Apple Working to Add Support for Sideloading and Alternate App Stores in Europe

[AppliedMicro]

The EU’s main goal is money. Couldn’t have put it better!

Yes, you could have put it better!
Because you are - despite the recent posts regarding your wording - misrepresenting things:

China did not ask Apple to fundamentally change how they do business OR get charged 10% of worldwide profits in fees

The EU did not and are not asking for „fees“.

They passed a law making (among other things) offering and distributing apps and services more accessible to third-parties without being bound by gatekeepers‘ rules.

And that law provides for fines if they don’t comply - in others words: only for violators of this law. And as I said above, that’s only after the company in question has been given the chance to address its shortcomings.

If you comply with regulation, you aren’t fined.
That’s a difference to fees.

It's protectionism, plain and simple

Apple’s rules on app installation are protectionism.
The DMA is an act against this sort of protectionism, about loosening that grip.

And it’s hardly only to prop up Spotify, when American or other non-EU companies are going to benefit as much from it as EU ones.

 

[Appleman3546]

How can Apple keep justifying exclusion and security in the US when it will allow third party app stores in Europe? Isn’t it more work to have a separate operation in Europe than one global process?

 

[AppliedMicro]

How can Apple keep justifying exclusion and security in the US when it will allow third party app stores in Europe?

1. Their conviction that they’re doing the right for security and privacy (unless forced by otherwise by law).
2. $$$

Isn’t it more work to have a separate operation in Europe than one global process?

Probably. But aren’t their anti-competitive restrictions more beneficial to their bottom line - where and as long as jurisdictions allow them?

 

[Athonline]

How can Apple keep justifying exclusion and security in the US when it will allow third party app stores in Europe?

Security shouldn't come from obscurity - lesson 1 in any undergrad compsci security course.

Isn’t it more work to have a separate operation in Europe than one global process?

It is, but they have to do such work already. South Korea, Netherlands, Russia, and China all require different 'flavours' of the App Store or of iOS at large —in addition to any other differences, e.g. preselected localisation, charger plug (for older phones/Macs), sim tray, etc. It is part of the cost of doing cross-market business in any field.

In this case, they know that they better do the work not only because EU is a big market but also because it sets global policy trends. There is an old joke in policy that goes like "America innovates, China copies, and the EU regulates." Usually, when regulations come out of the EU they get copied by other countries; GDPR is a good recent example, the AI Act seems to be one, and there is cross-Atlantic chatter for the DSA too.

 

[Athonline]

You sure? One of the requirement for DMA is yearly revenue and market cap. Doesn’t look like Spotify qualifies.

Well, it’s up to an individual to draw their conclusions, so I guess, let’s see?

I am. The 3 requirements are:
1. €75 billion (in the last year) or an annual turnover of €7.5 billion (in each of the last 3 years);
2. 45 million monthly end users in the EU; and
3. At least 10,000 annual business users in the EU (counts to the 45 mil. total users).
Spotify satisfies 2 and 3 and it is set to satisfy the first requirement due to its revenue (it is an OR not an AND).

Not really, that implies subjectivity when the matter is factual. Of course, we shall see the effects and how the DMA works —or not— in 2023/24.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

And they won’t as long as Apple does what’s needed to be the only two smartphone OS’s EVER to be offered in the region. Fact still remains, though, China did not ask Apple to fundamentally change how they do business.

And China, being the region second to the US in profits, has far more leverage than the EU.

No, true. They asked them to fundamentally change how their product worked

AirDrop has been limited in China after its use in protests

The feature was used to share posters opposing President Xi Jinping

www.theverge.com

 

[I7guy]

No, true. They asked them to fundamentally change how their product worked

AirDrop has been limited in China after its use in protests

The feature was used to share posters opposing President Xi Jinping

www.theverge.com

That is not fundamentally changing the way they do business. That is changing a default option in the setup, which is the norm with IOS from region to region. Saying it's fundamentally changing how the product works is nonsense.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

That is not fundamentally changing the way they do business. That is changing a default option in the setup, which is the norm with IOS from region to region. Saying it's fundamentally changing how the product works is nonsense.

