Apple's new Digital Markets Act (DMA) rules have been widely criticized by developers and tech companies.
Spotify, Epic Games, Proton, 37signals and other developers had already signaled their displeasure with how Apple has chosen to adapt its rules to meet the requirements of the new EU regulation. Now those companies have formalized their complaints in a letter addressed to the European Commission where they collectively argue that Apple has made a mockery of the new law.
Apple's new Digital Markets Act (DMA) rules have been widely criticized by developers and tech companies. Spotify, Epic Games, Proton, 37signals and other developers had already signaled their displeasure with how Apple has chosen to adapt its rules to meet the requirements of the new EU regulation. Now those companies have formalized their complaints in a letter addressed to the European Commission where they collectively argue that Apple has made a mockery of the new law.
Apple's new DMA rules have been widely criticized by developers and tech companies.
Spotify, Epic Games and others had formalized their complaints in a letter addressed to the European Commission where they collectively argue that Apple has made a mockery of the new law.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of multiple companies and associations without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Apple is complying with the DMA in bad faith or it is not compliant at all. This oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores other possible interpretations of the law. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when the author describes Apple's actions as making a mockery of the DMA, which could be seen as hyperbolic or exaggerated.
Epic Games, Spotify and others had already signaled their displeasure with how Apple has chosen to adapt its rules to meet the requirements of the new EU regulation,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Sarah Perez and she has a clear bias towards Epic Games and other developers who are unhappy with Apple's implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The author uses language that depicts Apple as making a mockery of the DMA by introducing new rules that do not align with its intention. The author also quotes several companies, including Meta, Mozilla and Microsoft, to support their argument against Apple's approach. Additionally, the article contains examples of how developers are unhappy with the new fee structure introduced by Apple for those who adopt its DMA rules.
Apple found a way to legally comply with the specifics of the regulation, but not its intention. Most notably, it introduced a Core Technology Fee for those developers adopting its DMA rules
Epic Games had already signaled their displeasure with how Apple has chosen to adapt its rules
MacPaw recently announced it had accessed the terms to distribute its software subscription Setapp in the EU
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sarah Perez has a conflict of interest with Epic Games and Spotify as she is reporting on their letter to the European Commission (EC) accusing Apple of making a mockery of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Spotify and Epic Games as they are both companies that have had issues with Apple in the past. The article also mentions alternative app stores and sideloading which could be seen as a threat to Apple's dominance in the digital market.
The letter was signed by Spotify, Epic Games, Proton and 37signals.
Apple is reversing course on a plan to discontinue supporting the installation of progressive web apps in the European Union.
Developers and users who were impacted by the removal of Home Screen web apps in the beta release of iOS in the EU can expect its return with iOS 17.4 availability in early March.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that Apple is reversing course on a plan. The author does not provide any evidence or reasoning for why this decision was made.
Bias
(75%)
The author of the article is Emma Roth and she has a history of bias against Apple. The title mentions that Apple had plans to discontinue supporting progressive web apps in the EU which could be seen as an attack on developers who use these apps.
> In an update to a developer support page spotted by 9to5Mac, Apple says it will continue to offer the existing Home Screen web apps capability in the EU<br>><br>
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Emma Roth has a conflict of interest on the topic of Apple and its web apps as she is an employee at The Verge which receives advertising revenue from companies such as Apple.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Emma Roth has a conflict of interest on the topics of Apple and iOS 17.4 as she is an author for The Verge which covers these topics extensively.
Spotify and many EU companies sent a letter to the European Commission raising concerns about Apple's lack of compliance with the DMA.
Apple has proposed a scheme for compliance with the DMA that does not meet its requirements, making it difficult for app developers to provide seamless in-app experiences for consumers and hindering fair competition.
The new fee structure in Apple's proposed terms is designed to maintain and even amplify its exploitation of dominance over app developers.
Accuracy
Apple has proposed a scheme for compliance with the DMA that does not meet its requirements
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) will not meet its requirements and therefore inhibit their ability to deliver benefits of DMA to consumers as soon as possible. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Apple has a choice in whether or not they comply with the law when in fact, they are required by law to do so. Secondly, the author claims that Apple's new terms disregard both the spirit and letter of the law and make a mockery of DMA. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that Apple has control over whether or not their terms comply with the law when in fact, they are subject to legal requirements. Thirdly, the author claims that there are many elements in Apple's announcement that do not comply with the DMA such as offering app developers an unworkable choice between staying on its current terms which are manifestly non-compliant or opting into new terms implying only those who opt for these new terms will benefit from DMA. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Apple has control over whether or not their offerings comply with the law when in fact, they are subject to legal requirements.
The author claims that Apple's new terms disregard both the spirit and letter of the law and make a mockery of DMA. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that Apple has control over whether or not their terms comply with the law when in fact, they are subject to legal requirements.
The author claims that Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) will not meet its requirements and therefore inhibit their ability to deliver benefits of DMA to consumers as soon as possible. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Apple has a choice in whether or not they comply with the law when in fact, they are required by law to do so.
