Well not for nothing, but at least on here on average the number of Europeans who think that EU law should apply globally is significantly lower than the number of Americans who are angry that EU law applies to US companies operating in the EU.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS Apps From Alternative Marketplaces Can Be Updated for 30 Days Outside of EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well not for nothing, but at least on here on average the number of Europeans who think that EU law should apply globally is significantly lower than the number of Americans who are angry that EU law applies to US companies operating in the EU.
That wasn’t my original point. I was responding to someone about something specific they said. I don’t like that they are doing this. I think it’s funny most of the time when Apple is petty, but this is ridiculous.
I think that is the last resort of any governmental organization if a company does not comply with the regulations. Apple is not yet non compliant. It is just trying I guess to test out what is acceptable to the point of maybe having people running out of patience by presenting nonsensical solutions. I think they know very well the intent of it all. They will have plenty of time to think all this through.
I'm just responding to the so called new born Apple supporters that defend the idea of Apple chasing all the holes possible in the regulation trying regulators patience. In the end, there is a time limit for compliance.
I suppose the regulation provides plenty of leeway for different approaches to the DMA, but in the end day will need to comply with the security spirit of it ... I don't think it does at the moment. Apple proposal still gives it all cards in terms of vetoing each and any App for whatever reason ... because they aren't really specific about in which instances apps can be vetoed by them ... in can be because of Pink Elephants at the moment I suppose. This added to what I mentioned above about the proposed ability to restrict EU citizens access to their own digital assets on their own device regardless of the licensing agreement sold by third party businesses.
I don't think it will be good for Apple and the Gatekeepers at large if they pretend to understand nothing about it, forcing regulators to be very very specific about what is a an computing device OS compliant with the DMA.
Last edited:
Well you bought all that Apple tech using your knowledge and decided, using free will, to do so.
We've all made bad purchase decisions.
You knew what you were buying. After 15 years of iPhones, how could you not?
The rest of your tangential info probably only backs up the case for you to move.
You are't happy so go explore those other options. You'll be happier. And we will be happy for you.
And Apple makes 15 - 30 % of it. Not to mention all the attorney fees and other expenses. And also more costs coming from what seems like a very long battle. And not to mention Apple's costs in developing and maintaining the App Store, dev tools etc. Make no mistake, this hurts Apple financially. They can afford it. But it still hurts.
the EU didnt know as much as they thought they did about tax Avoidance and Apple won that one.
this shame that is DMA is nothing about customers.
it's about a few whinging companies.
what constitutes a "new born apple supporter" exactly?
Apple is not pretending to not understand the DMA. They are responding to the words exactly in a way that benefits them and keep as much control of their environment. This saga has been going for years. The EU already narrowed the focus to a simple antisteering wording. Not what Spotify or Epic wanted as theyve already started whinging again. And in Epics case, banned again and then reinstated. They will continue to push limits and surprise noone when they get booted again.
You might want to read the ignoring licences. Even the EU is very specific about cases you can ignore them. Abandonware and bugs the devs wont fix that rely upon. not just because you want to...
Apple did not avoid taxes. They simply chosen the EU country that offered them the best business and import tax deal. This while taking as advantage of free circulation of good and accounting HQ. This is by design. Each country is free to apply their own tax policy.
Now some countries got upset because they were offering a way larger number of business deals while not collecting much local business tax over the products and services being sold to their citizens. Hence not contributing as well to their economy and presented their case to the EU parliament and justice system. EU institutions just made their due diligence on that matter.
There isn’t much more than that. After this was a proposal after for a global taxation governance restrict this ability that failed to pass. It wasn't just regarding Apple, but also Amazon and many others. So it was not a case open specifically for Apple.
This case is different because it comes directly from the EU parliament and management. With the added circumstance that member countries are already fining Apple for some of their anti-competitive practices.
This will take some time, but if you think the application of the DMA will take years and years and years think twice. Historically that hasn't ben the case. Granted it does not take months. Now is up to the regulators to consider if the Apple approach is compliant or not with the regulation and its intent. If any loop holes are found to be exploited against the intent of the regulation, the regulation will change to cover them.
