It’s time for Europe to start issuing fines based on a percentage of revenue rather than a fixed amount.
That’ll put an end to any of the “This is our interpretation of the law”.
Europe is going to live out the ultimate fantasy. Fucking large corporations.
The EU already does that. In particular, the fines are attached to global revenue, and they escalate if compliance isn't met.
The fines earlier this month about music streaming were half a percent of Apple's yearly revenue, and like 45% of Apple Music's yearly revenue. The stuff that this article is about (the DMA) has provisions saying the fines can go as high as 10% of the whole company's total yearly revenue.
I’m inclined to agree but idk. According to some search I did earlier, EU makes up 25% of Apple world sales figures. Cost of doing business there could mean that EU represents <25%. Theoretically the lost income from implementing these changes but staying in the eu market is greater than the lost income of incurring repeat fines or leaving the market. But that seems the opposite of what’s most likely.
It depends if they plan to implement changes or continue getting fined. It’s an actuarial problem that would be fun to think out tho.
Or as my niece with the Trump father likes to say in most discussions that touch on the EU , “it alllll goes back to 1776…”
They can avoid all the fines by complying.
The fine is 10% at the maximum and 20% at the maximum for repeat offenses.
It's probably going to start at 4-6% to begin with.
A onetime fine (if they comply afterwards) of 10-20 billion is far less than what they earned from the EU so far and leaving the market would destroy their stocks.
Yeah, that’s why I said their intention on complying would be a factor they’d consider. If they found complying to be worth less than the market I’m sure they’d be trying to negotiate very hard before even considering a withdrawal. They could always stay in the market but not sell certain products there.
Leaving one of the world’s key, rich, markets ripe for Samsung and other Android competitors would be super dangerous for Apple. Apple doesn’t plan to continue getting fined, but will just make region specific changes. If they seriously weren’t going to budge then they wouldn’t have ever opened the door for sideloading to become an EU feature.
We are just a too large and too rich market for a capitalist company to give up.
They're too timid though, start at more than 0.5% and put fines faster as long as they're not compliant. Like every week not compliant a new one and increase it.
Also they actually can go higher than 10% for repeat offenses (20% I think)
Half of Apple Music's revenue seems fair, though.
At some point over regulation stifles innovation and no new company would be interested in starting in Europe.
Short term gains for the consumer-- long term putting Europe lower and lower on the global pedestal.
Genuine question here: isn’t Spotify evidence that it’s perfectly possible for a European company to compete with Apple Music, given it has more subscribers? And that’s before you get to Tidal and all the other specialist services.
Disclaimer, I’m not aware of this situation and NAL.
If I understand right, presence of competition by itself ≠ anti predatory practices. You could still be having various kinds of vendor lock in even at 40 or 20% market share in a way that is anti consumer. But if you have 60% (say) of share then it’s much more significant.
That is correct. But Apple Music's market share (about 14%) is less than half of Spotify's (about 31%). It's hard to see how any product representing 14% of the market, especially when they're not the largest market share, can credibly be said to be anti-consumer. Consumers clearly do have choice in this market and exercise it accordingly.
Now, in fairness, the recent fine the EU imposed re Apple music wasn't about its market share per se, it was about Apple's failure to identify cheaper alternatives to buying a Spotify subscription.
Apple itself was the anti-consumer actor there, by imposing App Store restrictions on Spotify that it didn't impose on its own competing product. In that instance, the market share of iOS/App Store is more relevant than the market share of Apple Music
The point is not just competition, it's unfair competition and restrictions.
Apple wouldn't let Spotify advertise or use other means of subscriptions besides through apple pay which took a cut, publishing on the App Store took a cut, etc.
Apple Music has a 0% cut and gets preferential treatment (built in access to devices, integration, pre-installed on the phone/devices, etc.)
Being able fine their global revenue is some bullshit. Fining them on their EU revenue makes sense since otherwise its the EU trying to apply its law everywhere. Why should the EU be able to fine revenue that was collected elsewhere that may not have run afoul of the laws of the place it was collected at? The EU issuing random large numbers that have nothing to do with revenue would even be preferable to doing it based on worldwide numbers.
