Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules

[wbeasley]

i simply dont get why me having a closed protected (as best as possible) system is bad when an alternative exists.

and by removing that protection, and making it optional to use alt payments and alt appstores, i still have my device modified to code that is less secure than it has been for me regardless of whether i use it or not.

your desires, because that what they are, do not have more weight.

Apple have been upfront in how the store works.
you bought the device knowing that.

if you disagree dont buy it. simple. just like any other tech device.

i wont buy Acer laptops anymore because i had some dud ones that broke or certain features failed quickly.
i accept they were price point devices and not up to the task i needed.
if a device does not meet your needs, find something that does.

 

[noraa]

I’m Sorry about the Lightning cable e-waste, though. Oh, wait… if Apple had used USBC in the first place, this damage to our environment wouldn’t have happened either. There was no need for a proprietary lightning connector except Apple‘s hunger for money.

Considering USB-C didn’t exist when Apple introduced them Lightning connector, it would’ve been pretty impressive for Apple to have used USB-C At the get-go.

 

[noraa]

That’s true, my bad. Micro-USB and then USBC is what I should have said.

Micro-USB was (still is) a terrible connector, which is precisely why Apple introduced Lightning. And, even if Apple had used micro-usb, there still would have been a lot of e-waste produced going from micro USB to USB C.

 

[breenmask]

I am writing this on one.

Great. So there's not really an issue.

 

[BuffaloTF]

That’s true, my bad. Micro-USB and then USBC is what I should have said.

Lightning was created to replace the super rigid 30 pin connector that was brought over from the iPod. There was a whole laundry list of accessories made for iPods that stood that thing up on its port, and didn't bend or weaken. Lightning's purpose was to replace that ability with a smaller, reversible, connector. It succeeded. That those stands, alarm clocks, boomboxes, whatevers all crapped out and disappeared was not in the cards. But one thing is certain... Micro USB would've been an absolute nightmare for those purposes. You might've gotten 1 use out of each cable, and for a very limited time. USB-C isn't even rigid enough for those purposes.

 

[Ctrlos]

There is no "lack of consumer choice".

Let's say I don't want to buy an iPhone because I can't afford it but at the same time I don't want to be a product for Google.

What are my options?

 

[surferfb]

Let's say I don't want to buy an iPhone because I can't afford it but at the same time I don't want to be a product for Google.

What are my options?

Used iPhone, Android phone that you de-google, nothing phone, flip phone. Depending on your location Huawei phone.

 

[Kal Madda]

Used iPhone, Android phone that you de-google, nothing phone, flip phone. Depending on your location Huawei phone.

Also, there are several Linux phones out there that run complete Linux and can also emulate Android apps.

 

[surferfb]

Not mentioned here, but Meta also appealed the ruling against them. Interesting the similarities in the description of the regulators. Emphasis mine:

“Our constructive engagement – which pre-dated the launch of any investigation – was publicly noted by the Commission. Yet as 2024 progressed, the goalposts kept shifting and that has continued into 2025. We made proposals but feedback has often not been forthcoming. If feedback was received, it was often inconsistent and untethered from the DMA text. Meanwhile, despite the significant investment that we made to comply and address the Commission’s varying feedback, it kept repeating that it would never be in a position to bless DMA compliance proposals.

This raises serious questions about whether there is substance to the Commission’s repeated claims that the DMA is not about fines, but about participative regulatory dialogue and compliance.

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, but particularly the EU defenders. I’m not a Meta fan at all, but I think they do a good job of showing how the regulators are disregarding not only commercial realities, but also common sense and the law. And that the end result is bad for everyone: users, advertisers, and Meta.

The EU is either incompetent or acting in bad faith.

 

[Kal Madda]

Not mentioned here, but Meta also appealed the ruling against them. Interesting the similarities in the description of the regulators. Emphasis mine:

“Our constructive engagement – which pre-dated the launch of any investigation – was publicly noted by the Commission. Yet as 2024 progressed, the goalposts kept shifting and that has continued into 2025. We made proposals but feedback has often not been forthcoming. If feedback was received, it was often inconsistent and untethered from the DMA text. Meanwhile, despite the significant investment that we made to comply and address the Commission’s varying feedback, it kept repeating that it would never be in a position to bless DMA compliance proposals.

This raises serious questions about whether there is substance to the Commission’s repeated claims that the DMA is not about fines, but about participative regulatory dialogue and compliance.