Last edited:
I mean, shouldn’t the regulators simply have been clearer upfront about just what it is they want Apple to do in order to comply with the DMA?
For example, there is this debate whether Apple is supposed to offer sideloading, third party app stores, or is free to choose either because of that “or” in the DMA. When I initially pointed this out, I was summarily dismissed as having read it incorrectly, but it seems like Apple also arrived at a similar conclusion and is choosing to allow only third party app stores and not sideloading as we know it.
If I recall correctly, there is also nothing in the DMA expressly prohibiting Apple from monetising their IP, hence the introduction of the core technology fee because the absence of iTunes means Apple has no way of tracking how much revenue an App Store brings in, so they can only charge a flat fee based on the number of app downloads, which I assume Apple is still able to monitor.
Maybe not entirely what the EU had in mind, but then again, nothing expressly prohibiting it either.
Obviously, one solution would be to err on the side of caution and implement the DMA in the most generous manner possible, but that would also mean making the biggest concessions by Apple. I mean, if any of you were Apple, wouldn’t you try to adhere as closely to the letter of the rule of the DMA, while giving up as little as possible?
If the EU won’t delineate where the boundaries are, then Apple will just have to discover them for itself via trial and error, and I expect a lot more “errors” along the way.
Don’t think other Gatekeeper are having such as hard time with it.
It does not take much understanding to come with the conclusion that blocking people from using their properties bought legally is not the way foreword.
Apple just backed from revoking Epic account. I guess it’s a learning process.
I would suggest you to read the DMA. Specifically the part focused on Gatekeepers operating systems:
"(50) The rules that a gatekeeper sets for the distribution of software applications can, in certain circumstances, restrict the ability of end users to install and effectively use third-party software applications or software application stores on hardware or operating systems of that gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access such software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions can limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair and liable to weaken the contestability of core platform services. To ensure contestability, the gatekeeper should furthermore allow the third-party software applications or software application stores to prompt the end user to decide whether that service should become the default and enable that change to be carried out easily."
So basically is stating when it comes to the ability of distributing, installing and selling and selling apps, no close business models as implemented for instance by iOS are allowed to be pursued by Gatekeepers through the platforms enumerated by the DMA. Other distribution channels, means any other legal well known distributions channels. This of course including direct order and download from the developer site as well as retail services.
"In order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, it should be possible for the gatekeeper concerned to implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system. The integrity of the hardware or the operating system should include any design options that need to be implemented and maintained in order for the hardware or the operating system to be protected against unauthorised access, by ensuring that security controls specified for the hardware or the operating system concerned cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in order to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not undermine end users’ security, it should be possible for the gatekeeper to implement strictly necessary and proportionate measures and settings, other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures and settings are strictly necessary and justified and that there are no less-restrictive means to achieve that goal. The gatekeeper should be prevented from implementing such measures as a default setting or as pre-installation."
So basically is stating is stating that any security measures beyond the defaults used by first party software, should be disabled and given only as an option to be enabled if the user so pleases were third party software is concerned.
It kind of reminds me of how macOS approaches the issue.
"(51)
Gatekeepers are often vertically integrated and offer certain products or services to end users through their own core platform services, or through a business user over which they exercise control which frequently leads to conflicts of interest. This can include the situation whereby a gatekeeper provides its own online intermediation services through an online search engine. When offering those products or services on the core platform service, gatekeepers can reserve a better position, in terms of ranking, and related indexing and crawling, for their own offering than that of the products or services of third parties also operating on that core platform service. This can occur for instance with products or services, including other core platform services, which are ranked in the results communicated by online search engines, or which are partly or entirely embedded in online search engines results, groups of results specialised in a certain topic, displayed along with the results of an online search engine, which are considered or used by certain end users as a service distinct or additional to the online search engine.
