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

[Bigbuddy1]

Wonderful victim blaming there. Who are you comfortable sacrificing so you can have an open ecosystem but don't have to use Android?

• The 75-year-old grandmother who gets tricked by a fake banking app?
• The 12-year-old who downloads a "free Robux generator"?
• The immigrant with limited English targeted by scams in their native language?

"Personal responsibility" sounds great and principled until you realize it's just saying "scammers should be free to scam, and victims deserve what they get." Saying "they should have known better" is just accepting casualties as the cost of "freedom." Again, people aren't buying iPhones despite the walled garden; many are buying them because of it. My mother-in-law uses an iPhone specifically because she trusts she can't accidentally install malware. That's her making a responsible choice for herself. Forcing Apple to allow sideloading removes that option from the market entirely.

The statistics speak for themselves, Android is significantly less safe than iOS because of sideloading and third party stores. You can argue the rate of malware is low enough, and the "benefits" from opening up are good enough that the harm caused is worth it. But you can't argue that Apple isn't safer because it prohibits sideloading and third-party stores. The fact of the matter is Android malware affects millions of users annually. I quoted statistics above. Just because you and your friends and family haven't been hit (or, perhaps have been hit but don't realize it) doesn't mean it's not a massive problem. You're saying "I don't wear a seatbelt and I'm fine, so car accidents must not be real."

Far from it and it’s disgraceful to use a seat belt analogy when individuals get killed in that event and you’re using it as same as a piece of software 😡
Again are you implying that apple customers that use iOS don’t really understand how things work outside the walled garden and are less understanding of technology compared with android users because it seems to be that’s what you’re implying here by allowing 3rd party app stores then instantly all these iPhones users will get rinsed for money so then you must be implying that these individuals like your mum doesn’t actually know what they are doing

 

[Bigbuddy1]

So, you are saying that the EU requiring Apple implement security measures to protect consumers is wrong? It should just be an open sewer and blame the consumer for the spread of contamination?

Apple consumers are a mix, like every other customer base. Just because your friends don't know they have spyware on their phone doesn't mean they don't. Even if they are savvy enough to understand the hazards of a wide-open computing platform and fool themselves into thinking they can protect themselves, doesn't mean they can. Apparently, the EU thinks protections are necessary. Apple thinks the protections are necessary. The EU is just logically inconsistent.

Why do you advocate creating attractive nuisances and hazards? I guess if you want to play with lawn darts, you can go to the EU.

Again this is silly logic
What I am saying is the European Union are calling Apple’s bluff by asking them probing questions to rid there smoke and mirrors argument to shreds.

 

[surferfb]

Again are you implying that apple customers that use iOS don’t really understand how things work outside the walled garden and are less understanding of technology compared with android users because it seems to be that’s what you’re implying here by allowing 3rd party app stores then instantly all these iPhones users will get rinsed for money so then you must be implying that these individuals like your mum doesn’t actually know what they are doing

No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that if Apple is forced open, the malware rates on iOS will increase to Android’s level (Millions of infections a year). iOS isn’t inherently safer than Android, the difference is the walled garden keeps Apple’s users from being able to get tricked into installing malware. And that taking that safety away, when millions of users have chosen iOS BECAUSE the restrictions are there, all because you can’t be bothered to use Android, is at best an example of not thinking of how others will be impacted, and at worst selfishly not caring if others are harmed and lose their preferences as long as you get your way.

You have no answer to the statistics. Just “if Apple users are going to get infected like the millions of Android users, they shouldn’t be using phones.”

Again this is silly logic
What I am saying is the European Union are calling Apple’s bluff by asking them probing questions to rid there smoke and mirrors argument to shreds.

The EU isn’t “calling Apple’s bluff” or “ripping Apple’s arguments to shreds”, Apple answered all their questions and correctly pointed out the EU is being hypocritical. Which clearly upset a lot of you so much that it prevents you from acknowledging malware is an issue on Android despite clear and compelling data that it is, and that there will be negative consequences to forcing Apple open. That the only possible solution is “Apple’s greedy and scared of competition” not “they actually believe and mean what they say.” I’m shocked so many of you buy products from a company you think lies to your face over and over again.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that if Apple is forced open, the malware rates on iOS will increase to Android’s level (Millions of infections a year). iOS isn’t inherently safer than Android, the difference is the walled garden keeps Apple’s users from being able to get tricked into installing malware. And that taking that safety away, when millions of users have chosen iOS BECAUSE the restrictions are there, all because you can’t be bothered to use Android, is at best an example of not thinking of how others will be impacted, and at worst selfishly not caring if others are harmed and lose their preferences as long as you get your way.

