IIUC this is a deliberate act of aggression by Apple - which is important to note. Apple already has regional accounts, so the infrastructure for this is in place already, for preexisting reasons. My Apple ID is still within US after months of being in the EU. They have not “kicked me out” yet.
There’s no other way than to interpret this, and the preceding actions by Apple, as a temper tantrum of malicious compliance. That begs a whole new set of questions.
Optically, this is the behavior you’d expect from companies that stopped innovating and are clinging onto power with the power of lawyers. It seems like an incredibly small hill to sacrifice your reputation on.
Are their long term ambitions to live off the 30% cut? Because it sure as hell appears like they’re fighting an existential battle, which doesn’t inspire confidence in their visionary leadership. Perhaps the best thing for Apple is to take away their comfort blanket, so they’re setting sights on innovation again.
>[...]this is a deliberate act of aggression by Apple [...]
>There’s no other way than to interpret this, and the preceding actions by Apple, as a temper tantrum of malicious compliance [...]
While it's pretty clear that most people here would have liked it if Apple rolled out third party app stores to everyone and were hoping that EU regulations would extend to non-EU users (like with USB-C charging port standard), the reality of the situation is that EU jurisdiction ends at EU borders. Apple is complying with the laws exactly, and characterizing it as "aggression" or "temper tantrum" is closer to name calling than any sort of cogent argument. Chinese regulations require Apple to store iCloud data in Chinese data centers. Apple complies with this for only Chinese users. Should this also be characterized as "aggression" or "temper tantrum"? What's the difference between these two cases beyond "I like third party app stores" and "I hate my data stored in the hands of an authoritarian regime"?
i travel a lot. and that means, i sometimes leave my home for months at a time. more than 30 days.
when roaming with a chinese sim card, all my traffic keeps going through china, regardless how long i leave the country. so for practical purposes, it is like i never left the country.
but if i use an EU sim, suddenly after 30 days i am no longer considered to be part of the EU? as an EU citizen? how does that make any sense?
EU laws should apply as long as i use a EU sim card, regardless how long i am outside of the country. only when i switch sims, then i find it acceptable to say that EU law should no longer apply to my phone.
Exactly. They’re following the DMA to a T and because people don’t like that fact, all kinds of loaded language is used to describe the mere act of complying with a law.
They might as well call Apple petty for not throwing in an iPhone with the purchase of a MacBook.
EU law applies to Apple or its subsidiaries operating in Europe. As long as Apple itself stays within EU borders, the law applies to them. It stops applying to them when they exit the EU market. The third parties (including EU citizens) mentioned within the text of the regulation do not define the applicability of the law itself.
They included an example fact that exposes how the current actions are different from equivalent long preexisting behavior, and so that difference does require an explanation.
It sounds like someone in Apple is burning the corporate brand to make their division's target because the target wasn't adjusted in the face of the law. Leadership at the top is at fault.
Yes, but the concerning thing is that this behavior you’d expect from Oracle or similar. The App Store, in-app payments etc is not bad – Apple would seem to be able to compete fairly and still win a big slice of the cake – higher prices but premium experience, like they’ve always done. So.. have they stopped believing in themselves? Or did the sweet taste of monopoly turn them greedy and arrogant beyond salvation in just a decade?
Otherwise why go through the additional overhead and headache of implementing region-specific rules? iOS is becoming branched into 3 forks: EU, China, and rest of the world.
It's just the reality of global compliance that products end up having to be customized for each region. We were lucky for a while that China was the only country that was overly special, but that time is over.
If you want an existing example of a phone changing stuff as you change countries just look at the modem. Different territories allow for different amounts of power to be used and the phone as has to know the laws to and adapt based off where it is in order to be compliant.
iOS isn't even the #1 mobile operating system in the EU. Even in countries where it's the majority, it caps out at around 60%. Characterizing that as a "monopoly" is absurd.
Apple really trying to be the asshole here. Imagine installing work apps that disappear after 30 days.. Also what happens if the user chooses not to share their live location with apple?
People are just being dramatic because they’re not getting what they want.
The DMA doesn’t even stipulate a 30 day provision, just a stipulation that it applies to people who live or are located in the EU. There’s a bit of wiggle room on how to read that (i.e., people who live in the EU, people who are located in the EU, people who live or are located in the EU) and Apple chose the middle road, presumably with the expectation that if it turns out to be an issue it’ll be settled before the CJEU.
> They don't lose access to the apps. I suspect the phone itself is what disables it, not sending the location to Apple.
Imagine paying a thousand dollars for a computer that actively sabotages its user based on their gps data… All because the manufacturer wants to control how someone can install a piece of software on it…
I'm not sure the nuance of technically not sending to Apple really matters when we talk about iOS. iOS is Apple's loyal servant, does it really matter if their control is exacted server or client side? That line is pretty blurry when it comes to Apple in general.
