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
Side loading makes this nonsene and Apple is right to call it out.
True, but we let government take care of that. not private companies.
Also because there were cases where apple's checks failed, and macOS enables third-party, unsigned apps to be loaded (with a warning), so it's either macOS unsafe or iOS' check redundant...
It’s not “downright dishonest” to point out that the EU previously shared the unquestionably true fact that third party stores and sideloading are much riskier for end users. Just because it’s not on their website anymore doesn’t mean it’s not true (especially because, again, it literally is). It’s even possible the EC got it pulled after Apple quoted it because they realized it made them look bad.
ENISA also says:
“Compared to other software distribution models and depending on the review process implemented, the walled-garden approach makes it more difficult for cyber attackers to spread malware" and that "most experts agree that the walled-garden approach could help to reduce the impact of malware."
But want something still live on the web? Here you go. The European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation says: "only install apps from official stores".
It said “Use the official application marketplace only.” It was about Android malware that “requires users to manually install a malicious application outside Google's official application marketplace”. You know, that practice the EU is forcing Apple to allow? So yes, it didn’t say “App Store”, but come on.
Frankly I doubt that the EU have even changed their minds on that, I imagine most people agree that the walled garden approach is more secure.
However, the world is more complex than a single consideration (you'll find it often is).
If security were the only concern then yeah, none of this would be happening. But it's not. Free markets are also a concern, for example.
This being the real world, people have to balance multiple concerns as best they can.
Shouldn't we be glad that, whilst forcing Apple to allow other app stores, the EU is also imposing standards on app stores (albeit only ones of a certain size, right now)?
I fail to understand why you can’t have a ‘monopoly’ on your own platform. They built it and if anyone doesn’t like it, there’s the exit.
Or are the “naive” people those who think that the large transnational organisation which is increasingly controlling and regulating more aspects of their life is doing it to protect them as opposed as doing it just for control?
You need to see both sides of the argument here rather that calling people who disagree with you naive. And the drawbacks and benefits of the regulation can be discussed, but the idea of protecting people against their own stupidity is a very infantilising one which I personally can’t get on board with unless we are talking about children (but then the same rules should apply across the board and the priority should be to empower parents, for example by imposing parents approval before an App can be downloaded across all App stores, which I could get behind).
Last edited:
I have some sympathy for that view, and personally I love the walled garden - my fear is that as alternative stores proliferate we'll end up being obliged to use them as essential app makers will start only offering their apps through cheaper stores.
However, I believe the counterargument is that it's not about what some individuals like you and I prefer, and it's not about what Apple's earned or can feel entitled to, it's about what's best in the big picture. Capitalism only advances society when it has a well functioning market, and monopolies prevent well functioning markets by making the barriers to entry too high for real competition.
Last edited:
Agree 100% it’s not a black and white issue. But when there is a competitor that competes fiercely with Apple, that does allow third party stores and sideloading, taking away they closed option from consumers who want that is, in my opinion, unnecessary interference in the free market.
And I don’t think there is anything wrong with Apple pointing out “you’re insinuating we’re not doing enough to protect our users from being exposed to malware and scams here, but forcing us to expose them to malware and scams there. Because it is hypocritical of the EU - especially when it literally doesn’t apply equally to the third party stores the EU is forcing on Apple.
I’d also say it not being black and white cuts both ways. If the EU and their defenders would admit “yes it’s going to have negative consequences, and some users will get hurt, but we think the positives outweigh the negatives” that’d be one thing, but what’s always stated on here is “any negative consequences are either FUD or Apple maliciously complying”. (To be clear, not accusing you of saying that). It’s exasperating.
Last edited:
So the smaller company you are the less the law applies to you… got it! lol
I’d push back and say Apple isn’t a monopoly, and that for consumers who want an open option there is one. Just because someone has personally decided they won’t use one product doesn’t mean that product’s competitor has a monopoly.
I understand Epic doesn’t want to pay for access to Apple’s platform and IP, and nerdy MacRumors forum posters want to be able to install third party software and not use Android, but that doesn’t mean they should be able to take the closed option away from millions of people who prefer it. Their desires aren’t more important than mine, or Apple’s.
I don’t see these as mutually exclusive: First, if you’re a tech giant influencing the lives of tens of millions you are a potential threat to democracy and you must follow our rules in order to run your very profitable walled garden in our countries. Second, a walled garden is not a prison yard and citizens should be free to leave it if they want to. Apple doesn’t own its customers.
