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

[AppliedMicro]

Either the platform has free apps and can attract hobbyist developers

Nothing stopping Apple from charging lower or no commissions from small hobbyist developers, is there?

And Apple and I have less of it.

Maybe, yeah.
As I said: It's a balancing of interests - and legislators have made up their mind and decided.

And I agree - as seems to do a majority of EU users when polled/asked about it - that the balance should be adjusted in favour of smaller developers (and I included companies like Spotify, Epic and Proton in that too, given how much smaller they are compared to Apple).

You had an option for an open system

No one and nothing guaranteed that (prior to the DMA). Google could have stopped that without notice. And they would have succeeded with that in the marketplace, given the reliance on Play Services and the Play Store.

those who want a closed system no longer do. Our choice was taken away

1. It was never fully closed to begin with (well, not in the last decade anyway, see above).
2. And you can still opt for a closed experience by choosing where you download from

👉 There is only a very narrow "line" between the two on which I'd agree with you.

Oh, and I forgot:

3. All apps distributed to consumers will still be reviewed by Apple.
4. There's no indication from Google Play of developers leaving the Play Store in significant numbers

👉 So yeah, that "line" becomes incredibly, negligibly narrow.

 

[wbeasley]

It is not, and has not been. Enterprise certificates is an apples to oranges comparison. It is not the same system, nor has ever been…

Very few would be tricked into the enterprise system. General sideloading is far easier to trick users into… The enterprise software system literally only exists for businesses to distribute apps internally. And Apple has added a ton of safeguards to that system, it’s far more tightly restricted and controlled by Apple then the EU is trying to allow them to do with general sideloading, which creates greater security hazards.

And that “review” process isn’t nearly as extensive or secure. It’s an automated system that looks for some known vulnerabilities. That’s basically it. It’s not nearly as good or thorough as Apple’s actual App Store Review process…

The enterprise app system is nothing like general sideloading, it’s a complete apples to oranges comparison, and you know it…

It’s a problem to force those who bought a system because it worked one way to have a different product that works a different way that is less secure. Basically, it’s like if you don’t like the Nintendo Switch 2, so instead of buying the Steam Deck that you do like, you want government to force Nintendo to replace their software with steamOS on the Nintendo Switch 2, forcing all Nintendo Switch 2 customers to end up with a Steam Deck…

If you don’t like the way iOS works, you can buy any number of alternative devices that you like better. Don’t have government foist your preferences onto other users…

i see our other angry clicker is back with no comments, just grumpy face on everything.

forums are for sharing ideas even conflicting ones... something that seems to elude some who obviously feel strongly about the topic given the volume of clicks but never anything added.

 

[wbeasley]

No, but the EU wrote the law in such a way to make Apple choose between charging a negligible price for the developer program or being fairly compensated for its IP. Because had they actually banned it, it would have been struck down for the massive overreach that it is. But this way Apple is “choosing” to give it away for free, but it isn’t really a choice. Either the platform has free apps and can attract hobbyist developers, or it can get fair compensated. But not both.

Absolute disregard for the free market that would make Marx smile.


And Apple and I have less of it. Because Spotify and Netflix want a free ride.


You had an option for an open system, those who want a closed system no longer do. Our choice was taken away. Falsely saying “if you don’t use it nothing has changed” doesn’t change that fact.

the lack of logic in not acknowledging that changing all code to allow external appstores and payments, even if you never us them, affects us all... i thought logic was the staple of tech savvy workers? apperntly not.

still no app named by anyone they need iOS to change for to allow them to sideload... that speaks volumes to

 

[AppliedMicro]

the lack of logic in not acknowledging that changing all code to allow external appstores and payments, even if you never us them, affects us all.

The premise that "all code" needed to be changed is patently wrong.

External app stores? Apple would have had to change nothing - except, maybe, make the "trust developer" screen a bit more accessible. They just wanted to make it purposely cumbersome and "scary".

External payment systems? Apple would have had to change nothing. As proven by Epic when they (violating Apple's developer terms before being banned) implemented their own in-app purchasing in Fortnite in 2020. Again: Apple just wanted to make it difficult and scary.

