https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
"Article 13: Anti-circumvention
4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.
7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement."
Most consumers understand those concepts and fear those things. Most understand nothing about the economic impact of monopolies and anti-competitive business behavior and the harms they cause consumers in the form of higher prices, lack of innovation, reduced choice, and poorer quality products and services.
So Apple plays off those fears by using language consumers understand, making them actually want the very monopoly that is being forced on them and actually harming them while making billions for Apple.
It's unethical behavior, no more defensible than Sam Bankman-Fried's effective altruism, a.k.a. "mostly a front." This is all right out of Apple's standard playbook.
Which is ironic, considering that the App Store is likely one of the largest malware distribution vectors on the planet.
Looking at one virus alone, the App Store distributed half of a billion copies of it to iPhones and iPads[1]. Similarly, there are multimillion dollar scams on the App Store, as well[2].
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
When someone claims he's the only one who can protect the public I immediately see some question marks.
Especially the constant mentioning of the "EU" when this applies to the EEA, leaving out two entire countries. I hope they actually realize this internally.
It's the same sales pitch that Canonical is using to justify its centralized snap store.
That playbook really gets around huh.
Tim Cook is parroting Steve Jobs when he says that Apple deeply cares about users' privacy and security. Jobs was smart enough to realize that emphasising security and privacy protections would increase sales because Apple is a company which sells computer products instead of advertising solutions and services like Google and others(although Apple is increasingly thinking about how to monetize their Big Data).
What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money.
But tbf, even though I can install APKs on Android I don't really do that as there's still the fear of bad actors; maybe the Android sandbox is safe & secure but I don't _know_ that, they haven't _told_ me explicitly about it. And if it's not safe for Android too, then why not?
And now they cracked down on small developers to revert that. So it's not a totally invalid point from Apple.
Because it does create security risks.
App code in 3rd party app stores is not going to be reviewed, which means anyone is free to craft a rootkit embedded in an app and release it to a 3rd party app store.
Enjoy!
I never knew that every app gets root access on iOS and that the security model hinged entirely in Apple's control of the App Store.
Oh no! You mean exactly like it has been on a mac for decades?
> The changes also include new disclosures informing EU users of the risks associated with using alternatives to the App Store’s secure payment processing.
There are 22 instances of the word "risks" on that page. Pathetic.
As it is, there is only one channel and no competition, so we don't know what the malware situation would be like in the absence of Apple's monopoly.
I'm certain they have the best legal team that money can buy, but I'm equally certain that that legal team is under the sort of pressure that happens when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
Not only does it happen all the time, it's often the only way to sort out what legislation means in practice.
Apple will as shown here do their best to comply the least with the intent of the legislation, but it's up to the legislators if it is acceptable.
E.g., if notarization turns out to be used for central gate keeping by declining specific apps in the human review step or by using it to impede the process for apps intended for third-party stores, that would be a violation.
So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.
I'm reasonably sure Apple didn't reveal most of their compliance plans to EU, since they will ask Apple to implement the most strict interpretation of the regulation and it would be headaches in the court if there's any evidence that Apple knowingly ignored such requests.
Given that Apple had already been shipping standard USB C ports with zero restrictions starting with the 2021 iPad Pro, this conspiracy theory made no sense.
Source? This has conspiracy theory written all over it. My take is that the rumor mill was just flat out wrong about this like they often are.
EDIT: To be clear here, I don’t deny that an EU commissioner sent a letter but I doubted the existence of these secret (and rumored) plans that prompted it e.g. seems out of character for Apple given iPads have had USB C for some time without such restrictions.
Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with.
You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.
> Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions.
Geeze, that's a lot of money. Out of curiosity, how bribeable are EU regulators? If this were the US, they'd just make a few campaign donations and it'd all go away and the citizens would just shrug at the business as usual in DC.
Do EU regulators typically have more integrity and teeth?
Looks like they're happy to pay fines to maintain their monopoly.
/flagrant-speculation
That would be following the Microsoft playbook when it comes to corporate crime in the EEA/EU.
I am pretty sure that FB also has many lawyers, but they were repeatedly violating law. Sometimes clearly, blatantly and openly.
The EU might not be worth 10% of annual turnover.
If Apple pulls out of the EU, they will definitely lose that EU app store revenue, and will additionally lose all EU hardware revenue.
Then when it comes time for implementation, they make an implementation that isn't exactly 100% in accordance with the regulation and wait to be taken to court. Then they get to argue with a judge related to what is and isn't in accordance with the regulation. If they get lucky, the judge will rule partly to them, which gives them less strict regulation.
The EU lawmakers can then re-vamp the law to make it stricter, and the process continues again.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
