Report: Apple to Announce More App Store Concessions for the EU

[surferfb]

The EU should have had stronger protectionist laws from the beginning. It doesn't help that its biggest companies were all acquired by, and promptly ran into the ground by US tech firms. If it wasn't Microsoft with Nokia it's EA and Criterion.

The only reason Nokia was is the position to be purchased by Microsoft was they had stopped innovating and got their lunch eaten by Apple and Android.

High taxes are not a problem. It stops profits from sitting in the bank accounts of billionaires and does things like fund public healthcare. There is a direct correlation between the consistently most content societies on earth and high tax rates. See: the Nordic bloc. Nokia was once the buzzword in phone innovation directly under the Finnish tax rates.

Believe it or not, I'm actually in support of higher taxes in the US for things like healthcare. I fully support government regulation for health, safety, etc., and think healthcare is a human right. I just don't think "having an iPhone that can seamlessly connect to a Garmin watch when people who care about that feature can buy Android" rises to the level of necessary government regulation.

Bird's AI criticism stems from the EU rules on AI ethics which the rest of the planet will quickly wish they had invoked themselves.

They're citing regulation as the reason they're leaving.

I'm not saying the EU is perfect, but its current woes are largely down to US corporate and startup culture being incompatible with its regulatory stance. But if we examine the business practices of Meta, Google's data harvesting, Apple's lock-in practices, OpenAI's data scraping and Microsoft's market abuse we can see that these regulations existed for a reason.

I'd argue the regulatory stance is incompatible with significant innovation.

I'm not a fan of Google, Meta, or Microsoft AT ALL, but would argue the EU goes too far in regulating them as well. Google's products are objectively worse in the EU because of it. Meta being told that "pay for not tracking" or "free with tracking" or "don't use" isn't actually a choice, and Meta has to offer "free without tracking" is patently ridiculous and is arguably worse than anything the EU has told Apple to do. And while I have serious qualms about how OpenAI trained its models, it's clearly in a legal grey area, and the cat is already out of the bag.

I do strongly disagree that "Apple lock-in practices" is 1) actually a thing and 2) even if a thing, something the EU should be regulating. If iOS had 72% of the market, or Android operated the same way, sure, regulate away. But iOS has 28% of the market, Android is open, and all the EU has done was say that consumers who want a closed ecosystem aren't allowed to have one because bureaucrats think they know better than Apple and its customers.

 

[breenmask]

Over the last 3 years and for the next 2 years you think the ewaste is more or less now that micro usb, mini-usb and lightning can’t be sold with anything?

More because micro usb/lightning's usable life was artificially shortened from the next 4-5 years to just a couple of years.
And the comparison I'm making is against the scenario of not including the cable at all which would be less ewaste no matter how you slice and dice the argument.

Apple could have transitioned into usb c 10 years ago

Their decision. Irrelevant.

There’s a big difference, the lightning cable is a useless wire I can only use with one thing.

Anecdotal. Many people can use it with many things.

And if you already have the MacBook Pro you can use its cable to charge everything else.

Making the iPhone cable ewaste because you wouldn't bring a 60W cable with you to charge your iPhone and MacBook Pro 16". See where I'm getting at?

If Apple want they could’ve made the iPhone 15 usb 3 but they didn’t 🤷‍♂️ because apple is greedy and cheap

Or they could have removed the cable and reduce the price of iPhone, but you don't want that. Weird.

Literally nothing here prevents their reuse than a persons laziness.

This makes no sense

Apple could have been brave and sold it without a cable

They could have if they kept lightning.

Literally zero people are forced into doing it.

They're being forced to switch to usb-c.

You opted to sell it back to Apple wasting cables.

That's ewaste

I sell mine on eBay or give it to family members who still need the cables

Anecdotal.

Having zero bosses is of zero relevance

You argued steam wasn't developed with zero bosses. I'm pointing out you were blatantly wrong.

Easy, i didn’t. Because i have no interest paying for a game on Ubisoft/Epic/EA

It's a rhetorical statement. Not saying you play borderlands. It was said to get the point across about exclusives.

People like me is the reason EA crawled back to steam because we refused to follow it.

Actually it was the trashy quality of games. No one cared enough to download the EA client. Not because you successfully boycotted them.