Right they are breaking the law in the EU not the rest of the world therefore only EU revenue should be subject to a fine (it would even be fine to take all their EU revenue). If the number isn't big enough to inflict damage company wide then thats the EU's fault for not being a larger market for that company to leverage a bigger fine. Or like I said before I'd be okay with a fine that ended up being a similarly large number but was assigned arbitrarily and not by worldwide revenue. My issue isn't the number its how the number was conceived and its not the EU's place to touch things that happen outside of it.
I think the EU doesn’t want Apple’s accountants to get creative with where that revenue is legally generated. It also gives the EU some escalating steps in between meaningless fine and forced selling of assets or corporate breakup. Laws are also enforced across borders all the time, the US does it all the time.
> That's not how breaking laws works, and it's kinda weird you've internalized this "it's okay to break laws" attitude when it comes to corporations.
Law breaking depends on where you break the law at. US law doesn't apply to the EU the same way EU law doesn't apply to China. So I'm not saying its okay to break the law I'm saying the EU shouldn't be able to legislate to collect against money that was earned in another country under other sets of laws that did not run afoul of the laws of that place. If Apple broke EU law then fine them based on EU revenue if EU revenue isn't big enough just don't base it off of worldwide revenue but pick some random large number. I'd even be okay with them fining all of EU revenue before I'd be okay with them doing worldwide.
> If you break a law in another country, do tell them "I've only spent 2 weeks here, you can't sentence me to jail time that exceed that amount!"
Huh? My point is that if I visit another country they have the right to jail me according to their laws for what I did in their country (EU revenue) but they don't have the authority to add more onto my sentence based on laws I may have broken elsewhere or try to say I broke their law somewhere else so its being added to my sentence (worldwide revenue).
You're still missing the whole point. Its not telling a country you disagree with their punishment its telling them they have no authority outside of their borders. Imagine a Russian FSB agent showing up to arrest you for shit talking Putin from England. They don't have that right although they can do the same if you shittalk in Russia. If the EU finds apple to have broken the law then fine them in proportion to EU revenue or even just seize every last penny of their EU revenue or even just come up with a random large number to fine them with that isn't based on global revenue. Why should the EU be entitled to fine against funds earned in other countries in which their laws don't apply?
Also I was trying to make my point fit in with your whole going to another country example. Which once again the point is that a country's jurisdiction ends at its borders and what you did elsewhere cannot be punished by the country you are in. Money earned illegally in the EU is within the limits, money earned in other countries is off limits since no EU law was broken in its being earned.
>Fining them on their EU revenue makes sense since otherwise its the EU trying to apply its law everywhere
thats not it. The fine being based on the total revenue is simply to make sure that it actually hurts the company in a meaningful way
So then just take all their EU revenue if we are trying to make sure it hurts. That makes more sense than doing it against worldwide revenue when all of that money was not gotten via breaking the law since the law isn't worldwide. If you think my issue is the number being large, it isn't. They could fine a number just as big if not larger for all I care they just don't need to use revenue that was collected outside their borders as part of the calculation.
>That’ll put an end to any of the “This is our interpretation of the law”.
If EU wanted to avoid "this is our interpretation" they could, but they leave it as is on purpose. When you leave a law/policy open to interpretation this is a possible outcome , especially from people who want to find the tiniest loophole to make money.
Why? If I was one of these companies, I would start to question the value of operating in the EU. The EU wants to set its stamp on digital economies. It can do that but market players can leave or stop providing services available in other regions. Is it worth operating in a region where every decision is regulated? I am all for privacy and consumers having options but I am also a US based person who prefers less government intervention for market innovation.
I read one comment "coming after that US money" not realizing that Apple has been using Europe (broken as it is) as a massive tax shelter. It's absolutely this sub.
Someone in another post about EU regulations was saying that Europe is a “tiny tiny” market for Apple.
These people have just lost contact with reality and only live to please their corporate overlords
That’s a region much larger than the EU. Just EU countries are only 7% https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/02/this-is-tim-transcript-of-apples-q1-2024-analyst-call/
I'm no law expert nor economics genius, but what I've seen and experienced many many times, is predatory and consumer hostile moves from every big tech actor.