The only hypocrisy I see here is in Apple’s misrepresentations and hyperbole…
The only hypocrisy I see here is in Apple’s misrepresentations and hyperbole…
The EU rules make no sense, and people backing them in this example are engaging in classic “populism”. Reducing a complex issue that doesnt have simple answers into basic rules that dont scale at all. Just because it gets at what you dont like (i.e. Apple controlling the App Store).
The ruling basically says if I want to put malicious software on the iOS platform apple will let me create a private App Store where I can do whatever I like and there will be no oversight. Even though what I am attempting to do is illegal the EU deems that I am too small to bother with.
Even though 1 malicious app can cause havoc for millions the EU is saying what’s more important is that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on distributing apps on the their iOS eco system and they dont care if that doesnt give users safety. The money being made (or making sure EU companies can make more money on the platform) is more important than any security issues in the EU’s opinion.
Also ignoring that Apple has built its repuation and value proposition to the consumer on providing the best security for any product they use that has the apple branding on it.
So the law is not equal for everyone here.
I think they need to either change the decree so that any software vendor has to have the same security protection in place or you can’t have a store / distribute software. Their GDPR ruling is not applied just to big companies etc, not sure what size has to do with any of this. It’s the principal surely?
The ruling basically says if I want to put malicious software on the iOS platform apple will let me create a private App Store where I can do whatever I like and there will be no oversight. Even though what I am attempting to do is illegal the EU deems that I am too small to bother with.
Even though 1 malicious app can cause havoc for millions the EU is saying what’s more important is that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on distributing apps on the their iOS eco system and they dont care if that doesnt give users safety. The money being made (or making sure EU companies can make more money on the platform) is more important than any security issues in the EU’s opinion.
Also ignoring that Apple has built its repuation and value proposition to the consumer on providing the best security for any product they use that has the apple branding on it.
So the law is not equal for everyone here.
I think they need to either change the decree so that any software vendor has to have the same security protection in place or you can’t have a store / distribute software. Their GDPR ruling is not applied just to big companies etc, not sure what size has to do with any of this. It’s the principal surely?
Yeah, this actually reflects my own gut feeling. I'd like to keep the option of a walled garden personally. But I'm not entirely certain whether I'm just viewing that selfishly, and whether there isn't, even with one open competitor, a competition problem that probably does need addressing.
<shrugs> I dunno, I never actually hear what the EU peeps themselves say about it, just what commentators on MacRumours say about it, and screw those guys, bunch of idiots
Straight up EU regulations are tripping over one another.
It may be simple but it’s not the way it works.
I think we accepted it because of the way apps were introduced. Initially, we were only allowed the apps that came preloaded from apple; never had the freedom to load our own. Then the App Store came along, and so we just saw that as normal.
On the flip side, the Mac was the opposite.. you always had the freedom, then the App Store came and that was the option, not the norm.
It’s not a monopoly. The EU agrees its not a monopoly. So they made up a term “gatekeeper” so they can treat it like it’s a monopoly without calling it one. Funny isn’t it?
One is an ardent critic and the other is telling it the way it is. Apple is not an illegal monopoly. This has been said so many times it’s a meme, they have a monopoly on their products. The over regulation in the eu is telling and it’s going to be interesting to see how ai companies are regulated.
Yes in fact you do have to have market dominance to engage in monopolistic behavior. You absolutely can’t be a monopoly when you control less than 40% of the market. Sorry the math disagrees with your bias but facts > your feelings.
Bingo! 👆
"It can be very hard to understand something, when misunderstanding it is essential to your paycheck."
By the very nature of those App Stores that is not true. If it were true there would be no need for the additional app stores.
All of this, always, goes back to Apple taking financial advantage of the situation they found themselves in.
If they'd not done that, it's very likely none of this would be happening to the degree it is, or would look different than it does at the minimum.
No, the term gatekeeper has sprung out of the need to adjust to the realities of the environment.
You can find many definitions and descriptions of Gatekeepers if you read around online, but one that applies here is "large digital platforms that provide core services like web browsing".
This right here. It's not any more difficult than this. There is no reason for the DSA if everyone was allowed to do what they want with their device. Apple shouldn't have any responsibility to protect their users. THAT's what is contradictory.