Apple found in breach of EU competition rules

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple has been found in breach of the EU’s Digital Markets Act over its App Store “anti‑steering” rules, which restrict developers from telling users about cheaper or alternative ways to pay outside Apple’s in‑app purchase system. Commenters debate whether Apple’s 15–30% commission and tight control of iOS distribution are legitimate compensation for security, integration and discovery, or an abuse of a de facto gatekeeper position that hurts competition, developers and price‑sensitive users. The thread also touches on parallels with Amazon, credit card networks and game consoles, the possibility of large EU fines or Apple withdrawing features or products from Europe, and broader questions about how far regulators should go in reshaping dominant tech platforms.

EU decision and DMA context

  • EU Commission press release says Apple’s current App Store terms breach the Digital Markets Act (DMA), especially anti‑steering rules and its “core technology fee”.
  • Key preliminary findings: developers cannot freely tell users about cheaper alternatives; “link‑out” steering is heavily constrained; Apple charges fees even for purchases made on the web shortly after a link‑out.
  • There’s a pending EU court case over whether the DMA can mandate “free of charge” access to iOS APIs, which some see as central to judging Apple’s new fees.

Anti‑steering rules and fairness

  • Many argue it’s fundamentally wrong that Apple forbids developers from:
    • Saying Apple takes a percentage.
    • Stating that subscriptions are cheaper on the web.
    • Seamlessly steering users to external payments.
  • Others note anti‑steering clauses are common in platforms (Amazon, Airbnb, card networks) and see Apple as behaving like other intermediaries, not uniquely bad.

Competition, monopoly, and lock‑in

  • Pro‑regulation comments frame Apple as a de facto gatekeeper with:
    • Strong ecosystem lock‑in (especially in the US via iMessage/social pressure).
    • Power to tax and veto entire business models on iOS.
  • Counter‑arguments:
    • Apple’s device share is smaller than Android’s; users can choose Android.
    • Console stores (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) and Steam also take ~30%.
  • Several insist the real issue is not 30% itself, but that on iOS there is:
    • Only one store.
    • No practical way to distribute apps outside Apple’s control.

Security, user protection, and choice

  • Supporters of Apple’s model emphasize:
    • Centralized billing, refunds, and scam protection.
    • Comfort that only Apple holds card data.
    • Reduced malware risk for less technical users (e.g., older relatives).
  • Critics reply:
    • Laws and chargebacks already deter fraud.
    • “Security” is also used to justify anti‑competitive restrictions and blocking web/PWA capabilities.
    • Sophisticated users should be free to sideload or use alternative stores without affecting default safety for others.

Economic impact and possible outcomes

  • Debate over whether Apple might exit the EU:
    • Some see it as possible but unlikely given EU’s revenue share and network effects.
    • Others note DMA fines (up to 10–20% of global revenue) could outweigh EU profits.
  • Many expect “malicious compliance”: Apple doing the legal minimum, delaying features (e.g., AI, screen mirroring) in the EU, and testing the boundaries through courts.