Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Apple

Shameless Insult, Malicious Compliance, Junk Fees, Extortion Regime: Industry Reacts To Apple's Proposed Changes Over Digital Markets Act 255

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
In response to new EU regulations, Apple on Thursday outlined plans to allow iOS developers to distribute apps outside the App Store starting in March, though developers must still submit apps for Apple's review and pay commissions. Now critics say the changes don't go far enough and Apple retains too much control.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney: They are forcing developers to choose between App Store exclusivity and the store terms, which will be illegal under DMA (Digital Markets Act), or accept a new also-illegal anticompetitive scheme rife with new Junk Fees on downloads and new Apple taxes on payments they don't process. 37signals's David Heinemeier Hansson, who is also the creator of Ruby on Rails: Let's start with the extortion regime that'll befell any large developer who might be tempted to try hosting their app in one of these new alternative app stores that the EU forced Apple to allow. And let's take Meta as a good example. Their Instagram app alone is used by over 300 million people in Europe. Let's just say for easy math there's 250 million of those in the EU. In order to distribute Instagram on, say, a new Microsoft iOS App Store, Meta would have to pay Apple $11,277,174 PER MONTH(!!!) as a "Core Technology Fee." That's $135 MILLION DOLLARS per year. Just for the privilege of putting Instagram into a competing store. No fee if they stay in Apple's App Store exclusively.

Holy shakedown, batman! That might be the most blatant extortion attempt ever committed to public policy by any technology company ever. And Meta has many successful apps! WhatsApp is even more popular in Europe than Instagram, so that's another $135M+/year. Then they gotta pay for the Facebook app too. There's the Messenger app. You add a hundred million here and a hundred million there, and suddenly you're talking about real money! Even for a big corporation like Meta, it would be an insane expense to offer all their apps in these new alternative app stores.

Which, of course, is the entire point. Apple doesn't want Meta, or anyone, to actually use these alternative app stores. They want everything to stay exactly as it is, so they can continue with the rake undisturbed. This poison pill is therefore explicitly designed to ensure that no second-party app store ever takes off. Without any of the big apps, there will be no draw, and there'll be no stores. All of the EU's efforts to create competition in the digital markets will be for nothing. And Apple gets to send a clear signal: If you interrupt our tool-booth operation, we'll make you regret it, and we'll make you pay. Don't resist, just let it be. Let's hope the EU doesn't just let it be. Coalition of App Fairness, an industry body that represents over 70 firms including Tinder, Spotify, Proton, Tile, and News Media Europe: "Apple clearly has no intention to comply with the DMA. Apple is introducing new fees on direct downloads and payments they do nothing to process, which violates the law. This plan does not achieve the DMA's goal to increase competition and fairness in the digital market -- it is not fair, reasonable, nor non-discriminatory," said Rick VanMeter, Executive Director of the Coalition for App Fairness.

"Apple's proposal forces developers to choose between two anticompetitive and illegal options. Either stick with the terrible status quo or opt into a new convoluted set of terms that are bad for developers and consumers alike. This is yet another attempt to circumvent regulation, the likes of which we've seen in the United States, the Netherlands and South Korea. Apple's 'plan' is a shameless insult to the European Commission and the millions of European consumers they represent -- it must not stand and should be rejected by the Commission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shameless Insult, Malicious Compliance, Junk Fees, Extortion Regime: Industry Reacts To Apple's Proposed Changes Over Digital Ma More

Shameless Insult, Malicious Compliance, Junk Fees, Extortion Regime: Industry Reacts To Apple's Proposed Changes Over Digital Ma

Comments Filter:

  • The bigger they are... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @09:14AM (#64189334)

    The more evil they become.

    And despite the fact that there is clear evidence in Apple's own ecosystem (Mac app store) that this can be done securely, the Apple apologists will do whatever mental gymnastics they can to justify this shitty rent-seeking behavior on the part of Apple.

    • apple was evil when it was small.

      • Yep, people like to forget that the jobs intentionally made decisions to make the Macintosh less upgradable in order to cause users to buy new machines instead. He saw what having expansion slots did with the apple 2 line (let people buy third party expansion devices) and wanted to put a stop to that. The modern apple devices are his wet dream made real.

  • Not seeing the issue... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBC1977 ( 978793 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @09:23AM (#64189352) Journal
    I'm not an Apple fan by no stretch... but I absolutely understand that if a private entity built a bridge (with private money) and want to charge others to use said named bridge. They have every right. Apple owns their ecosystem - top to bottom. This isn't a hard concept. They built it, they make the rules.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by short ( 66530 )
      The problem is Apple has a market monopoly (or a duopoly with Google but that is also not completely true). It was difficult for them to get the monopoly but without any regulations there will be no competition anymore which is bad for the consumer as Apple then can keep high prices and low quality of their products and still own the market. why monopolies should be regulated [google.com] search

    • an toll road can't not control the brands of cars allowed to drive on it.
      an private parking lot can not control the brands of cars allowed to use it.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Robert1 ( 513674 )

        Absolutely they can. A private road or a private parking lot can make up whatever rules it wants."For paying customers only" "For Ferrari's Only" "No tresspassing".

