Apple's Latest App Store Changes Satisfy EU, No More Fines Coming

[surferfb]

I wonder why it matters so much for people living outside of EU what happens with Apple in EU. It does not affect you, does it?

Couple of points:

• It does impact me: Apple’s products have already been made worse for everyone outside the EU because Apple has had to spend significant time and attention on this. Rather than focus on fixing bugs and implementing new features users actually care about, a significant number of Apple engineers are being forced to work on features like “let users uninstall the camera app” that hardly anyone was asking for and practically no one will ever use.
• I don’t want the bad EU’s ideas spreading to other jurisdictions. Fighting back on ridiculous demands from the EU makes it less likely other jurisdictions will impose similar innovation-killing regulations like the DMA.
• I am ideologically opposed to what I see as interference in the free market the theft of intellectual property - and that is what the DMA is. I think it’s bad for Apple, bad for Apple’s customers, bad for competition and bad for Europe. I’m allowed to have an opinion about and argue against a bad law even if it’s not in my jurisdiction.

 

[nexusrule]

Finally no more idiotic need to leave Amazon to buy a Kindle book and similar mediocre user experiences. More importantly now developers can let users know they can buy/sub to the app directly if they want to support them or spend less. For customers it is an overall positive development.

 

[nexusrule]

Couple of points:

• It does impact me: Apple’s products have already been made worse for everyone outside the EU because Apple has had to spend significant time and attention on this. Rather than focus on fixing bugs and implementing new features users actually care about, a significant number of Apple engineers are being forced to work on features like “let users uninstall the camera app” that hardly anyone was asking for and practically no one will ever use.
• I don’t want the bad EU’s ideas spreading to other jurisdictions. Fighting back on ridiculous demands from the EU makes it less likely other jurisdictions will impose similar innovation-killing regulations like the DMA.
• I am ideologically opposed to what I see as interference in the free market the theft of intellectual property - and that is what the DMA is. I think it’s bad for Apple, bad for Apple’s customers, bad for competition and bad for Europe. I’m allowed to have an opinion about and argue against a bad law even if it’s not in my jurisdiction.

1. Sure because Apple has so few resources and it’s so small that they had to divert them from big fixing to make those changes…

2. Tell me 3 “innovations” that came from Apple in the last 10 years that are due to the store rules they had to change.

 

[surferfb]

Apple had a million other ways to implement something… the issue is Apple literally did nothing and chose to continue doing the already stated violation. Apple wasn’t fined for NOT IMPLEMENTING THEIR PROPOSAL, they where fined for 👉not implementing anything.👈

Apple implemented something; the Commission determined it was insufficient, and demanded changes that Apple believes go beyond the law. Which Apple is suing over. In the process of trying to avoid the fine, Apple offered to change something, the EC told them not to, never rescinded that instruction, and then fined them for, in part, not making that change. Which you’re defending as good governance and fair dealing.

What is there to admit guilt for? The deadline wasn’t changed or moved. Apple sat there and did nothing as the timer ran out and is suprised pikachu face for being fined for not acting according to the finding and objections the commission made to them in official communication?

See above.

The rules Apple need to follow is contained within the EU codified law.
Don’t listen to what we tell you? At no point was Apple orders to continue to break the law. Apple have the rules and guidelines laid clearly:
1: fix the illegal behavior provided by the statement of objection in what they think is the best way.
2: before the deadline stop doing the illegal acts. By doing something else…

Again, Apple and its lawyers already thought its compliance proposal met the codified law (and again, is appealing the EC’s findings that the proposal doesn’t.) As a part of that process, the EC told them not to implement something, and then fined them for not implementing it.

Is Apple supposed to do what the EC tells them or not?

Teleological Interpretation (Purpose-Based Reading)

This is core to EU law. Unlike the common law systems that prioritize literal or textual interpretation, the CJEU often interprets legal provisions in light of their purpose, as the spirit or objective of the legislation.
Example: When a directive or regulation is ambiguous, the CJEU looks to its recitals, legislative history, goals in the Treaty, and the overall system of EU law to interpret it.

