Apple tells EU it has five different App Stores, not just one

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s claim to EU regulators that it operates five separate App Stores—one each for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Apple Watch—rather than a single unified platform is widely seen as a legal maneuver to dodge stricter “gatekeeper” obligations under the Digital Markets Act. Commenters argue this contradicts how Apple markets and technically operates the ecosystem (single account, shared payments, overlapping apps), and debate whether such platform control is justified for security and user experience or is an abuse of market power that should be curbed by mandates for sideloading, alternative app stores, and messaging interoperability.

Apple’s “Five App Stores” Claim

  • Many see Apple’s claim (separate stores for iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS) as a transparent attempt to dodge EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) thresholds by splitting user counts.
  • Others argue it’s at least legally arguable: each OS has a distinct catalog, constraints, and sometimes different review rules, so counting per‑OS stores isn’t inherently absurd.
  • Critics note Apple markets it as “the App Store” and runs unified accounts, billing, developer programs, and editorial, so presenting them as separate entities feels artificial.

Antitrust, Monopoly, and Legal Framing

  • Debate over whether Apple’s behavior is monopolistic:
    • One side: phones are essential, there are only two viable mobile platforms, and Apple tightly controls app distribution on its half of the market.
    • Other side: users can choose Android or other hardware; having a monopoly over your own platform is not automatically an antitrust violation, especially if rules were set before dominance.
  • Several comments critique “rules lawyering” vs. “spirit of the law”; others respond that precise definitions and courts’ interpretations are necessary to avoid arbitrary power.

iMessage, DMA, and Monetization

  • Apple argues iMessage isn’t a “gatekeeper” service because it isn’t fee-based and isn’t monetized via hardware or data.
  • Many commenters dispute this, calling iMessage a lock‑in tool that clearly supports hardware sales; they also note past internal statements about iMessage as a bulwark against Android.
  • Discussion of DMA interoperability rules: large messengers like WhatsApp and Telegram must interoperate; iMessage may escape because its EU user base is relatively small.

Sideloading and Alternative App Stores

  • Some welcome the DMA-driven opening: want the ability to sideload, use F‑Droid‑like or “GNU” stores, and install arbitrary software on devices they own.
  • Others fear “Facebook‑style spyware stores” and the loss of Apple-enforced payment and privacy rules; some explicitly prefer Apple’s subscription control and refunds over Android’s looser model.
  • Several note that users who want to stay in Apple’s walled garden can still use only the official store; experience on Android suggests most people will.

Mac vs iPhone / iPad Openness

  • macOS is widely seen as fundamentally more open: apps from the web, Homebrew, Steam, Setapp, etc. are normal, with only mild Gatekeeper friction.
  • iOS/iPadOS remain single‑store and more locked down; some worry Apple might like to close the Mac similarly but can’t without severe backlash.