EU Welcomes Apple's App Store Changes, Epic Slams 'Junk Fees'

[I7guy]

"Real" alternative iOS app store competition which Apple has (or at least had) been blocking.

It’s their vertical market, so that fair.

I've long said the App Store was lucrative. It has been people like you who have been downplaying it and suggesting developers can easily just walk away and go somewhere else.

A lucrative business does not mean it has to be a public utility. It’s apples business and businesses are allow to “rake it in”.

By blocking/stifling alternative iOS app store competition, Apple has been hindering the market from deciding if Apple’s fees are "fair" or not. Various alternative app stores have lower fees.

They didn’t hinder the market.

My point was that the App Store has also had scam/deceptive apps that slip through and stay active for months.

Is anything 100%? The point is that apple works to keep the App Store safe.

 

[webkit]

Nope. That’s just something you made up. The EU doesn’t make that distinction as evidenced by including video streaming services as a CPS.

You honestly don't think Apple has additional and broader control of the mobile app market with iPhone/iOS, App Store, etc. than they do with just Apple Music???

Again, just replace Apple with Spotify and the equivalent terms.

Spotify controls the bottleneck (platform, subscriptions, payments, etc.) that all sorts of EU businesses have to go through to reach Spotify users/customers.

It's about the additional layers and broader control that Apple has. It's like you trying to argue that iPhone/iOS, App Store, etc. gives Apple no more control of the mobile app market than Apple Music does.

 

[BaldiMac]

You honestly don't think Apple has additional and broader control of the mobile app market with iPhone/iOS, App Store, etc. than they do with just Apple Music???

No, I think it is an irrelevant distinction that you keep bringing up even though it has no basis in the DMA. The DMA requires 10,000 business users. Any more than that is irrelevant to the conversation.

You keep trying to make the argument that the DMA only applies to OS’s and app stores even though there are already 23 or so core platform services.

It's about the additional layers and broader control that Apple has.

You’re simply repeating the same phrase over and over despite it having no basis in the DMA.

It's like you trying to argue that iPhone/iOS, App Store, etc. gives Apple no more control of the mobile app market than Apple Music does.

Nope. That’s nonsense. I’m simply arguing that the audio streaming market has all the same conditions as other core platform services. As I demonstrated by simply substituting Spotify for Apple in your own descriptions.

Though Spotify certainly has more control over the digital music market in the EU than Apple does the mobile app market.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Real" alternative iOS app store competition which Apple has (or at least had) been blocking.

Real alternative app stores have existed for a decade across 70% of the market. They failed to generate meaningful competition.

As I’ve said, that’s my fundamental problem with the DMA’s approach to the App Store. They are pushing a failed strategy. They could have gotten to the same place while avoiding all the downsides by simply limiting Apple’s commission directly and forcing them to include additional app categories.

 

[Abazigal]

I'm not saying artists or users may not have to "go through" things with Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, etc. but it doesn't rise to the additional and broader control (already discussed) that DMA designated gatekeepers have.

The DMA makes sense when you realise that it was designed to reign in US tech companies first and foremost in a bid to favour their own homegrown businesses. It’s one thing to delineate the criteria such that they target only one specific subset of the tech industry while excluding their own local competitors. It’s another to retroactively include platforms such as iPadOS even when they clearly don’t meet the conditions.

Just accept that it’s basically a form of protectionism by another name.

 

[surferfb]

Not sure what you mean by "wanting developers to have to go through all that." This is about providing alternatives and potentially cheaper/better/more favorable terms not necessarily an "easier" process.

I think Apple’s terms provide significant value to consumers and developers, and that just because a store is offering “better” terms to a developer that doesn’t mean it is a win for consumers. And because Apple creates the software and platform they should be able to decide how it works, not bureaucrats who think cookie popups are a gift to the world.

It's not easy for developers to simply walk away from a large, lucrative app market like iOS/iPhone. Something like 55% to 60% of EU consumer spending on mobile apps/in-app purchases/subscriptions is through Apple's App Store.

A not insignificant reason for that is because of Apple’s model, which, for example, makes piracy a much more difficult endeavor on iOS than other platforms.

And again, replace “developers” with “musicians” and “Apple” with “Spotify” and that statement is still true, but for some reason the EU specifically excluded the law applying to Spotify

People will still be able to use the App Store, App Store payment system, etc. as I do not expect many developers to leave the App Store. Developers may utilize alternatives, similar to how physical goods manufacturers may use their own online store as well as alternatives, but will continue to use the App Store. Unless Apple does some crazy, the App Store will still dominate but if developers can save money and get better/more favorable terms in other stores, they will use those too.

