So your saying eu laws are subjective based in how the wind blows. Got it.
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
The term gatekeeper has sprung to enable the precise crafting of laws that mostly catch and regulate Apple. Eu couldn’t do this by market share so they picked on revenue.
They couldn’t call Apple a monopoly because there was no legal justification. Gatekeeper has been around but the contortions in the DMA were specifically targeted toward Apple.
You can do anything you want with something you bought. The manufacturer isn’t obliged to help any use case whatsoever. If the device doesn’t fit your needs than don’t buy it.
Your post shows why government intervention in the wrong things is bad. For the bad guys it’s good. For the good guys it’s bad.
A personal example from this week that explains why laws that will force customers to go to developers vs. using the App Store will result in problems for customers.
I have a new client at work, and need to use Windows-only software for that client, so I purchased a one-year subscription to Parallels. Unbeknownst to me, I apparently had two other inactive subscriptions to Parallels that were somehow renewed when I put in my new credit card info. So I got charged three times for one piece of software. No problem, they have a thirty-day refund policy, right? Wrong. Apparently the refund doesn't apply to subscription "renewals."
Had this been purchased at the App Store, I could reach out to Apple and they'd take care of it. But I went to the developer's website, thinking they're a good, long standing Apple developer and they'd treat me right. But my reward for doing that is hundreds of dollars of extra charges because their support people won't refund me for two software licenses I'm not going to use. I'm going to have to dispute the charge with my credit card company and hope they take my side.
And if I didn't religiously check my statements, I wouldn't have known I was charged three times. Would Parallels have sent me an email letting me know that my subscriptions were renewing this time next year? Maybe. Would I have thought when I got the same email three times that I had three subscriptions? No. I would have thought "their system is messed up." Then I would have been again charged almost $400. And this is a well-regarded, long-standing (European) MacOS developer who I thought would do the right thing. That's what I get for not using the Mac App Store.
I'm sure some on here will jump in to tell me that it's somehow my own fault; but if it could happen to me, a sophisticated user with over 30 years of experience using Macs, then it's absolutely going to trip up normal users when it gets rolled out to iOS.
This is what the EU is signing customers up for. It isn't for consumers' benefit.
I have a new client at work, and need to use Windows-only software for that client, so I purchased a one-year subscription to Parallels. Unbeknownst to me, I apparently had two other inactive subscriptions to Parallels that were somehow renewed when I put in my new credit card info. So I got charged three times for one piece of software. No problem, they have a thirty-day refund policy, right? Wrong. Apparently the refund doesn't apply to subscription "renewals."
Had this been purchased at the App Store, I could reach out to Apple and they'd take care of it. But I went to the developer's website, thinking they're a good, long standing Apple developer and they'd treat me right. But my reward for doing that is hundreds of dollars of extra charges because their support people won't refund me for two software licenses I'm not going to use. I'm going to have to dispute the charge with my credit card company and hope they take my side.
And if I didn't religiously check my statements, I wouldn't have known I was charged three times. Would Parallels have sent me an email letting me know that my subscriptions were renewing this time next year? Maybe. Would I have thought when I got the same email three times that I had three subscriptions? No. I would have thought "their system is messed up." Then I would have been again charged almost $400. And this is a well-regarded, long-standing (European) MacOS developer who I thought would do the right thing. That's what I get for not using the Mac App Store.
I'm sure some on here will jump in to tell me that it's somehow my own fault; but if it could happen to me, a sophisticated user with over 30 years of experience using Macs, then it's absolutely going to trip up normal users when it gets rolled out to iOS.
This is what the EU is signing customers up for. It isn't for consumers' benefit.
Because the EU wants all third parties to have the same and equal access to all of Apple's tech. So being in an emulator will not suffice.
If the EU argues , that Apple is being accountable for what is happening in the third party stores it is required to offer, than we are talking about a contradiction (which is quite common (not only related to Tech companies in Europe or EU-countries in details - you may ask European companies about it).
The basic problem:
The smartphone (does not matter if it is an iOS or Android device) has to be tighter"locked up" than a computer or mac by default, because you carry it around and it is connected to public network all the time (e.g. cellular). It has to be (nearly) impossible to gain access from the outside (without the knowledge of the owner of the device) - open doors are Bluetooth (as a de facto standard for wireless communication) or NFC. Therefore, there is a reason why AirPods needs to be confirmed during the initial pairing or you are required some kind of confirmation (either via Banking App or any other secondary authorization) during setting up your payment cards. And it has to be tighten even more since more of personal documents (IDs, driving license, travel documents) are being digitalized.
