Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'

[I7guy]

The DMA laws are applied equally regardless of the country of origin. Unlike some American tariffs for instance.

American tech in the west are major players in that space, is merely coincidental.

Don’t you think that it’s great that American companies are in such a terrific position. Would you prefer if that was not the case?

That is weird.

I tell you this, if it was the other way around most probably would be way more protective. Quite probably.

Look at how protective it is even in such an excellent position.

Sure the DMA applies equally to Apple and Google. What do those companies have in common?

 

[theluggage]

Again, you brought it up, not me.

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market" was one quote from a site I referenced and is completely valid because it is talking about the combined market share of the two dominant countries - the point at the time was that there is no significant third choice outside of China. Anyway, the combined share of Apple+Google is 100% minus change whatever market you look at (except China, where Apple have signed up to all of the government controls - which make the EU look like Liberty Hall - with a happy smile, because even 20% of China is too big to lose).

I never mentioned Apple's global share. Meanwhile I've posted other figures - with references - for Apple's share in EU and UK...

Which was that Google's anticompetitive agreements with their horizontal competitors cost Apple a whole lot of money.

So... Google doing exactly the same things that Apple does - like bundling its own Apps with its OS or forcing Apps to use the official payment processing service - is unfair on Apple? Because - despite Android vs. iPhone being nigh-on neck-and-neck in multiple European countries, their single-digit % in Sudan or India (Neither in Europe or the UK last time I looked) makes them the underdog so they should have different rules?

Sorry, that logic ain't logicing.

It's also possible that Apple lost money to Android by - e.g. - not even trying to compete at the lower end of the market while being late to the party on large screens and folding phones at the higher end...

 

[I7guy]

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market"

In other words all players combined control 100% of the market.

was one quote from a site I referenced and is completely valid because it is talking about the combined market share of the two dominant countries - the point at the time was that there is no significant third choice outside of China. Anyway, the combined share of Apple+Google is 100% minus change whatever market you look at (except China, where Apple have signed up to all of the government controls - which make the EU look like Liberty Hall - with a happy smile, because even 20% of China is too big to lose).

I never mentioned Apple's global share. Meanwhile I've posted other figures - with references - for Apple's share in EU and UK...


So... Google doing exactly the same things that Apple does - like bundling its own Apps with its OS or forcing Apps to use the official payment processing service - is unfair on Apple? Because - despite Android vs. iPhone being nigh-on neck-and-neck in multiple European countries, their single-digit % in Sudan or India (Neither in Europe or the UK last time I looked) makes them the underdog so they should have different rules?

Sorry, that logic ain't logicing.

It's also possible that Apple lost money to Android by - e.g. - not even trying to compete at the lower end of the market while being late to the party on large screens and folding phones at the higher end...

Apple doesn’t compete at the lowest end.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market" was one quote from a site I referenced and is completely valid because it is talking about the combined market share of the two dominant countries - the point at the time was that there is no significant third choice outside of China. Anyway, the combined share of Apple+Google is 100% minus change whatever market you look at (except China, where Apple have signed up to all of the government controls - which make the EU look like Liberty Hall - with a happy smile, because even 20% of China is too big to lose).

I never mentioned Apple's global share. Meanwhile I've posted other figures - with references - for Apple's share in EU and UK...

Again, why are you combining them? Nobody said in the 90's "Apple and Microsoft have close to 100% of the desktop OS market, so let's punish them both."

So... Google doing exactly the same things that Apple does - like bundling its own Apps with its OS or forcing Apps to use the official payment processing service - is unfair on Apple? Because - despite Android vs. iPhone being nigh-on neck-and-neck in multiple European countries, their single-digit % in Sudan or India (Neither in Europe or the UK last time I looked) makes them the underdog so they should have different rules?

Did you bother to read what I wrote? I was clearly referring to Google's anticompetitive agreements with its horizontal competitors. Not payment processors. Those anticompetitive agreements clearly benefited Android market share.

It's also possible that Apple lost money to Android by - e.g. - not even trying to compete at the lower end of the market while being late to the party on large screens and folding phones at the higher end...

I'm sure they did, but that doesn't change my point.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but please try to define the market and issues you'd like to discuss without jumping to new ones whenever it's convenient to your argument.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sure the DMA applies equally to Apple and Google. What do those companies have in common?

It applies to any and all companies. Take for instance, Byte Dance. It's one of the companies that fit the criteria and Is not for the time being American. It's not just Apple and Google.

EUR-Lex - 02022R1925-20221012 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

Thera are way, way, way more American companies that operate in the EU digital economy that do not fit the DMA criteria than the ones that do. This is alone is evidence of how misguided and deluded is your conclusion of EU meaning to target specifically American companies.

Now let's be honest my friend. If any foreign company, including European had reached the level influence in the US that these companies have in the EU space, what do you think the US gov would do to protect their market against foreign influence? Heck, even Canadians are on the hook.

