Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,494
30,736


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has criticized Apple's compliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulation, which forces Apple to let third-party developers create alternative App Stores and use their own payment systems, amongst other things.

App-Store-vs-EU-Feature-2.jpg

Speaking to investors on Thursday during Meta's Q4 earnings call, Zuckerberg called Apple's new rules "so onerous" that he would not be surprised if any developer adopted them.
"I don't think that the Apple thing is going to have any difference for us. Because I think that the way they have implemented it, I would be very surprised if any developer chose to go into the alternative app stores that they have. They've made it so onerous, and I think so at odds with the intent of what the EU regulation was, that I think it's just going to be very difficult for anyone, including ourselves, to really seriously entertain what they're doing there."
The introduction of the EU's DMA regulations were designed to increase competition in the bloc's app economy by allowing other companies to host their own app stores and collect payments, without them being subjected to Apple's commission rates. However, Apple has introduced a new fee structure as part of the change, including a €0.50 "Core Technology Fee" or CTF for every app install over one million installs, a model that could be prohibitively expensive for free apps like Meta's if they are distributed outside of the App Store.

Meta's comments broadly align with several other big companies critical of Apple's proposed DMA changes, including Spotify, Epic Games, Mozilla, and Microsoft.

Spotify CEO Daniel EK called Apple's plan "a complete and total farce" under "the false pretense of compliance and concessions." Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, another outspoken Apple critic, said that the ‌App Store‌ changes are a "devious new instance of malicious compliance" aimed at thwarting EU regulations. Microsoft said they are a "step in the wrong direction," while Mozilla said it was "extremely disappointed" and called the plans "another example of Apple creating barriers to prevent true browser competition on iOS."

EU regulators say they intend to study Apple's proposed plans after March 7, when the DMA goes into effect.

Article Link: Zuckerberg Calls Apple's DMA Compliance Changes 'Onerous' and 'Difficult to Seriously Entertain'
 

spyguy10709

macrumors 65816
Apr 5, 2010
1,007
659
One Infinite Loop, Cupertino CA
I agree Apple shouldn't be allowed a fee for app developers to use their technologies.

I assume Epic will let us use Unity Engine for free, Spotify will give us Premium for free ? Right ?
This is a pretty unlike comparison.

Here’s a better one - should a car manufacturer get a kickback for every gallon of gas you buy?

You already paid for your device. It wasn’t subsidized like a game console is, either. Apple limiting consumer choice through bogus fees is, well, bogus.
 

mdnz

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2010
510
1,888
The Netherlands
I agree Apple shouldn't be allowed a fee for app developers to use their technologies.

I assume Epic will let us use Unity Engine for free, Spotify will give us Premium for free ? Right ?

Agreed, they should also put fees on all Windows / Mac apps outside of the store
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,556
22,001
Singapore
The EU can pat themselves on the back for creating regulation so vague on specifics that Apple was able to do, well, this.
That has always been the problem with the DMA. It states that Apple can’t do X, and everyone here assumes Apple must do Y, but they instead end up doing Z, and then everyone acts all surprised.

It would be so funny if the EU does end up accepting Apple’s proposal after all. I have the intro speech by Thanos in infinity war all queued up and ready to go for this. :cool:
 

d5aqoëp

macrumors 68000
Feb 9, 2016
1,667
2,757
I agree Apple shouldn't be allowed a fee for app developers to use their technologies.

I assume Epic will let us use Unity Engine for free, Spotify will give us Premium for free ? Right ?
It's not like Apple heavily subsidizes their iPhones and iPads. Customers should have full choice to stick to Apple's App Store or install that elusive App which falls outside of Apple's walled garden rules and be self responsible for whatever havoc it causes on their phone. By your precious logic, Microsoft and Android should also stop sideloading any apps on Windows and Android because everyone has been leaching on Windows for nearly 30 years.
 

User 6502

macrumors 65816
Mar 6, 2014
1,066
3,916
The EU can pat themselves on the back for creating regulation so vague on specifics that Apple was able to do, well, this.
And Apple can pay themselves on the back for having highlighted most loopholes in one go so the EU can just amend the regulation to close them, as they will likely do soon enough. Regulations should never be more strict then they need to be, clearly Apple is a bad actor that needs stricter regulations than originally thought sufficient.
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2007
3,663
4,759
This is a pretty unlike comparison.

Here’s a better one - should a car manufacturer get a kickback for every gallon of gas you buy?

You already paid for your device. It wasn’t subsidized like a game console is, either. Apple limiting consumer choice through bogus fees is, well, bogus.
Here is a better one, you pay a tax for every road you use when you buy gas, pay for your annual registration, and drivers license.