 

[AppliedMicro]

still no app named by anyone they need iOS to change for to allow them to sideload... that speaks volumes to

👉 Apple cleverly pre-empted that by allowing game emulators on their own store just in time - before they would have popularised "sideloading".

 

[surferfb]

Nothing stopping Apple from charging lower or no commissions from small hobbyist developers, is there?

EU is constantly moving the goalposts. Lots of stuff isn’t prohibited by the DMA, but the EU yells verboten anyway.

Maybe, yeah.
As I said: It's a balancing of interests - and legislators have made up their mind and decided.

And I agree - as seems to do a majority of EU users when polled/asked about it - that the balance should be adjusted in favour of smaller developers (and I included companies like Spotify, Epic and Proton in that too, given how much smaller they are compared to Apple).

Thank you for acknowledging our choice is being taken away. “Yes we’re taking it away because we (incorrectly) think it’s better for everyone in the long run” is actually an argument. “What are you talking about? nothing changes for you” is incorrect and borderline gaslighting.

No one and nothing guaranteed that (prior to the DMA). Google could have stopped that without notice. And they would have succeeded with that in the marketplace, given the reliance on Play Services and the Play Store.

“Google could possibly do something that they’ve never shown any indication they might do, would be entirely out of character for them, would infuriate their hardware partners, and go against two decades of their marketing. So let’s interfere in the free market, punish the minority market player and take away choice from consumers based on an incredibly hypothetical rather than wait for it to happen before acting” is quite possibly the worst justification for the DMA I’ve ever heard. And there are a lot of really bad justifications for the DMA.

1. It was never fully closed to begin with (well, not in the last decade anyway, see above).
2. And you can still opt for a closed experience by choosing where you download from

We’ve been over this. I disagree fully on both points.

👉 There is only a very narrow "line" between the two on which I'd agree with you.

Oh, and I forgot:

3. All apps distributed to consumers will still be reviewed by Apple.
4. There's no indication from Google Play of developers leaving the Play Store in significant numbers

So we’re doing this for no good reason. Once again, EU regulating for regulation’s sake. And the EC is still wandering around wondering why everyone else is kicking the EU’s behind in innovation.

 

[surferfb]

👉 Apple cleverly pre-empted that by allowing game emulators on their own store just in time - before they would have popularised "sideloading".

The DMA - making things better for software pirates since 2024!

When your best argument is “enable piracy!” Your argument is bad.

 

[wbeasley]

just name any app Apple isnt allowing on the AppStore you need.

any.

then we can discuss what is so evil about it...

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are other emulators and developer tools that aren‘t bailable on Apple‘s App Store.
Also, alternative browsers and rendering engines.

And there was a time when they didn‘t allow game streaming apps (in any viable way) either.

 

[Kal Madda]

Nothing stopping Apple from charging lower or no commissions from small hobbyist developers, is there?

It’s Apple’s platform, they should be free to collect commissions via whatever terms they decide. Including a percentage-based commission on revenue that comes in on their platform…

 

[AppliedMicro]

should be free to collect commissions via whatever terms they decide

A dominant firm in a de facto duopoly should not.
Just like landlords shouldn’t when the rental market is similarly concentrated.

Such a market position is ripe for abuse - and „whatever they please“ pricing power in such a market is dystopian.

 

[Kal Madda]

A dominant firm in a de facto duopoly should not.

Just like landlords shouldn’t when the rental market is similarly concentrated.

And now we’re back to the crap “duopoly” argument that’s already been handily refuted…

There are many other options out there. Many. And if governments were truly concerned about a “duopoly”, they could incentivize more newcomers to the market by doing things like deregulating the sector and removing the excessive body of regulation and red tape, not adding to it…

 

[Kal Madda]

There are other emulators and developer tools that aren‘t bailable on Apple‘s App Store.
Also, alternative browsers and rendering engines.

And there was a time when they didn‘t allow game streaming apps (in any viable way) either.