Luckily it’s not for consumers but undertakings and the market

Consumers spent more on App Store than Play store despite play store being 2x-3x bigger.

If anything California does means the U.S. did it then sure.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[I7guy]

I’m not saying they should, merely that Apple should have parity across its platforms. Having other storefronts and the ability to directly sideload an ipa file doesn’t invalidate nor compromise the App Store delivery model if that’s what a user is comfortable with. As with the Mac, you could just use Apple’s portal, never visit another and be perfectly safe. Most Android users exclusively use the Play Store for this exact reason.

I don’t agree there should be parity. Apple should manage it as they see fit and customers should buy as they see fit.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And for some reason the EU is increasing that browser’s marketshare on mobile by forcing a completely unnecessary “browser choice screen” that is sure to lead some users to select Chrome because it’s the one they’ve heard of (not to mention confusing a further subset of users into changing their browser when they don’t want to.)

I was speaking of desktop browsers.
If Chrome is the new only one they’ve heard of, that what people are going to use.
Not presenting a choice will not make more users consider alternatives - when they’ve never heard of them.

But little difference to mobile devices either - where Apple’s WebKit rendering engine used to have a monopoly.
And Apple is operating one of the largest ad networks, too.

So why should it be different?

I like and use Safari/WebKit - but don’t believe they should be the only choice oniOS, just cause Apple controls the platform.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm not saying the EU is perfect, but its current woes are largely down to US corporate and startup culture being incompatible with its regulatory stance. But if we examine the business practices of Meta, Google's data harvesting, Apple's lock-in practices, OpenAI's data scraping and Microsoft's market abuse we can see that these regulations existed for a reason.

Exactly.
The U.S. prioritises business over people and society - and that allows for successful tech companies to emerge (and dominate). And also explains all the abusive, anticompetitive and unethical business practices with which they’re operating.

But iOS has 28% of the market,

They are estimated to command about half of consumer spending on mobile apps. That’s not merely a small minority market share. And it’s relevant. Cause developers develop for spending customers.

 

[delsoul]

This is the last I'm going to chime in on this point, because we just need to agree to disagree, but to state my opinion one last time:

I disagree that it makes things better. It is a massive drag on productivity that is not worth the benefits because almost all users just click "accept" - meaning it really isn't doing anything at all in the grand scheme of things, particularly when a large number of the users who do care know how to do things like run VPNs, Ad Blockers, know how to get data from data brokers removed etc.


The EU required MS to give kernel access to third parties, which directly led to Crowdstrike. Had the EU not required that, Crowdstrike wouldn't have happened. You cannot argue otherwise. That doesn't mean MS is absolved of all responsibility, but it literally would not have happened if the EU hadn't gotten involved. You can argue the EU getting involved was "worth it" despite the massive internet outage, but you can't argue the EU bears no responsibility for the outage.

(Also, because that regulation existed, removing kernel access is a much more complicated endeavor than when Apple did so. Had MS tried, you know developers would have gone running to the EU about how "big bad Microsoft" is hurting them and it was going to cost them so much money to implement and it's clearly anticompetitive, etc. Who do we think the EU would have believed, Big Tech Microsoft, or the "poor" little developer? Be honest.)


While I personally am creeped out by targeted ads, I don't think my preferences should necessarily rule the world. My wife, for example, actually LIKES targeted ads, because she thinks they surface products for her she wouldn't have seen otherwise. I highly suspect my wife is much closer to a "typical user" than I am. I also suspect that while people care about privacy, if forced to choose "no tracking and irrelevant ads and more expensive services" or "allow tracking and get more relevant ads and cheaper services", "allow tracking" is going to win handily with the vast, vast majority of users, even if it wouldn't win with me. Which means the free market is working as intended.



I do have serious issues with how GenAI was trained, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue it isn't innovation.