        You can do whatever you want. It isn't private property.

        • Re:an private parking lot can not control the bran (Score:5, Insightful)

          by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @10:17AM (#64189486)

          Absolutely they can. A private road or a private parking lot can make up whatever rules it wants."For paying customers only" "For Ferrari's Only" "No tresspassing".

          When private entities offer services to the public they necessarily lose some rights to do as they damn well please in exchange. This is because there is contravening public interests that must be weighed against the interests of the property owners.

        • private parking lot can not enforce handicap parking them selfs in some states / areas. In them the local government is the one to deal with the enforcement

        • And yet a phone is private property - it's not Apple's. It's more like a car maker trying to tell you what parking lots you can park in and actively trying to prevent your car from entering other lots. The parking lot owners own the lots but you own your car.

        • ... or more realistically "No LPG cars", "No electric cars".

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by taustin ( 171655 )

          Absolutely they can. A private road or a private parking lot can make up whatever rules it wants."For paying customers only" "For Ferrari's Only" "No tresspassing".

          How well do you think they'd do with "no black people" or "no Jews"?

          No, they can't make up 'whatever rules they want."

          There is a distinction between "private property" and "private property with public accommodations." And it's an important distinction.

      • "Can't"? They "don't", as it'd generally be a poor business decision for a toll road or parking lot operator. I'm not aware of any law that says I couldn't open a private parking lot and refuse to allow Hondas to park in it, if I was feeling capricious.

      • Can you prove that?

        You're telling me that I can't only let BMWs park on my lot during game days?

    • Re:Not seeing the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @09:42AM (#64189406) Journal

      but I absolutely understand that if a private entity built[...]

      No, you don't understand. Companies have a lot of latitude unless they are big enough to have a distorting effect on the market. At that point, things that are perfectly legal and fine for a small company become an anti trust issue.

      They have every right.

      They do not.

      Apple owns their ecosystem - top to bottom.

      Again no, they do not, not all the way down. The Apple "ecosystem" does not exist independently of the laws of the juristictions in which it operates. The very existence of Apple is granted by those laws. The protections they have and the systems they operated only exist because the system of laws has set up an environment where they can exist.

      Apple want all the protection of the laws with none of the protections given to other people by the laws.

      They built it, they make the rules.

      How does that not in your head cut both ways? They didn't build the EU and they don't get to make the rules. The EU absolutely has the right to make whatever laws it wants...

      • How does that not in your head cut both ways? They didn't build the EU and they don't get to make the rules. The EU absolutely has the right to make whatever laws it wants...

        How would you feel about the EU deciding that it was for the good of the people for them to start "making rules" and nationalizing the means of production? After all, those businesses they're taking expropriating only exist because the EU, by its good graces, created the environment in which they were able to exist in the first place!

        I recognize I've created a strawman of your argument. My point is that strong private property rights are a fundamental underpinning of modern liberal society. Businesses

        • Re:Not seeing the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by VMaN ( 164134 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @10:47AM (#64189544) Homepage

          > My point is that strong private property rights are a fundamental underpinning of modern liberal society.

          Absolutely. People who spent money on a device should be able to run the software of their choice on their property. That overrides any sort of "but mah ecosystem" consideration.

        • Eh?

          It sounds like you're agreeing. Businesses have rights, just not unlimited ones.

          Maybe instead of imposing conditions on three apple ecosystem, they should just jump straight to splitting apple up small enough that there are no anti trust problems.

          But yes private property rights exist, but they're are also laws to protect citizens and small companies from predations of larger ones.

          Sand as for nationalising the means of production. I don't live in the EU, but there a few things the government ought to re n

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flink ( 18449 )

          How would you feel about the EU deciding that it was for the good of the people for them to start "making rules" and nationalizing the means of production?

          Sounds great, when do we start?

        • How would you feel about the EU deciding that it was for the good of the people for them to start "making rules" and nationalizing the means of production?

          You talk about the EU as if it was some dictatorship instead of a democratically elected institution passing laws through a parliament and an EC chosen by the people. So with that in mind, if the EU decided to nationalise the means of production I would fully support it, given that they are a democracy and thus enacting the will of the people.

          But all of this is irrelevant anyway. This isn't an EU vs others argument. What Apple is doing falls afoul of antitrust laws the world over. The EU isn't even the firs

    • Re:Not seeing the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wildstoo ( 835450 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @09:43AM (#64189410)

      Bridge analogy is idiotic, but let's run with it.

      Company A builds a bridge. Company A also builds cars. Company A sells millions of cars and says "If you want to cross the bridge, you have to use one of our cars and you have to pay a toll."

      Company B comes along and builds a different bridge that goes to the same place, but charges lower tolls and invites company A's cars to use it. Some car owners would rather use that bridge. Company A says "You can use that bridge, but Company B has to pay us every time one of our cars crosses it."

