Apple seems to be in a constant state of being reprimanded by various state entities and governing bodies. Whether it’s the introduction of alternative payment methods, the removal of features from existing hardware, the allowance of alternate app stores, or the promotion of genuine browser competition, Apple appears to be constantly on the back foot. This is either due to legal judgements not going in its favor or lawmakers effectively outlawing its preferred business practices.
Unsurprisingly, Apple is not a fan of these developments. However, what is surprising is Apple’s readiness to complain to its customers about these changes. It’s as if Apple views its users as feeble dependents, incapable of understanding the implications of these changes.
Apple’s press release on the changes in iOS 17.4, which comply with the newly implemented Digital Markets Act in Europe, is a case in point. The company claims to be introducing new safeguards that reduce — but crucially, do not eliminate — the new risks posed by the DMA to EU users. This is a clear attempt to scare users into believing that these changes are detrimental to their interests.
Apple’s fearmongering about third-party app install vectors and side-loading, which are already available on Android, is likely an exaggeration. While these features could pose additional risks for uninformed users, Android has exposed users to these risks for some time now, and yet, society remains intact. Users continue to use Android, Mac, and Windows devices with reasonable success.
Apple’s recent announcement that developers would be able to link out to the web to inform users about alternative subscription methods for in-app digital purchases is riddled with caveats. The appearance and location of these links are tightly controlled, and Apple must grant special permission to apps to allow them to do this. Moreover, Apple demands a 27% cut from any purchase made through these links, further demonstrating its greed.
While it’s understandable that Apple is reluctant to make these changes due to the potential impact on its service revenue, the company’s petulant attitude towards compliance is less comprehensible. Apple’s stubborn resistance to open up its tightly closed ecosystem is unlikely to convince regulators that these measures are unnecessary and detrimental to users.
Regulators are already scrutinizing Apple’s business practices to determine if they violate antitrust laws. In Europe, laws have already been enacted to limit Apple’s control and power. Apple’s sulky response to these regulatory changes is unlikely to win it any sympathy from regulators or convince them that these measures are not needed and are, in fact, harmful to users.
Apple’s actions can be seen as nothing more than myopic at best. While these actions might not affect Apple’s revenue in the short term, they paint a picture of a company that is obstinately resistant to aligning with the spirit of legislative efforts aimed at promoting competition and curbing the influence of behemoth corporations like Apple.
Developers are growing increasingly frustrated with Apple’s antics. While this resentment might not have a significant impact on established platforms like iOS, which boast unrivaled user bases and are thus indispensable for any mobile consumer software business, it could have serious implications for the success of future platforms, such as the Apple Vision Pro.
Furthermore, Apple’s actions could leave it vulnerable to competitors in its core businesses. It might seem unthinkable now that iOS could ever lose its dominant position in the mobile market, but history has shown that the unthinkable can indeed happen. If developers feel sufficiently alienated and insulted, they might be more inclined to help a competitor replicate the success of the iPhone, especially if conditions deteriorate further. This could potentially disrupt Apple’s stronghold on the market.