When Apple takes the European Commission for fools: An initial overview
Apple’s new terms for iOS app distribution in the EU, introduced to comply with the Digital Markets Act, are widely seen as “malicious compliance” that preserves its App Store dominance through high fees and strict controls on alternative stores and sideloading. Commenters weigh user security and simplicity against competition and developer freedom, debating whether Apple’s walled garden genuinely protects non-technical users or mainly exploits its gatekeeper power over a 2.2 billion–device ecosystem. Many expect the European Commission to challenge Apple’s approach, arguing that meaningful interoperability and lower commissions are necessary to curb anti-competitive behavior.
User Choice vs “Walled Garden”
- Some argue users (especially non‑technical and elderly) benefit from a locked‑down iOS; they want a “closed digital forest” and don’t want relatives exposed to sideloading or alternate stores.
- Others respond that no one is forced to sideload; those who want openness can opt in, while parental/admin controls can protect less savvy users.
- Critics say tying everyone to the lowest common denominator is paternalistic and infantilizing; people should be able to choose their risk level.
Security, Sideloading, and Malware
- Pro‑Apple side: iOS is described as far more malware‑resistant than Android (claims of ~50x more Android infections), and the App Store model is seen as key to this.
- Pro‑sideloading side:
- Malware already slips into the App Store.
- OS‑level permissions, sandboxing, and mechanisms like notarization or Play Protect show that security and sideloading can coexist.
- Many Android users, including non‑technical ones, reportedly avoid malware in practice.
- Concern is raised about social engineering: phishing flows that trick elders into installing malicious apps, or powerful players (e.g., large social networks) pressuring users via their own app stores.
Monopoly, Market Power, and DMA Compliance
- One camp says Apple is not a classic monopoly because people can choose Android; if developers and users dislike Apple, they should leave.
- Others counter that Apple effectively has a monopoly over app distribution on iOS (2.2B devices, 100% of that platform), giving it “bottleneck power” and making the 30% commission more like a tax.
- Debate over whether DMA requires both sideloading and alternative marketplaces; one view says Apple only must allow one, another says Apple is “maliciously complying” and the EU must push back.
- Some expect the EU to use heavy fines and long‑term regulatory pressure; others warn the EU may damage what they see as Apple’s core value: user trust and curated safety.
Fees, Business Models, and Fairness
- 30% commission is criticized as excessive and anti‑competitive, especially when large players negotiate exemptions.
- Defenders say these commissions are a progressive “usage tax” that keeps devices cheaper upfront.
- Core technology fees for alternative stores are seen by critics as “junk fees” that particularly hurt free or FOSS apps that can’t or don’t want to be on the App Store.
EU Regulation, GDPR, and Cookie Banners
- Some distrust EU tech regulation, citing annoying cookie consent banners as an example of poor outcomes or malicious compliance by sites.
- Others argue GDPR and similar rules meaningfully enhance privacy; bad UX is blamed on site operators, not the law.
- USB‑C on iPhone is debated: one side credits EU pressure; another claims Apple was already on that path, pointing to USB‑C across its product line.