And Apple can pay themselves on the back for having highlighted most loopholes in one go so the EU can just amend the regulation to close them, as they will likely do soon enough. Regulations should never be more strict then they need to be, clearly Apple is a bad actor that needs stricter regulations than originally thought sufficient.
Expect over regulation kills business.
 

ryan102

macrumors regular
Sep 27, 2009
180
168
Generally with the EU, they tend to make laws like this with a soft touch to begin with in the hopes that the companies it applies to would do the right thing on their own. That means not just following the law but also follow the spirit it was written in & what it was trying to achieve.

Apple has decided to ignore that and gone intentionally out of its way to find loopholes to bypass what they knew was the goal.

I'd imagine what will happen now is other companies/developers will continue to complain. The EU will then warn Apple and if they don't then backdown, the EU will legislate much tougher to the point where Apple will likely face significant fines to their annual turnover unless they comply.
 

CharlesShaw

macrumors 65816
May 8, 2015
1,489
2,307
This is a pretty unlike comparison.

Here’s a better one - should a car manufacturer get a kickback for every gallon of gas you buy?

You already paid for your device. It wasn’t subsidized like a game console is, either. Apple limiting consumer choice through bogus fees is, well, bogus.
If the car manufacturer was essentially held responsible for ensuring that any purchased gas doesn’t harm the car, then I think the fee would be fair.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: koil and 75Batt

gvanvoor

macrumors member
Oct 24, 2013
41
130
Does the word "entertain" have more meanings than the one I know (i.e. provide amusement) ? Because in that context I fail to see how Zuckerberg would entertain what apple is doing...
 

MasterControlProgram

macrumors regular
May 5, 2022
106
349
This is a pretty unlike comparison.

Here’s a better one - should a car manufacturer get a kickback for every gallon of gas you buy?

You already paid for your device. It wasn’t subsidized like a game console is, either. Apple limiting consumer choice through bogus fees is, well, bogus.

Except with Apple you aren't just buying the hardware, you're paying for the OS and software too. Apple's whole business proposition is the tight integration and optimisation of their hardware and software.

For your analogy to work, the car manufacturer would be making constant improvements to the fuel put into the car but getting nothing back for doing it.
 

springsup

macrumors 65816
Feb 14, 2013
1,222
1,209
Customers should have full choice to stick to Apple's App Store or install that elusive App which falls outside of Apple's walled garden rules and be self responsible for whatever havoc it causes on their phone. By your precious logic, Microsoft and Android should also stop sideloading any apps on Windows and Android

You probably think that this is a strong argument, but IMO it’s really very much the opposite.

Windows is rife with malware. Whether it’s preinstalled crap from OEMs (remember Bonzi Buddy?), ransomware taking down entire organisations, apps mining bitcoin in the background, or major corporations like Sony insisting that you install rootkits to listen to music.

It was very difficult for non-technical people to navigate that minefield and use their computer with confidence. We used to just accept that computers and internet access come with huge risks, and blame people as being too stupid when they fell victim to this crap.

Mobile OSes were a breath of fresh air. For many people, they’re the first computers they have really been able to use, and they achieve that by treating security as a platform issue and limiting the harm users can do to themselves.

Android is better than Windows PCs, but again it’s only because the vast majority of people stick to the default options like the Google Play store, and Google give certain popular apps (like Spotify) sweetheart deals to not actually use any of the platform’s “openness” and join competing stores.
 

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,477
4,264
I agree Apple shouldn't be allowed a fee for app developers to use their technologies.

I assume Epic will let us use Unity Engine for free, Spotify will give us Premium for free ? Right ?

Meta is going one further by giving every user 85% of the revenue generated by all the content they post...

If the fees are so bad, why doesn't Meta just go back to being a data hoovering web app?

This is a pretty unlike comparison.

Here’s a better one - should a car manufacturer get a kickback for every gallon of gas you buy?

More like the manufacturer's mapping system sends drivers to your station in exchange for a cut. Don't want a to share a cut? Stay off their mp.

You already paid for your device. It wasn’t subsidized like a game console is, either.

Why should subsidized devices be treated differently? That would mean locking printers to only cartridges approved and licensed by the manufacturer could be used would be ok, right?

Apple limiting consumer choice through bogus fees is, well, bogus.

First of , developers can opt to stick with the current system. Secondly, sideloading should allow developers to completely forgo using Apple's infrastructure beyond the iPhone, much like on the Mac, and owe nothing.

In the end, developers should be able to completely forgo the App Store and access to its user base in exchange for paying nothing, beyond perhaps a fee to use Apple's currently free developer tools.

Then they can decide what is the best deal for them. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

So the Apple move is evil even by the standards of Mark Zuckerberg :)

I suspect he thinks anything that limit's Meta's ability to make money is evil. He also blamed Apple for allowing under age users access to his platforms.

Apple has decided to ignore that and gone intentionally out of its way to find loopholes to bypass what they knew was the goal.

Well, nothing in the DMA says a gatekeeper has to provide free access to its infrastructure and tools; proper implementation of sideloading would allow free competition from companies that want to completely forgo Apple's infrastructure and provide their own alternative store or distribution channel.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.