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