“Spirit” = Purpose (Finalité)

The “spirit of the law” is not about vague morality or political whim. In EU law it usually refers to:

• Recitals of the legislation (they indicate purpose)
• Impact assessments and legislative history
• Proportionality and effectiveness whether an interpretation enables the rule to achieve its intended outcome
• The systematic coherence with other rules of EU law (internal market logic, fundamental freedoms, etc)

In Case C-58/08 Vodafone, the ECJ upheld EU roaming regulation even though it arguably interfered with national competence because the spirit was to create a functioning internal market for telecom, and that justified the interference( as with primary EU founding treaties)

Spirit of the law is unrelated to the legal obligations that states you have to stop breaking the law. Apple have literally no basis. Even Meta understood that and implemented changes instead of doing nothing because it’s a guaranteed fine.

None of that justifies the EC’s goalpost moving or bad faith dealings.

iPadOS was classified as a gatekeeper exactly as prescribed under the DMA. And the spirit of the law you can read in the preamble

Didn’t meet the quantitative thresholds. Again just because you put a “we can declare any company a gatekeeper if we feel like it” clause in your law doesn’t mean it’s fair. In fact, it’s yet another example of the EC operating on bad faith.

1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:

(a)	it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b)	it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c)	it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:…

Unless you’re Spotify, in which case we’ll leave music streaming out of the law entirely for “reasons” (even though they included YouTube) despite having a significant impact on the internal market; serving as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and enjoying an entrenched and durable position.

And as stated in the case for the iPadOS.
The Commission's investigation found that Apple presents the features of a gatekeeper in relation to iPadOS, as among others:

• Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

The quantitative threshold for business users is set absurdly low at 10,000. Out of an estimated 33 million EU businesses. So .03% of businesses. That means “more than 11-fold” is 120,000, or .3% of businesses.

And that is supposed to be IN ADDITION to the number of end users prescribed by law, which both you and the EU admit iPadOS doesn’t meet. (“But they’re close to the limit and might go over” - can you get pulled over in the EU for going 119 in a 120 km/hour zone because the cop thinks you might go faster in the future?)

But saying the DMA applies despite not meeting the quantitative thresholds written into the law because “iPadOS is used by .3% of EU businesses” sounds a lot more ridiculous than “exceeded the quantitative threshold more than 11 fold.” So here we are.

And no one is locked into iPadOS. Although I’ll give you there’s more of an argument for iPad to be regulated than iPhone given Apple’s market share.

• On the basis of the findings of the investigation, the Commission concluded that iPadOS constitutes an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and that Apple enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to iPadOS

Again, it was a fake investigation designed to justify what Vestager had already decided to do. Not operating in good faith.

 

[surferfb]

1. Sure because Apple has so few resources and it’s so small that they had to divert them from big fixing to make those changes…

Meta reported over 5 billion euros in costs and 600,000 engineer hours from 11,000 engineers to comply. I suspect Apple’s compliance costs are significantly higher.

2. Tell me 3 “innovations” that came from Apple in the last 10 years that are due to the store rules they had to change.

The DMA does far, far more than change App Store rules. Are you aware the EU now gets to dictate what APIs Apple offers? And that access to any new feature Apple releases must be given to third parties immediately? Will absolutely chill innovation - why spend the money to differentiate your product if you just have to give the hard work of that engineering effort to your competitors for free?

But to answer your question, Apple has released several App Store innovations over the past 10 years that benefit developers and consumers:

• App Tracking Transparency
• Family Sharing
• App Clips
• App Events in Store
• Privacy Nutrition Labels
• Subscriptions
• Search Ads

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Great, cool, whatever
Can we please move on to iPhone mirroring?

 

[iPadified]

Couple of points:

• It does impact me: Apple’s products have already been made worse for everyone outside the EU because Apple has had to spend significant time and attention on this. Rather than focus on fixing bugs and implementing new features users actually care about, a significant number of Apple engineers are being forced to work on features like “let users uninstall the camera app” that hardly anyone was asking for and practically no one will ever use.
• I don’t want the bad EU’s ideas spreading to other jurisdictions. Fighting back on ridiculous demands from the EU makes it less likely other jurisdictions will impose similar innovation-killing regulations like the DMA.
• I am ideologically opposed to what I see as interference in the free market the theft of intellectual property - and that is what the DMA is. I think it’s bad for Apple, bad for Apple’s customers, bad for competition and bad for Europe. I’m allowed to have an opinion about and argue against a bad law even if it’s not in my jurisdiction.