Other instances are those of software applications which are distributed through software application stores, or videos distributed through a video-sharing platform, or products or services that are given prominence and display in the newsfeed of an online social networking service, or products or services ranked in search results or displayed on an online marketplace, or products or services offered through a virtual assistant. Such reserving of a better position of gatekeeper’s own offering can take place even before ranking following a query, such as during crawling and indexing. For example, already during crawling, as a discovery process by which new and updated content is being found, as well as indexing, which entails storing and organising of the content found during the crawling process, the gatekeeper can favour its own content over that of third parties. In those circumstances, the gatekeeper is in a dual-role position as intermediary for third-party undertakings and as undertaking directly providing products or services. Consequently, such gatekeepers have the ability to undermine directly the contestability for those products or services on those core platform services, to the detriment of business users which are not controlled by the gatekeeper."
The the case defined ...
So the regulation for such cases ....
| (52) | In such situations, the gatekeeper should not engage in any form of differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking on the core platform service, and related indexing and crawling, whether through legal, commercial or technical means, in favour of products or services it offers itself or through a business user which it controls. To ensure that this obligation is effective, the conditions that apply to such ranking should also be generally fair and transparent. Ranking should in this context cover all forms of relative prominence, including display, rating, linking or voice results and should also include instances where a core platform service presents or communicates only one result to the end user. To ensure that this obligation is effective and cannot be circumvented, it should also apply to any measure that has an equivalent effect to the differentiated or preferential treatment in ranking. The guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 should also facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this obligation. |
| (53) | Gatekeepers should not restrict or prevent the free choice of end users by technically or otherwise preventing switching between or subscription to different software applications and services. This would allow more undertakings to offer their services, thereby ultimately providing greater choice to the end users. Gatekeepers should ensure a free choice irrespective of whether they are the manufacturer of any hardware by means of which such software applications or services are accessed and should not raise artificial technical or other barriers so as to make switching impossible or ineffective. The mere offering of a given product or service to consumers, including by means of pre-installation, as well as the improvement of the offering to end users, such as price reductions or increased quality, should not be construed as constituting a prohibited barrier to switching. |
...
You can read the rest. I don't understand how much clearer it can be without being extremely technical.
It's quite obvious that the restriction that initiated this thread does limit contestability of the gatekeeper services operating in Europe. Apple imposes no so such restrictions targeting users with accounts on other countries. It is designed just for digital goods and services obtained using alternative distribution channels. Giving of course an edge to the Apple App Store distribution channel, limiting its contestability.
Sorry to rock your parade around how unclear is the regulation.
For me is quite clear that the solutions Apple is coming with do not comply with the regulation. Of course the company will heard … but to be honest I have no idea what goes on the company mind regarding the regulation. It looks off …
Will see how this goes.
Last edited:
But the bottom line is EU overreached on tax.
This is no different.
theyve already scaled back on what Spotify complained about and cut most of it out.
How the EU can justify 2B fine based on WHOLE WORLD income.
The EU has jurisdiction over their territory and should have worked their fine on the impact to that market: 25% of Apples profit. And perhaps lower based on the actual income Apps generate or iOS.
you cant defend something that overreaches.
EDIT to make it even simpler.
In the US the state opens several legal cases against private entities every year. These entities go to court and sometimes win the cases, other times the state wins. Guess what, in the EU also. The example you point falls in this context. It just shows that the system works.
So what is your bottom line really? That Apple because of a case than won should be allowed to practice in the EU without conforming with the DMA or whatever future regulations that might be?
I don't understand your connection otherwise.
This a totally silly point of view, it is comparing apples with pasta or something. What is being discussed is a different thing. This is not a tax case. Heck, is not even a case.
Than you mention another situation, brought just this month that lead Apple to be fined around $1.7b. Value that you errounesly contextualized as if it came from world wide revenue. I would advise you to check what the the revenue that Apple makes in the EU ... around $94b in 2023.
The DMA is a new regulation applicable to all companies. In the end companies will need to comply if they are interested in participating in the EU platform. Whether they are EU native or not. If the measures provided by Apple for conforming are considered compliant to the regulation it's done. If not, they will need to bring those measures into compliance to play in that platform. Otherwise will be fined ... and eventually sales will be suspended until it complies.