But don't listen to me about the EU's regulations strangling innovation, listen to Europeans quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

• In a report published last September, Draghi pinpointed the lack of a thriving tech sector as a key factor. “The EU is weak in the emerging technologies that will drive future growth,” he wrote.
• Only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European, despite Europe having a larger population and similar education levels to the U.S. and accounting for 21% of global economic output. None of the top 10 companies investing in quantum computing are in Europe.
• “Taxes are higher, and regulations designed to corral big business become a costly and time-consuming headache for startups. It is easier for large AI companies in the U.S. or China to move to Europe than “growing out of Europe and to have to invest from the start to satisfy a much more complex regulatory framework,” said Sebastian Steinhäuser, chief strategy and operating officer at German software giant SAP.“
• European businesses spend 40% of their IT budgets on complying with regulations, according to a recent survey by Amazon.
• Software company Bird, one of the Netherlands’ most successful startups, said recently it plans to move its main operations out of Europe to the U.S., Dubai and other locations due to restrictive AI regulation. “Stop regulating, Europe. We might be the first, but we won’t be the last (to leave),” Robert Vis, the company’s founder, wrote on his LinkedIn page.

Doesn’t sound like a very business friendly place!

 

[surferfb]

I was speaking of desktop browsers.
If Chrome is the new only one they’ve heard of, that what people are going to use.
Not presenting a choice will not make more users consider alternatives - when they’ve never heard of them.

There is no need to make users select a browser. The idea that a phone or computer would ship without a default browser is crazy in 2025. Safari is probably the only thing keeping Chrome from having a monopoly.

But little difference to mobile devices either - where Apple’s WebKit rendering engine used to have a monopoly.
And Apple is operating one of the largest ad networks, too.

So why should it be different?

I like and use Safari/WebKit - but don’t believe they should be the only choice oniOS, just cause Apple controls the platform.

They weren't the only choice, you could change the default browser on iOS long before the DMA was a sparkle in Vestager's eye, and there are significant security and user experience reasons for forcing everyone to use Webkit. Just as one example, it's not like users would blame Chrome when it destroys their battery life, they'll blame the iPhone - giving Google an incentive to have their browser actually be battery inefficient in order to get more people to move to their platform.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about the EU having no idea about what constitutes a good user experience. Demanding a screen on first boot does nothing other than add yet another annoyance to the device setup process. Why stop at browser? We're going to be using AI to interpret pictures a lot more - why not ask the user to select a default Camera App. Same with email and calendar - they are going to be a huge part of AI agents in the future, so lets add a screen for "select default email app" and a page for "select default calendar app" too. Now that we have alternate app stores, it's not fair Apple's is pre-installed. So let's add a "select default App Store" screen too. Etc. Etc. Etc.

While I think it is ridiculous and doesn't rise anywhere close to the level of requiring government intervention, I wouldn't be massively opposed to saying "users should be able to set default apps for x, y, or z category." BUT then adding a requirement to present the user with "you need to select the default app" when many people have explicitly picked Apple BECAUSE it makes those sorts of choices for its customers is just silly and user-hostile.

And on top of it, the EU says "if a user selects an alternative browser as the default, the OS has to remember the default when moving to a new device" BUT "if the user selects Safari, the OS is not allowed to remember the default app when moving to the new device and must show the selection screen again." In what world is that fair at all - it's the EU hoping to annoy Apple's users into selecting a non-Apple default because it hates the idea of integrated products.

 

[surferfb]

They are estimated to command about half of consumer spending on mobile apps. That’s not merely a small minority market share. And it’s relevant. Cause developers develop for spending customers.

And yet the EU is trying its hardest to bring the fraud and piracy that plagues Android to iOS. Bang up job, EU!

I love how it never occurs to DMA defenders that the reason Apple commands more spend than their market share is BECAUSE of their restrictions, not in spite of the restrictions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They weren't the only choice, you could change the default browser on iOS long before the DMA

Not the rendering engine afaik.

And yet the EU is trying its hardest to bring the fraud and piracy that plagues Android to iOS. Bang up job, EU!

Nonsense - that’s not what they’re “trying” to do.
It’s undeniable that freedom, choice and freedom of choice sometimes comes with some risks.
But that’s worth it - if we don’t want 2034 to be like 1984.

love how it never occurs to DMA defenders that the reason Apple commands more spend than their market share is BECAUSE of their restrictions, not in spite of the restrictions.

It’s not because of restrictions, of what people can’t do with their devices.
If anything, it’s because of Apple’s integration.

 

[surferfb]

Not the rendering engine afaik.

