This keeps happening where people keep hitching "I don't want to pay Apple" to every wagon except a law that requires Apple to make access to iOS free.

"Allow other payment processors": Okay you still pay 27%

"Allow other stores": Okay you still pay a commission, a different one.

"Allow installing from websites": Okay you still pay a commission, you just have to write us a check.

Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.

Using 'Tile' trackers, ios pops a messages up every so often saying 'Tile' has been accessing the Location API from IOS.

But Apple introduced a competing product, 'AirTags', and this doesn't have the same (annoying) regular popup.

Does this mean that Apple's Product will no longer be allowed to use a special Location API bypassing the security/barriers their competitors have?

I understand the need for security, but Apple has no incentive to remove friction from the process when it negatively impacts their competitors and doesn't impact them at all.

1. They make AirTags follow the same rules as every other app.

2. They introduce a new toggle that users can grant to Tile that gives them the same abilities as AirTags.

3. They introduce a new entitlement that can be granted to developers who apply for that give them the access that AirTags has.

They've taken #3 for both alternative stores and web downloads so I imagine that would take it here.

This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.

Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either.

It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.

> (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms and the software used to operate those technologies, which can be required for the effective provision of a service provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party undertaking providing such service.

> (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.

They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual act, you can write whatever you want in there (and legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of this is the actual law.

For the relevant bit it's article 6 paragraph 7.

What exactly is unreasonable about that reading?

By the way, this will impact Android too, since there are permissions that are limited only to Google applications such as the Google Play Services, that (interpreting this rule) now shall be opened to any apps that require them.

What? These European companies are exempt? Crazyyy

Gee, I wonder why. Maybe you should re-examine this statement:

>This is has nothing to do with the companies being European.

https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/antitrust-and-cartel...

Read article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 and tell me this wasn't written to target like five US tech companies in total.

The LED example you gave is actually a great one: I don't think the regulator cares if you're using LED or not. The intention is to reduce the usage of lightbulbs that aren't as energy efficient as modern technology allows them to be. If you can make a incandescent lightbulb that is as efficient, good for you. No one has targeted incandescent light.

Same here. Yes, companies this size are almost only American (and Chinese). That doesn't mean that American companies were the target.

Apple is welcome to vacate the EU if it finds it all too onerous.

However, I believe another statute of Apple’s implementation is that developers must pick. App Store or Self Distribution— an app cannot be both

Currently there are two things preventing a developer from doing this:

1. you're supposed to be honest and not do that.

2. you could be caught during review by a bot or a human.

Nothing at the OS level to prevent this.

We have toggles for preventing cell data usage, they could trivially do the same for wifi usage, or accessing other app's local storage.

But an app that shows the latest cat video needs connectivity and the server serving that car video now tracks when you were watching it.

Yes, but there’s no way to stop that kind of tracking since those app require you to sign in.

The current App Store already has this kind of tracking.

This is incredibly common practice and AFAIK not even discouraged by Apple.

The app sandbox constrains the local storage data to the app which created the unique identifier. There is no third-party tracking opportunity here.

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

> Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself.

The CTF is the exact topic of discussion in the context I provided the clause

And as you can see from the text of the DMA, in order to declare the CTF illegal, the EC has to conduct a fair, impartial, fact-based investigation that considers Apple's viewpoint. Then they produce a preliminary report which Apple is allowed to rebut. After that they can issue a final ruling, and Apple is allowed to appeal that to the court of justice. Even if the CTF is found to be illegal after all of that, Apple gets 6+ months to make changes unless the EC can prove that they were working in bad faith.

Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies even when not using the App Store... what are they charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's user's devices? That's the only thing that's left

Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their compilers from their software vendors (the price for the HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).

But that doesn't seem to be the case, as Apple hasn't monetized Xcode and the iOS SDK libraries differently since the DMA came up.

Apple can charge for the SDK and all that it entails, but they can't charge for apps getting to run on users' iOS copies, as that's not something IP law contemplates.

What happens when a fully FOSS iOS dev environment comes out, like the way you can compile Windows binaries on Linux right now? What would Apple be charging for then?

The CTF offsets Apple's costs in developing and maintaining the "core technology": the OS and the frameworks that the developer uses in their application.

The CTF is it's own refutation. A competitive market should not need to kiss anyone's ring in order to function.

