Apple's Plans for the DMA in the European Union
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
Sure, the DMA doesn't specifically forbid a platform-holder for charging a license fee. That's unlikely to be because the people drafting the regulation were idiots who couldn't think of the concept of license fees.
The gatekeepers must allow alternative distribution channels to compete on price, and as per section 39 anything that's functionally equivalent to preventing price competition ("such as increased commission rates") is forbidden. And that's what Apple are doing here: they're giving the developers staying on the App Store preferential terms. Section 62 reiterates specifically on the context of app stores that "gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation".
Whether they're calling it a license fee or something else doesn't matter, as longs as the terms are discriminatory. And in this case it's pretty clear that both the pricing terms (the Core Tech Fee) and non-pricing terms (the irrevocable all or nothing nature of the choice) are discriminatory.
I bought the device, I should be the arbiter on what software I want to run.
Gruber has been saying for years that Apple should have acted more strategically, that, in particular, they should have allowed apps to link out to their own website for payment processing, in order to avoid the DMA.
Here's his article from last week: https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/coming_to_grips_with_appl...
> Apple should have been looking for ways to lessen regulatory and legislative pressure over the past few years, and in today’s climate that’s more true than ever. But instead, their stance has seemingly been “Bring it on.” Confrontational, not conciliatory, conceding not an inch. Rather than take a sure win with most of what they could want, Apple is seemingly hell-bent on trying to keep everything. To win in chess all you need is to capture your opponent’s king. Apple seemingly wants to capture every last piece on the board — even while playing in a tournament where the referees (regulators) are known to look askance at blatant poor sportsmanship (greed).
Note the closing paragraph of today's article:
> The delicious irony in Apple’s not knowing if these massive, complicated proposals will be deemed DMA-compliant is that their dealings with the European Commission sound exactly like App Store developers’ dealings with Apple. Do all the work to build it first, and only then find out if it passes muster with largely inscrutable rules interpreted by faceless bureaucrats.
> Which side is smarter? My money has been on Apple. Yesterday’s announcements, I think, show why.
It's not my imagination that he thinks Apple found some kind of a loophole that nobody had considered.
> The EC’s obsession with payment processing and commissions blinded them, I think, to the fact that Apple has always had other options for monetization.
> I don’t see anything in the DMA that says Apple is prevented from charging fees to developers.
It's pretty clear that he thinks Apple has won this fair and square, and the only way their square-jawed C-suite could be denied the victory is by the sniveling Eurocracts capriciously changing the rules. (And sure, maybe he thinks that it is even likely that the referees will change the rules given Apple's strategy. But then I don't get why he thinks Apple is the smarter side.)
In any case, the EU are an elected, accountable body. Apple are not, whatever they say about representing their users. As such, Apple must comply with the DMA, and ideally, in spirit, not in the mean, abusive way they propose.
> de With: I love that I can’t tell if you are talking about the EU or Apple in this case.
> The delicious irony in Apple’s not knowing if these massive, complicated proposals will be deemed DMA-compliant is that their dealings with the European Commission sound exactly like App Store developers’ dealings with Apple. Do all the work to build it first, and only then find out if it passes muster with largely inscrutable rules interpreted by faceless bureaucrats.
Both cut from the same cloth of rent-seeking gatekeepers.