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, but particularly the EU defenders. I’m not a Meta fan at all, but I think they do a good job of showing how the regulators are disregarding not only commercial realities, but also common sense and the law. And that the end result is bad for everyone: users, advertisers, and Meta.

The EU is either incompetent or acting in bad faith.

Yes, they very clearly have seemed to constantly change the goalposts and act arbitrarily on this. And I think all signs seem to clearly point to the EU acting in bad faith here. Even if you agree with some of the changes they’ve called for, the implementation seems incredibly arbitrary and targeted. The edicts are left intentionally vague, and then the commission’s interpretation of them can seemingly change at a whim. Companies aren’t given a clear path to compliance. Just a vague set of rules, seemingly so that when a company tries to comply, they can take issue with the way they complied. It’s just not good, because it’s essentially something they can shape however they want in some ways since they’ve left everything so vague, and companies (even with big legal departments and good lawyers) cannot be assured of compliance... And it also seems clearly targeted at US companies as part of a geopolitical feud.

 

[icolove]

Yes, they very clearly have seemed to constantly change the goalposts and act arbitrarily on this. And I think all signs seem to clearly point to the EU acting in bad faith here. Even if you agree with some of the changes they’ve called for, the implementation seems incredibly arbitrary and targeted. The edicts are left intentionally vague, and then the commission’s interpretation of them can seemingly change at a whim. Companies aren’t given a clear path to compliance. Just a vague set of rules, seemingly so that when a company tries to comply, they can take issue with the way they complied. It’s just not good, because it’s essentially something they can shape however they want in some ways since they’ve left everything so vague, and companies (even with big legal departments and good lawyers) cannot be assured of compliance... And it also seems clearly targeted at US companies as part of a geopolitical feud.

Laws and regulation evolve as new challenges that are detrimental to the people they're actually working for. Again, and thank goodness, the rest of the world isn't America.

Compliance is actually pretty straight forward, instead of paying lawyers to find ways around it, how about you pay them to actually comply and find common ground? That's not how the likes of Apple, Google, Meta and the others want to do business.

They're playing chicken, once the gauntlet falls on one of them, it will fall on all of them. In the case of Silicon Valley companies, it's long overdue.

Apple has grabbed their ankles for China whenever asked to without any sort of transparency. Always crickets.

It's corporate colonialism in the end.

 

[Jhyrachy]

I don't get why people can't see any problems.

Apple act as a gatekeeper, deciding what can or can't be published on his devices.

This can be abused to unfairly give apple advantages.

When Microsoft was forced to let people uninstall internet explorer/edge and offer people to select a different default browser on new install, no one was whining about how "microsoft knows better for his users".
You wanted to keep edge? You could, but it was no longer shoved down your throat.

This is the same, allow people to control their own devices. You do not want to sideload? No one is pointing a gun at your head.

 

[Fara82Light]

The EU is only acting to bolster its wallet

No it is not.

 

[iPadified]

*EU/EC is targeting all companies, not specifically Americans.
*US FDA rules governs European pharmaceutical drug development so is it not uncommon that foreign laws interferes with a global companies practices.
*Unlike US federal government, EU/EC does not operates with deficiencies as EU/EC is financed by membership contributions and not fines (or tariffs or taxes).

PS. European should and must be better to innovate and build businesses. There is a tendency that European inventions are moved over to US for commercialisation which should be minimised in my opinion. I cannot see how that would benefit US though. DS

 

[wbeasley]

Let's say I don't want to buy an iPhone because I can't afford it but at the same time I don't want to be a product for Google.

What are my options?

doing without...

you might like a $2m mansion but cant afford it either.

same option really.

Apple make a range of phones at different price points.
Or buy a refurb or second hand one.
or get a free hand me down as I often gift old Apple devices to family and friends because they last a long time...

options. yeah.

 

[wbeasley]

I don't get why people can't see any problems.

Apple act as a gatekeeper, deciding what can or can't be published on his devices.

This can be abused to unfairly give apple advantages.

When Microsoft was forced to let people uninstall internet explorer/edge and offer people to select a different default browser on new install, no one was whining about how "microsoft knows better for his users".
You wanted to keep edge? You could, but it was no longer shoved down your throat.

This is the same, allow people to control their own devices. You do not want to sideload? No one is pointing a gun at your head.

i dont get what people cant see the problems...