Last edited:
Frustrating situation. Seems shady for sure!
I would tweak line one though..
It's not "force" customers to go to developers, it's "allow"
I have little more to say on this, as going anecdote by anecdote, company by company, customer by customer, we could be here until the end of time with examples on all sides of this.
We certainly don't want to open the can of worms (stories) from developers dealing with absolutely capricious nonsense in Apple App Review -- again, we'd be here until we are dead.
This could be a good example where Apple might be able to retain customers of a Devs Apps through the Apple App Store.
Maybe some customers will pay more for different/better policies for purchasing through Apple?
Certainly happens in other industries (buy direct vs through an Amazon or Costco, etc)
This could be a great point of competitive differentiation for Apple!
Frustrating situation. Seems shady for sure!
I would tweak line one though..
It's not "force" customers to go to developers, it's "allow"
I have little more to say on this, as going anecdote by anecdote, company by company, customer by customer, we could be here until the end of time with examples on all sides of this.
We certainly don't want to open the can of worms (stories) from developers dealing with absolutely capricious nonsense in Apple App Review -- again, we'd be here until we are dead.
This could be a good example where Apple might be able to retain customers of a Devs Apps through the Apple App Store.
Maybe some customers will pay more for different/better policies for purchasing through Apple?
Certainly happens in other industries (buy direct vs through an Amazon or Costco, etc)
This could be a great point of competitive differentiation for Apple!
If the developer leaves the App Store, then it is "forced."
And yes, I realize that in this particular instance Parallels is available in the Mac App Store, (which is now the only way I'll ever deal with that company again, even if they end up doing the right thing after a week of me hounding them to), but there will absolutely be apps that leave the App Store, whether that's because they think they can do better on their own, someone else pays them to be exclusive to their store, etc.
There are a lot of App Store features that I can imagine some developers don't like or don't want to pay for that ABSOLUTELY benefit consumers. Just to name a few:
- Generous refund policy
- Privacy labels
- Easy subscription cancelation
- App Tracking Transparency requirements
- Parental controls
I suspect developers will gravitate toward whichever has the loosest rules and lowest fees. Consumers won't choose stores based on privacy policies or best benefits they'll go wherever the apps are. It's entirely possible the store with the worst consumer protections wins the developers, and consumers have to follow. Even if alternative stores promise good practices, who enforces it? Apple can actually remove apps that violate their rules. If Meta or Epic runs a store, can we trust them to police themselves? Will they ban their own apps for tracking violations?
Maybe?
But what I'd argue is that the worst companies, with the worst products and policies, will end up in the worst places doing the worst things.
Guess what?
I'm fine with that. I prefer to not use or support the worst companies.
I wish Apple would also assume that position.
There $eem$ to be a rea$on they don't.
One could flip all this around and perhaps say that Apple is helping keep the worst companies going by even entertaining them on platform at all, right now.
..this will get into ... "but Apple has to or their sales will be impacted" -- maybe they should let that be the case and not do business with the worst offenders at all? Take the high ground and defend it!
Make iPhone where miscreants aren't welcome at all!
I'm all for it.
I guess I'm not sure why we are worried about "the worst offenders leaving the Apple App Store" and doing really bad stuff out in the Wild West.
Let them! If folks want to support awful companies doing horrible things, have at it.
Apple trying to be the policeman for the world is way beyond their purview.
We have examples on both macOS and in Android world of this basic situation and the above board companies offer their software in both places where policies allow (direct & in vendor app stores, sometimes with differential pricing to account for vendor fees).
Let's buy from and use companies that behave correctly.
This is actually letting the market do it's thing.
Let them! If folks want to support awful companies doing horrible things, have at it.
Apple trying to be the policeman for the world is way beyond their purview.
We have examples on both macOS and in Android world of this basic situation and the above board companies offer their software in both places where policies allow (direct & in vendor app stores, sometimes with differential pricing to account for vendor fees).
Let's buy from and use companies that behave correctly.
This is actually letting the market do it's thing.