Again, there are valid security and user experience reasons for restricting the browser engine.

Nonsense - that’s not what they’re “trying” to do.
It’s undeniable that freedom, choice and freedom of choice sometimes comes with some risks.
But that’s worth it - if we don’t want 2034 to be like 1984.

It's absolutely what they're trying to do. Why else is Apple the only browser developer who isn't allowed to have its browser stay as default when switching to a new device? Apple has ALREADY shown the pointless browser choice screen, and the user has ALREADY selected Apple as their default browser. So what is the justification for not allowing that browser to stay the default and presenting the screen again when the user transfers their information to a new device, unlike literally every single other browser?

There is absolutely room for two models, and no one is forced to buy or develop for iOS. Particularly when the open one has almost 50% greater market share than the closed competitor. But in the EU having a closed ecosystem now verboten because the government knows best. Talk about 1984! The government, that everyone is forced to obey, says closed systems aren't allowed if they get too popular. They are the ones arguing "less choice is more choice" like Orwell's titular large sibling.

Your realize Big Brother was the government, right? Not a company you freely choose to do business with?

It’s not because of restrictions, of what people can’t do with their devices.
If anything, it’s because of Apple’s integration.

Apple opens up, piracy increases, spam increases, customers feel less safe buying apps. Everyone loses - consumers, developers, Apple. When this is pointed out, the EU and its defenders will blame Apple, and like Crowstrike, Cookie Popups, etc. their law had absolutely nothing to do with the bad results that directly result from the law.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Why else is Apple the only browser developer who isn't allowed to have its browser stay as default when switching to a new device?

Cause theirs comes pre-installed/bundled with the OS.

But in the EU having a closed ecosystem now verboten because the government knows best

They do.
Choice and interoperability are good things that benefit customers.
Apple’s degree of closedness does not.

(Although honestly, browser engines are one of the things I care less about)

Talk about 1984! The government, that everyone is forced to obey, says closed systems aren't allowed if they get too popular

…if they get to “popular” or widespread, yes.
That’s why they’re stepping in to ensure competition is still possible - against Apple’s monoculture.

Talk about 1984!

Yeah, let’s do!

👉 Who says you can’t put certain works or links into apps?
👉 Who governs app contents, words, links and buttons to the smallest minutiae?
👉 Who operates an Orwellian censorship system that requires every piece of software be approved by the (quasi-) government that “made the platform”?
👉 Who uses security to justify their iron grip over any other content, purchase or app - and developers?
👉 Who restricts businesses from communicating with consumers?
👉 Who requires every link-out from an app to approved, every transaction conducted through it reported to the rulers?

Apple is the big brother here - and they behave like it.

 

[surferfb]

Cause theirs comes pre-installed/bundled with the OS.

Again - zero consideration for user experience. The user already selected their preferred browser, and you literally can’t use one until you go through the EU’s ridiculous screen. But make them do it again because Apple makes it. Apple should sue over that alone!

These people have no idea what they’re doing and are incredibly biased against Apple.

They’re not qualified to be making UX decisions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again - zero consideration for user experience. The user already selected their preferred browser, and you literally can’t use one until you go through the EU’s ridiculous screen.

And I literally can’t use my Music app - or my devices’ setting - without Apple bugging me about their bloody Music subscription service. Time and again, when I sign in or update.

I won’t deny this is kind of whataboutism.
But it’s not fair competition (as in: a level playing field in streaming services) against Spotify and co. either.

👉 I can’t quite tell you how often I’ve seen these nagging screens and message - but I can guarantee you it’s been way more often than the browser selection screen required by the EU.

If Timmy told me in my face, they’re oh-so-concerned about the “user experience” with regards to that browser selection, I’d tell him to piss right off and stop the hypocrisy!

(Though again, I actually concur that the browser selection screen wasn’t necessary, and I could have done without that particular item of legislation)

 

[surferfb]

And I literally can’t use my Music app - or my devices’ setting - without Apple bugging me about their bloody Music subscription service. Time and again, when I sign in or update.

I won’t deny this is kind of whataboutism.
But it’s not fair competition (as in: a level playing field in streaming services) against Spotify and co. either.

