[Spivak]

That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores.

This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.

[candiodari]

I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading.

Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either.

It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.

[Spivak]

Y'all really need to read the whole act. The quote that stated this doesn't even come from (56).

> (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms and the software used to operate those technologies, which can be required for the effective provision of a service provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party undertaking providing such service.

> (57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual act, you can write whatever you want in there (and legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of this is the actual law.

For the relevant bit it's article 6 paragraph 7.

[candiodari]

I read that as: if Apple wants to allow installation of programs ("apps") on IOS, it must allow, free of charge, others to do the same. Free of charge to everyone. Free of charge to alternative app stores, free of charge to developers, free of charge to apple customers, ... free of charge to anyone. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but that is definitely a valid interpretation to me.

What exactly is unreasonable about that reading?