Apple plans fees and restrictions for non-App Store apps in the EU

Exec , 5 months ago

Considering that even if it’s moving slow the EU won’t give its approval to that “fee despite not using anything from them”-charge.

bassomitron , 5 months ago

Yeah, I’m baffled at Apple’s response to this. Like I get WHY they’re doing it, I just don’t understand why they’d think they’ll get away with it. How would this not get slammed with more anti-competitive lawsuits in the EU? The whole reason they’re even being forced to allow 3rd party downloads was due to the anti-competitive nature of forcing everything into their app store, right?

lemmyvore , 5 months ago

It’s all about testing how far they can go and what they can get away with and tying things up in legal recourse for as long as possible. They know they’ll have to comply eventually but they will drag their feet a good while more. Dumb compliance, malicious compliance, expect them to try everything. They don’t really want to do this but can’t come outright and say it.

See also how Meta was told to stop collecting people’s data and what did they do — they offered people a choice between paying a monthly fee and giving up their data willingly. It’s this kind of devious compliance you can expect from Apple too.

Zak , 5 months ago

I just don’t understand why they’d think they’ll get away with it.

They don’t. Looking at Wikipedia’s summary of the DMA, it appears there’s a lot of room for interpretation and detailed rulings from regulators with respect to each gatekeeper company’s obligations. Apple is choosing an interpretation that’s extremely favorable to Apple as an opening position in what’s sure to be a negotiation if not a court battle.

Regulators could take the position that Apple must allow users to install applications from any source with no interference by or payments to Apple, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the final outcome is close to that.

JasSmith , 5 months ago

There really doesn’t appear to be any room for misinterpretation or negotiation on this one. From the DMA:

(57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

(7) The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

This is black and white. Access must be free of charge. There are provisions for necessary limitations to access based on security risks, but there are no provisions for charging a fee for access.

saltesc , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

I’m charging you $1 for that comment. I’ll have my lawyers tally your overview and they’ll provide the total sum you owe me.

I’m all about customer care so I’m happy to extend the usual 30 day due period out to 90, but you’ll need to subscribe to the Protection Plan for that benefit, which is only $4.99 a month. But your first 100 comments are free. So, really it’s a way better option for you financially over the 24 month period the contract runs for. If you comment a lot, you might be interested in the Premium Plan.

For an extra $2.99, the Premium plan also means I’ll manage your password and post for you.

But don’t take my word for it, here’s Doja Cat…

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8dae2bdf-e820-4ec4-8223-98f7450ce3df.jpeg

MonkderZweite , 5 months ago

It’s just buying time, so they can make a few billions more until then.

mannycalavera , 5 months ago

developers can offer other payment options outside the App Store, but they still need to pay Apple a 27% fee. In addition, they have to follow some guidelines to promote an external link while also reporting to Apple about every purchase made through this external link so the company can charge a fee.

I think the meeting at Apple when they were discussing this must have gone something like Well how hard can we fuck them before their arsehole ruptures? A bit more? Sure let’s go for it. Lube? Nah we don’t need that.

Reverendender , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

Tim Cook is not British, and would say “asshole.” Kindly get your facts straight before posting on the interwebs, sir/madam/other. /s

mannycalavera , 5 months ago

Humble apologies 😜