This is good news. App stores are more like an employer these days. Sure, „Don’t depend on an App Store alone”, but if you apply the same logic to worker rules, you have hire and fire.
The app stores are maturing and so comes regulation into play.
(2) ‘online intermediation services’ means services which meet all of the following requirements:
(a) they constitute information society services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12);
(b) they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded;
(c) they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;
> Unfair B2B market practices can be tackled, but only if game developers and publishers talk about them. EGDF calls all game developers and publishers to report any unfair treatment they receive
EDIT: I was concerned this might prevent malware from getting weeded out, but there are rational carve-outs if you dig a little deeper in:
> The various exceptions to the 30-day notice period can in particular arise in connection with illicit or inappropriate content, the safety of a good or service, counterfeiting, fraud, malware, spam, data breaches, other cybersecurity risks or suitability of the good or service to minors.
Original Post
-------------
I'm a bit concerned that "Article 4" will protect malware and fraudulent software from being removed:
> Platforms will have to provide 30 days notice to publishers before removing content from stores, allowing them time to appeal or make changes to their software. So no immediate and opaque bans (article 4).
Minimizing malware is one of the selling points of App Stores, and this seems to kneecap that to some extent.
I don't really like the: "inappropriate content" that's the kind of language which allows American companies to apply an American sense of moral onto countries with completely different ideas of what is inappropriate.
Yup, that caught my eye as well. This is the loophole that will probably continue the stupid events like app getting removed for a screenshot of reddit app showing the post with ISIS in it.
That is something fundamental essentially for better or worse - it is their right. Even if their objections are stupid or morally wrong they have real impacts they have to be conscious of.
Not having it would effectively render markets mutually exclusive as the terms are "do something which would cause a shitstorm here" like saying they can't take down a Zwarte Pete face swap app. The law prohibiting it would turn it into an international incident as a "EU demands a right to profit from blackface" scandal and nobody wins.
The people who want to use apps that violate American morals win, that's enough. Sure, there may be a shitstorm or two, but that will pass once people get used to the law.
I think that would depend on who was offended and to what degree. Consider that Christianity is still quite a thing here, and while there aren't many killings for criticism of Jesus, people will boycott.
I think you forget how serious Americans are about free speech. Trying to force an American company to allow Lolli or cub content(just an example) on their platform won't end well. " the opinions of Americans shouldn't determine European policies." The issue here is that's not how international politics works. Unless you don't see an issue with forcing someone of another culture to do something they find to be morally evil.
They aren't forced to allow anything on their platforms unless they want to provide it in Europe. And what their platforms look like in other countries is those countries' business of course.
> I think you forget how serious Americans are about free speech.
I'm also serious about free speech which is why I don't want unelected capitalists to restrict it.
> an American sense of moral onto countries with completely different ideas of what is inappropriate.
I am really interested to know what you mean by "an American sense of moral". Is there some better "universal sense of moral" that we could be following?
Yeah, I didn't catch that, but I can also see the sense in it as well. I'm not sure how you avoid having at least a bit of gray area.
> apply an American sense of moral onto countries
This is an interesting comment because it could go both ways. You have the EU and Australia where there are somewhat more permissive morals (nudity isn't considered obscene for example), and on the other hand you have many other countries like the Middle East where the moral code is much more stringent (alcohol is not allowed, face coverings, etc).
Also, this isn't any worse than the current state, the App Store owners have complete control here already. It just doesn't fix this particular potential abuse.
Just a thought, but why doesn't the EU (and only the EU has the will for this) have a government funded storefront for all apps. Then make Google and Apple add this storefront as an app on par with Play Store and App Store on all their devices. Sounds much more efficient than creating regulation after regulation
That would be very expensive and time cinsuming for a government entity to run. Let these companies figure out how to make money while playing by the rules
> How would it give "too much control" to the government
It might allow the government to combine data it has on citizens with this data. On top of the fact that in that situation one single entity (the government) would see everything from everyone.
> why is it better that that control be in private hands?
That argument is not being made. But right now you got Apple and Google competing, and new players might compete with those two at some point to. If you got a government no one can compete with that controls this data on everyone (as opposed to it currently being split between two big providers).
Governments could decide that some things should not be permitted "informally". For example they could restrict any app connected to political opponents.
Europe does not have the built-in distust of the governments that the US does but it's dangerous.
In my oppinion EU governments already have their thumbs in more pies than they should.
