Honest Scales in the App Economy: What the DMA–Apple Fight Is Really About

Written by: AI

Date: 30/09/2025

Markets run on trust long before they run on code. In a bazaar, honest scales make strangers possible: I can buy from you without knowing you because we both trust the weights on the table.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act is, at root, an attempt to put honest, standardised scales under the modern bazaar, mobile operating systems, app stores, and device ecosystems. Apple counters that the scales the EU demands are the wrong kind: they slow service, erode privacy, and might even make the stall unsafe. Who’s right? It depends on which kind of “weight” you think matters more.

What happened this week

Apple publicly urged the EU to roll back the DMA, saying the law forces delays to certain features in Europe (iPhone Mirroring; Live Translation with AirPods; some Maps functions) until they work with non-Apple hardware. Apple also warns that requiring alternative app stores and payments increases scam/malware exposure. The Commission has broadly rejected this critique, describing the DMA as a pro-competition framework; earlier in the year it fined Apple €500m for violating anti-steering obligations, rules that forbid gatekeepers from blocking developers who want to direct users to outside purchase options.

The DMA’s stated goal is the digital equivalent of standardised measures: no hidden surcharges for going off-platform, no privileged APIs, and no opaque constraints that tilt the table toward the gatekeeper. Put simply, the rulebook should not be different depending on who you are.

Apple’s strongest arguments (that deserve a fair hearing)

1. Security & privacy risk. Opening iOS to alternative stores and payments could widen the attack surface. Apple cites the risk of scams/malware and claims some of its privacy safeguards were rejected by regulators. A rule that levels commercial access but lowers user safety would be a perverse “honest scale.” These concerns are not imaginary.

2. Interoperability burden. Releasing features ‘only when they work’ across non-Apple devices may slow innovation. A uniform rule can still function like a “diverse weight” if it imposes asymmetric costs on one party in a way that doesn’t actually benefit users.

The Commission’s strongest arguments (also worth hearing)

1. Anti-steering and fair access. If a platform can tax or block developers from telling users about cheaper payment options elsewhere, the platform effectively controls the scale. The DMA’s first fines, Apple €500m; Meta €200m, signal that Europe views these practices as structural distortions, not quirks.

2. Contestability & choice. The DMA codifies a set of baseline behaviors (e.g., allowing alternative app stores/payments, interoperability transparency) so entrants can compete on service, not on who owns the funnel. That is the legal analogue of publicly calibrated weights.

Historical rhyme: weights, measures, and power

Europe has a long tradition of legal metrology, shared standards so trade isn’t a gamble. Moving from literal scales to digital ones changes the tooling, not the principle: when one firm can redefine the unit (what counts as a transaction; what counts as steering; which APIs are “safe”), it can tilt the table invisibly. This is why the DMA insists on clear, published rules, and why Apple insists those rules mustn’t gut security in the process. The conflict is not “innovation vs. regulation”; it’s which weights produce the fairest exchange.

What would “honest scales” look like in practice?

• Security-proofed openness. Alternative app stores and payments should ship with auditable security baselines (malware scanning, provenance, incident transparency). If Apple proposes stronger safeguards, the Commission should trial them in time-boxed pilots rather than reject them outright. Honest scales are testable, not theoretical.

• Transparent fees & non-discrimination. Any platform fee structure (for on-store vs. off-store transactions) should be clear, stable, and cost-based, not punitive for going off-platform. Users deserve a receipt that shows what they pay for. (Regulators have already examined Apple’s fee changes in this direction.)

• Public incident IDs. If a DMA-mandated openness causes measurable harm, log it with a public incident ID and remediation timeline, so debate moves from press releases to evidence.

• Interoperability timelines that match risk. Features with low security externalities (e.g., cover art, metadata portability) shouldn’t be delayed by the same yardstick as features with high externalities (e.g., deep device control). Different risks deserve different clocks.

The hard question we should be asking

Not “Is Apple for privacy and the EU for competition?” that’s a cartoon. The real question is which combination of openness and safeguards produces the most honest exchange for users and developers over time. If a rule expands choice but collapses safety, it’s a diverse weight, a fairness slogan masking a new asymmetry. If a platform protects safety by bundling unrelated constraints, that too is a diverse weight, security as a pretext for control.

• Regulators: Keep the DMA’s spine, but adopt evidence-driven pilots for high-risk mandates; publish dashboards on malware incidence, user redress, and developer take-rates so the public sees the net effect.

  
  

• Platforms: Offer verifiable security models for third-party stores/payments (scope, telemetry, response). Replace blanket warnings with specific mitigations.

  
  

• Developers & users: Demand receipts, clear fee tables, clear permissions, and plain-language security statuses. Honest scales don’t hide the units.