> Apple will require a letter of credit of $1M for any potential alternative store
This is nonsense of the highest order. How is that ‘allowing’ alternative app stores. That’s just gatekeeping by a different measure.
This is nonsense of the highest order. How is that ‘allowing’ alternative app stores. That’s just gatekeeping by a different measure.
Making sure that third party stores have enough money available to be able to moderate, review, handle fraud, and deal with liability issues seems within the line of what Articld 6 sub 4 of the DMA[0] allows:
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
Edit: OK, the term “gatekeeping” is all over the wiki concerning the DMA. But as is often the case, a term can have different meanings in different legal contexts. In Apple’s case it looks like the DMA was more about Apple opening up the browser, NFC payments, and favoring their own apps in the App Store. I don’t see anything in the Wiki about sideloading as part of being a “gatekeeper.”
> Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:
> treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
I find it hard to see what is not 'more favorable' about staying within the walled garden. All their rules are made to terrify people that would step outside it.
At least that's my reading of it.
That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”.
If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand.
But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted.
On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand.
It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings.
So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply.
Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.