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.
I hope this malicious approach will indeed be settled before the CJEU... with a hefty fine.
if i travel to leave the EU for longer than 30 days, do i no longer live in the EU?
according to tax law, i am considered living in the EU as long as i spend at least 6 months per year there. so by that metric, the feature should be available for at least 6 months after leaving the EU.
There you go...
Given the barrier to entry and cost, with little benefit, if I were to guess, the Epic store might be the only "third party App Store" to ever see the light of day.
And the way that's going, even that is in doubt.
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.
In other words, the court said normal people turning on "private browsing" expected what they were browsing was private.
In a similar fashion, maybe people turning off "location services" would expect their location to be hidden.
Apple doesn’t need to know where you are because the phone can enforce their rules offline.
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
Let's get to a more down to earth example then: you break your phone while abroad, you can't buy a new one and reinstall old apps anymore.
Or another one: you forgot to install an application available only on this alternative store before leaving (it's not that crazy, see F-Droid on Android where apps are not always available on the Play Store), you can't install it anymore since you aren't physically in the EU anymore.
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....
The issue for Apple is that the above generates bad press against Apple which is going to erode away the brand, and the regulators might end up issuing more rules anyway.
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.
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.
in what country are any of the things you listed legal?
But not rights.
Same with the GDPR and EU residents who go abroad for a bit.
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.
However, the land on which an embassy is situated remains under the sovereignty of the host country, not the country that the embassy represents. The host country retains ultimate control over the land, although it must respect the embassy's independence and immunities. Diplomatic premises are subject to the laws of the host country to a certain extent, but with significant exceptions that allow the embassy to function as a representation of its home country's government.
The answer to your question is no.
I can't find anything here [0][1] which implies that embassies are foreign soil. I believe, for example, that if, hypothetically, a woman were to give birth in a US embassy they would not become a US citizen.
[0] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...
[1] https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_3
US won't ever do that because of all the lobbying, but EU might, no?
Imagine taking away your toddler's favorite toy. Forever.
While 102 TFEU (and in particular the CJEU case law surrounding it) has stacked the deck extremely in favor of the EC, in part due to it being designed and interpreted on the basis of European administrative law traditions, a ban or divestiture will only be imposed by the CJEU in the most extreme cases.
A case even the EC, with the entire deck stacked in their favor, will never be able to make. Edit: Specifically for Apple, the others, depending on who we’re talking about, might be a different story.
Would EU be able to allow selling the phone but not the app store?
Also, what is the line of monopoly or abuse of market dominance that would put these companies get caught in the EU's cross hairs?
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
It prevents installing new apps.
Edit: Actually misread that. It might prevent updates.
Let me know when your flipper zero can hack a brick.
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.
the second you step out of EU, EU laws stop applying to you and the laws from whatever country you are in the moment start applying.
> Apple had previously said that it would give EU citizens a period of graze
Three paragraph article. Couldn't proof read it. Fair enough.
It's almost like monopolies are bad for society
The request to "treat someone as hostile" is about their OWN witness that THEY introduced getting turned into a hostile aka opposition witness.
> A hostile witness is a witness who testifies against the party who has called them to testify. The examiner may ask a hostile witness leading questions, as in cross-examination. Also known as an adverse witness.
As I said, a witness from the other side is always hostile, so asking for it would never make sense.
To give an example: Criminal case, prosecutor brought in a on-scene witness to testify. But the witness is arguing against the prosecutor's case/evidence, so they request the judge to allow them to turn a witness hostile which allows a different style of questioning.
Can’t fault them too much for it though, they did indicate that their inspiration was TV.
Seriously though, can Apple claim or pretend that it’s protecting EU residents and that once someone is out, they’re not residents anymore? The 30-day period for something as critical as apps in today’s world is too short though.