I suspect the “more favorable terms” will be things like “make it hard for consumers to unsubscribe”, “don’t require privacy cards”, “make it hard to get refunds”. I don’t think those make Apple’s platform better.

And again, it’s Apple’s software and platform. Apple has ~25-30% of the EU market. Not nearly enough to justify such drastic intervention, IMO.

Many scam/deceptive apps slip through and stay active for months in Apple's App Store too.

“The bouncer missed a couple of fake IDs, so let’s add multiple unguarded doors to the bar and encourage people to use them. That definitely won’t make the underage drinking problem worse.”

Based on what? Have you read surveys/studies on this? I think the number of users and developers who would be open to alternative app stores on iOS is a lot more than "practically zero."

The PlayStore has 95% market share on Android despite competition from companies like Samsung and Amazon. Consumers just aren’t asking for this.

 

[webkit]

No, I think it is an irrelevant distinction that you keep bringing up even though it has no basis in the DMA. The DMA requires 10,000 business users. Any more than that is irrelevant to the conversation.

You keep trying to make the argument that the DMA only applies to OS’s and app stores even though there are already 23 or so core platform services.

No. I was conveying that the DMA regulations are only applied to various CPS categories and was focusing on the ones applied to Apple which include operating systems and app stores (which DMA puts under online intermediation services) as well as web browsers. OS and app stores were more relevant to discussions here.

Nope. That’s nonsense. I’m simply arguing that the audio streaming market has all the same conditions as other core platform services. As I demonstrated by simply substituting Spotify for Apple in your own descriptions.

Apple’s additional layers and broader control, is what makes the Apple vs. Spotify much different. If you don’t want to accept that’s your choice but I am not going to waste any more time going back and forth on this.

Real alternative app stores have existed for a decade across 70% of the market. They failed to generate meaningful competition.

They hadn’t existed on iOS (which has a more lucrative app market) until the DMA regs kicked in.

 

[webkit]

It’s their vertical market, so that fair.

I assume you are referring to vertical integration? That can raise antitrust/competition law concerns when a company with "significant" market power controls an "important" distribution channel (e.g., the App Store) and uses that control to prevent, restrict, or hinder competing distribution channels (e.g., alternative app stores) from emerging.

A lucrative business does not mean it has to be a public utility. It’s apples business and businesses are allow to “rake it in”.

It's not becoming a "public utility" but if it did, Apple would be facing even more regulations than they are with the DMA. At least based on how things typically work in the U.S.

They didn’t hinder the market.

They hinder (or at least did before the DMA regs kicked in) the app distribution market by not allowing alternative app stores on iOS/iPhone.

 

[webkit]

The DMA makes sense when you realise that it was designed to reign in US tech companies first and foremost in a bid to favour their own homegrown businesses. It’s one thing to delineate the criteria such that they target only one specific subset of the tech industry while excluding their own local competitors. It’s another to retroactively include platforms such as iPadOS even when they clearly don’t meet the conditions.

Just accept that it’s basically a form of protectionism by another name.

It was designed to reign in large tech companies.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, most large tech companies happen to be in the U.S. Of the top 20 largest tech companies, 15 or so are U.S. based. The "problem" is that there aren't nearly enough large tech companies for the DMA to even try to protect.

 

[webkit]

I think Apple’s terms provide significant value to consumers and developers, and that just because a store is offering “better” terms to a developer that doesn’t mean it is a win for consumers. And because Apple creates the software and platform they should be able to decide how it works, not bureaucrats who think cookie popups are a gift to the world.

Antitrust and competition laws treat companies differently depending on the size, market power, etc. (varies by law) of the company. That's just how it works.

And again, replace “developers” with “musicians” and “Apple” with “Spotify” and that statement is still true, but for some reason the EU specifically excluded the law applying to Spotify

Apple's additional layers and broader control is what makes the Apple vs. Spotify situation much different. Apple has a lot more power and control of the mobile app market with iOS, App Store, etc. than they do with just Apple Music app.

I suspect the “more favorable terms” will be things like “make it hard for consumers to unsubscribe”, “don’t require privacy cards”, “make it hard to get refunds”. I don’t think those make Apple’s platform better.

