s safe for devices we bought and paid for? It isn’t a subscription model for the hardware and the lockdown is clear signs of anticompetitive behavior focused on greed for the wealthiest 1% forsaking all others.

 

[ThailandToo]

which is funny since that's exactly what EU is doing to Apple. the difference here is that Apple represents the customers more than EU representing their constituents.

How does Apple care more about the users? It’s run like a financial institution and greed is its main focus with current CEO who doesn’t even understand the products.

 

[ThailandToo]

When I’m on my MacBook Pro, I appreciate the balance between App Store products and well-vetted third-party apps downloaded directly from developers’ websites. I often prefer the non-sandboxed versions of macOS applications because they tend to offer more powerful options.

In hindsight, I’m not sure why I ever considered the iPhone and iPad approach acceptable. It is clearly not the same as macOS. I suppose I just grew used to it and stopped questioning it. But seeing how Europeans have reacted to Apple’s policies has given me food for thought.

Maybe it’s time for Apple to offer the same freedom of choice on iPad and iPhone that it does on the Mac. Those who prefer the walled-garden, sandboxed model could keep it, while those who want a more open experience could have that too.

I understand it might be a headache for Apple when a customer walks into a store with a phone compromised by something installed outside the App Store. But isn’t that already a risk with macOS when someone downloads sketchy software onto their laptop?

Ultimately, I believe in giving people the freedom to make responsible decisions for themselves. Let’s just hope they don’t end up with devices laden with spyware.

Very well spoken. And oh so true. I don’t understand the people that don’t want choice with devices they spent more than $1000 USD on? Why does Apple get to operate a de facto anticompetitive business worldwide except Europe? Cannot wait until regulation catches up worldwide to protect consumers. The EU is trying to protect and defend consumers against the wealthiest 1% which is noble no
Matter how flawed the process is currently. The Mac is how the system should operate. Apple can have their App Store but I should be able to install whatever I want. And I agree to take the risk.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

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​

1. The act or an instance of contradicting.
   "the witness's contradiction of other testimony."
2. The state of being contradicted.
   "a supervisor who cannot tolerate contradiction from any subordinate."
3. An inconsistency or discrepancy.
4. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
   "practices that are in contradiction to human rights."
5. One that contains elements that oppose or conflict with one another.

It’s very simple the European Union are deliberately asking probing questions to then build a picture against what apple says is their justifications for the actions & stance they provide it’s very simple and a clear strategy

 

[SpotOnT]

"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.

Not mechanics….

The analogy is third party car parts that don’t have to be road worthy. And the key there again is third party car parts don’t have to be road worthy…

If you care about car safety, why mandate a car company allow third party parts that aren’t legally required to be road worthy?

 

[MilaM]

The difference though is that Apple doesn’t have the power to impose it on the population of a whole continent and there are alternatives available to whatever products they offer.

Apple has the power to impose it on the whole world though, with one OS update. This power they have is the major reason why so many countries started regulating Big Tech in the first place.

Of course some will argue, that it's up to consumers to punish a company that acts against the interests of their customers. But I think we are already past the point where this is even possible.

 

[bob24]

Apple has the power to impose it on the whole world though, with one OS update. This power they have is the major reason why so many countries started regulating Big Tech in the first place.

Of course some will argue, that it's up to consumers to punish a company that acts against the interests of their customers. But I think we are already past the point where this is even possible.

I will disagree here.

If tomorrow Apple starts enforcing scanning of all iMessage communications before encrypting them and sending the unencrypted messages to a centralised entity, regardless of where you live you can completely stop using iMessage and pick another messaging App instead (which is very doable and I am pretty sure they would severely hurt the popularity of iMessage by doing this).

While if the EU was creating a legal requirement for all messaging Apps do do this kind of thing, your only option as an EU resident would be to accept this surveillance, act most likely illegally by using a VPN and providing false residency information to avoid the surveillance, or stop using messaging Apps altogether (which is almost impossible in today's world).

 

[vOne1]

If that were true they’d apply it to all of their platforms. They don’t.

I think that is a short-sighted take. The Mac existed long before the iPhone — Apple couldn’t just rebuild it overnight. But look at the direction: with notarization, Gatekeeper, and tighter App Store control, they’re clearly moving the Mac for example toward the same ecosystem model.

Just because it’s not fully implemented yet doesn’t mean it’s not the goal. It takes time to evolve a decades-old open platform without breaking everything. The intent is obvious — Apple’s moving toward full ecosystem consistency, not away from it.

 

[lusty]

I would argue there are many countries which have lower crime levels than the EU without this type of online content control regulations, so I would question what will be achieved here in terms of protecting citizens

Name one. The US may have “lower crime” but only because they lack any form of consumer protection laws for people to break.

 

[MilaM]

While if the EU was creating a legal requirement for all messaging Apps do do this kind of thing, your only option as an EU resident would be to accept this surveillance, act most likely illegally by using a VPN and providing false residency information to avoid the surveillance, or stop using messaging Apps altogether (which is almost impossible in today's world).

True, but a law can be challenged in courts. And you also can pressure your representatives to oppose such laws, which so far has been effective.

 

[lusty]

The irony is that these laws are being put in place to protect the naive people on this thread who blindly assume apple are protecting them and doing everything for their own good.
If modern business practices had been in place at the time, Apple would have been bought or snuffed out before they left the garage and you’d be using an IBM running OS/2 right now. Hopefully these laws will help the next Apple to exist and we might see real innovation again.

 

[mazz0]

Wow, it’s interesting to see Apple’s response here being questioned. Apple is getting right to the heart of what it means to tear down the walled garden. You can’t insist that everyone keep their back doors unlocked and then ask them to prove they’re protecting people from burglary.

And “Apple’s big and rich” isn’t a counter argument here. If the goal is a level playing field (DMA), different rules for big companies are inherently unlevel. If the goal was consumer protection (DSA) then making it easier for consumers to go to unregulated vendors is inherently less safe.

It's more like Apple sells houses. They also sell doors for those houses. They are required to ensure that the doors they sell are secure. They're also required to let people buy doors from a third party. The standards those third parties are held to aren't Apple's concern.