👉 I can’t quite tell you how often I’ve seen these nagging screens and message - but I can guarantee you it’s been way more often than the browser selection screen required by the EU.

If Timmy told me in my face, they’re oh-so-concerned about the “user experience” with regards to that browser selection, I’d tell him to piss right off and stop the hypocrisy!

I don’t disagree with this. I wish Apple wouldn’t do it - it’s beneath them.

(Though again, I actually concur that the browser selection screen wasn’t necessary, and I could have done without that particular item of legislation)

👍

Believe it or not, there is an alternate universe where I largely support (or maybe more accurately, don’t oppose) a restrained DMA that banned anti-steering regulations (but allowed for proper compensation for use of Apple’s tools), allowed for alternate app stores (with a requirement that the App also has to be offered on the App Store if Apple wants to offer that app, at a higher price to reflect the additional fees), require Apple to allow changing defaults for certain app types, not allow Apple to advertise its services with push notifications unless there is a global a “opt out of Apple’s promotional notifications” setting, etc.

Just a shame that, IMO, the EU can’t restrain itself when it comes to regulating and went so far overboard they’re dictating APIs and handing out IP.

 

[AppliedMicro]

@surferfb

On a more conciliatory note, I’d probably agree with you on more things (about the DMA), if only I weren’t so weary and tired of Apple’s continued refusals to comply in good faith, their hypocrisy and using security/privacy as a pretext of maintaining their anticompetitive business model.

I was apprehensive of Apple’s monopoly on software distribution right from the very beginnings of iOS. And the longer it drags and (and particularly the longer their noncompliance with law and court orders continues), the more resentful of them I’ve grown.

The ability to install software from other sources and make transactions for digital goods elsewhere (other than solely through the OS developer) does not mean Apple can’t provide a well-integrated ecosystem and secure computing environment. macOS is proof of that. And neither am I buying into the idea about vulnerable people that don’t know what they’re doing then blaming Apple on purchases elsewhere. Or untrustworthy applications obtained elsewhere. No one has a mental concept of “everything must be bought through a platform operator” or “digital purchases are entirely different than real-world ones.


But yeah… the browser choice, I care less about (Safari is extendable after all).
And otherwise… I’m not even strictly opposed to Apple keeping a monopoly on app distribution to consumers through their App Store. And not even with Apple taking commission on in-app sales.

But there’s two things thing I believe government should tackle with regards to Apple’s ecosystem:
👉 There should be no discriminatory monopoly on any sales or subscription transactions and payment thereof
👉 Competition on related products/services should be non-discriminatory and on a level playing field.

If Apple wants to establish a monopoly on processing in-app transactions, I’m not strictly opposed. As long as they don’t discriminate between types of products/services, third party. Same rules for everyone. Could be payment through Apple Pay, for what I know.

And: given how few relevant OS/APIs/store platforms there are (a duopoly), OS developers should not have unfair advantages when it comes to related services or products they’re offering - particularly when they’re charging money for them.

Example: When Apple Music can be 30 percentage points cheaper and/or more profitable, cause they’re not paying Apple’s commission at arm’s length, that gives them an unfair advantage - and will, over the long term reduce competition in that market and stifle competition and innovation.

 

[Ctrlos]

The only reason Nokia was is the position to be purchased by Microsoft was they had stopped innovating and got their lunch eaten by Apple and Android.

Believe it or not, I'm actually in support of higher taxes in the US for things like healthcare. I fully support government regulation for health, safety, etc., and think healthcare is a human right. I just don't think "having an iPhone that can seamlessly connect to a Garmin watch when people who care about that feature can buy Android" rises to the level of necessary government regulation.


They're citing regulation as the reason they're leaving.


I'd argue the regulatory stance is incompatible with significant innovation.

I'm not a fan of Google, Meta, or Microsoft AT ALL, but would argue the EU goes too far in regulating them as well. Google's products are objectively worse in the EU because of it. Meta being told that "pay for not tracking" or "free with tracking" or "don't use" isn't actually a choice, and Meta has to offer "free without tracking" is patently ridiculous and is arguably worse than anything the EU has told Apple to do. And while I have serious qualms about how OpenAI trained its models, it's clearly in a legal grey area, and the cat is already out of the bag.