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion but there is too many feelings involved, also in your reply, so likely your last bullet point is most important for you? If it is something EU cares for, it is a working free market because it will give the lowest price for the customers. "Free market" is not the same as "no rules".

Apple is one of the largest companies on the planet so dealing with regions specific legislative demands should have no impact on the bug fixing or else Apple needs new leadership. Apple have the resources but not the willingness. Blame Apple nor EU or rather EC.

Bullet point number 2 is interesting. If DMA is as brain dead as you say, it will not spread to other jurisdictions so it is an overblown fear.

 

[iPadified]

Meta reported over 5 billion euros in costs and 600,000 engineer hours from 11,000 engineers to comply. I suspect Apple’s compliance costs are significantly higher.

You actually believe these numbers? It seems to be part of the politics game. Involving 11,000 engineers working in average 60h on a software implementation seems very strange.

 

[surferfb]

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion but there is too many feelings involved, also in your reply, so likely your last bullet point is most important for you? If it is something EU cares for, it is a working free market because it will give the lowest price for the customers. "Free market" is not the same as "no rules".

I disagree that the DMA will result in any increased competition or lower prices. In fact, I suspect it will have the opposite effect; because the cost of compliance is so high it will solidify incumbents and prevent competitors from emerging. As we've already seen in Android, third party stores don't lower prices (otherwise the Play Store wouldn't have the same prices Apple does given it is open to competition). All the DMA will do is allow large, well known companies like Spotify to freeload at Apple's expense. They won't lower prices for customers, they'll just take the reasonable fees they were paying Apple for access to Apple's platform and add them to their profit.

I fully understand and appreciate the government needing to set rules. I just think the EU went way beyond what is necessary in this instance. I will also add that I agree 100% Apple needs to follow the law, however bad they think it is. They should comply to the least extent possible, and sue to get overreaches pushed back, but they do need to comply.

Apple is one of the largest companies on the planet so dealing with regions specific legislative demands should have no impact on the bug fixing or else Apple needs new leadership. Apple have the resources but not the willingness. Blame Apple nor EU or rather EC.

Apple isn't going to temporarily hire a bunch of engineers just to satisfy a short-term requirement like this. You can argue that the costs to other features and bug fixes are worth it to get the "features" the EU is demanding, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue it doesn't have an impact. It also adds codebase complexity and the chance for security vulnerabilities, additional bugs, etc. that wouldn't exist without the EU thinking it knows more about how software should work than Apple. Users who wanted an open system had that option in Android, those who want a closed one have had that taken away in the name of "more choice" when in actuality there is now less choice on the market.

Bullet point number 2 is interesting. If DMA is as brain dead as you say, it will not spread to other jurisdictions so it is an overblown fear.

I've spent my entire career in and around government, and I can tell you that government regulators follow what other government regulators do. Just today we have an example of the UK announcing it wants to implement similar regulations to the EU, and point to the EU's law as a justification for intervention. Regulators don't often think through the second and third order effects of their regulations, we've seen it time and time again. They assume the regulations will make things better and wave off any side effects as companies just making stuff up to avoid regulation.

You actually believe these numbers? It seems to be part of the politics game. Involving 11,000 engineers working in average 60h on a software implementation seems very strange.

I don't think there is any reason for Meta to lie about it. We're talking about Meta's core features. In Meta's case, end-to-end encryption, making WhatsApp work with other messaging platforms, new ad tech, etc.

Do I suspect all 11,000 were working on compliance full-time? No. But do I think a significant number of hours and engineers had to spend time on this? Absolutely. The numbers seem reasonable to me.

 

[mrochester]

You actually believe these numbers? It seems to be part of the politics game. Involving 11,000 engineers working in average 60h on a software implementation seems very strange.

Compliance with regulations is burdensome on all companies. It adds time and cost, which gets passed onto the consumer.

Some regulations are good, like don’t make a phone that electrocutes you when you use it, and are worth the added cost and complexity of compliance.

Some regulations are bad, like you must give Spotify, Epic and Amazon free access to your customer base, and are not worth the added cost and complexity of compliance.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Only implemented changes will be investigated, not suggestions that could as we’ll be written on a napkin.