Apple have ALWAYS acted as the gatekeeper. Nothing has changed.

Point out a case where that has been abused. 2 million apps including some that compete with Apple apps.
Most fill in gaps and extend the device instead.

Allowing people to control their own devices could easily cause problems. For other people.
Can you not see that Apple code to allow alt payments and alt app stores means the iOS code is changed FOR EVERYONE regardless of whether they use this option.

Explain what you need to sideload so desperately.
No one is pointing a gun at your head either... there's an Android solution if youre REALLY need to do any of this....

 

[wbeasley]

t

No it is not.

he fines arent going to consumers...

 

[theluggage]

what does carrier cost have to do with app installs and alt app stores?

EU regulation of the “freedom” of large companies to lock in consumers.

 

[Jhyrachy]

i dont get what people cant see the problems...

Apple have ALWAYS acted as the gatekeeper. Nothing has changed.

Point out a case where that has been abused. 2 million apps including some that compete with Apple apps.
Most fill in gaps and extend the device instead.

Allowing people to control their own devices could easily cause problems. For other people.
Can you not see that Apple code to allow alt payments and alt app stores means the iOS code is changed FOR EVERYONE regardless of whether they use this option.

Explain what you need to sideload so desperately.
No one is pointing a gun at your head either... there's an Android solution if youre REALLY need to do any of this....

Well, for example apple does not allow porn apps.
Is this a problem for me? No actually, but why should a company impose his moral judgement on me, a consumer?

Also we already have cases of apps that got private deals with apple (like amazon and uber) that could not be available to smaller company

And if Apple wanted to ban a competing services, it could in any moment; and since burocracy is slow, is much better to act preventing the possibility of abuse in first place.

When you go outside, do you close your home? Or are you going to start using keys only once you have been robbed?

Also, security trough obscurity is a really bad way to push security, you know that browsers can execute codes? Have you ever heard of webkit exploit?

Security must be achieved system wide trough best practices, not by closing your system.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Well, for example apple does not allow porn apps.
Is this a problem for me? No actually, but why should a company impose his moral judgement on me, a consumer?

Also we already have cases of apps that got private deals with apple (like amazon and uber) that could not be available to smaller company

And if Apple wanted to ban a competing services, it could in any moment; and since burocracy is slow, is much better to act preventing the possibility of abuse in first place.

When you go outside, do you close your home? Or are you going to start using keys only once you have been robbed?

Also, security trough obscurity is a really bad way to push security, you know that browsers can execute codes? Have you ever heard of webkit exploit?

Security must be achieved system wide trough best practices, not by closing your system.

You ever hear the words “risk appetite” in your life? It’s used in the financial world constantly. Their risk appetite is at a certain level, and you’re stating they need to be forced to raise that - no… they don’t, and shouldn’t be. There’s enormous financial and reputational risk for onboarding that type of app, one of your own choosing here… you’ve made it easy to see and somehow didn’t. One 17 or under individual and it’s all over. One bad payment system and it’s over. Or in finance, one bad wire and you’re sanctioned.

 

[theluggage]

A. I don’t buy into the “duopoly” argument. Other options do exist, and just because two options are the most popular of a variety of options doesn’t mean it’s a “duopoly”.

The duopoly here is the Apple App Store vs. the Google Play Store. That's where you'll find the apps you need to access banking, authentication, the major online services etc. A smartphone is as much use as a chocolate teapot without one or the other. Increasingly, the browser-based versions of those services, where available, are losing functionality (e.g. my online web banking asks me to use my mobile app to verify things - there are alternatives, but they're a major hassle in comparison). Likewise, for developers, if your app isn't in one or both of those stores, it probably isn't going anywhere. Yes, you can sideload in most Android implementations but you usually have to jump through a bunch of user-unfriendly hoops to get there so it's not going to be viable for the majority of users.

Apple has, pre-EU-intervention, made the App Store the only way of installing Apps on the iPhone. Google, pre-EU intervention, only allowed third-party Android systems to include the Play Store if they also promoted the rest of Google's (data slurping) application suite (effectively turning everything into a "Google experiece" phone). While that stands, there's almost zero chance of a competing App store getting any traction.

Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once you get to the position where there are only two of three "most popular" players owned by large corporations then without regulation those players will engage in anti-competitive practices to protect their popularity.

Apple created and own iOS, iPadOS, etc.

