After years of silence, Apple finally reveals how many App Store users it has in Europe
The European Digital Services Act is about to be fully enforced, and as part of the law, Apple has been forced to disclose how many users it has in Europe for the first time in five years.
European Union flags
As part of its mandatory reporting for the European Union Digital Services Act (DSA), Apple has been forced to publish discrete user numbers for online services. The values only apply to Europe.
Apple is counting each version of the App Store as a distinct user platform under the DSA. As such, only the iOS App Store is subject to being called a "very large online platform" in accordance with the new law.
However, the company says that it will adhere to the DSA for all of its App Stores "because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers from illegal content."
Apple's first quarter of 2019 was when Apple no longer reported user numbers. Guidance was issued at the time that discrete hardware sale quantities were less materially relevant as the company had already been shifting to a Services-centric model for years at that point.
In a nutshell, the DSA puts additional responsibility on online platforms and tech companies to police content -- including both reporting and taking down illegal content.
According to the provisions of the DSA, regulations will be applied on companies in tiers. The largest firms including those with more than 45 million active users across Europe will see the biggest impacts.
The DSA will require large platforms to carry out an annual analysis on reducing risk associated with "dissemination of illegal content, adverse effects on fundamental rights, manipulation of services having an impact on democratic processes and public security and adverse effects on gender-based violence, and on minors and serious consequences for the physical or mental health of users."
Online marketplaces will also be subject to new transparency rules, and platforms will be required to allow users to opt out of algorithm recommendations that are based on their history and information.
The DSA could potentially have implications for illegal content in iCloud.
Additionally, the DSA will ban "dark patterns," or misleading user interfaces such as those that coerce users into subscribing to a platform or making an in-app purchase.
Since Apple doesn't make a search engine or social media platform, it's likely that most core elements of its business model will remain unchanged under the DSA rules. The DSA is much more likely to have a major impact on companies like Meta and Google.
Companies that violate the rules of the DSA could face a fine of up to 6% of their annual global turnover.
Read on AppleInsider
European Union flags
As part of its mandatory reporting for the European Union Digital Services Act (DSA), Apple has been forced to publish discrete user numbers for online services. The values only apply to Europe.
- iOS App Store: 101 million
- iPadOS App Store: 23 million
- macOS App Store: 6 million
- tvOS App Store: 1 million
- watchOS App Store: under 1 million
- Apple Books: under 1 million
- Podcasts paid subscriptions: under 1 million
Apple is counting each version of the App Store as a distinct user platform under the DSA. As such, only the iOS App Store is subject to being called a "very large online platform" in accordance with the new law.
However, the company says that it will adhere to the DSA for all of its App Stores "because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers from illegal content."
Apple's first quarter of 2019 was when Apple no longer reported user numbers. Guidance was issued at the time that discrete hardware sale quantities were less materially relevant as the company had already been shifting to a Services-centric model for years at that point.
Digital Services Act
The Digital Services Act (DSA) is another legislative package that will place restrictions on how tech giants operate. In this case, the DSA focuses much more on online content and moderation.In a nutshell, the DSA puts additional responsibility on online platforms and tech companies to police content -- including both reporting and taking down illegal content.
According to the provisions of the DSA, regulations will be applied on companies in tiers. The largest firms including those with more than 45 million active users across Europe will see the biggest impacts.
The DSA will require large platforms to carry out an annual analysis on reducing risk associated with "dissemination of illegal content, adverse effects on fundamental rights, manipulation of services having an impact on democratic processes and public security and adverse effects on gender-based violence, and on minors and serious consequences for the physical or mental health of users."
Online marketplaces will also be subject to new transparency rules, and platforms will be required to allow users to opt out of algorithm recommendations that are based on their history and information.
The DSA could potentially have implications for illegal content in iCloud.
Additionally, the DSA will ban "dark patterns," or misleading user interfaces such as those that coerce users into subscribing to a platform or making an in-app purchase.
Since Apple doesn't make a search engine or social media platform, it's likely that most core elements of its business model will remain unchanged under the DSA rules. The DSA is much more likely to have a major impact on companies like Meta and Google.
Companies that violate the rules of the DSA could face a fine of up to 6% of their annual global turnover.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Minor quibble—or question?: The EU would be a part of Europe vs Europe as part of EU.
https://www.ft.com/content/49f3d7f2-30d5-4336-87ad-eea0ee0ecc7b
>“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times. “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added. The EU defines “gatekeeper” companies as those which span several countries, have a significant impact on the market, and link large numbers of users to large numbers of businesses. <
Of course ..... "large number of users" ... is anywhere between the minimum that any of the US big 5 techs have and the maximum of any EU company. If the two numbers overlap, then that criteria will no longer be used to determine a "gatekeeper".
And speaking of less innovation, here's a good article bringing up that point.
https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/the-digital-markets-act-the-path-to-overregulation/
The limits have been set. If an EU based company reaches gatekeeper status it will fall under the legal obligations too.
That’s it.
My house. My rules. And the same rules for everyone.
As far as innovation is concerned, why not simply let the industry play out under the DSA/DMA and then evaluate the situation?