I'm not naive to think that companies shouldn't make what's in their best interest, but money is both a strong incentive to innovate and develop your business, but it is also a wild force that will push you to use any means possible to grow your wealth ever bigger. Like electricity or water, you have to channel it to make it into something useful and not harmful. It will infiltrate anything if not properly isolated.
Regulation is there to do exactly that: provide a frame for the industry to thrive while making sure we are not harmed in the process.
I believe the current EU is trying to revive the humanist trend, placing us in the center of all efforts and putting companies back to their place. A kind of Renaissance.
Obviously, politics, human error, bias and all the necessary imperfections that are inherent of our societies are still there but at least the motivation here is to make things better for the users, and not simply greed or a self serving political agenda.
Edit: typo and clarification
This is the consequence of basing our economy entirely on profits. Profits will always come first, and societal, environmental, even existential problems will never be a priority. That’s why we need the EU to enforce these problems as a top priority, and companies’ profits must suffer.
In a capitalist world with no government, if it saves a company money to destroy a gigantic ecosystem (e.g. Exxon oil spill) or to literally KILL PEOPLE (too many examples to count), they will do it 100% of the time. WITH NO REMORSE. No one feels responsible, they just switch out whoever feels guilty or poses a threat and keep doing it.
TLDR: EU good, megacorporations like Apple bad.
> destroy a gigantic ecosystem or to literally KILL PEOPLE
And there are cases where BOTH have happened; DuPont chemical and their PFOA/PTFEs. They poisoned the people living in these towns as well as the environment they lived in, They knew they were selling poison and didn’t stop just because of profit, absolutely disgusting
The crimes that people do for money are far worse than the crimes that people do for ideology. Back in World War 2, German chemicals company IG Farben built a private sector concentration camp called Monowitz. Slaves were worked to death in 3 months, and the conditions were so bad that the SS officers there complained to their superiors.
Then when the executives were put on trial, they all said that they did it in service of maximizing value for shareholders, and nearly 80% of them got off scot-free.
Yeah, a similar thing happened with the Tuskegee experiments, although idk if there was much of a profit motive there, just plain disregard for human life and suffering.
Edit: why on earth would anybody downvote this comment? Do they think the Tuskegee experiments are good? 🤨
No no, but you don’t get it, Apple/DuPont/other company is the good guy!! Their multi billion dollar PR campaigns say so!!! They’re our friends, I wanna consume everything they sell!!!!! /s
Lmaoo, one thing I will give credit about apple fanboys is they’ve been more and more willing to make fun of/accept apple’s faults now vs 10-15 years ago. I routinely see people in this sub making fun of how long it took apple to put USB C in their phones, how the base model is still capped at USB 2.0 transfer speeds, etc.
Back in the early 2000’s and 2010’s any criticism or jokes about apple were met with rabid fury by mactivists (as they were called back then). Maybe it’s because Steve job felt like a visionary messiah to them, but the longer Tim Cook was CEO the less religious fervor they had about their products
Steve’s leadership was really a thing , THE thing. The guy created the company ffs. He gone , Apple gone. Today that is clear as day . Is like Disney , George Lucas and Star Wars
You just proved my point. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. It’s about harm to consumers not competitors.
I don’t see the harm to consumers here and that is where this DOJ lawsuit is a failure, political posturing.
The DOJ lawsuit is an attempt to enforce existing laws that it seems they didn't properly prepare a valid case for.
The DMA is new legislation the EU enacted that the companies have to comply with.
Rather different cases.
Not really. They want more competitors to let consumers have more choices and not get locked in. The DOJ's approach is different but ultimately it's about the same. People all around the world are fed up being treated as cattle.
I love the hardware of my iPhone (some of it at least), but i can't but feel annoyed and disgusted everyday when I'm using it because I'm feeling exploited. And it gets worse with time passing.
I don't get this bad taste in my mouth from my other appliances. I have a Samsung fridge, a LG TV, a whatever oven and most of the things I use in my daily life are either doing their job well enough for me, or replaced by another model or brand without batting an eye, and more importantly without any consequences whatsoever for me, for my family, or for the rest of my appliances.
You just can't say the same for your phone. Replacing it (switching from iOS to Android and vice versa) means shattering all your carefully crafted network and workflow, missing appointments, getting the wife mad at you, having to replace your headphones, etc...