Why? What is this based on?

And again, it’s Apple’s software and platform. Apple has ~25-30% of the EU market. Not nearly enough to justify such drastic intervention, IMO.

Something like 55% to 60% of EU consumer spending on mobile apps/in-app purchases/subscriptions is through Apple's App Store.

“The bouncer missed a couple of fake IDs, so let’s add multiple unguarded doors to the bar and encourage people to use them. That definitely won’t make the underage drinking problem worse.”

Again, many scam/deceptive apps have slipped through and stayed active for months in Apple's App Store too. These included free apps there were actually subscription traps, fake VPN/security apps, fake cryptocurrency apps, fake banking/investment apps, fake antivirus apps, fake cloud storage apps, fake government services apps, fake travel/hotel/airline apps, fake biometric scams, and so on.

The PlayStore has 95% market share on Android despite competition from companies like Samsung and Amazon. Consumers just aren’t asking for this.

What surveys/studies show that the number or percentage of iOS/iPhone users who would be open to an alternative app store is practically zero?

 

[BaldiMac]

OS and app stores were more relevant to discussions here.

Sure! Except we were having a discussion about whether audio streaming should qualify as a CPS.

Apple’s additional layers and broader control

Echo... echo...echo...

is what makes the Apple vs. Spotify much different. If you don’t want to accept that’s your choice but I am not going to waste any more time going back and forth on this.

No, it doesn't make it different. Because it's something that you simply made up that has nothing to do with the DMA.

App Store vs Spotify. Similar number of EU users. Spotify with more business users. Spotify with more restrictive terms for business users than the App Store. Spotify with a higher average commission than the App Store. Spotify with 65% of its market. App Store with 30% of its market.

They hadn’t existed on iOS (which has a more lucrative app market) until the DMA regs kicked in.

Nothing like stating the obvious. I stand by my point.

 

[I7guy]

I assume you are referring to vertical integration? That can raise antitrust/competition law concerns when a company with "significant" market power controls an "important" distribution channel (e.g., the App Store) and uses that control to prevent, restrict, or hinder competing distribution channels (e.g., alternative app stores) from emerging.

All of that is an opinion. But Apple doesn’t control the market. They control their ecosystem. You can put the word important in quotes, but’s it’s one of several ways in this digital world to sell goods and services.

It's not becoming a "public utility" but if it did, Apple would be facing even more regulations than they are with the DMA. At least based on how things typically work in the U.S.

It is the equivalent of a public utility in function.

They hinder (or at least did before the DMA regs kicked in) the app distribution market by not allowing alternative app stores on iOS/iPhone.

They are allowed to hinder the horizontal distribution because it’s their market. Since when it is acceptable to force a company that has a legal business model to give away their assets. This entities debate over the last many years is just that.

 

[webkit]

Sure! Except we were having a discussion about whether audio streaming should qualify as a CPS.

And in that regard, my opinion has been that audio/music streaming services should not be included. Nor should video streaming services.

No, it doesn't make it different. Because it's something that you simply made up that has nothing to do with the DMA.

App Store vs Spotify. Similar number of EU users. Spotify with more business users. Spotify with more restrictive terms for business users than the App Store. Spotify with a higher average commission than the App Store. Spotify with 65% of its market. App Store with 30% of its market.

Apple's additional layers and broader control is what makes the Apple vs. Spotify much different. If you don't want to accept that's your choice but I am not going to waste any more time going back and forth on this.

 

[webkit]

All of that is an opinion. But Apple doesn’t control the market. They control their ecosystem. You can put the word important in quotes, but’s it’s one of several ways in this digital world to sell goods and services.

It's not just an opinion as it's played out with the DMA regulations with Apple and Google as well as in antitrust cases with Apple and Google. Microsoft also faced legal issues with the Windows/IE.

They are allowed to hinder the horizontal distribution because it’s their market. Since when it is acceptable to force a company that has a legal business model to give away their assets. This entities debate over the last many years is just that.

Windows was Microsoft’s OS "market" and IE was Microsoft's browser but that didn't make them immune from antitrust/competition laws when they tried to hinder the "horizontal" browser market.

 

[BaldiMac]

And in that regard, my opinion has been that audio/music streaming services should not be included. Nor should video streaming services.

No ****. We’ve been discussing this for days.

Apple's additional layers and broader control

Echo... echo...echo...

