Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolf89618 | Hacker News Reader

> 4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.

> 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...

View on HN

Yes, people keep quoting these sections but it doesn't say what folks want it to say.

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.

I think the intent is clear. If apple is allowed to charge, they could charge 1000 USD per install and the whole law would be moot.

Here's something to blow your brain: perhaps the English version is incorrectly translated. With Ireland now the only Anglophone country in the EU, I would trust the French and German versions of the text to have far more clear intent.

usually all translations of eu law are canonical.

all officially translated versions of the EUPL are too.

I'm not saying they don't have force of law. 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.

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.

It’s intentional. Replace EU with Apple and law with AppStore rules and you’ll see the parallels.

> 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.

English is still the lingua franca of the EU. I'd trust the English version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com