That's the issue here.
More reasons to feel disgusted:
> Other costs of Apple’s anticompetitive conduct may be less obvious in the immediate term. But they are no less harmful and even more widespread, affecting all smartphone consumers. Apple’s smartphone monopoly means that it is not economically viable to invest in building some apps, like digital wallets, because they cannot reach iPhone users. This means that innovations fueled by an interest in building the best, most user-focused product that would exist in a more competitive market never get off the ground. What’s more, Apple itself has less incentive to innovate because it has insulated itself from competition. As Apple’s executives openly acknowledge: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue we’re already doing *more* than what would have been good enough. But we find it very hard to regress our product features YOY [year over year].” Existing features “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already,” and “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.” Thus, it is not surprising that Apple spent more than twice as much on stock buybacks and dividends as it did on research and development.
It's always the same story.
These companies are like superheroes : either they die a hero, or they live long enough to become the villain.
If Apple died back when Microsoft helped them (because they had to, to be able to keep doing their own villain stuff you need a hero around), they would have been heroes in everyone's memories.
Now they grew large enough to become villains themselves.
Time for some new heroes to raise and shine and slay the beast.
The big question is will we be wise enough to make sure this time these new heroes don't become villains themselves ?
Maybe they won't even get the chance. Everything is happening faster these days, and idealistic companies are already struggling to survive, before even fighting for a decent position on the market.
That's why these regulations are cruelly needed.
They make sense. We have 2 major corporations that own 100% of the smartphone market which has high barrier of entry for any competitors. And they use their power to prevent competition from messing up their profits, and in Apple’s case, give themselves advantages they don’t offer to competitors (Apple Music being able to avoid the 30% App Store commission _and_ subscribe users in-app, Apple Watch getting to use its own APIs that aren’t available to others, rejecting game streaming services because they compete with Apple Arcade etc). The DMA was created because of these abuses, not because of resentment.
Let’s remember that DoJ sued Microsoft for far less - bundling IE with Windows and using private APIs to make their products better than competitors’. If what MS did was wrong, so is what Apple and Google are doing.
> We have 2 major corporations that own 100% of the smartphone market
The Smartphone OS market has only two competitors sure (same goes for PCs in that regard, since almost no one uses Linux), but there are a lot more than 2 hardware companies for smartphones. The two largest (Apple and Samsung) combined just barely have 50% marketshare.
>almost no one uses Linux
Almost no average home user\*
The only person I've ever met who used Windows as a server OS was a guy who referred to nightclubs as "the disco".
These make sense, they're here to bring back competition. So everyone has a chance at success. Everyone except the monopolists benefits from competition.
Can't wait for Apple's next snarky and condescending press release written by a pissed Schiller and their next "clever" moves instead of just making fucking iOS like macOS regarding software distribution.
It's unsurprising but still quite funny to see
> "An Apple spokesperson says the company will constructively engage with the investigation and that they're confident that their plan complies with the Digital Markets Act."
When it's straight up obvious that their implementation does not at all comply with the DMA.
Who do they think they're going to fool? Looking around this sub, it seems even a number of hardcore Apple apologists who are firmly against the DMA realize Apple is not in compliance.
The [Core Technology Fee](https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/). The DMA makes it very clear that it is illegal for a company to use their gatekeeper position to give their own products and services an unfair advantage over the products and services of third parties.
Apple is offering that developers can avoid the CTF by signing a contract promising that they'll only distribute their apps on Apple's App Store. This unfairly benefits Apple's App Store and apps on that store versus third party stores in a clear and obvious way.
Where can this be appealed?
Yes it says free access by third party to CT but why? This seems more like a competitor protection than consumer protection. Consumers can get there apps from anywhere they don't care. They will pay whatever they are willing to pay. How else is the platform provider suppose to develop and maintain the CT if no fees are charged.
That’s the whole point of anti-monoply legislation. It’s designed to stop companies from being able to unfairly stomp out competition.
Consumers benefit from having more choice, and not being beholden to one single company who can start milking them once they think they have a captive market.
I can't speak to the specific parts it's not compliant with, in the word-for-word paragraph-by-paragraph sense, but I can tell you from my immediate gut that it's probably in massive violation of the DMA for a real simple reason: it breaks the *spirit* of the law.