If you don't want to accept that's your choice but I am not going to waste any more time going back and forth on this.

If you’re just going to copy and paste the same responses without addressing anything I say, then you’re certainly wasting time.

 

[webkit]

If you’re just going to copy and paste the same responses without addressing anything I say, then you’re certainly wasting time.

I am cutting and pasting because you keep bring up the same things and my opinions have not changed.

 

[JMalone]

“EU welcomes…”

The replacement of Europeans with a low IQ slave culture who don’t need democracy.

They do no care about the population. All their regulations are about bullying innovative companies and American companies, squeezing a bribe out of American companies and disguising the bribe as a “fine”.

The money goes straight back into the European parliaments cocaine habits and human trafficking. These are facts.

 

[eifelbube]

No, it is true objectively. Just because you don’t want to see it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Are there a few bits that are better for consumers when looked at singularly? Sure.

Yes, subjectively it is true objectively

But all in all consumers worldwide are far worse off than they would have been had the EU been able to restrain its instincts.

How could users, let’s say in Brasil, be “far worse off” because the EU passed an A.I. act, or forced Apple to allow third party app stores or fined Google for self-preferential search results manipulation?? The scope of worldwide would be accurate if your claim had stated:

But all in all consumers worldwide are far worse off than they would have been had the tariff sheriff in D.C. been able to restrain its instincts.​

 

[surferfb]

Yes, subjectively it is true objectively

It is objectively true that EU users are getting fewer features, slower rollouts, worse security and falling further behind for a protectionist law that consumers weren’t asking for and doesn’t achieve its stated goals (but does achieve its actual goals of burdening US tech companies and saying “we did something”).

Gruber had a good post on this. You should read the whole post, but here’s the conclusion.

I’m sure some of you think I’m all wet in my argument that the point of the DMA was merely to impose ongoing bureaucratic complexity. But my view jibes with the reality of how it’s worked out. Compare and contrast with the Mobile Software Competition Act in Japan. Apple complied with the clearly stated requirements of the MSCA with no drama, Japanese users aren’t missing out on features like iPhone Mirroring, and the only delay for Siri AI in Japan is language support. Japanese iOS users get all the “good parts” of Apple’s regulatory compliance that EU users do, with none of the rather severe hindrances.

How could users, let’s say in Brasil, be “far worse off” because the EU passed an A.I. act, or forced Apple to allow third party app stores or fined Google for self-preferential search results manipulation??

The big tech companies are spending billions and an unimaginable amounts of time dealing with unnecessary regulations and having to building user-hostile features for one part of the world that would be better spent on features people are actually asking for that benefit people worldwide.

The scope of worldwide would be accurate if your claim had stated:

But all in all consumers worldwide are far worse off than they would have been had the tariff sheriff in D.C. been able to restrain its instincts.​

Believe it or not, I agree with that statement.

 

[eifelbube]

The money goes straight back into the European parliaments cocaine habits and human trafficking. These are facts.

Brought to you exclusively, no paid subscription required, by the
Facebook … X … Truth Social … TikTok
Fact Factories.

 

[eifelbube]

The DMA makes sense when you realise that it was designed to reign in US tech companies first and foremost in a bid to favour their own homegrown businesses. It’s one thing to delineate the criteria such that they target only one specific subset of the tech industry while excluding their own local competitors. It’s another to retroactively include platforms such as iPadOS even when they clearly don’t meet the conditions.

Just accept that it’s basically a form of protectionism by another name.

Businesses is plural, Spotify is singular. I would agree that music streaming was very likely excluded from CPS designation to protect Spotify (from predators such as Google and Amazon). But since you wrote “own homegrown businesses” and “own local competitors”, please provide 2 or 3 examples.

iPadOS is a subset of iOS.

 

[Abazigal]

Businesses is plural, Spotify is singular. I would agree that music streaming was very likely excluded from CPS designation to protect Spotify (from predators such as Google and Amazon). But since you wrote “own homegrown businesses” and “own local competitors”, please provide 2 or 3 examples.

iPadOS is a subset of iOS.

A Letter to the European Commission on Apple's Lack of DMA Compliance — Spotify

Ahead of the European Union’s DMA implementation deadline next week, Spotify and many EU companies sent the following letter to the European Commission today raising concerns about Apple’s lack of compliance. Mrs. Margrethe Vestager Executive Vice-President – A Europe Fit for the Digital Age...

newsroom.spotify.com

You can scroll below to take a look at the organisations from the EU who co-signed on the letter. It’s a lot of industries.