You have no answer to the statistics. Just “if Apple users are going to get infected like the millions of Android users, they shouldn’t be using phones.”



The EU isn’t “calling Apple’s bluff” or “ripping Apple’s arguments to shreds”, Apple answered all their questions and correctly pointed out the EU is being hypocritical. Which clearly upset a lot of you so much that it prevents you from acknowledging malware is an issue on Android despite clear and compelling data that it is, and that there will be negative consequences to forcing Apple open. That the only possible solution is “Apple’s greedy and scared of competition” not “they actually believe and mean what they say.” I’m shocked so many of you buy products from a company you think lies to your face over and over again.

Is that the same statistic’s that says this company uses smoke and mirrors to justify their actions so to further their own greed because numbers don’t lie in regards to your logic

 

[turbineseaplane]

We can finally install the full Gecko Firefox with extension support on iOS if installation outside of the Apple App store is allowed

Don't tease me like this...
Browsing on iOS/iPadOS is such a gimped garbage experience.

 

[platinumaqua]

That’s just not true. Apple doesn’t expose the APIs to third-party-developers that would even allow an alternate browser engine to run. Yes this is now allowed in the EU, but. It from anything to do with side loading or other app stores

So you're saying that iOS, an operating system based on Mac OS X, is technically incapable of running arbitrary software like a Web browser that's not a wrapper around the built-in WebKit engine.

 

[Abazigal]

Far from it and it’s disgraceful to use a seat belt analogy when individuals get killed in that event and you’re using it as same as a piece of software 😡
Again are you implying that apple customers that use iOS don’t really understand how things work outside the walled garden and are less understanding of technology compared with android users because it seems to be that’s what you’re implying here by allowing 3rd party app stores then instantly all these iPhones users will get rinsed for money so then you must be implying that these individuals like your mum doesn’t actually know what they are doing

I will say there's a reason why cases like these appear to be limited to users of mobile devices which allow for sideloading. It's not that iOS users are somehow more tech savvy. It's that they physically can't sideload scummy apps from social media ads.

Android users lose $2.4 million to malware scams that use Facebook and TikTok ads as bait

At least 128 cases have been reported since February. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

The reality is that even people who use android phones don't really understand how things work within their own open ecosystem, and they don't always get technology either. The main difference between iOS and android is that iOS doesn't give its users enough rope to hang themselves with.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? Maybe, maybe not. We can debate this till the cows come home, but the crux of the matter here is that whichever choice is made, it will not be without its tradeoffs. The first thing you proponents of sideloading need to let go of is the assertion that it is entirely without downsides, or that "users don't have to sideload if they don't want to". Only then can a meaningful conversation be had.

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

No, it’s nothing liked that. It’s like Apple sells houses that have been sought after because of the included high quality doors but they have been ordered to prevent any back doors from being installed because some people think it’s convenient to allow third parties to wander the premises. There is no third party door, only third party houseguests that may or may not have been invited. If the standards applied to others shouldn’t be a concern, then I’d like to see the likes of Epic stop being so concerned about the standards applied to Apple.

 

[The_Gream]

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.

This is true, but you also have to remember, Unlce Jack is going to buy an iPhone, he starts downloading from the web or 3rd party stores and all his info will be stolen because they don’t do enough. Now when Unlce Jack goes to sue or complain to the government, his finger isn’t going to point at himself for being ignorant, but at Apple for not doing a better job of protecting him. He also won’t probably go after that 3rd party app store because he won’t remember where he got that malware infested app.
Some politician or judge will feel sorry for Uncle Joe and use his own stupidity as a means to fine Apple more money, because Apple didn’t do enough, even though Apple had no involvement in the Apple distribution that caused the whole issue.

Remember the world is full of stupid people.

 

[The_Gream]

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

I always found people screaming about right to repair confusing, afaik, Apple has never charged a person to become certified to repair their products. Once certified, you gain access to 1st party parts, manuals etc.
If you are tech savvy, it would only take you a few hours probably to get certified, and then you could have access to 1st party parts instead of who knows 3rd party parts.