I do strongly disagree that "Apple lock-in practices" is 1) actually a thing and 2) even if a thing, something the EU should be regulating. If iOS had 72% of the market, or Android operated the same way, sure, regulate away. But iOS has 28% of the market, Android is open, and all the EU has done was say that consumers who want a closed ecosystem aren't allowed to have one because bureaucrats think they know better than Apple and its customers.

Try extracting your book purchases!

 

[Ctrlos]

I don’t agree there should be parity. Apple should manage it as they see fit and customers should buy as they see fit.

It's also the whole USBC thing all over again. They outright protest putting something they already sell in another product.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Believe it or not, there is an alternate universe where I largely support (or maybe more accurately, don’t oppose) a restrained DMA that banned anti-steering regulations (but allowed for proper compensation for use of Apple’s tools), allowed for alternate app stores (with a requirement that the App also has to be offered on the App Store if Apple wants to offer that app, at a higher price to reflect the additional fees), require Apple to allow changing defaults for certain app types, not allow Apple to advertise its services with push notifications unless there is a global a “opt out of Apple’s promotional notifications” setting, etc.

Just a shame that, IMO, the EU can’t restrain itself when it comes to regulating and went so far overboard they’re dictating APIs and handing out IP.

The issue is the question of compensation is already true. Apple is allowed any compensation for their tools. They can’t take payment for unrelated services. Example notice they haven’t been against the developer members fee. Considering Apple wanted to be compensated for offering alternative payments was fully unjustified for what they asked.

And secondly it’s impossible to force the apps on the AppStore because then you would require the abolishment of the store rules.

Apple would then need to be forced to sell apps they don’t don’t want to have on the store.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again - zero consideration for user experience. The user already selected their preferred browser, and you literally can’t use one until you go through the EU’s ridiculous screen. But make them do it again because Apple makes it. Apple should sue over that alone!

These people have no idea what they’re doing and are incredibly biased against Apple.

They’re not qualified to be making UX decisions.

Had Apple and Google not been so bad faith and intentionally preventing proper competition this wouldn’t be the case.

But Android and Apple both needs to provide the ability to choose your browser.

I for example like using safari belive it or not. But I nolonger use Mac and can’t use the same browser or the same Adblocking solutions makes this worse.

You think they are biased against Apple because you don’t know what actually happens against Google.

Vertical integration is what’s valued and the exclusive prevention of alternatives by ”locking” it is the issue because it’s baseless.

 

[Baslea]

I just dont get it why Apple behaves like a 5yrs old child. Just stick to the rules already, it's not like it's gonna hurt them much.

 

[I7guy]

I just dont get it why Apple behaves like a 5yrs old child. Just stick to the rules already, it's not like it's gonna hurt them much.

Because the DMA is crsp legilsation that is ambiguous and Apple is under an obligation to follow law in the best possible outcome. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because the DMA is crsp legilsation that is ambiguous and Apple is under an obligation to follow law in the best possible outcome. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp.

It’s close to crystal clear what you can’t do.

Of all the things that aren’t clearly defined Apple chose to break what’s clearly not allowed.

Interpreting For free as actually not meaning for free is impressively unintelligent of them.

 

[Baslea]

Because the DMA is crsp legilsation that is ambiguous and Apple is under an obligation to follow law in the best possible outcome. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp.

Okay, but it's not about what the DMA is and what not. That's okay, it's your opinion. EU citizens don't see it that way. But even if DMA was crp. So what? If Apple wants to operate in the EU they have to adapt, not the EU to Apple. Because guess what, unlike US (or what it's about to become) EU is still a democracy.

 

[I7guy]

Okay, but it's not about what the DMA is and what not. That's okay, it's your opinion. EU citizens don't see it that way. But even if DMA was crp. So what? If Apple wants to operate in the EU they have to adapt, not the EU to Apple. Because guess what, unlike US (or what it's about to become) EU is still a democracy.

Apple is not behaving like a 5 year old child is the point. They are defending their assets with what is crap legislation.

 

[Baslea]

Apple is not behaving like a 5 year old child is the point. They are defending their assets with what is crap legislation.

They are. If Apple (as you do) come to the conclusion the legislation in the EU is against their principles, they are free to leave. Refusing to adapt AND to leave dont really work out.