EU Associations
Alliance Digitale
Association Européenne des Radios (AER)
Classifieds Marketplaces Europe (CME)
Digital Content Next (DCN)
Digital Music Europe (DME)
European DIGITAL SME Alliance
European Games Developer Federation (EGDF)
European Fintech Association (EFA)
European Magazine Media Association (EMMA)
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA)
European Publishers Council (EPC)
France Digitale
Internet Economy Foundation (IEF)
News Media Europe (NME)
Sveriges Tidskrifter
Tidningsutgivarna

 

[surferfb]

iPadOS is a subset of iOS.

Not according to the EU.

DMA designated Gatekeepers

European Commission designated for the first time six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft - under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In total, 22 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers have been designated.

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu

Here’s are some quotes from the EU Commissioners when it was designated (Emphasis mine):

Our market investigation showed that despite not meeting the thresholds, iPadOS constitutes an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers.

We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways to business users.

The quotes aren’t “the DMA applies because it’s a subset of iOS.” And in fact it is listed separately everywhere on the EU pages because it’s indeed considered a different core platform service under the DMA.

Imagine being so incompetent at your job that you write numbers into your regulations but then are upset it doesn’t hit all the platforms you meant to. So you have to say “the text of the law we wrote doesn’t matter. What we say is what matters.” And then brag about it in the press release and threaten to do it to others.

Absolutely banana republic stuff that should embarrass every European.

 

[eifelbube]

A Letter to the European Commission on Apple's Lack of DMA Compliance — Spotify

Ahead of the European Union’s DMA implementation deadline next week, Spotify and many EU companies sent the following letter to the European Commission today raising concerns about Apple’s lack of compliance. Mrs. Margrethe Vestager Executive Vice-President – A Europe Fit for the Digital Age...

newsroom.spotify.com

You can scroll below to take a look at the organisations from the EU who co-signed on the letter. It’s a lot of industries.

EU Associations
Alliance Digitale
Association Européenne des Radios (AER)
Classifieds Marketplaces Europe (CME)
Digital Content Next (DCN)
Digital Music Europe (DME)
European DIGITAL SME Alliance
European Games Developer Federation (EGDF)
European Fintech Association (EFA)
European Magazine Media Association (EMMA)
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA)
European Publishers Council (EPC)
France Digitale
Internet Economy Foundation (IEF)
News Media Europe (NME)
Sveriges Tidskrifter
Tidningsutgivarna

These companies and association wrote letters complaining that Apple was not in compliance. That’s all.
You wrote “It’s one thing to delineate the criteria such that they target only one specific subset of the tech industry while excluding their own local competitors.”

Which thresholds for which CPS did these companies exceed that should have made them gatekeepers according to the DMA? The claim that the EU “favors home grown businesses [plural]”, implies that they met the gatekeeper criteria but were spared the designation by the EU.

 

[eifelbube]

Not according to the EU.

DMA designated Gatekeepers

European Commission designated for the first time six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft - under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In total, 22 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers have been designated.

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu

Here’s are some quotes from the EU Commissioners when it was designated (Emphasis mine):

Our market investigation showed that despite not meeting the thresholds, iPadOS constitutes an important gateway on which many companies rely to reach their customers.

We continue monitoring market developments and will not hesitate to open new investigations should other services below the thresholds present characteristics to be considered important gateways to business users. banana republic stuff that should embarrass every European.

It is odd that the EU did not roll in the iPhone and iPad from the start, that they waited 8 months to make iPadOS a separate gatekeeper. But that they did, made 95% sense at the time IMO when I read this in the 2024 April 28 press release you linked (thank you):

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.

The above is the explanation underlying the Vestager and Breton summary statement excerpts you quoted. The bullet details show the commission lowered the threshold a little bit on the end user side … and admitted it. So the gatekeeper designation was prophylactic to an extent as this was in 2024, and I would not be surprised if the end user numbers have crossed the threshold by now. The EU was kind to Apple by initially ignoring the iPad.

Tough going in Europe for tech giants like Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta who —as we all know— have continuously been at the brink of bankruptcy and barely staying afloat since the DMA went into effect. All this while Spotify, the one and only sin committed by the EU, has pulverized the remaining competitors in the music streaming market with the help of regulation.