Also, all this talk about being greedy is ridiculous. Apple is a for profit business, sure they have high margins.
I work in a warehouse for a mom and pop farm and home company (about 200 stores). They brought in some Ninja coolers for DAT. $250, on sale for 199, with like a $50 mail-in rebate. Our cost is like $125. That’s a 100% mark-up. We are the largest vendor of DeWalt and the difference between cost and sell price on DeWalt is crazy high.
I am sure if this company had the same volume of customers as Apple does, they would also be brining in 100s of billions a year.

 

[The_Gream]

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.

Many people forget, OG iPhone was built to use Web Apps. It wasn’t tell after, the iPhone was Jailbroken and that one App Store was accessible that Apple moved into the app market. I also think Verizon had a functional App Store on iPhone before Apple.

The Mac App Store was a joke on release and has (imo) remained so.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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?

No, Apple can largely do whatever they want within their software distribution store.

” THEY DO NOT NEED TO ALLOW ANY 3RD PRTY STORES OR OPEN THEIR STORE”​

It’s a question of Apple needing to safeguard the customers interacting with their services actively that they have a responsibility, they are on the other hand not required to be responsible in any shape for actions the user does with other services.

It would be silly to think the car dealership(Apple) should be liable for their customers getting second hand tires and car parts from other places and sellers instead of certified parts.
But if the customer on the other end enters theirs store or purchase parts advertised by them that leads to fraudulent or quality issues, then it’s the dealers(apples) responsible to protect the customers.

If the protection of the consumer is the end goal, then why have contradictory legislation? Simple question.

Well it isn’t. It’s the market and it’s undertakings (customers, users, citizens, companies, competitors etc).

DMA= anti competitive law practically to maintain the markets competitive function between economic actors. Or Economicall market regulation

DSA= effectively consumer protection and rights of undertakings engaging in more transparent and clearer terms of engagement. Or socially targeted policies

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.

A)to use some American examples. Does and monopoly laws apply to everyone equally? Or just those who are able to meet the requirements to be a monopoly despite the behavior being largely the same?

B) the other stores just like Apple have a responsibility to not sell fraudulent/illegal goods to users under their name. To have clear terms and ability for impartial inquiry on ToS judgement.

What discrepancy is there between apples AppStore and the hypothetical other App Store? What rights aren’t properly protected?

 

[bollman]

This is true, but you also have to remember, Unlce Jack is going to buy an iPhone, he starts downloading from the web or 3rd party stores and all his info will be stolen because they don’t do enough. Now when Unlce Jack goes to sue or complain to the government, his finger isn’t going to point at himself for being ignorant, but at Apple for not doing a better job of protecting him. He also won’t probably go after that 3rd party app store because he won’t remember where he got that malware infested app.
Some politician or judge will feel sorry for Uncle Joe and use his own stupidity as a means to fine Apple more money, because Apple didn’t do enough, even though Apple had no involvement in the Apple distribution that caused the whole issue.

Remember the world is full of stupid people.

In the EU, stupidity or ignorance is not valid grounds for litigation.
Yes, the EU might require actors to be more open, but on the other hand, we as citizens of the EU have a greater responsibility. There is no way Apple would be under any legal threat due to someone doing anything stupid and getting into trouble, unless of course Apple would promote shady stuff and stealing the data for themselves, but that would be a totally different reality.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

I will say there's a reason why cases like these appear to be limited to users of mobile devices which allow for sideloading. It's not that iOS users are somehow more tech savvy. It's that they physically can't sideload scummy apps from social media ads.

Android users lose $2.4 million to malware scams that use Facebook and TikTok ads as bait

At least 128 cases have been reported since February. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

The reality is that even people who use android phones don't really understand how things work within their own open ecosystem, and they don't always get technology either. The main difference between iOS and android is that iOS doesn't give its users enough rope to hang themselves with.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? Maybe, maybe not. We can debate this till the cows come home, but the crux of the matter here is that whichever choice is made, it will not be without its tradeoffs. The first thing you proponents of sideloading need to let go of is the assertion that it is entirely without downsides, or that "users don't have to sideload if they don't want to". Only then can a meaningful conversation be had.

Side loading & alternative App Stores are not the problem.

Singapore is that the best you can get where is Europe or uk or the good old USA in these reports nobody forces you to download or use an app if you don’t want to.