If the phone would not send location data then it would need to store quite a bit of geographical data to be able to accurately say if you spend last 30 days in EU. That might be harder in border regions...
I wonder if you turn off location services, and use a european VPN, if you maintain access.
If you do not have access, I would wonder if they would run across the problem google ran into with private browsing, that people expect to have privacy.
In other words, if you turn off location services, that apple will not track your location and should have (legal) no way of knowing if you are inside or outside of the EU.
Or worse, imagine realizing you forgot one important app when reaching your destination. Uber doesn't exist in the country you went to? You can now only install this country's taxi app through the App Store since your alternative app marketplace lost its ability to install apps...
> However, you must be in the European Union to install alternative app marketplaces and new apps from alternative app marketplaces
I'm confused at the scenario you are presenting. So in this case, you travel out of the EU, but are installing a taxi app from a non-eu country, but the app is only available in the EU?
> Whether or not that will be something the European Commission takes issue with, remains to be seen. After all, an EU citizen is an EU citizen even after they leave the EU.
I fail to see how this is in any way relevant. Cannabis is legal in Canada, and Canadians remain Canadian citizens abroad. If they're caught with cannabis in a country where it's illegal, they will be prosecuted for breaking the law. Laws don't follow people around like this.
On the other hand, if you do something in a foreign country which is legal in that place but illegal in your home country, you can be prosecuted back home for it.
Kind of, not entirely true for most laws, only ones of certain levels typically the big captial punishment or long term imprisonment ones such as rape, CP, murder, certain financial crimes, and conspiracies to commit said prior.
Drinking underage for example, most examples of drugs too. Even internally in the US they don't have specific right to arrest someone for smoking weed in a state that is legal as federal agents on state land (or private), not within 50 miles of a border.
Only some things in the US have "extraterritorial jurisdiction". Travel for child sex tourism (what Epsteins pals should be charged with) and bribery abroad for two examples.
I think you have it a bit turned around. If I have a right under my country's laws based on my citizenship, my right doesn't cease to exist because I leave the country. For example, I continue to have 5th Amendment rights outside of the United States. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
I haven't read the decision that requires Apple to open up its devices to third party stores, but if that decision is somehow premised on rights conferred by EU citizenship, then the passage you quote would be valid.
that decision is about military tribunals that will judge acts of us citizens committed at other territories but under US law.
If you are in another country and is being prosecuted under that country laws the 5th amendment not only not apply but it (or a similar law) might not even exist.
This has nothing to do with laws. This has everything to do with Apple choosing how you will use the software on your device. And they're straight up insisting that if you don't live within a geographical area, the functionality of your device will change at their whim.
this is totally about the law.. third-party stores only exist in EU because there is a law that require then to exist.
And Apple devices already behave differently based on location.
Apple watches O2 and Heart functionalities are famously limited by the watch location at the time they are enabled, US being one place where O2 is not available at the moment even while you can have it in many other countries.
Hot take: all of the above is stupid. Maybe we shouldn't make things life ending crimes when they're perfectly legal once you take a step across an imaginary line.
Maybe apple shouldn't be trying to lock down an object that they sold and no longer own and control.
Yes, I know, obviously there are situations where this mentality doesn't apply as cleanly. That doesn't mean we get to abandon all logic when it comes to legislation and corporate misbehavior.
What about this is a tortured interpretation of the DMA?
Article 1 clearly states the subject matter and scope of the DMA, with subsection 2 defining which end users it pertains to. As it should, because it would be bonkers for the EU to try and regulate anything outside of their jurisdiction.
Just say you wish it applied outside of the EU but that you understand the logical jurisdictional limitations and call it a day.
But I thought the only reason Apple prevented third-party stores and sideloaded apps in the first place was to improve security. Therefore, I’m sure that disabling app updates once someone spends a month outside the EU must improve security, too. Right!?
Brussels effect. EU come up with something, other powers will start implementing it too. Japan is already poking into Apple in the same way and India might join with their demands as well. I believe that China already has its own App Store and then you have only USA not willing to make regulations.
Readit News
There’s no other way than to interpret this, and the preceding actions by Apple, as a temper tantrum of malicious compliance. That begs a whole new set of questions.
Optically, this is the behavior you’d expect from companies that stopped innovating and are clinging onto power with the power of lawyers. It seems like an incredibly small hill to sacrifice your reputation on.
Are their long term ambitions to live off the 30% cut? Because it sure as hell appears like they’re fighting an existential battle, which doesn’t inspire confidence in their visionary leadership. Perhaps the best thing for Apple is to take away their comfort blanket, so they’re setting sights on innovation again.
>There’s no other way than to interpret this, and the preceding actions by Apple, as a temper tantrum of malicious compliance [...]
