When the EU implemented the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to foster innovation and competitiveness, AppleCensorship called Apple out for its minimal compliance efforts. Apple's implementation of 'sideloading' was overly restrictive, and a new commission structure was introduced, potentially burdening developers financially while limiting both developers’ freedom and users’ access to information. This approach reinforces Apple's dominance in app distribution, undermining the DMA's goal of a fair digital market and complicating our fight against app censorship.
In this context, AppleCensorship interviewed Matthias Pfau, co-founder of private encrypted email provider Tuta, previously blocked in Egypt and by Russian internet service providers. Pfau shared Tuta's perspective as an App Store app regarding Apple's DMA compliance and its impact on similar apps. The interview delved into how Apple's policies significantly hinder app development processes, making it challenging for developers to distribute apps outside the App Store. It also stressed efforts to combat tech giants' monopolistic control and emphasized the importance of privacy protection through encryption.
AC: Given the EU's DMA objectives to promote fair competition, how might Apple's high commission fees on sideloaded apps and third-party stores impact consumer choices and app diversity on iOS? Could these costs discourage smaller developers, thereby limiting innovation and the range of specialized apps available?
Matthias: If you want to offer your app outside the Apple App Store, Apple makes it extremely difficult for developers. The challenge isn't just the expense; it's also the requirement to display a "scare screen" to customers. This screen warns users that the app hasn't been reviewed by Apple, implying that the app might be insecure. This warning can significantly reduce downloads, upgrades, and revenues.
Although Apple theoretically allows developers to distribute apps via alternative channels, the practicalities make it nearly impossible from a business perspective. We're essentially stuck with the Apple App Store and can't realistically use an alternative. This is gatekeeping. A big chunk of the revenue you make goes to Apple because of their fees.
This practice not only affects current revenues but also stifles innovation. With so much of the earnings going to Apple, developers have fewer resources for development, marketing, and promoting new apps. Consequently, the high barriers imposed by Apple's power hinder the entry of new apps and ideas into the market, ultimately stifling innovation.
AC: You have criticized Apple's restrictive sideloading policies versus Android's openness, highlighting impacts on competition, developers’ and users’ freedoms. What lessons can iOS learn from Android's approach, and how do developer and consumer experiences differ between the two ecosystems under the new regulations?
Matthias: If you compare it directly with iOS, Android is much more open and free. Android allows direct downloads, so people can go to our website and download the app to their Android phones. Because Android is more open, there are already other platforms, not just Google's Play Store. One very popular alternative app distribution platform in Germany is F-droid, which is an open-source platform. And this is a great example of how the internet should be, because this is a platform that only allows open-source apps. People going to this app store are those who are fans of open-source, who know how important open-source is for security, know that these apps have been vetted by experts, and there's no cost. There's no scare screen when you download the app from F-droid in comparison to sideloading on iOS. And yet it is still very secure because everything is open-source and well monitored by the developers behind it. This is the best example to show why and how the open system could be better in relation to iOS, and Apple should really copy this approach and give more power to the people and more choice for consumers. In fact, right now if you own an iPhone, you are basically held hostage by Apple, because you can only use apps that Apple allows you to use whether you like it or not. That's just how it is. And so far, the DMA has not changed this because of Apple's malicious compliance. For the consumer, nothing has changed.
AC: Tuta compares the DMA to Swiss cheese, criticizing Apple's evasive compliance and noting the EU's enforcement challenges. What measures could the EU adopt from an app developer's standpoint to ensure Apple's stricter adherence?
Matthias: The EU is going in the right direction with the DMA, and they have already announced that they will be investigating whether not only Apple, but also Amazon and Google are actually complying with the DMA sufficiently. We are really excited to see this happening. And we are curious to see the outcome because in our opinion, Apple's new policy does not comply with the DMA. It is not sufficient. The EU must look into this. And they are doing just that, which is great. I think this should also happen in a much more global space. The U.S. should also look into this monopolistic power and how to limit it because it affects everyone worldwide, given the power of these companies.
AC: How does Apple’s ‘compliance’ reflect broader trends and challenges in digital ecosystems and the fight against monopolistic practices which harm users’ fundamental rights?
Matthias: Apple is not alone in its monopolistic power abuse. We see this from a lot of big tech services, be it Google, Amazon, Microsoft. These organizations are so huge that they can prefer their own products, make advertisements for their own products. Take Google, for instance. They own search and whatever comes first in search results is being clicked most - if Google decides to show our Android app instead of our website, then the app will get much more clicks. Or they can decide to show their product first. And this self-preferencing is really dangerous. It's happening on Amazon as well. You hear that from sellers on Amazon that the Amazon owned products are often shown first. And this monopolistic power just makes it so difficult for any competitor to become known, to become broad, to get a broader usage. As a secure email provider, it is already difficult for us to compete against Gmail and Outlook because they are so big and they have other services where they can market their own products like Google Search or outlook packages. With this self-preferencing, it becomes close to impossible for us to ever leave the niche; but this is exactly what we must do because Tuta Mail is so much better in terms of security and privacy. We must try to leave the niche so that people have the opportunity to use something different and to protect their privacy while using the web.
AC: Has Tuta collaborated with other developers, industry groups, or human rights organizations regarding the DMA. What was the focus of your collaboration?
Matthias: Our collaboration was not directly related to the DMA, but it centered on the critical issue of undermining encryption. We partnered with other companies that prioritize privacy to help politicians understand the vital role of encryption in maintaining security. We typically engage through open letters or direct emails to politicians, emphasizing the technical infeasibility of combining client-side scanning with secure communication.
AC: Has the threat or experience of censorship influenced your decisions in app development, content creation, or market targeting? Has it led to self-censorship or changes in your development approach?
Matthias: We would never turn to self-censoring because we are here to fight for the right to privacy, and for freedom of speech because both are closely interlinked. So our mission is to fight for privacy with encryption, with technology. Politicians increasingly try to undermine encryption with legislations like client-side scanning. In our view, this is a severe threat to everyone's privacy and thus also to democracy itself. We, as societies, need to make the politicians understand that encryption is the only tool we have to protect our data online. Not just from state-sponsored snooping like what China and Russia are doing, but also from what threatens everyone, like identity theft and phishing attacks. All of these malicious acts online are much more easily conducted if your data is open and freely accessible. Only encryption can protect you.