So you need emulators (hard but not impossible in all cases to actually use legally)? You couldn’t possibly, I don’t know, run those things on a console, an android phone, or some other device? Besides, emulators are available in the App Store…

Alternative browsers are available in plenty in the App Store. Alternative rendering engines pose risks to security and privacy, and again, can easily be used on other devices.

Oh, and game streaming apps, which A. Don’t need to be native apps, work as web apps perfectly fine (see NVIDIA Gforce Now), and B. Could also be used on other devices…

None of these are actually essential. So basically you want to take away a companies rights to manage their own property, and allow devs to leach off of their property, and expose users to a greater threat of being tricked into installing malware, etc. just so you can emulate some games (which can be done in App Store) and stream games (doable for years now via web app). Isn’t that nice…

 

[surferfb]

they could incentivize more newcomers to the market by doing things like deregulating the sector and removing the excessive body of regulation and red tape, not adding to it…

When all you have (and know how to use) is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Even when your own people are telling you “using so many nails is a really big problem!”

 

[tranceme]

I’m done.

Just let me side load. I paid £1000 for this phone.

Just buy something else. No one forced you to buy the phone. Apple spend years making the phones and their eco system. It's very nice. But, then you whine about it like their torture into buying it. There are alternatives.

 

[Kal Madda]

Just buy something else. No one forced you to buy the phone. Apple spend years making the phones and their eco system. It's very nice. But, then you whine about it like their torture into buying it. There are alternatives.

But that would be way too simple of a solution… 👍🏻

 

[wbeasley]

So you need emulators (hard but not impossible in all cases to actually use legally)? You couldn’t possibly, I don’t know, run those things on a console, an android phone, or some other device? Besides, emulators are available in the App Store…

Alternative browsers are available in plenty in the App Store. Alternative rendering engines pose risks to security and privacy, and again, can easily be used on other devices.

Oh, and game streaming apps, which A. Don’t need to be native apps, work as web apps perfectly fine (see NVIDIA Gforce Now), and B. Could also be used on other devices…

None of these are actually essential. So basically you want to take away a companies rights to manage their own property, and allow devs to leach off of their property, and expose users to a greater threat of being tricked into installing malware, etc. just so you can emulate some games (which can be done in App Store) and stream games (doable for years now via web app). Isn’t that nice…

so these people buy a device they know doesnt do something they want, something that is gray area illegal and generates no/little income to the rights holders AND THEN ENDLESSLY WHINGE ABOUT IT...

when plenty of alternatives exist. both legal and illegal. and some on the AppStore already...

think that about sums up the pro Open It Up narrative.

 

[wbeasley]

how successful are the alt app stores in EU?
making millions?
got majority of iOS users on there downloading and buying apps?

lets see numbers from someone who can access that data.

 

[wbeasley]

Just buy something else. No one forced you to buy the phone. Apple spend years making the phones and their eco system. It's very nice. But, then you whine about it like their torture into buying it. There are alternatives.

they forget they can do whatever they like with their phone.
even sideload.

but they need to do it themselves or use a third party tool.
noone can force Apple to assist in doing this.

game consoles arent being forced to allow sideloading and assistive tools to do it.
and there's a lot of money in the game industry.

perhaps the answer is buy smarter rather than waste your money on a device that doesnt meet your needs when alternatives exist.

if Android wasnt around to do it i might be more willing to side with them.
but it does...

 

[CarlJ]

...and it gives more freedom to tens of thousands of others (developers) to market their products and services the way they see fit.

• Apple: One company that loses a bit of freedom.

Freedom is a balancing of interests.

So, how many trillions of Euros will the EU be giving to Apple to pay for the freedom that they are ripping away from Apple to distribute to all these other people?

 

[CarlJ]

I appreciate your efforts, but there’s no convincing them. It’s an article of faith. The EU can do no harm, the valid security concerns are FUD (despite the obvious example of Android malware), less choice is more choice (because they want it), property rights don’t matter if you get big enough (unless you’re an EU company), they’re entitled to have their cake and eat it too (their preferences are more important than ours or Apple’s), you shouldn’t have to pay for use of property if you “deserve” it (unless you’re Apple), clearly analogous situations are completely different (video games, aircraft manufacturing, malls), 28% of the market is clearly a monopoly (but don’t look at SAP!), etc.