      Company B says that Company A's customers should be able to use whatever bridge they want without Company A taking money from them. Company A laughs and wipes its ass on a European flag.

      • To continue the idiocy, it’s more like Company A builds a mice bridge to an island with lots of people who buy stuff. Company B loves selling its products there but doesn’t like paying a tool. So they get the government to let them build a bridge and store; but they realize most of the people will still shop with A so they want A to provide directions to their store. A says OK but for every customer, if more than a million, we direct to you, you must pay us 50 cents per year; anything you sell

    • Sure, but to extend your analogy:

      Apple builds a bridge and charges people to cross it. Then a law is passed allowing the construction of another bridge. Apple then says, "we are going to charge people that cross that bridge too"

    • I'm not an Apple fan by no stretch... but I absolutely understand that if a private entity built a bridge (with private money) and want to charge others to use said named bridge. They have every right. Apple owns their ecosystem - top to bottom. This isn't a hard concept. They built it, they make the rules.

      The Apple app store is not a closed ecosystem owned by Apple top to bottom. If it were I would agree with you. It's a large marketplace where millions of developers sell their products. Government has a legitimate interest in regulating markets to balance the rights and interests of the various parties.

      All Apple needs to do is get rid of all third party software on its store and just produce or contract the production of its own apps then they can set whatever rules for the sale of their own products the

    • You want to sell your junk in my jurisdiction, I make the rules.

      This isn't a hard concept.

    • Apple owns the ecosystem (of which the phone design is a part). They don't own the phone. When you buy something, it's yours. That payment is final.

    • What does a third party app store or independent software developer have to do with Apple's precious ecosystem? This is like Chevy trying to charge me 27% tax on any shopping I do that involves driving my Chevy vehicle.

  • they also need to find people in Ireland who are locked out due to apple saying they are in north Ireland

  • and was wondering if I read it correctly. This is just going back to court, but in the meantime Apple will hold off 3rd party apps and stores for another 3-5 years. Europe used to know better than allow this kinda nonsense. Their banking laws, for example, are full of clauses that basically say "if you try to get around this law with legal trickery you're still guilty and we're still gonna punish you".
    • Here is the fee: https://developer.apple.com/su... [apple.com] It should have been in the summary. If I read it correctly, they are charging app developers €0.50 for each iOS owner that installs or upgrades the app via a 3rd party store (except for the first million/year, which is free). The fee is charged at most once per year, so multiple upgrades within a year are charged only once.
  • How about everyone just stop putting their apps in the apple garden all together? That would be pretty funny if all of a sudden if iphones had no apps. Obviously they aren't going to do that because of the numbers. Something something vicious circle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RedK ( 112790 )

      Most of the apps in the AppStore are junk nowadays anyway, doubt anyone would notice.

  • I worked on writing software for tax compliance for many years, and the reason I stopped is because the wack-a-mole nature of regulations created to circumvent tax avoidance schemes had rendered the tax code unintelligible. It simply was not possible to compute some aspects of the tax code. I would go to the human experts and ask them how to calculate a certain number, and their answer would be, "well, it depends; how aggressive do you want to be?"

    It sounds like we have a similar situation here. Apple is ju

  • Scammers Paradise (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Robert1 ( 513674 )

    The whole appeal of iPhones is that they're incredibly secure, walled-garden, and have an app store that is well-vetted. Just wait until grandma gets the text telling her to side-load whatever nonsense crypto/spyware/notification blaster on her phone and then promptly drain her accounts while texting all her contacts further download links.

    This ONLY benefits large corporations by letting them side-step Apple's surcharge. An unintended consequence of this will be scammers running wild on tech-illiterates, wh

    • Do you worry about grandma getting pwned on her Mac?

      To this day, the Mac is not a "scammers paradise" despsite the fact that you can side load apps on it.

    • Umm... last I checked the EU is not going to force any users to use those alternative stores, you are absolutely within your rights to ignore them and continue to use exclusively Apple-blessed apps.

    • This thing that isn't happening on Android is going to start happening on iPhones why exactly?

      Whatever happened to end users actually owning hardware? Forget alternative app stores. I just want control for me.

  • Approval for sideloaded apps?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RegistrationIsDumb83 ( 6517138 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @10:34AM (#64189520)
    Apple's requirement for app approval even outside the store destroys the whole point of sideloading. We've seen how they weaponize approval to take down everything from legal porn to civil war games to apps that aren't paying the apple tax.

    • Apple's requirement for app approval even outside the store destroys the whole point of sideloading.

      Pretty sure that's exactly what was intended. All of the changes they made seem intentionally designed to make using any of the new systems worse for users than staying with the old ones.

  • mame is allowed in the play store but apple says NO!
    https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]

  • The only reason the EU wants this is to break the security framework of iOS that they sooo much hate. The rule simply makes it easier to install their surveillance software.

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close