So you're happy for dictators to insist on a product change (it isn't a default setting change as you erroneously claimed) but not anything that might hurt your stock value. Got it. 👍

 

[I7guy]

So you're happy for dictators to insist on a product change (it isn't a default setting change as you erroneously claimed) but not anything that might hurt your stock value. Got it. 👍

That's a strawman - as you shifted the topic of conversation from an IOS setting to discussing politics in a non-political forum, which is against the user agreement. Got it. 👍

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

That's a strawman - as you shifted the topic of conversation from an IOS setting to discussing politics in a non-political forum, which is against the user agreement. Got it. 👍

Nope. Can't get out of it that easily, the thread is about Government regulation. You only seem to take issue with the democratic ones.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I will argue that the EU came up with the DMA less for the money, and more to prop up their own homegrown companies.

They came up with it to increase the tax revenues coming INTO the regions instead of going OUT of the regions… all about money.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

They came up with it to increase the tax revenues coming INTO the regions instead of going OUT of the regions… all about money.

Like saying GDPR was all about money. Silly.

 

[I7guy]

Nope. Can't get out of it that easily, the thread is about Government regulation. You only seem to take issue with the democratic ones.

I'm already out. You don't want to go down the road of how disingenuous moving the goalposts are. This thread is about Allowing sideloading and alternative app stores. At least be precise on the nature of the thread.

 

[AiPone12mini]

I do not understand why so much fuzz around this when in the end who do not want sideloading do not enable sideloading and who wants then he opts-in for sideloading. No Apple leaving EU or anything, just a simple choice who wants it and who do not. I personally support sideloading 100% and rally support by whoever wants it too.

 

[BaldiMac]

I do not understand why so much fuzz around this when in the end who do not want sideloading do not enable sideloading and who wants then he opts-in for sideloading. No Apple leaving EU or anything, just a simple choice who wants it and who do not. I personally support sideloading 100% and rally support by whoever wants it too.

Because every developer that decides to leave the App Store for a third-party solution affects those of us who do not want side loading. Given that people that do want side loading already have an option, I don't want the option that I prefer messed with.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They passed a law making (among other things) offering and distributing apps and services more accessible to third-parties without being bound by gatekeepers‘ rules.

Which is WILDLY different from “remove some specific apps”. Anyone that thinks one is even remotely similar to the other is just trying to fairly obvious differences behind whataboutism. But, that’s par for the course when attempting to justify that which has no justification.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Like saying GDPR was all about money. Silly.

Hmmm.
To avoid non-compliance (with GDPR), designate a representative physically located in the European Union.
If your U.S. company processes EU residents’ personal data but doesn’t have a European presence, it’s time to get one. Selling products or services online to customers in the EU — or simply having EU-based visitors to your site — means you must comply. A physical representative in the European Union exists to contact EU supervisory authorities and data subjects, plus maintain processing records.
Hmmm, an EU presence that didn’t exist, which would mean paying EU citizens, buying EU real estate and maintaining an EU presence from companies from ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Sounds like an open and shut case of increasing tax receipts from companies that didn’t, at that time, have an EU presence or representation. Thanks for the post, looking it up actually helps to reinforce the idea!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No, true. They asked them to fundamentally change how their product worked

AirDrop has been limited in China after its use in protests

The feature was used to share posters opposing President Xi Jinping

www.theverge.com

I mean, you can keep TRYING, but attempting to equate “Fundamentally changing the way your company makes profits” and “changing one free feature” will always be two wildly separate things. Because, one SIGNIFICANTLY a large section of how a company makes it’s money, the other… well, doesn’t.

The EU, in this case, is reaching further than China has and some would say China, compared to the EU, is a totalitarian government. Now, to be fair, if China had pushed to make the SAME changes as the EU, I’d be thinking the same thing. Doesn’t matter who’s doing it, if a region approved and for years supported a payment and services structure, then suddenly decides NOT to and, to force compliance, tack on a structure of fines that penalizes a company on the sales they make OUTSIDE a region, I’d be saying that’s messed up. It’s a bit of logical clarity.

Would people saying it’s right for the EU to do say it’s right for China to do? I don’t know, but from some folks trying to equate “remove some apps” to being as serious as “stop making money in the same way you’ve been doing for years since we approved your incorporation into the region and pay no mind to the other companies that we’re continuing to allow make money in that same way”, I’d hope so!