That might have made sense with any other rule. But, with the DMA, there is a clause that essentially says that what they think is a problem is a problem. Which means Apple could comply to the letter and they could say, “We don’t like this part even though it’s perfectly legal according to the document”. Minus that clause, then it’s likely a company could be expected to comply. With that clause and under Vestager, it would be a continual back and forth… which it was… until Vestager was gone… and the regulators agreed to meet with Apple to clear the hurdle of that clause.

And now, they’ve introduced something that the regulators can sign off on and put this behind them.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If he's a smart man. He would take it and run. If he thinks he's going to get a better deal than what is currently looking like the framework going forward. He's dumber than dirt.

The best part of this is that he and anyone else that wants the first tier will not be highlighted on the AppStore. YOU the customer are going to have to dig for it. AND they all still have to pay. NO FREE RIDES!!!! 🤣

Well, he IS running a game download store that losing money year over year, so maybe he IS dumber than dirt.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Finally no more idiotic need to leave Amazon to buy a Kindle book and similar mediocre user experiences. More importantly now developers can let users know they can buy/sub to the app directly if they want to support them or spend less. For customers it is an overall positive development.

So I’ll be able to buy Amazon books within the app using Apple’s payments now (that’s the best user experience for me).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Didn’t meet the quantitative thresholds. Again just because you put a “we can declare any company a gatekeeper if we feel like it” clause in your law doesn’t mean it’s fair. In fact, it’s yet another example of the EC operating on bad faith.

Another thing about this… (and again, underlines how slipshod the drafting was) they realized AFTER it was affirmed that the arbitrary values they captured for “gatekeeper” status didn’t include the iPad. Ran the numbers, saw that the iPad WASN’T a gatekeeper device and decided to leave it out of gatekeeper designation in order to secure the integrity of the regulation to be reviewed in the future when the iPad clearly DOES meet that designation? No, they then decided to ANALYZE the situation to see if it would be a gatekeeper.

That analysis took a year. A year where, my assumption is, they were hoping that the numbers would change enough over the course of a year to make the designation clear. That didn’t happen. So, Vestager comes out (remember this is after a year where they’d been analyzing this… not a hard number to analyze) to say that while it still doesn’t meet the threshold, they figure that, at some point in the future it MAY meet the threshold. Sooooo, they’re going to go ahead and call it a gatekeeper now.

No one has confirmed since then if the iPad has met the threshold. I wouldn’t be surprised if they throw Vestager under the bus for this and other rulings that depended too heavily on “if I say it’s bad, it’s bad”.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple had a million other ways to implement something… the issue is Apple literally did nothing and chose to continue doing the already stated violation. Apple wasn’t fined for NOT IMPLEMENTING THEIR PROPOSAL, they where fined for 👉not implementing anything.👈

What is there to admit guilt for? The deadline wasn’t changed or moved. Apple sat there and did nothing as the timer ran out and is suprised pikachu face for being fined for not acting according to the finding and objections the commission made to them in official communication?

The rules Apple need to follow is contained within the EU codified law.
Don’t listen to what we tell you? At no point was Apple orders to continue to break the law. Apple have the rules and guidelines laid clearly:
1: fix the illegal behavior provided by the statement of objection in what they think is the best way.
2: before the deadline stop doing the illegal acts. By doing something else…



Teleological Interpretation (Purpose-Based Reading)

This is core to EU law. Unlike the common law systems that prioritize literal or textual interpretation, the CJEU often interprets legal provisions in light of their purpose, as the spirit or objective of the legislation.
Example: When a directive or regulation is ambiguous, the CJEU looks to its recitals, legislative history, goals in the Treaty, and the overall system of EU law to interpret it.

“Spirit” = Purpose (Finalité)

The “spirit of the law” is not about vague morality or political whim. In EU law it usually refers to:

• Recitals of the legislation (they indicate purpose)
• Impact assessments and legislative history
• Proportionality and effectiveness whether an interpretation enables the rule to achieve its intended outcome
• The systematic coherence with other rules of EU law (internal market logic, fundamental freedoms, etc)

In Case C-58/08 Vodafone, the ECJ upheld EU roaming regulation even though it arguably interfered with national competence because the spirit was to create a functioning internal market for telecom, and that justified the interference( as with primary EU founding treaties)


Spirit of the law is unrelated to the legal obligations that states you have to stop breaking the law. Apple have literally no basis. Even Meta understood that and implemented changes instead of doing nothing because it’s a guaranteed fine.