It’s not about if I’m in favour of sideloading or 3rd party app stores but using security and privacy as a justification to put barriers up so you can make more money is just laughable and it’s simply this for everyone on planet earth based on Apple’s valuation that equals to about $495 per person that’s why they are getting regulated

 

[Bigbuddy1]

No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that if Apple is forced open, the malware rates on iOS will increase to Android’s level (Millions of infections a year). iOS isn’t inherently safer than Android, the difference is the walled garden keeps Apple’s users from being able to get tricked into installing malware. And that taking that safety away, when millions of users have chosen iOS BECAUSE the restrictions are there, all because you can’t be bothered to use Android, is at best an example of not thinking of how others will be impacted, and at worst selfishly not caring if others are harmed and lose their preferences as long as you get your way.

You have no answer to the statistics. Just “if Apple users are going to get infected like the millions of Android users, they shouldn’t be using phones.”



The EU isn’t “calling Apple’s bluff” or “ripping Apple’s arguments to shreds”, Apple answered all their questions and correctly pointed out the EU is being hypocritical. Which clearly upset a lot of you so much that it prevents you from acknowledging malware is an issue on Android despite clear and compelling data that it is, and that there will be negative consequences to forcing Apple open. That the only possible solution is “Apple’s greedy and scared of competition” not “they actually believe and mean what they say.” I’m shocked so many of you buy products from a company you think lies to your face over and over again.

The burden of explaining why this is necessary should fall on those advocating for the change that takes away a safe, secure model for the less safe one. Forcing Apple to add third-party stores and sideloading doesn't add choice - it eliminates it and shifts the cost of your preference of "use an open OS, but not Android" onto the very people who deliberately chose the safer default, while completely disregarding millions whose preference is to not have Apple open. Why does your desire outweigh mine? You have an open option you can switch to today. Those who want a closed ecosystem won't have that option when Apple is forced open.

And when there is a major malware issue on iOS, you know who they're going to blame? It isn't going to be the EU. It isn't going to be those selfishly putting their desires over what's best for the majority of Apple's users. They're going to blame Apple. "Apple said iPhones can't get viruses but mine did." And it won't be Apple's fault, but Apple is who will get the reputational damage. The EU will clutch its pearls and say "HOW DARE Apple say it is our regulation's fault, Apple just should have implemented it better" and people on MacRumors will say "It's your fault, you shouldn't have been tricked into installing a sketchy app." But that's whose fault it will be: the EU and those selfishly putting their desires over others'.


No, it's to protect users. Apple competes just fine. Just because you've convinced yourself Apple is spreading FUD doesn't make it true. Look at the statistics. They don't lie. To repeat from upthread:

• 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

You want to bring that to iOS. And then argue there's "no other reason" that Apple would have their ecosystem set up the way they do? Handwave it all away. That's it's just greed? Come on.

You can do all the cherry picking you want
But it simply comes down to this apple’s valuation means that for everyone that lives on planet earth they are worth about $495 to them and that’s the issue and that’s why it’s about smoke and mirrors because things are deliberately designed that way by apple as a further way to extract.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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?

ironic when the act is criminal so 🤷‍♂️ … almost how you can open a store irl and do whatever you want and it’s non of Walmarts business. You’re. Or allowed to make a malicious app/store and distribute it in apples AppStore… and the freedom of the device owner to install what they think they want. Now the DMA do allow them the option to oversee it as they are with the security certification.

But just how we recognize that if only OEM dealerships were allowed to fix people’s cars and to lock them down to prevent any unauthorized work being done we would save millions of lives, yet we recognize the value of the user have some liberty to take their personal responsibility and do it themselves or go to other options. Sometimes freedom comes with the cost of safety, it’s not an economic question as any company globally can distribute their apps such as the large European American company Epic Games

Apple are equal here, the user will use their store for their great value proposition that they do security wise…. Unless someone else does it better 🤷‍♂️
But indeed EU probably deems you to small as it’s the national courts jurisdiction.

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.

Simply Eu doesn’t argue that. Apple is only responsible for their store and services that they provide. Apple is as legally accountable for what happens on cydia or Epic store as they are for google play and Walmart…. Except if they insist to be responsible for everything app notarization.

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.

