Hacker News Reader

Comment by apetresc | Hacker News Reader

Given that the definition of a VLOP is >45M MAU, and the iOS store is the only one that's even remotely close to being over that, what do you object with in this characterization?

Also you left out the very next sentence, which completely reverses the interpretation you're trying to imply:

> Nonetheless, Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for VLOPs because the goals of the DSA align with Apple’s goals to protect consumers from illegal content.

View on HN

> the iOS store is the only one that's even remotely close to being over that

What iOS store? They're all one and the same. You can install iOS apps on iPadOS right?

It doesn't matter that they "voluntarily comply". They just shouldn't have the nerve to split them.

You can’t install iPad only apps on iPhone though.

you can if you check one checkmark during publishing of your iOS app (same with mac).

> your iOS app

How many of the 45 million users have ever touched xcode?

I think the point is that if your markets are defined by a toggle switch in xcode, it's probably arbitrary.

Is it though? Checking the box quite literally opens you to more users. If you have an iPad native app, your market is much smaller than if you were to allow it to be downloaded on iPhones. And supposedly you get access to 2 million users by deploying to the list of apps available on Apple TV.

Look at the Microsoft Store. It's one storefront - you buy Minecraft for Xbox online, you can download it on PC and Xbox alike. It is a single marketplace, despite hosting mutually exclusive platforms. The App Store's situation is nearly identical - all of these platforms share a kernel and a common API base (much like the PC/Xbox relation). The App Store just has a different set of arbitrary boundaries that seem to be re-drawn every time they receive anticompetitive scrutiny.

Put another way - how would accepting this as-is help regulators proceed? It's a finely-tuned joke, and if it didn't come with the olive branch of "illegal content moderation" then it wouldn't have been taken with a straight face.

> The App Store just has a different set of arbitrary boundaries that seem to be re-drawn every time they receive anticompetitive scrutiny.

Apple introduced the iPad in 2010 with the capability of selling different apps for iPhone and iPad. Back then, they didn’t have a framework for supporting screens of different sizes - which wasn’t introduced until around 2012.

They introduced the AppleTV that could have third party apps in 2015.

This was way before the EU started making up regulation because it can’t produce a viable tech company to save its life.

I think the point is: App Stores for iPhone and iPads are in reality one and the same. Apple tries to artificially split them, so they can avoid regulations for at least one of them.

They’re not the same. You can’t install an iPad app on an iPhone. Only because most Apps for iPad also have an iPhone version doesn’t make them the same.

Show me where apple is avoiding regulations here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com