Laws are not knocked up forever and unchangeable. They get reviewed.
That said major EU directives have often been the model from which others imitate.
Care to name a major EU directive that has bombed? How do they stand up when compared to others? Are EU citizens up in arms about them? If they are, I certainly haven't heard about them.
Some criticism is warranted but it wouldn't have been around so long if it had bombed (and the French have turned trashing lorries of Spanish tomatoes into a national past time).
Free movement has been one of the quintessential examples of the EU getting things right. Probably the best EU example of the exact opposite of bombing. Once again though, for some people, the very nature of free movement is abhorrent.
Bloc border control is quite literally a non-issue for anyone with a EU member state identity card or passport, under the treaty regulations. Other considerations can come into play when individual states implement extra controls (as was the case with Covid) but that is normal as each member state retains the right to refuse entry on certain grounds and is provided for in the treaty. Also, member states can suspend Schengen adherence but if you have a valid ID/passport you are good to go.
Sadly, after Brexit, I had to return my 'Member of the Union' certificate so free movement is gone for me.
You've totally misread me there. I was saying that the freedom of movement guarantee combined with a devolved and haphazard approach to bloc border control creates some problems. Which it does. Italy and Greece have had major issues with the EU about the need for its ships to police the Mediterranean, other countries in the east have had similar issues with poorly aligned border controls, and countries (e.g. the UK) have had major issues with the EU about extra-EU (and intra-EU for that matter, though a different subject) immigrants arriving at their doorstep with little control because of Schengen permissiveness. They aren't solely right wing talking points, though obviously the ring wing gets the most hysterical about them.
On the subject of Greece, the austerity directive that they were made to follow to qualify for EU aid has been something of a disaster too.
Your what?
But every once in awhile, French, German, or British nationalism, works to tear the EU apart, likely with assistance from foreign interlopers, such as Russia wrt Brexit.
Do better, EU, and yeah, the U.S. does has its own political problems.
The French and Germans have every right to be smiling for some reasons (total farmland for example) but like I said, that does not stop French farmers from stopping Spanish lorries and emptying their contents whenever they throw a tantrum.
I dare say that going forward, had Brexit not happened, the UK would have benefited greatly from the CAP in relation to climate change and the protections the CAP offers to climate related crop destruction as extreme weather events become commonplace.
Such is the complexity of CAP issues, and this is very telling, that the post Brexit UK hasn't been able to agree on a perfect agricultural solution even without having to take EU considerations into account, and a dark farming-policy-shadow looms large over any major trade deal with the US which will want to dilute the food safety protections (and much more) afforded through the CAP.
In terms of border control, things are fine in general terms. Illegal immigration isn't something that free movement really covers.
Spain and Italy have been complaining for decades about illegal immigration from North Africa. The refugee crises from several conflicts puts the focus back onto the issue from time to time but those crises are exceptional events that require exceptional measures. The day-to-day process of illegal immigration is not really that much of an issue in absolute terms and it is exactly why so little has been done over the last 30 years.
Illegal immigrants aren't really coming in from border control points where controls are strict.
They are coming over thousands of kilometres of largely impossible to control land and coastlines. It's why there have been more attempts to deal with illegal immigration at source of origin. That is something that free movement cannot contemplate because its focus is on legal movement of EU citizens (which do use border control points when they exist), not illegal immigrants.
In that context, free movement has been a great success even if illegal immigrants may find it 'easier' to move around certain areas once they get through the so-called hard border.
The reality is that excepting those strict border checks, other checks are still in place within national borders but little to no action is actually taken by member state governments and they include the ones that actually complain about the situation. Spain especially. If anything, once someone reaches your territory, authorities tend to be 'welcoming'. There are endless opportunities to find and expel illegal immigrants but often they are simply not enforced.
Locals will often complain about what they see as immigrants walking in and sucking everything they can out of public services but in absolute terms it is basically insignificant unless you happen to be in an area that is full of such cases (again, very rare) and the in-your-face nature of the situation affects your viewpoint because even in those places, most of them are actually contributing to society. Some agricultural areas of Spain are chock full of migrants and illegals are among them but they are doing work the locals don't want to do.
What I mean is that your 'combined with a' only represents a tiny fraction of what free movement is all about. In reality it has basically very little to do with the concept of free movement as a goal itself.
There are specific immigration laws for that.
Of course, my opinion is based on over 30 years living and benefitting from free movement so yes, I'm pro EU. I was sad to see my free movement end.
The certificate of Member of the Union is an official certificate which is obligatory for EU nationals living here permanently. It basically certifies you as a citizen of an EU member state and makes life very easy in many everyday situations. I've had places like banks ask for it. Even demand it. Some institutions will even ask for it even if it isn't officially required.
I've had plenty of fights with bank employees over me having a valid tax ID number but with no identification with the same number. Ironically, and as a result of Brexit, I do have an identity card with my NIE now.
Yes, the US does have its political problems but a lot of what reaches me paints a far worse picture of a broken, divided society in decay.
That may be exaggerated and distorted but that's the image we get here.