The author claims that there are many elements in Apple's announcement that do not comply with the DMA such as offering app developers an unworkable choice between staying on its current terms which are manifestly non-compliant or opting into new terms implying only those who opt for these new terms will benefit from DMA. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that Apple has control over whether or not their offerings comply with the law when in fact, they are subject to legal requirements.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the European Commission and other organizations as sources of information without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by presenting only two options for app developers: either they stay on Apple's current terms that are not compliant with the DMA or opt into new terms that also do not comply with the law. This is an example of a dichotomous depiction as it presents these options as mutually exclusive when in reality, there may be other alternatives available to app developers. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the DMA as 'not meeting the law's requirements', and making a mockery of the DMA. This is an example of an appeal to emotion fallacy as it elicits strong feelings in readers without providing any evidence or logical reasoning.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the European Commission and other organizations as sources of information without providing any evidence or context for their claims. For example, the author states that 'Mrs. Margrethe Vestager Executive Vice-President A Europe Fit for the Digital Age European Commission Mr. Thierry Breton Commissioner for Internal Market European Commission' sent a letter to the European Union raising concerns about Apple's lack of compliance with DMA.
The author makes a false dilemma by presenting only two options for app developers: either they stay on Apple's current terms that are not compliant with the DMA or opt into new terms, implying that only app developers opting into the new terms will benefit from the DMA. This is an example of a dichotomous depiction as it presents these options as mutually exclusive when in reality, there may be other alternatives available to app developers.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the DMA as 'not meeting the law's requirements', and making a mockery of the DMA. For example, the author states that 'Apple is offering app developers an unworkable choice between staying on its current terms which are manifestly not compliant with the DMA or opting into new terms, implying that only app developers opting into the new terms will benefit from the DMA.'
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the DMA as 'not meeting the law's requirements', and making a mockery of the DMA. For example, in one sentence, it states that 'Apple is offering app developers an unworkable choice between staying on its current terms which are manifestly not compliant with the DMA or opting into new terms,' implying that Apple is trying to deceive consumers by presenting them with a false choice.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Allison Wallace and she has a clear bias towards Spotify's concerns about Apple's lack of compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The author uses language that degrades Apple and its approach to creating competition in digital markets. She also presents examples from Spotify, which are not representative of all companies or associations operating across different sectors. Additionally, the author does not provide any counterarguments or a balanced view on Apple's proposal.
Apple claims “the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates.” This is masquerading unfounded privacy and security concerns to the detriment of user choice.
Apple is offering app developers an unworkable choice between staying on its current terms – which are manifestly not compliant with the DMA – or opting into new terms, implying that only app developers opting into the new terms will benefit from the DMA.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Allison Wallace has conflicts of interest on the topics of Apple and DMA as she is an employee at Spotify which competes with these companies.
Spotify and many EU companies sent a letter to the European Commission raising concerns about Apple's lack of compliance with the DMA.
Apple has proposed a scheme for compliance with the DMA that does not meet its requirements, making it difficult for app developers to provide seamless in-app experiences for consumers and hindering fair competition.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Spotify and other developers are complaining about Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), but they do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author quotes a letter from these companies and associations stating their concerns about Apple's plans, but does not disclose who wrote the letter or what its contents are. Thirdly, the article contains several examples of sensationalism and selective reporting by quoting only parts of statements made by Spotify and other developers without providing context or a balanced view. Fourthly, the author uses emotional manipulation to appeal to readers' fear that Apple is limiting user choice through unfounded privacy and security concerns. Lastly, the article contains several examples of bias in its reporting.
The author claims that Spotify and other developers are complaining about Apple's proposed scheme for compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the companies and associations do not believe Apple's plans meet the law requirements without providing any evidence or reasoning for their belief. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Apple's changes as making a mockery of the DMA and using unfounded privacy concerns to limit user choice. The article also contains an example of dichotomous depiction by stating that either option provided by Apple is not compliant with the Digital Markets Act, without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim.
The author uses an appeal to authority when they state that the companies and associations do not believe Apple's plans meet the law requirements. This fallacy occurs when someone claims something as true simply because it is stated by a person of authority, without providing any evidence or reasoning for their belief.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Apple's changes as making a mockery of the DMA and using unfounded privacy concerns to limit user choice. This fallacy occurs when someone exaggerates or misrepresents an issue in order to make it seem more extreme than it actually is, without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claim.
The article contains an example of dichotomous depiction by stating that either option provided by Apple is not compliant with the Digital Markets Act. This fallacy occurs when someone presents two options as being mutually exclusive and opposite, without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Juli Clover has a conflict of interest with Spotify and Epic Games as she is reporting on their complaint against Apple's App Store changes. She also has a professional affiliation with MacRumors which may have an interest in the topic.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Juli Clover has a conflict of interest on the topics of Spotify and Epic Games as she is reporting for MacRumors which is owned by Apple. This could compromise her ability to report objectively and impartially.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24931301/236791_Apple_iPhone_15_and_15_Plus_review_DSeifert_0004.jpg)