...and thereby effectively created the smartphone app market, fundamentally changing the IT landscape. When the App Store started you didn't need a smartphone app as the lowest-friction way to access your bank account or pay for parking. It's a case of "with great power comes great responsibility" and without regulation large corporations have no other incentive to take any of that responsibility if it would detract from their main legal duty of increasing shareholder value.

If Spotify really thought Apple’s terms were unfair, they could make their app for Android and other platforms and either completely ignore Apple’s platforms, or have iOS users use their web app. They don’t have to do business with Apple.

Whups... I'll just leave this here:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

In July 2015, Spotify launched an email campaign to urge its App Store subscribers to cancel their subscriptions and start new ones through its website, bypassing the 30% transaction fee for in-app purchases required for iOS applications by technology company Apple inc.
[snip]
in the following months, Spotify joined several other companies in filing a letter with the European Union's antitrust body indirectly accusing Apple and Google of "abusing their 'privileged position' at the top of the market",
[snip]
The complaint led to the European Union announcing that it would prepare an initiative by the end of 2017 for a possible law addressing unfair competition practices.

We don't know what Apple's current deal with Spotify is or if they're still paying 30%.

 

[theluggage]

They still sandbox apps and restrict very low leve apps from doing whatever they want.
They have to to ensure your app doesn run amoke and take down the system or other apps or access other app data.

There's a fundamental difference between the sort of system security features you get on MacOS, Windows or any modern OS and the level of lockdown on iOS/iPadOS. Sandboxing apps, protecting system files, not letting you change the kernel or other unrestricted code is generally a good thing (see: Crowdstrike) - it's rather different from (say) prohibiting 3rd party web browsers (other than skins on webkit) or audio players, not allowing anything other than webkit to run user-written programs.

Part of the point of sandboxing on a system like MacOS is that an App can change system files and suchlike but the effect is limited to its own little bubble, without affecting the rest of the system. The tech has nothing to do with "you can only run our media player!"

On windows and MacOS you are free to download development tools, and write and run arbitrary code, and then distribute the binaries (and/or source) to anybody else with a Mac or PC by whatever medium you choose - they'll have to bypass a few security warnings but you can reduce that by registering with Apple without being forced to use the App Store. Many of the security features can be bypassed/turned off, and the ones that can't probably shouldn't be. If all else fails you can run Linux in a vm (or, quite legitimately, boot your Mac into Linux) and do what the heck you want with the hardware.

On iOS/iPadOS - last I looked - you can't run your own code on your own device - even within the rules of iOS Apps - without a developer subscription & lots of hoops to do with temporary signing, and can only distribute it in a very restrictive, short-term manner via TestFlight.

 

[theluggage]

Apple have ALWAYS acted as the gatekeeper. Nothing has changed.

Nope, nothing has changed in the mobile tech market since the introduction of the Apple App Store in 2008.

...seriously?!

 

[theluggage]

Not mentioned here, but Meta also appealed the ruling against them. Interesting the similarities in the description of the regulators.

What... you're saying that Meta disagreed with the EU ruling against them, because reasons? I'd never have guessed!

Yes, they very clearly have seemed to constantly change the goalposts and act arbitrarily on this.

Well, maybe that's only happening because Meta and Apple keep aiming for the goalposts hoping to sneak one past the keeper, instead of just shooting at the goal. If soccer were real life, if that kept happening, of course you'd move the goalposts closer together.

 

[surferfb]

I don't get why people can't see any problems.

Apple act as a gatekeeper, deciding what can or can't be published on his devices.

This can be abused to unfairly give apple advantages.

Everyone knows this when signing up to develop for apple or buying an iPhone. In fact, for me Apple acting as a gatekeeper is a huge selling feature for a lot of people, including me. I manage devices for my wife, my son, and elderly family members who are all-non technical. Apple’s rules make doing that much easier for me.

When Microsoft was forced to let people uninstall internet explorer/edge and offer people to select a different default browser on new install, no one was whining about how "microsoft knows better for his users".
You wanted to keep edge? You could, but it was no longer shoved down your throat.

Microsoft had 90% of the market; Apple has 28%. The two cases aren’t remotely comparable.

This is the same, allow people to control their own devices. You do not want to sideload? No one is pointing a gun at your head.

Are you going to do the tech support for me when my 80 year old mother-in-law gets tricked into downloading a sideloaded scam app that hoses her device?