Sigh first Apple doesn’t have an obligation to protect their users, but their services.
And secondly the DSA would still exist considering it relates to Digital Services… so you’re use of let’s say Google, YouTube etc and said services. Such as
Algorithmic transparency: clear explanations of their recommendation systems, advertising logic, and personalization in plain language
Having a transparent content moderation policy.
Disclosing advertisers and ads so users know why they see certain ads.
Etc etc

Because that wouldn’t be allowed under the DMA to sandbox outside apps

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.

This is exactly how it works right now on iOS… apps are sandboxed from the OS irrespective where it’s from unless you jailbreak(aka remove them )

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".

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?

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.

The term gatekeeper is is still simply and ex-anti anti competitive law based on decades of legal precedent regarding TFEU article 101 & 102. Apple and others are still prosecutable even if the gatekeeper terms and laws didn’t exist.

Article 101 reads:​

​

1. The following shall be seen as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:​

• (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions​
• (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment​
• (c) share markets or sources of supply​
• (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage​
• (e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.​

2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this article shall be automatically void.​

​

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of: any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,any concerted practice or category of concerted practices, which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:​

• (a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives​
• (b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.​

Article 102 reads:​

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States."​

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:​

• (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions​
• (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers​
• (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage​
• (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.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

What if Meta opened up a store and said "we'll pay developers to be exclusive to our store, will charge you less than Apple (if you give us access to your user data), and you won't have to give refunds on erroneous purchases, you can track to your hearts content without telling anyone, and we will make canceling subscriptions a massively confusing PIA." How is that better for consumers?

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?

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"

Why won't the EU listen to the experts? Including their own!

So, you are saying that the EU requiring Apple implement security measures to protect consumers is wrong? It should just be an open sewer and blame the consumer for the spread of contamination?

Apple consumers are a mix, like every other customer base. Just because your friends don't know they have spyware on their phone doesn't mean they don't. Even if they are savvy enough to understand the hazards of a wide-open computing platform and fool themselves into thinking they can protect themselves, doesn't mean they can. Apparently, the EU thinks protections are necessary. Apple thinks the protections are necessary. The EU is just logically inconsistent.

Why do you advocate creating attractive nuisances and hazards? I guess if you want to play with lawn darts, you can go to the EU.

Agin this isn’t about EU not listening to their experts. Their experts are correct and its also in contrast to the freedom to some your own actions in some regards. As well as market participants. Freedom to choose isn’t forcing you into anything as you will either pick them despite not being in the Mac AppStore, or you choose someone else. It’s simple a one degree of separation between you choosing the alternative options on the Mac and me getting an android phone to get an android specific app.

Eu recommend that you don’t smoke, drink, stay up late, eat unhealthy, gamle etc and they have massive numbers of experts that shows how bad it is, yet they still allow its practice despite the negative effects. You can jaywalk or drink beer in public places and suffer the personal consequences but not legal ones to prevent your poor choices.

If meta opens up a store it will be as any other physical or digital store front and you can chose to ignore them and take other options. I have not bought a single game on Epic store untill the game returns to steam irrespective of its 1 month or 3 years.

Eu agreeing you need protection and Apple agreeing you need protection doesn’t equate to them thinking the protection should be forced upon you 🤷‍♂️ or that it should be allowed to be forced upon others

I always found people screaming about right to repair confusing, afaik, Apple has never charged a person to become certified to repair their products. Once certified, you gain access to 1st party parts, manuals etc.
If you are tech savvy, it would only take you a few hours probably to get certified, and then you could have access to 1st party parts instead of who knows 3rd party parts.

Also, all this talk about being greedy is ridiculous. Apple is a for profit business, sure they have high margins.
I work in a warehouse for a mom and pop farm and home company (about 200 stores). They brought in some Ninja coolers for DAT. $250, on sale for 199, with like a $50 mail-in rebate. Our cost is like $125. That’s a 100% mark-up. We are the largest vendor of DeWalt and the difference between cost and sell price on DeWalt is crazy high.
I am sure if this company had the same volume of customers as Apple does, they would also be brining in 100s of billions a year.

1: they did while not allowing you to access 1st party parts because they do full board swaps and centralized their repair or recycling. And that legitimate repair shops wouldn’t have legitimate access to OEM parts for no justifiable reasons.

2: it’s greedy because the acts are so disproportionate in their favor and cost and annoyance to everyone else.