I'm really glad that the EU is way more open and liberal than the US both internally and externally. In particular they don't seam to be inclined so quickly to argue security reasons over foreign companies that become prominent in their territory. Actually some of the are celebrated amongst businesses and people ... and their presence became a fact of culture. That is how open this market is to the US companies. This is the reality.

 

[surferfb]

It applies to any and all companies. Take for instance, Byte Dance. It's one of the companies that fit the criteria and Is not for the time being American. It's not just Apple and Google.

I mean, they wrote it with specific numeric thresholds to avoid hitting EU companies and then excluded the one category where an EU company leads.

The European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) report on the DMA, explicitly advocated for changing the DMA’s thresholds to keep U.S. firms within scope while exempting most EU competitors - which led to amendments to the DMA. The report's author, Andreas Schwab, a German MEP, suggested the DMA should "unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here is Senior Fellow in Law and Economics and professor at University Liege Dirk Auer:

The spectre of protectionist intervention is reinforced by the fact that revenue thresholds outlined in the DMA seem designed purposefully to exclude European platforms, notably Spotify.

Just because they didn’t write “doesn’t apply to EU companies” in the text if the law doesn’t mean it wasn’t intentionally designed to avoid hitting EU companies.

Edited to fix link

 

[eifelbube]

No, Apple is charging developers for access to a large customer base with pre-loaded credit card data, payment processing, billing, features that benefit customers developers would otherwise not support, and use of Apple’s intellectual property.

Most developers are choosing to pass those fees along to their customers, which is totally their right to do. But let’s not pretend it’s Apple passing that fee onto customers. It’s the greedy developers who want access to Apple’s hard work without paying for it.

I think Apple and developers need each other. Ok, some/quite a few/many developers are greedy, but so is Apple, clearly. Apple works hard at providing developer tools and maintaining developer programs, developers work hard at creating software without which Apple would sell no hardware. The fruit of the developers productivity Apple gets to sell in their own store. Developers would like options to sell their products in more stores.

Apple habitually fights attempts at forcing them to allow third-party stores. They do so simply because they are afraid their App Store revenues could suffer which they naturally would never admit. Instead, they justify the lock-out practice as privacy and security measures. You and many others are buying this argument, I’m not, many others are not either. Among the latter is the EU, the UK may join eventually while the US will side with you for the foreseeable future.

 

[eifelbube]

Because we’ve seen what happens in the EU (Spotify immediately raises prices)

Spotify and?

 

[surferfb]

Apple habitually fights attempts at forcing them to allow third-party stores. They do so simply because they are afraid their App Store revenues could suffer which they naturally would never admit. Instead, they justify the lock-out practice as privacy and security measures. You and many others are buying this argument, I’m not, many others are not either. Among the latter is the EU, the UK may join eventually while the US will side with you for the foreseeable future.

I don’t understand how you can “not buy the argument”. I can understand if you think “I understand it’s less secure and private, but think being open is worth the downsides”.

But if Apple’s arguments about security and privacy aren’t true, what is your explanation for why Android has tens of millions of instances of malware every year whereas Apple has a handful?

As I noted in a post above, according to Google's 2026 security blog, Google Play Protect identified 27 million new malicious sideloaded apps through real-time scanning in 2025, more than doubling the 13 million identified in 2024. The system blocked 266 million risky installation attempts and neutralized 872,000 unique high-risk applications, and sideloaded sources contain 50 times more malware than Google Play per Google's own data.

If it’s not because Apple’s restrictions, what is it?

 

[tomtad]

Usually if Apple is complaining about it, it's a good thing

 

[I7guy]

I think Apple and developers need each other. Ok, some/quite a few/many developers are greedy, but so is Apple, clearly.

No, it’s not clearly. The iOS App Store is not a public utility and Apple has charged reasonable and customary rates.

Apple works hard at providing developer tools and maintaining developer programs, developers work hard at creating software without which Apple would sell no hardware.

The above is speculation.

The fruit of the developers productivity Apple gets to sell in their own store. Developers would like options to sell their products in more stores.

Let them use the play store or any other android manufacturer store. If Devs want access to apples customers and money then they should use the established precedent.

Apple habitually fights attempts at forcing them to allow third-party stores.

Apple is not a public utility, why shouldn’t they put up a fight?

They do so simply because they are afraid their App Store revenues could suffer which they naturally would never admit.

Their rational is irrelevant. It’s their business model, their IP.

Instead, they justify the lock-out practice as privacy and security measures.

And those reasons have some merit.

You and many others are buying this argument,

I believe they have some merit.

I’m not, many others are not either.

Horses for courses

Among the latter is the EU, the UK may join eventually while the US will side with you for the foreseeable future.

Yes and the EU has its own set of issues. Reflective in the legislation.