While it's pretty clear that most people here would have liked it if Apple rolled out third party app stores to everyone and were hoping that EU regulations would extend to non-EU users (like with USB-C charging port standard), the reality of the situation is that EU jurisdiction ends at EU borders. Apple is complying with the laws exactly, and characterizing it as "aggression" or "temper tantrum" is closer to name calling than any sort of cogent argument. Chinese regulations require Apple to store iCloud data in Chinese data centers. Apple complies with this for only Chinese users. Should this also be characterized as "aggression" or "temper tantrum"? What's the difference between these two cases beyond "I like third party app stores" and "I hate my data stored in the hands of an authoritarian regime"?
when roaming with a chinese sim card, all my traffic keeps going through china, regardless how long i leave the country. so for practical purposes, it is like i never left the country.
but if i use an EU sim, suddenly after 30 days i am no longer considered to be part of the EU? as an EU citizen? how does that make any sense?
EU laws should apply as long as i use a EU sim card, regardless how long i am outside of the country. only when i switch sims, then i find it acceptable to say that EU law should no longer apply to my phone.
They might as well call Apple petty for not throwing in an iPhone with the purchase of a MacBook.
Do chinese users that leave the mainland for 30 days got converted to standard apple account with china-specific limitations removed?
EU law applies to Apple or its subsidiaries operating in Europe. As long as Apple itself stays within EU borders, the law applies to them. It stops applying to them when they exit the EU market. The third parties (including EU citizens) mentioned within the text of the regulation do not define the applicability of the law itself.
And yeah, the policies wind up arbitrary and weird....but that's because jurisdictions are arbitrary and weird. =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros....
Otherwise why go through the additional overhead and headache of implementing region-specific rules? iOS is becoming branched into 3 forks: EU, China, and rest of the world.
If you want an existing example of a phone changing stuff as you change countries just look at the modem. Different territories allow for different amounts of power to be used and the phone as has to know the laws to and adapt based off where it is in order to be compliant.
It's almost like monopolies are bad for society
Deleted Comment
People are just being dramatic because they’re not getting what they want.
The DMA doesn’t even stipulate a 30 day provision, just a stipulation that it applies to people who live or are located in the EU. There’s a bit of wiggle room on how to read that (i.e., people who live in the EU, people who are located in the EU, people who live or are located in the EU) and Apple chose the middle road, presumably with the expectation that if it turns out to be an issue it’ll be settled before the CJEU.
Imagine paying a thousand dollars for a computer that actively sabotages its user based on their gps data… All because the manufacturer wants to control how someone can install a piece of software on it…
Access to the app store disappears.
If you do not have access, I would wonder if they would run across the problem google ran into with private browsing, that people expect to have privacy.
In other words, if you turn off location services, that apple will not track your location and should have (legal) no way of knowing if you are inside or outside of the EU.
Apple doesn’t need to know where you are because the phone can enforce their rules offline.
Deleted Comment
Or someone will inevitably create an app that will do this automatically & indefinitely.
> However, you must be in the European Union to install alternative app marketplaces and new apps from alternative app marketplaces
I fail to see how this is in any way relevant. Cannabis is legal in Canada, and Canadians remain Canadian citizens abroad. If they're caught with cannabis in a country where it's illegal, they will be prosecuted for breaking the law. Laws don't follow people around like this.
Drinking underage for example, most examples of drugs too. Even internally in the US they don't have specific right to arrest someone for smoking weed in a state that is legal as federal agents on state land (or private), not within 50 miles of a border.
[0]https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guid...
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictio...
But not rights.
Deleted Comment
I haven't read the decision that requires Apple to open up its devices to third party stores, but if that decision is somehow premised on rights conferred by EU citizenship, then the passage you quote would be valid.
There are tons of commercial rights EU citizens have which don't apply if you are an EU citizen living in US - for example warranty rights.
If you are in another country and is being prosecuted under that country laws the 5th amendment not only not apply but it (or a similar law) might not even exist.
Honestly. Fuck them.
And Apple devices already behave differently based on location.
Apple watches O2 and Heart functionalities are famously limited by the watch location at the time they are enabled, US being one place where O2 is not available at the moment even while you can have it in many other countries.
Maybe apple shouldn't be trying to lock down an object that they sold and no longer own and control.
Yes, I know, obviously there are situations where this mentality doesn't apply as cleanly. That doesn't mean we get to abandon all logic when it comes to legislation and corporate misbehavior.
EU says "you must allow XYZ in our jurisdiction" so Apple allows XYZ in their jurisdiction.
Right?
---
Tbh, this just seems like unintended consequences of policy. But explain what I'm missing.
It's using the lack robust market competition to make tortured interpretations of DMA laws to continue to play rentier.
Article 1 clearly states the subject matter and scope of the DMA, with subsection 2 defining which end users it pertains to. As it should, because it would be bonkers for the EU to try and regulate anything outside of their jurisdiction.
Just say you wish it applied outside of the EU but that you understand the logical jurisdictional limitations and call it a day.
There’s no need for unwarranted loaded language.
/s