Wild. Simply wild.

iPadOS was classified as a gatekeeper exactly as prescribed under the DMA. And the spirit of the law you can read in the preamble

1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:

(a)	it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b)	it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c)	it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:…


And as stated in the case for the iPadOS.
The Commission's investigation found that Apple presents the features of a gatekeeper in relation to iPadOS, as among others:

• Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

On the basis of the findings of the investigation, the Commission concluded that iPadOS constitutes an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and that Apple enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to iPadOS

How can you read this and not think it's made up BS just to get iPadOS as a gatekeeper? "Future". Is the EU fortunetellers now? They know that in the future, iPadOS will meet the requirements. The requirements they made up?

Define, "locked in". I have yet to see shackles on any iPad user that lives and breaths. You don't need any other Apple device to have and use and iPad. And if at any point you want to try something else. Practically every other android pad device can help you transfer from one to the next.

Business users are locked in??????????? Important use cases such as games?
Locked in to what? How many business users are needed to meet the threshold? Of which Apple is 11x over that amount? FFS! 😂

The threshold numbers that are made up by the EU to be OVER on the business side. But "close" on the end user side. Nah, Close enough buggers!!! You're in violation of rules we just made up!!!!

I said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't like Trump not even a small tiny bit. Even when he says or does something right. It's usually always for the wrong reasons. But, I do hope of the microsopic few things he gets right is that he levies a tariff so high on the EU. 🙄

 

[djphat2000]

You actually believe these numbers? It seems to be part of the politics game. Involving 11,000 engineers working in average 60h on a software implementation seems very strange.

You do have to test the changes you make no? Across the whole stack. And how those Changs affect someone from outside the zone coming into the zone using Facebook, and vice versa.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

What a lovely, convoluted way to keep smashing devs and consumers. I look forward to Apple being punished more for their petulant, greasy behaviour.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

I wonder why it matters so much for people living outside of EU what happens with Apple in EU. It does not affect you, does it?

Yes it does my friend. The change from Lightning to USB-C is one example.
Like California's environmental and consumer laws that tend to become US standards, many EU regulations end up being implemented worldwide by companies because they don't want to keep two standards if they don't have to.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I wonder why it matters so much for people living outside of EU what happens with Apple in EU. It does not affect you, does it?

It seems to be folks "cheering for their favorite corporation". 🙃

I really don't get it -- particularly this version of Apple in 2025, which is a really hard entity to "root for" IMO.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yes it does my friend. The change from Lightning to USB-C is one example.
Like California's environmental and consumer laws that tend to become US standards, many EU regulations end up being implemented worldwide by companies because they don't want to keep two standards if they don't have to.

I think by now the change off Lightning would likely have happened anyhow, EU or not.

I may be wrong, of course, but that'd be my guess.

 

[I7guy]

Another view is that Vestager had enough integrity and was strong enough not to bow to large corporations. Too many politicians are too weak to take the fight that sometimes is necessary.

Probably the correct view is that Vestager wante something on the books no matter how bad or ill defined the regulations were.

I wonder why it matters so much for people living outside of EU what happens with Apple in EU. It does not affect you, does it?

Because the amount of time and energy spent to update iOS along with the associated bloat affects us all. More code more attack vectors.

 

[delsoul]

This is just the end for now. Once the EU starts needing more money, they’ll be back after Apple like usual.

 

[delsoul]

1. Sure because Apple has so few resources and it’s so small that they had to divert them from big fixing to make those changes…

2. Tell me 3 “innovations” that came from Apple in the last 10 years that are due to the store rules they had to change.

Tell us three “innovations” from any European telecommunications in the last 10 years, at all…

Don’t like what Apple does, don’t buy it. Plain and simple. Can always go buy your cheap chinese phones and be happy.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Hold on - I was told that the EU was insatiable and just wanted to shake Tim down? What do you mean they're satisfied?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

"People with direct knowledge of the matter" is media speak for "the EU decision makers or those working directly under them." Of course the spokesperson isn't going to confirm something not announced yet, and the EU has been moving goalposts and clearly operating in bad faith throughout the entire existence of the DMA, but I suspect the report is accurate.

Something that will be familiar if you've ever dealt with Apple's 'App Review'