 

[TicinoLX]

No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that if Apple is forced open, the malware rates on iOS will increase to Android’s level (Millions of infections a year). iOS isn’t inherently safer than Android, the difference is the walled garden keeps Apple’s users from being able to get tricked into installing malware. And that taking that safety away, when millions of users have chosen iOS BECAUSE the restrictions are there, all because you can’t be bothered to use Android, is at best an example of not thinking of how others will be impacted, and at worst selfishly not caring if others are harmed and lose their preferences as long as you get your way.

I'm no expert, but even if Apple was forced to open up iOS to allow all the stated points you said, wouldn't in the end the majority still use the AppStore?
I got like 30-50 Programms installed on my Mac, and I'd say most of them are from AppStore

 

[threesixty360]

ironic when the act is criminal so 🤷‍♂️ … almost how you can open a store irl and do whatever you want and it’s non of Walmarts business. You’re. Or allowed to make a malicious app/store and distribute it in apples AppStore… and the freedom of the device owner to install what they think they want. Now the DMA do allow them the option to oversee it as they are with the security certification.

But just how we recognize that if only OEM dealerships were allowed to fix people’s cars and to lock them down to prevent any unauthorized work being done we would save millions of lives, yet we recognize the value of the user have some liberty to take their personal responsibility and do it themselves or go to other options. Sometimes freedom comes with the cost of safety, it’s not an economic question as any company globally can distribute their apps such as the large European American company Epic Games

The difference here compared to bricks and mortar businesses is that there already is a method to ensure security! It was in place and it was working! The Walmart example makes no sense because it's been practically and physically impossible to police every physical store in every geographic location. Digital services give us that ability. What the EU are really doing is removing technological advances which have created a proven secure eco-system to facilitate the economic interests of EU businesses. Lets not pretend what is happening here.

We trade freedom for security all the time in our world. You are not free to do anything you want, security matters and arguably security for all is more important than freedom for all.
Adimittidely freedom can come at the cost of safety but I do wonder who is getting freedom at the expense of general security on the platform? The vast majority of iOS users had zero problem with the status quo. The EU remedy here seems to be a commercial one, not security focused for the iOS user base.

At the end of the day the EU can do what they want (and are doing it!) but I think the law should apply equally to everyone in principal. In a digital world they actually can. The UK govt just put in a web ID law to make sure adult content companies had to verify everyone age. Yes it's hard to police for smaller sites and some will get through the net, but legally the law still applies to those small companies as well as the big ones. I think Apple pointing out the hypocrisy is correct. It's up to EU citizens to look at the leadership and say if you represent us do it fairly and honestly.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

The difference here compared to bricks and mortar businesses is that there already is a method to ensure security! It was in place and it was working! The Walmart example makes no sense because it's been practically and physically impossible to police every physical store in every geographic location. Digital services give us that ability. What the EU are really doing is removing technological advances which have created a proven secure eco-system to facilitate the economic interests of EU businesses. Lets not pretend what is happening here.

We trade freedom for security all the time in our world. You are not free to do anything you want, security matters and arguably security for all is more important than freedom for all.
Adimittidely freedom can come at the cost of safety but I do wonder who is getting freedom at the expense of general security on the platform? The vast majority of iOS users had zero problem with the status quo. The EU remedy here seems to be a commercial one, not security focused for the iOS user base.

At the end of the day the EU can do what they want (and are doing it!) but I think the law should apply equally to everyone in principal. In a digital world they actually can. The UK govt just put in a web ID law to make sure adult content companies had to verify everyone age. Yes it's hard to police for smaller sites and some will get through the net, but legally the law still applies to those small companies as well as the big ones. I think Apple pointing out the hypocrisy is correct. It's up to EU citizens to look at the leadership and say if you represent us do it fairly and honestly.

apple as a company is not in the same business as Walmart so individuals should stop using bricks and mortar shops as an example

 

[TheBigLevski]

A hospital can be world-class, but if the hospital pharmacy uses unvetted, sketchy suppliers when it buys the medicine and doesn't run background checks on the employees, it doesn't matter how good the facilities are - patients are put at risk. Same deal here.



Android has comparable (maybe even superior) OS-level security features and it allows sideloading. What's the result? Dramatically higher malware rates. Why? In large part because OS security can't protect against social engineering. Scammers create fake apps, buy ads that direct users to sideload them, and trick millions into installing malware. You think scammers aren't going to fake an "official" button on the fake website they set up to trick people into sideloading?