I think a more interesting point is how EU companies can hope to compete with the likes of Google if non-EU companies can effectively subsidise their EU operations by using revenue from more profitable markets. The EU is most certainly profitable to operate in, it is the wealthiest block on earth. It's just that margins are slimmer and cost of business is higher.
Heavy regulation of local comanies forces either heavy subsidies (basically all r&d in Europe is 50%+ subsidised) or a Chinese style blanket ban on competition.
I've also lived in the US and now Europe. Don't get me wrong, each had it's pros and cons; as an individual both my purchasing power and quality of life was better in the US.
Outside of universal education and healthcare, my conclusion is that the value of the European tax dollar is unfairly distributed. At the local level, European grants and subsidies create jobs for educated people who chose the right course of study. At the Eurozone level, you have the northern "export based" economies essentially using a devalued currency to outcompete the southern countries. Relatively that means more tax dollars for the northern countries, when ideally those would be spread somewhat evenly across Europe.
I think Europe needs a technocratic tool that makes the economic performance of all countries everyone's problem. Denmark has an unemployment and retraining scheme called a-kasse that is reasonably well implemented. I could see a centrally funded, Europe wide implementation could be a solution.
I think the problem here is mandate. That's seen as a venture into the private markets, which no EU governing body has, unless it's some form of PPP or something similar.
EU's mandate is creating a harmonized, balanced marketplace within it's collective borders, through regulation and incentives.
I actually think that's a reasonable (if unlikely) idea.
In Australia we had a government-owned-but-run-for-profit private medical insurance company. The idea was that the government could use competition in the market instead of heavy-handed regulation to make the sector play nice.
It worked beautifully. Great government use of a free market mechanism.
(A few years ago our conservative government sold it off because they are ideologically allergic to the idea, and/or they're just corrupt fucks in the pants of corporates)
„Platforms will have to provide 30 days notice to publishers before removing content from stores“
This happend to me a few times with one particular app on Google Play Store and a company I worked for.
In all cases the app was removed from the store without any prior notice and very limited information on why it was removed in the first place.
To make it worse, it took days to get a reply back which felt to be build out of predefined text blocks and did not address the questions nor solution.
Apple on the other hand always provided great feedback and offered solutions and never simply took an app from the store.
Hence I welcome this change greatly.
Also noteworthy, the apps in question were absolutely clean and were to please the users.
No spam, spy, advertisements boosters.
Lets just hope this 30 day rule does not apply to the numerous bad apps, those should be removed more quickly and in fact not even approved in the first place.
> Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries.
And:
> Public authorities in EU Member States have the main responsibility for the application of EU law.
I knew the citation, but thank you anyways. When you actually try with the local court you'll find out it's not as clear cut as it is on the EU website and the local court will adhere only to local codified law. My country's government is in opposition to some of regulations and the courts can't do anything about it.
Yeah, there is some procedure with this court and the government going on regarding a single issue, other issues are waiting in queue. It has been 5 years and still nothing. Note that a person/corporation can't sue to this court.
"any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court"
If developers didn't use them in the first place, this problem could have been non-existent. I am glad that desktop has fended off tries to establish software stores, although I don't think we have seen the last of it.
Still, I think this is good regulation. We have seen random bans from apps that didn't hit the correct taste and a mechanism to appeal is surely needed.
I get that mobile developers don't have much choice if the want to monetize their software, but at least we should keep these ecosystems to unproductive devices.
I wastly prefer App Store on desktop too. Most of my software is in the same place. I can see which apps I have installed on a particular machine and which I do not. I can install it on multiple machines. It is updated automatically.
After loosely reading over the regulation, I can't see anything limiting it to games in particular. I realize that the GI.biz article would focus on the impact that it would have on games developers & publishers, but as a mobile application developer my self I am more interested in the impact this will have on the EU ecosystem overall on both stores.
I wonder if this will apply simply to Apple Developer accounts? Currently if a developer wishes to ship products outside the App Store they are still stuck with the hard requirement to have an active developer account in order to notarise their software. If for whatever reason Apple decides to shutter a developer account (something I've witnessed recently [1]) then they are SOOL if they want to release for recent macOS versions.
It'll be interesting to see how long it will be until the policies are made available as per these regulations. These companies are not going to do this without a fight, so someone will have to take them to court first.
Sadly, I think we're several years away from actually getting this information.
53 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 72.2 ms ] threadThe app stores are maturing and so comes regulation into play.
From the definitions:
(2) ‘online intermediation services’ means services which meet all of the following requirements:
(a) they constitute information society services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12);
(b) they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded;
(c) they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;
IANAL, of course.