At least on AIX and other UNIXes, the system compiler and GCC worked together. HP-UX was a special kind of hell.

A sibling reply pointed out that developer kits and distribution deals for consoles (which are general purpose computers, regardless of how they are presented, as much as modern smartphones are) are extremely expensive (and there are no alternatives for distribution).

The point that I am making is that the idea that you can develop and distribute for free on any platform is a relatively new one.

But regardless, it seems like a good idea in general, and proven to work, so why shouldn't we want more of it? I don't see the problem with applying the same logic to game consoles etc - that racket also needs to go down.

So the distinction is that they're charging devs to be allowed to run their app on iOS period, rather than charging for access to a particular set of APIs (which would be illegal)?

Because if so, there's a hole in that argument. Right now I can run any web app I want on my iPhone and the developer need pay no platform access fee. However, that app is blocked by Apple from accessing many native APIs, despite it running on my hardware. And to access those APIs it would need to pay Apple a fee...

So in conclusion, Apple should charge every website operator a per-user annual fee for using the Apple's platform.

It's impossible for the EC to have given Apple any kind of guarantees about it being fine to restrict PWAs to just Safari. That's just not how the process works.

What, specifically, is the core technology fee for other than dissuading competition? It's not for using Xcode (I already have that now), and it's not for redistributing Apple software (iOS binaries aren't that). What technology specifically? Is it a software license? Is it for a patent license? Is it payment for a service? What is it?

> Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section 2.2.B., You may not distribute any Applications developed using the Apple SDKs (excluding the macOS SDK) absent entering into a separate written agreement with Apple.

Why not? Maybe they can't rule that Apple must make the App Store free for developers, but they can rule that the App Store can't be the only way to install apps.

Yes, hence alternative app stores. But that isn't the same thing as saying Apple can't take a cut from other App Stores, and surprise, they are.

Yes, it is. For Apple to be able to take a cut from other app stores, they need to have full control over said stores, so effectively it's just their App Store under a different name. Hopefully this won't fly under DMA.

No, they just need a legally binding agreement.

> 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…

More about DMA here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-co...

4. Gatekeeper must allow people to install applications from outside the App Store. That has no relationship at all to whether Apple is allowed to require a contractual relationship with iOS developers that stipulate payment under certain conditions -- installs, IAPs, number of developers, number of users, etc..

7. Gatekeeper can't give themselves special APIs that allow them to do things other apps can't or charge extra for those special privileged APIs. Apple can nonetheless still charge developers to access iOS. But from there Apple can't give themselves an advantage by saying that only Apple apps can access Bluetooth.

all officially translated versions of the EUPL are too.

I'm reading the French version, and I find it clear that Apple is not following the DMA with its fee it cannot charge itself.

> I'm saying the EU did not write them as strongly as the other versions, making them harder to understand and potentially steering the law in a different direction.

Oh I think the EU can rule whatever they want on their domestic market. Apple can try to find all the holes they want, the Commission is probably just taking notes of those holes to fix them in the DMA 1.1

I really think Apple (and Meta, fwiw) is making a huge mistake if they think they are in position to negociate anything. DMA is here to fix competition issues on the european market and if the goal isnt reached, there will be enough iterations until achievement.

It's not a fight again Apple, it's about preserving the core of what is the EU : the European Single Market. The European Single Market was created after WWII with the goal to enforce peace on the european continent. The Single Market IS the European Union. There is no way they'll let Apple get around this. The only thing Apple don't understand is that the EU is traditionally really slow to act so they had an entire decade (and more) to think that locking access to the market in the EU was fine.

I wish I was as optimistic as you. GPDR was already supposed to be such an improvement. I have no doubt that current Apple's dance won't work. But I don't think any European company will actually benefit from DMA. (I'd say the ones who will really benefit from it are Epic Games and Google, maybe Mozilla a bit)

That being said, I'm very happy the EU implemented the DMA.

It is funny to see American companies scream "that's not fair" when faced with a functional government.

A trade war is the last thing the EU wants, especially when they are completely and utterly dependent on the US for technology and protection, so it's very unlikely that the EU will get all extreme on Apple or other US tech companies.

It will push as hard it can but we will not see a protracted ban. The EU understands that it can only push so hard before it starts a trade war and harms itself out of spite.