That it is not a walled garden... The whole purpose of it (if using you hospital analogy) is to have good suppliers and employees, that is what Apple is selling with its garden, but when leaving it you are then bombarded with non vetted ones. But if your security checks are working then those actors could not get inside your hospital, right? So a moot point there.

It is their conflicting statements about how secure their software is, but then when exposed to outside "actors", suddenly it is not anymore? That's bull crap.

Look, as someone who loves and uses their products (over 30 years that is), I just want them to really "be different" and not be *******s, but things like this are just the opposite of that.

Let them show if their software really is that good and better when in the same boat and same playing field as others. And I for one welcome the fact I can now sideload apps and install on MY device what I WANT, just as I am used to on my macs over the years and they are not less secure because of that.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

That it is not a walled garden... The whole purpose of it (if using you hospital analogy) is to have good suppliers and employees, that is what Apple is selling with its garden, but when leaving it you are then bombarded with non vetted ones. But if your security checks are working then those actors could not get inside your hospital, right? So a moot point there.

It is their conflicting statements about how secure their software is, but then when exposed to outside "actors", suddenly it is not anymore? That's bull crap.

Look, as someone who loves and uses their products (over 30 years that is), I just want them to really "be different" and not be *******s, but things like this are just the opposite of that.

Let them show if their software really is that good and better when in the same boat and same playing field as others. And I for one welcome the fact I can now sideload apps and install on MY device what I WANT, just as I am used to on my macs over the years and they are not less secure because of that.

Exactly if Apple’s claims are legitimate then their should be no issue whatsoever
However all leads point to money
As was quoted in a movie
Show me the money

 

[MilaM]

No, it's to protect users. Apple competes just fine. Just because you've convinced yourself Apple is spreading FUD doesn't make it true. Look at the statistics. They don't lie. To repeat from upthread:

• 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

You want to bring that to iOS. And then argue there's "no other reason" that Apple would have their ecosystem set up the way they do? Handwave it all away. That's it's just greed? Come on.

Statistics are fun, but the devil always is in the details.

90 % of malicious apps on Android are distributed using the Google Play Store
100 % <= 😳 of malicious apps on iOS are distributed using the Apple App Store

Both stores have over 2 million apps in their catalogue.

People should not blindly believe Apple's claims that downloading apps from their store is always safe. Maybe we need an alternative store that actually vets and curates apps thoroughly.

 

[surferfb]

Statistics are fun, but the devil always is in the details.

90 % of malicious apps on Android are distributed using the Google Play Store
100 % <= 😳 of malicious apps on iOS are distributed using the Apple App Store

Both stores have over 2 million apps in their catalogue.

People should not blindly believe Apple's claims that downloading apps from their store is always safe. Maybe we need an alternative store that actually vets and curates apps thoroughly.

Malware is an issue on Android and it isn’t on iOS. The EU’s and their defenders’ response: make iOS like Android. That’s the truth.

 

[surferfb]

I'm no expert, but even if Apple was forced to open up iOS to allow all the stated points you said, wouldn't in the end the majority still use the AppStore?
I got like 30-50 Programms installed on my Mac, and I'd say most of them are from AppStore

Yes, most would. Most Android users just use the play store (which is another reason these laws are counterproductive, in actuality they actually don’t increase competition anywhere except on paper - so they add significant risk to normal users for no benefit for anyone outside of tech nerds who think they’re too sophisticated to get tricked and large companies that want to freeload).

But the reason Android has a malware problem and iOS doesn’t is because of sideloading and third party stores. That’s literally the only reason. Scammers set up fake websites with malicious apps and buy ads on Google and TikTok advertising “free robux generator” or buy a typo url of a legitimate company and socially engineer people into downloading apps.

This devious Android malware spoofs WhatsApp, TikTok and more - here's how to stay safe

ClayRat poses as different apps to steal SMS data and more

www.techradar.com

For those continuing to insist the EU isn’t making its citizens less safe with this law, note the line in the article “To protect against these sorts of threats, you should only download apps from trusted sources, such as Google’s Play Store, or Apple’s App Store.”

 

[surferfb]

Side loading & alternative App Stores are not the problem.

What is your explanation for Android’s malware problem and why Apple doesn’t have one? Is Apple better at security than Google? Apple’s users are more sophisticated? Scammers don’t want to target Apple customers?