 

[AppliedMicro]

Which is WILDLY different from “remove some specific apps”. Anyone that thinks one is even remotely similar to the other is just trying to fairly obvious differences behind whataboutism.

I didn't say anything about China or removing apps to placate government in a quite (just for the record).

Hmmm, an EU presence that didn’t exist, which would mean paying EU citizens, buying EU real estate and maintaining an EU presence from companies from ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Sounds like an open and shut case of increasing tax receipts from companies that didn’t, at that time, have an EU presence or representation.

EU representatives may be needed to enforce the GDPR's rules. That doesn't mean that the regulation was created with the intent or thought to generate investment or tax revenue, as you're alluding to.

Selling products or services online to customers in the EU — or simply having EU-based visitors to your site — means you must comply.

No - you have to comply when you're specifically catering to or targeting customers in the EU. Not for just shipping something.

 

[quarkysg]

Hmmm.
To avoid non-compliance (with GDPR), designate a representative physically located in the European Union.
If your U.S. company processes EU residents’ personal data but doesn’t have a European presence, it’s time to get one. Selling products or services online to customers in the EU — or simply having EU-based visitors to your site — means you must comply. A physical representative in the European Union exists to contact EU supervisory authorities and data subjects, plus maintain processing records.
Hmmm, an EU presence that didn’t exist, which would mean paying EU citizens, buying EU real estate and maintaining an EU presence from companies from ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Sounds like an open and shut case of increasing tax receipts from companies that didn’t, at that time, have an EU presence or representation. Thanks for the post, looking it up actually helps to reinforce the idea!

To be fair, IMHO, this is quite standard. Most government need a neck to choke when things go wrong. Having a local presence means the government have a neck to choke.

Having said that …

The DMA is clearly aimed at FANNG because money.

Whether we want to acknowledge it or otherwise, the world is moving more and more towards protectionism. Citizens are more vocal now more than ever. Government need to be seen to be doing something. Businesses needs to be protected at all cost … “evil” foreign entity be damned. Businesses will try any leverage they can, including lobbying government. This is true whether it’s EU or any other country/region. Sad.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The DMA is clearly aimed at FANNG because money.

It's not.

Foreign companies can benefit from the DMA just as much as European ones can. Concentration and supracompetitive pricing in Apples "monopoly" on the distribution of iOS apps actually likely help EU collect more tax revenue than a more diversified and competive market.

While there is Spotify, there's also Netflix - which in particular will likely only benefit from being able to advertise and offer subscriptions in-app without going through or being prohibited by Apple from doing so.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I mean, you can keep TRYING, but attempting to equate “Fundamentally changing the way your company makes profits” and “changing one free feature” will always be two wildly separate things. Because, one SIGNIFICANTLY a large section of how a company makes it’s money, the other… well, doesn’t.

The EU, in this case, is reaching further than China has and some would say China, compared to the EU, is a totalitarian government. Now, to be fair, if China had pushed to make the SAME changes as the EU, I’d be thinking the same thing. Doesn’t matter who’s doing it, if a region approved and for years supported a payment and services structure, then suddenly decides NOT to and, to force compliance, tack on a structure of fines that penalizes a company on the sales they make OUTSIDE a region, I’d be saying that’s messed up. It’s a bit of logical clarity.

Would people saying it’s right for the EU to do say it’s right for China to do? I don’t know, but from some folks trying to equate “remove some apps” to being as serious as “stop making money in the same way you’ve been doing for years since we approved your incorporation into the region and pay no mind to the other companies that we’re continuing to allow make money in that same way”, I’d hope so!

Your argument is just based on jingoistic nonsense.

If the EU wanted to tax Apple they would tax Apple, they wouldn't need to dress it up as anything else.

The DMA is about preventing companies like Apple (and Google) from abusing their market position to hurt competition.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

@I7guy fascinating and insightful rebuttal as always

 

[strongy]

The good news is you will have that option. You can choose not to side load or use alternate stores, so nothing will change for you. Those who wish to use the new options, will now have that option. Multiple choices are good for competition and for consumers.

you fail to see the bigger picture of the unwanted attack vector you have forced on everyone, laugh all you want but you can't say its not true

 

[strongy]

You think the EU is going to allow Apple to keep charging 15% and 30% by just calling it a verification fee?

you know the dutch court in the eu already said they are entitled to their 27%