Right, I specifically pay the Apple tax on phones to avoid bloatware, ads, and general ******** that Apple kind of protects users from. A restrictive App Store is worth the benefit of avoiding that crap.
I don't think it should be, particularly when many people choose Apple BECAUSE it makes sure its users are protected. I understand that might not be the reason you or I picked an iPhone, but that's absolutely the reason my Mother in Law did. And that shouldn't be taken away because a bunch of tech enthusiasts want an open ecosystem but don't want to use Android.
And both of those platforms have significantly more scams and malware than iOS. In large part because it is easier to trick people into downloading malicious apps. Case in point for your example below:
How easy is it for a scammer to buy m1cr0soft [dot] us or whatever, put up the same screen with malicious versions of all the apps. Or someone to advertise "Microsoft apps for free" with cracked versions. Or do the same thing to a banking app?
There should absolutely be a place for a closed, locked down ecosystem for those who want it. I understand why big developers, their paid-for regulators, and a large subset of tech enthusiasts are upset that a large (although not majority) and economically powerful portion of users prefer Apple's system. But they're all forgetting we already have an open platform, and developers still prioritize iOS for launches because Apple users are more valuable customers in an ecosystem. That's not because Apple is cheating, or despite Apple's restrictions it's because Apple's rule results in an ecosystem with less fraud, more safety, and higher trust, which leads consumers to spend more. And that's going to get ripped away and make things worse for everyone, including developers. And the regulators and their defenders will deny their rules had anything to do with it, and Apple clearly "maliciously complied" and that's why things got worse, but we'll all know what actually happened.
Letting the market do its thing is not the same as giving apples assets away and see who can make money off of apples ip.
It’s vote with your $$$.
Apple being the world’s policeman is above their pay grade. Being their own policeman, sure.
Oh yes it is hence the regulation to curb Apple’s wings to use security and privacy as a smokescreen
The smokescreen are the regulations contradicting one another and then attempting to hold Apple responsible. For satisfying both of them at the same time.
i’m saying i’m enjoying Apple’s whining about the whole situation
They deserve everything they are getting 🍿
It's not a smokescreen. It's absolutely true. Quoting myself from another thread:
- Here's a 2023 survey paper citing McAfee data reports 2.34M mobile malware cases, of which only 389 were on iOS.
- App Security Project quoted Nokia Threat Intelligence report that found that Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of observed malware infections (Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%), with third-party app stores being a key vector due to lack of security vetting.
- Zimperium found that users who sideload are 80% more likely to have malware on their phones.
- Tom's Guide reported that users of alternate apps stores had up to 19 times higher probability of encountering malware compared to the PlayStore
- Certo Software says sideloaded apps have a 200% higher chance of containing malware
- Banks in Singapore won't let users use their apps if they detect apps from unverified sources (i.e., side loaded and third-party stores)
- In the US, the Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, the FBI, and NIST all say don't sideload (DHS calls out third-party stores in particular).
- The EU's own Agency for Cybersecurity recommended users "use the official application marketplace only… to minimize the risk of installing a malicious application."
- ENISA has also stated that "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."
- The European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation says: "only install apps from official stores".
- Australia's eSafety Commissioner: "Apps for your iPhone or iPad should only ever be obtained from the App Store, while apps for Android devices should only be obtained from Google Play. Apps obtained from anywhere else may well be dangerous, and could try to misuse your information or put a virus on your phone"
I love this
My mum picked the fold 7 because it’s a superior product to what apple has on offer & she’s protected because Samsung puts security features into their phones and she never has an issues
Apple clearly isn’t whining. They are fighting a targeted battle. It’s more your projection they are “whining”.
You mean like record breaking quarters? I agree with you.
You have great anecdotal evidence with a sample size of one. Doesn’t compare to generalized statistics that has been posted.
If iOS is so secure, then sideloading should not be a problem for Apple. It is like saying you are safe and secure but never leaving your house and staying inside your own walled garden.
That only works if there no other source that can actually see live or maybe not quite live. Either way none of that matters if it is not from on the device (smartphone, tablet, or any mobile device)
Been happening for well over 13 years if not longer. Easy to determine and test to see. The biggest disadvantage is everyone, or nearly everyone, has that as an issue.
Been happening for well over 13 years if not longer. Easy to determine and test to see. The biggest disadvantage is everyone, or nearly everyone, has that as an issue.