That is all there is to it.
Now you are stating that the DMD, this new regulation, is legally overreaching. What specifically EU law you have in mind that the DMA is crossing over?
You also stated that the regulation is not clear enough. What in the DMA regulation is not clear to you? The best way for you to to get clarification if you have difficulties in understanding it, is write to them. There are procedures in place for that matter.
Will see if the new case brought against Apple pertaining the $2B fine as a legal basis to not ... I am sure it will be brought up to the court. In the EU the courts don't make laws or regulations, they simply apply the law. In this case, they will simply check, if the law or regulation was broken by Apple or not. If not, they are safe from the fine. If they broke it ... oh dear.
As its seams, the relationship between the EU and big tech is pretty good except with Apple. Not because it deserves special treatment, but because the company seams not to be willing to comply at all. The market looks to be already reacting to this apparent unwillingness. Will see if it is just apparent.
So Apple found a wall to their business model. A wall 1000 bigger than they are. The approach of Apple execs regarding such a wall seam to be one of throwing themselves against it and see if it breaks. Its crazy.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Wow triggered much?
It’s historic fact the EU tried tax evasion on Apple and lost.
They overreached. And the fine this time around is laughable for the same reason.
Are you talking the Irish tax case?
That's a different scenario- that's a case of underpayment of tax to Ireland, because the arrangement Apple and Ireland came to was in breach of EU regulations, effectively amounting to illegal State aid.
It's more of a slap on the wrist for Ireland than Apple, for letting that happen. However, the taxes need to be paid, so Apple has to pay it back. It's not a fine - it's a tax demand.
I don't agree with it. The Irish government doesn't agree with it, and voted to reject repayment. However State aid is one area where EU states have pooled sovereignty in order to to achieve a level playing field and fair market by not giving companies unfair advantages over others. Other countries have had similar situations - Apples just happens to be the biggest by far.
Last edited:
Apple also lost other cases against them. Win some, loose some.
Can you remain on topic?
I am happy to discuss the other topics but it seams that the moment I pasted the letter of the regulation you become uncomfortable and started bringing other topics to the table.
Apple idea is that other distribution channels means other App Stores of the kind... which is not what the regulations states ...
The DMA makes it clear that that Gatekeepers will not be allowed closed business trade models around operating systems and devices in the EU. This affects all Gatekeepers that pursue such models, now and in the future. Apple iOS is just one of them.
Some here consider this an overreach of the EU on private properties. Others that it is the EU attacking American companies. Others that its EU siphoning money.
But the reality is that DMA regulation is in place to prevent entire EU digital economy to fall under the governance, control and policies of an handful of private companies. To the point that any business to start selling their digital goods or services need permission from one of these. That is one of the reason why ISP were regulated for instance. Companies such as Apple are attempting once again to do that using other mechanisms and similar moral stances.
It's quite clear that new regulations are necessary making sure that any private company or citizen have safe and non disclosure conditions to legally sell their software and digital services directly to their customers if they ever so please through the device of a customer choice. To legally buy their digital good, services and devices from whoever for whatever device they choose to use and distribution channel. Making sure that citizens properties are safe from siphoning retail practices from companies designing the ability to access the goods and services that they do not own, anytime, anywhere, with a touch of a button.
At the moment iOS is the anti-thesis of this. To sell, you need first disclose your entire business details to a a competitor or potential competitor. From pricing to function and agree to fully disclose who your customers are, each sale done across time. Then, agree with the fact that your competitor or potential competitor can simply block you from selling for whatever present and future reason it decides to put on their policies. Finally share 15%-30% of your revenue. On top, users need to agree to pay for it through a specific channel, provide them all your transaction details, downloads, installations, including usage data.
So not doing the DMA, allowing this practice at scale it is clear presents a security threat to businesses and citizens in general. Heck even governments. Everyone would be at the mercy of the good will of a handful of companies.
In other words, the DMA is here so that the digital economy behaves much like bricks and mortar businesses in terms of assuring that peoples and businesses goods and information is protected, yet with the benefits of the digital.