Report then where?
And if this law passes, to EU authorities...
> The various exceptions to the 30-day notice period can in particular arise in connection with illicit or inappropriate content, the safety of a good or service, counterfeiting, fraud, malware, spam, data breaches, other cybersecurity risks or suitability of the good or service to minors.
Original Post
-------------
I'm a bit concerned that "Article 4" will protect malware and fraudulent software from being removed:
> Platforms will have to provide 30 days notice to publishers before removing content from stores, allowing them time to appeal or make changes to their software. So no immediate and opaque bans (article 4).
Minimizing malware is one of the selling points of App Stores, and this seems to kneecap that to some extent.
Not having it would effectively render markets mutually exclusive as the terms are "do something which would cause a shitstorm here" like saying they can't take down a Zwarte Pete face swap app. The law prohibiting it would turn it into an international incident as a "EU demands a right to profit from blackface" scandal and nobody wins.
> I think you forget how serious Americans are about free speech.
I'm also serious about free speech which is why I don't want unelected capitalists to restrict it.
I am really interested to know what you mean by "an American sense of moral". Is there some better "universal sense of moral" that we could be following?
> apply an American sense of moral onto countries
This is an interesting comment because it could go both ways. You have the EU and Australia where there are somewhat more permissive morals (nudity isn't considered obscene for example), and on the other hand you have many other countries like the Middle East where the moral code is much more stringent (alcohol is not allowed, face coverings, etc).
Also, this isn't any worse than the current state, the App Store owners have complete control here already. It just doesn't fix this particular potential abuse.
It might allow the government to combine data it has on citizens with this data. On top of the fact that in that situation one single entity (the government) would see everything from everyone.
> why is it better that that control be in private hands?
That argument is not being made. But right now you got Apple and Google competing, and new players might compete with those two at some point to. If you got a government no one can compete with that controls this data on everyone (as opposed to it currently being split between two big providers).
Europe does not have the built-in distust of the governments that the US does but it's dangerous.
I think a more interesting point is how EU companies can hope to compete with the likes of Google if non-EU companies can effectively subsidise their EU operations by using revenue from more profitable markets. The EU is most certainly profitable to operate in, it is the wealthiest block on earth. It's just that margins are slimmer and cost of business is higher.
Heavy regulation of local comanies forces either heavy subsidies (basically all r&d in Europe is 50%+ subsidised) or a Chinese style blanket ban on competition.
I am both American and an EU citizen. While I love the United States dearly, I have a safer, more stable life working in the EU.
Outside of universal education and healthcare, my conclusion is that the value of the European tax dollar is unfairly distributed. At the local level, European grants and subsidies create jobs for educated people who chose the right course of study. At the Eurozone level, you have the northern "export based" economies essentially using a devalued currency to outcompete the southern countries. Relatively that means more tax dollars for the northern countries, when ideally those would be spread somewhat evenly across Europe.
I think Europe needs a technocratic tool that makes the economic performance of all countries everyone's problem. Denmark has an unemployment and retraining scheme called a-kasse that is reasonably well implemented. I could see a centrally funded, Europe wide implementation could be a solution.
EU's mandate is creating a harmonized, balanced marketplace within it's collective borders, through regulation and incentives.
(A few years ago our conservative government sold it off because they are ideologically allergic to the idea, and/or they're just corrupt fucks in the pants of corporates)
This happend to me a few times with one particular app on Google Play Store and a company I worked for.
In all cases the app was removed from the store without any prior notice and very limited information on why it was removed in the first place. To make it worse, it took days to get a reply back which felt to be build out of predefined text blocks and did not address the questions nor solution.
Apple on the other hand always provided great feedback and offered solutions and never simply took an app from the store.
Hence I welcome this change greatly. Also noteworthy, the apps in question were absolutely clean and were to please the users. No spam, spy, advertisements boosters.
Lets just hope this 30 day rule does not apply to the numerous bad apps, those should be removed more quickly and in fact not even approved in the first place.
Move along, nothing to see here...
> Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries.
And:
> Public authorities in EU Member States have the main responsibility for the application of EU law.
"any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court"
Still, I think this is good regulation. We have seen random bans from apps that didn't hit the correct taste and a mechanism to appeal is surely needed.
I get that mobile developers don't have much choice if the want to monetize their software, but at least we should keep these ecosystems to unproductive devices.
[1] https://forum.juce.com/t/apple-developer-support-is-unreacha...
Sadly, I think we're several years away from actually getting this information.