 

[eifelbube]

Go buy an android phone and install apps from shadyapps.com. The free market has already given you permission to install malware on your phone

Ah, the desperation argument. -
Does that include the malware on the AppStore? 😊

 

[I7guy]

Ah, the desperation argument. -
Does that include the malware on the AppStore? 😊

Yes. Which malware is there now?

 

[eifelbube]

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat. The DMA is not about fairness, it’s about regulation of American tech.

Repetition does not have the power to make true what is false. The man in D.C. does not understand that either.

No different than if the government forced you to give your bedroom out rent free.

If I had millions of bedrooms, maybe.

 

[eifelbube]

Yes. Which malware is there now?

Classic argument deflection … a persistent favorite with the Fruit Company lovers on this forum.
Neither I nor the poster I quoted said anything about now.

App Store scams are getting worse and Apple isn't doing enough

Apple is shooting itself in the foot with how often it lets flagrant scam apps into the App Store. It's doing so at precisely the time is needs to do better for iPhone user safety.

appleinsider.com

 

[I7guy]

Classic argument deflection … a persistent favorite with the Fruit Company lovers on this forum.
Neither I nor the poster I quoted said anything about now.

App Store scams are getting worse and Apple isn't doing enough

Apple is shooting itself in the foot with how often it lets flagrant scam apps into the App Store. It's doing so at precisely the time is needs to do better for iPhone user safety.

appleinsider.com

Classic throw the baby out with the bath water reply. We know nothing in software is 100. and I said “now” to make a point.

 

[I7guy]

Repetition does not have the power to make true what is false. The man in D.C. does not understand that either.

Exactly. Saying it isn’t true ad-nauseous doesn’t make it so.

If I had millions of bedrooms, maybe.

Think that was point proven.

 

[eifelbube]

Show me Europe's equivalent of Apple or Google, just for starters.

@Compote did not really claim there is one.

 

[eifelbube]

Apple being forced to become open ecosystem removed MY Choice to buy a Closed Ecosystem
Apple remaining a Closed Ecosystem does not stop YOUR Choice to buy an Open Ecosystem - it just won't have an Apple Badge on it.

Always focus on the positive:
The EU didn’t and the UK won’t remove your choice to move to a country where Apple remains a closed ecosystem.
😊

 

[Luis Ortega]

“Developers are free to charge what they feel their product is worth”

But not Apple. That’s “wanting too much of the pie.”

Indeed, but Apple wants too much of someone else’s pie.
They're not selling a product, just taking a cut of someone else’s work.

 

[surferfb]

Indeed, but Apple wants too much of someone else’s pie.
They're not selling a product, just taking a cut of someone else’s work.

They are absolutely selling a product to developers: access to the platform they built and the tools and IP necessary for developers to build their apps. That’s not “just taking a cut of someone else’s work”. It’s allowing the work to exist at all.

Developers aren’t entitled to that access for free just because they want it any more than they’re entitled to a computer for free because they need it for work.

 

[MilaM]

Developers aren’t entitled to that access for free just because they want it any more than they’re entitled to a computer for free because they need it for work.

Not for free. But the terms still have to be fair and not distort competition.

If Apple or Google don't want to deal with the DMA, they can just close the app stores. They won't do that off course because third-party apps are why most customers buy the products in the first place. Smartphone makers and publisher need each other. It's completely reasonable to create rules that govern this very unequal relationship.

 

[I7guy]

Not for free. But the terms still have to be fair and not distort competition.

If Apple or Google don't want to deal with the DMA, they can just close the app stores.

I think they should just close up shop or Trump should follow through on his stance. It yesh close the app stores outside competition and let Apple be the sole provider.

They won't do that off course because third-party apps are why most customers buy the products in the first place.

Well if Apple and Google bliss shop that leaves the manufactures App Stores.

Smartphone makers and publisher need each other. It's completely reasonable to create rules that govern this very unequal relationship.

No it’s not. It’s completely unreasonable. I dont see any rules governing the transaction of cars which is imo the most of an unequal transaction. The governments across the pond are hung up in fairness and competition for Apple stakeholders, yet most of the rest of the selling world that caters to consumer discretionary is irrelevant. The hypocrisy.

 

[webkit]

I dont see any rules governing the transaction of cars which is imo the most of an unequal transaction.

You don’t see any? What about dealer and broker licensing laws, franchise laws, truth in adverting laws, odometer disclosure laws, safety/inspection laws, title/registration laws, warranty laws, credit/financing laws, other general consumer protection laws, etc.?

 

[delsoul]

Highly intrusive? They want you to allow developers to sell directly to their customers without going through your payment processing system. There is nothing intrusive about that. What is intrusive is a corporation forcing developers to go through them to sell to customers.

I bought your phone now allow me to buy apps where i want and use whatever payment system i want.

The UK, and EU, can always create their own perfect phone and operating system to fit their needs. Or can they..? 🧐

Don’t bite the hand that feeds. Apple, and all others, should pull out of those areas and leave them to fend for themselves or with cheap shoddy chinese phones with endless spyware