It's a well known fact that when companies reach great control levels, prices tend to rise, there is an implicit property transfer from one to the controller, it has happened and it is already happening. The average price of App Store goods rose 500% in 5 years. The rule opening this thread is just an example of user property transfer to Apple. As I pointed out, simple wallpaper applications can cost has much as 6 euros a week. This costs are fundamentally hidden in layers of App Store practices ... try and find out the pricing of something before downloading the App ... it's hidden and in cases is not even accurate. Its crazy.
Now Apple has been campaigning to its crowed and the general population that the way for a property safe and data privacy driven future is their way. Their crowed have been campaigning that that governments are incompetents in the matter of technology and markets. That are incompetents in creating an environment safe for its citizens. That everyone is at risk if not for Apple, iOS and their policies. That they save lives after all, the last cola in the desert and so on. That democracies and the rule of law do not mater, what maters are what they call voting through one’s wallet ... the rule of money.
Disregarding an entire reality, that is, "Hey Apple, look around, you just made a very good smartphone, that is all". It is indeed a miracle that a company got itself to be the most profitable company in the world just by doing that ... get out of this bubble look around how many fundamental, life saving, human inventions you see and use every day ... its incredible isn't it? Actually notice that Apple existence is made possible by regulations such as the ones they now contest as unfair to them. That is it!!!!
If you look closely at the iOS ecosystem at a large scale and rationally there is little that is safe and private in their way for citizens and businesses if not for themselves. If its business model is legally legitimized at scale it will be spread across multiple companies putting everyone's properties but the Gatekeepers in jeopardy. This future would be actually quite haunting.
So there you go. The goal of the DMA as I see it in a nutshell.
Cheers.
Last edited:
It's very simple. The "whole world" income is just to scale the fine to the magnitude of the company. It would be no different to saying "a fine based on the European income scaled by the inverse of the European share of income in the world". It's just a number, just not extremely technical.
Companies may either accept the fine as it is or leave the EU.
That's more than some irony to reading this from a user (you) that apparently is from the U.S. of A. - the country most notorious in the world for believing (and often enforcing) it's own laws around the world.
Apple's lawyers meanwhile: "But, but, but.... the U.S. judgement gives Apple the right (at its sole discretion) to terminate that developer account in Europe".
It is not even taking into account the magnitude of the company business outside the EU. As I've said just last year was approximately $94b in revenue in the EU. So the statement that is based on the WHOLE WORLD income is false.
Anyway, the fundamental question is ... did it break any laws or regulations? If yes, there is a fine. If not, there isn't. Beyond certain level fines solve nothing. People start arguing that fines are obscene, forgetting the profits that were driven by the potential illegalities if found ilegal, so on and so forth.
Last edited:
It's not. Certainly not "historic" - because history will remember the final outcome of it.
It's fact that the final ruling on this is still pending:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ent-suffer-major-setback-in-13bn-eu-tax-case/
So much for that:
"iGBA is able to load any Game Boy ROMs that users download from the web and open via the Files app on the iPhone. Accordingly, it seems like there are no game restrictions for emulators"
Game Boy Emulator for iPhone Now Available in App Store Following Rule Change
A week after Apple updated its App Review Guidelines to permit retro game console emulators, a Game Boy emulator for the iPhone called iGBA has...
www.macrumors.com
After all the whinging about emulator games and Apple protecting ROMs being removed, we still get whinging...
Apple relenting is all about removing the single biggest reason people (in EU) were going to invest in Alt App Stores.
Apple have conceded to allow what they used to protect because it makes business sense now the EU forced their hand.
Apple making this worldwide probably also reduces the push in other countries to have these stores available.
So all the income that could have been generated and is now lost can thank the EU...
Apple relenting is all about removing the single biggest reason people (in EU) were going to invest in Alt App Stores.
Apple have conceded to allow what they used to protect because it makes business sense now the EU forced their hand.
Apple making this worldwide probably also reduces the push in other countries to have these stores available.
So all the income that could have been generated and is now lost can thank the EU...