European Commission Dings Apple Over Anti-Steering Provisions in App Store, and Opens New Investigations Into Core Technology Fee, Sideloading Protections, and the Eligibility Requirements to Offer an Alternative Marketplace
The European Commission:
Today, the European Commission has informed Apple of its
preliminary view that its App Store rules are in breach of the
Digital Markets Act (DMA), as they prevent app developers from
freely steering consumers to alternative channels for offers and
content.
I think what they’re saying here is that Apple’s current compliance offering, where developers can remain exclusively in the App Store in the EU under the existing terms, or choose the new terms that allow for linking out to the web, aren’t going to pass muster. The EC wants all apps to be able to freely — as in free of charge freely — link out to the web for purchases, regardless if they’re from the App Store, an alternative marketplace, or directly sideloaded.
The Commission will investigate whether these new contractual
requirements for third-party app developers and app stores breach
Article 6(4) of the DMA and notably the necessity and
proportionality requirements provided therein. This includes:
1. Apple’s Core Technology Fee, under which developers of
third-party app stores and third-party apps must pay a €0.50
fee per installed app. The Commission will investigate whether
Apple has demonstrated that the fee structure that it has
imposed, as part of the new business terms, and in particular
the Core Technology Fee, effectively complies with the DMA.
No word on how it doesn’t comply, just that they don’t like it.
2. Apple’s multi-step user journey to download and install
alternative app stores or apps on iPhones. The Commission will
investigate whether the steps that a user has to undertake to
successfully complete the download and installation of
alternative app stores or apps, as well as the various
information screens displayed by Apple to the user, comply with
the DMA.
This sounds like they’re going to insist that Apple make installing sideloaded apps and alternative stores a no-hassle experience. What critics see is Apple putting up obstacles to installing marketplaces or sideloaded apps just to be a dick about it and discouraging their use to keep users in the App Store. What I see are reasonable warnings for potentially dangerous software. We’ll see how that goes.
Perhaps where the EC will wind up is making app store choice like web browser choice. Force Apple to present each user with a screen listing all available app marketplaces in their country in random order, of which Apple’s own App Store is but one, just like Safari in the default browser choice screen.
3. The eligibility requirements for developers related to the
ability to offer alternative app stores or directly distribute
apps from the web on iPhones. The Commission will investigate
whether these requirements, such as the ‘membership of good
standing’ in the Apple Developer Program, that app developers
have to meet in order to be able to benefit from alternative
distribution provided for in the DMA comply with the DMA.
I’m not sure what this is about, given that Apple relented on allowing even Epic Games to open a store. Maybe the financial requirements?
In parallel, the Commission will continue undertaking preliminary
investigative steps outside of the scope of the present
investigation, in particular with respect to the checks and
reviews put in place by Apple to validate apps and alternative app
stores to be sideloaded.
This pretty clearly is about Apple using notarization as a review for anything other than egregious bugs or security vulnerabilities. I complain as much as anyone about the aspects of the DMA that are vague (or downright inscrutable), but this aspect seems clear-cut. It’s a bit baffling why Apple seemingly sees notarization as an opportunity for content/purpose review, like with last week’s brouhaha over the UTM SE PC emulator. Refusing to notarize an emulator that uses a JIT is something Apple ought to be able to defend under the DMA’s exceptions pertaining to device security; refusing to notarize an emulator that doesn’t use a JIT seems clearly forbidden by the DMA.
★
The European Commission:
Today, the European Commission has informed Apple of its
preliminary view that its App Store rules are in breach of the
Digital Markets Act (DMA), as they prevent app developers from
freely steering consumers to alternative channels for offers and
content.
I think what they’re saying here is that Apple’s current compliance offering, where developers can remain exclusively in the App Store in the EU under the existing terms, or choose the new terms that allow for linking out to the web, aren’t going to pass muster. The EC wants all apps to be able to freely — as in free of charge freely — link out to the web for purchases, regardless if they’re from the App Store, an alternative marketplace, or directly sideloaded.
The Commission will investigate whether these new contractual
requirements for third-party app developers and app stores breach
Article 6(4) of the DMA and notably the necessity and
proportionality requirements provided therein. This includes:
1. Apple’s Core Technology Fee, under which developers of
third-party app stores and third-party apps must pay a €0.50
fee per installed app. The Commission will investigate whether
Apple has demonstrated that the fee structure that it has
imposed, as part of the new business terms, and in particular
the Core Technology Fee, effectively complies with the DMA.
No word on how it doesn’t comply, just that they don’t like it.
2. Apple’s multi-step user journey to download and install
alternative app stores or apps on iPhones. The Commission will
investigate whether the steps that a user has to undertake to
successfully complete the download and installation of
alternative app stores or apps, as well as the various
information screens displayed by Apple to the user, comply with
the DMA.
This sounds like they’re going to insist that Apple make installing sideloaded apps and alternative stores a no-hassle experience. What critics see is Apple putting up obstacles to installing marketplaces or sideloaded apps just to be a dick about it and discouraging their use to keep users in the App Store. What I see are reasonable warnings for potentially dangerous software. We’ll see how that goes.
Perhaps where the EC will wind up is making app store choice like web browser choice. Force Apple to present each user with a screen listing all available app marketplaces in their country in random order, of which Apple’s own App Store is but one, just like Safari in the default browser choice screen.
3. The eligibility requirements for developers related to the
ability to offer alternative app stores or directly distribute
apps from the web on iPhones. The Commission will investigate
whether these requirements, such as the ‘membership of good
standing’ in the Apple Developer Program, that app developers
have to meet in order to be able to benefit from alternative
distribution provided for in the DMA comply with the DMA.
I’m not sure what this is about, given that Apple relented on allowing even Epic Games to open a store. Maybe the financial requirements?
In parallel, the Commission will continue undertaking preliminary
investigative steps outside of the scope of the present
investigation, in particular with respect to the checks and
reviews put in place by Apple to validate apps and alternative app
stores to be sideloaded.
This pretty clearly is about Apple using notarization as a review for anything other than egregious bugs or security vulnerabilities. I complain as much as anyone about the aspects of the DMA that are vague (or downright inscrutable), but this aspect seems clear-cut. It’s a bit baffling why Apple seemingly sees notarization as an opportunity for content/purpose review, like with last week’s brouhaha over the UTM SE PC emulator. Refusing to notarize an emulator that uses a JIT is something Apple ought to be able to defend under the DMA’s exceptions pertaining to device security; refusing to notarize an emulator that doesn’t use a JIT seems clearly forbidden by the DMA.