It's this part that really gets me - "we have freed you from having the the freedom to choose which of two systems you'd prefer, by taking away that choice - forcing one system to act just like the other!" - it's an Orwellian NewSpeak situation. Big Brother will make the decision for you, and of course it will be the right decision, because Big Brother is making it for you, and Big Brother is infallible.

 

[CarlJ]

No it does not “give freedom” to anyone. You know how ridiculous that is? That’s like saying “the government forcing an apartment complex to hand out apartments for free gives one company (the apartment complex) a little bit less freedom, but many others (the people who get to squat in the apartment complex’s property for free) more freedom.” That’s just laughably absurd… That is stripping freedoms away, not granting any.

I'm getting colonialism vibes - "well, we, the EU have just landed on this beach and planted our flag, and we can see there are obviously some valuable resources here, so we must now figure out how to 'equitably' divide these resources up" (totally ignoring the people who have already been living there for millennia, who already have possession of said valuable resources).

The difference is, in that scenario, the resources were often "natural resources", part of the land. In this case, though, the resources in question would not exist, without Apple putting in ridiculous amounts of time and effort and money, and taking enormous bet-the-company risks to make the iPhone a successful platform. And now the EU (and a bunch of forum members apparently) are acting like the iPhone ecosystem is just something naturally occurring that they "discovered" when they dragged their rowboats up in the beach.

 

[CarlJ]

Exactly. It’s just more of the same recycled crap arguments that are easy to refute. 👍🏻

Unfortunately, they're only easy to refute if the people listening are willing to listen to logic and reason rather than clinging to dogma, and/or intentionally misinterpreting said logic over and over.

 

[CarlJ]

Just let me side load. I paid £1000 for this phone.

"I paid £50k for this EV, when it was clear ahead of time that it only runs on electricity. Just let me power it with gasoline, like all the other cars I've had - what is so unreasonable about that?"

 

[Ctrlos]

off topic but related...

i recently booked a car for a holiday in Australia, in Australian dollars.
all the screen amounts and invoice said Australian dollars.

but booking.com car hire is based in UK and doesnt bother to have an Australian bank account so when the charge was made, the bank issued an international txn fee and conversion fee. about $20. far in excess of the actual cost of doing so.

when companies blatantly rip off consumers with hidden fees that needs to be challenged.

Apple are very upfront about what they are charging, whether you like the amount or not.
The EU cannot dictate what business charge unless it is a regulated industry (we used to have government set petrol and electricity prices for a long time until someone decided free market competition would lower prices - which it didnt).

there is no way a consumer of apps is routinely going to save money using an external store and payment method.

this is purely a money grab from a few whingers who already can avoid payment fees (and still can) by letting Apple host and distribute their apps for free and user subscribe outside on the app website and log in.

that's worked well for a long time.
but a few are greedy and want more. and more. and more.

if an app decides to force me outside to another payment option, i wont be buying that app.
i'm extremely happy that Apple handle my payments and subscriptions in one place without third parties knowing my card details. same way i use ApplePay at supermarkets and shops. i know they arent getting anything but a "yes it's paid" response. far more secure given a petrol station twice swiped my card once with a dodgy employee.

so end of day, that's my reasoning why i want Apple to keep apps inside and paid there.
it has worked very well for me over the years.

finally, external payments are going to let your Apple ID install on multiple devices with family members?
how is that going to be administered externally?

i like that feature as well...

That's certainly the biggest hurdle for external payments and app stores. The family library is a great feature.

This said I installed the old Mac shareware icon manager app Candybar on a 2011 MacBook Air. Having lost my.origonap serial number a decade ago I emailed Icon factory the developer and they were nice enough to give me a new one. Given this app isn't even supported on new Macs I thought that was awfully decent of them.

But I'm a nerd and the public are not.