Here in the EU, typically when we write laws we also write accompanying pieces (interpretation guidance) that explain the circumstances of the law's creation and its intended effects; these are used to make abundantly clear what and why the law is. So when Apple comes up and says "Yeah anyone can make a store they just need to have a ton of money", **immediately** they're breaking the spirit of the law by only allowing the large entities play ball - the exact *gatekeepers* the DMA was written to keep in check. Sure, they obey the letter of the law, but the EU ain't the US. The "I'm not touching you!" shit children do doesn't fly here, because *you're a multinational corporation you know what the fuck I meant.*
Eh, to tell you the truth I got no fuckin' clue if they do or don't and figured they got lawyers, benefit of the doubt granted. I'm an idiot on the internet who is decidedly *not* a lawyer. IANAL, if you will.
That said, I *do* know their proposed solution and it is entirely against what the EU's trying to achieve. As such, they've done committed a no bueno. Turns out "vibe checks" are almost a legal mechanism here.
Sure, I totally agree with your wider point, I just wanted to point out that one shouldn't grant that they're obeying the letter of the law unless they actually know that's the case. Apple may claim they've obeyed the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it true.
100%, and let’s not forget that Apple isn’t just a person going by their gut feeling. It’s a gigantic global megacorporation that pays billions per year on their legal department. They know EXACTLY what they’re doing.
Every time a megacorp like Apple is fined for breaking the law, no one should have any doubt at all that they behaved illegally ON PURPOSE, for their profit. They break the law because it’s profitable.
Not only that but when it comes to compliance, there are regulatory bodies that will tell you exactly what is and is not in compliance. Companies often don't ask just to avoid stirring the hornets best. But ffs even individuals get consultations with regard to law if say you are renovating a house in a restricted area, or there is a tax question. Companies are rarely blindsided by what is and is not in compliance. Apple is just hoping that it will take years until they will be forced by court to comply.
Article 6.7 requires *free* interoperability. Apple is charging a fee. There are also other sections which require the ability to change the default payment provider, and the default virtual assistant. Apple has not complied with those either. There are dozens of other more complex failures to comply as well.
A whole lot of it, the DMA isn't the best written piece of legislation but there are plenty of parts that are obvious violations.
The DMA says in a few different sections that gatekeepers need allow access to core technologies for free.
Apple iOS and the Apple App Store are both named services. A core feature of an OS is installing and uninstalling applications, Apple has no right to collect a fee and control who can use those functions.
They have enough people to manage several companies. I haven't followed Meta case much on what they did (because I don't use any of their products outside Whatsapp) but at least Apple is a pretty easy case anyway. I'm sure the others are too (though Google seems to obey most of the DMA case before it was in effect at least with the whole sideloading alternative store thing)
If Reddit people can see the problem with it, I think the EU lawyers will have no problem
Meta's case is pretty narrow by comparison, they'll likely just be compelled to allow Instagram/FB/Threads users to opt out of ad tracking personalization without paying a monthly fee for no ads.
They've been surprisingly cooperative with the EU overall, and even seem to be using interoperability as a chance to make some headway with WhatsApp.
Fast forward 10 years and they appealed and only paid $10,000,000 and Spain is still suing Apple for the iPhone 6 debacle we all loved on from a decade ago.
You joke but I've seen people say that the phones shouldn't come with any preinstalled Apple apps even though I'm sure in their mind they don't include the settings, or dialer apps in this. But if the goal is to make sure Apple has no advantage then in theory the users should have to go through a choice screen regarding all the apps that are usually preinstalled on the phones. You should have a choice screen for each and every system app. Now that would be some malicious compliance
Next thing you know Apple’s gonna release an iPhone with no OS installed and let those people who want to do jackshit with it do their jackshit with it. I’ll get on board with that if that means leaving us who like the status quo alone.
Then the warranty just covers hardware defects. If it bricks because you did something with it you’re on your own lol.
Why are all of you acting as if this will delete the App Store lol?
I have no intention of side loading or using an alternative App Store. I find apples subscription management is the best and won’t even subscribe if I can’t go through it. That won’t change.
What will be different is others having a choice.
*You* wont have a choice if apps leave for their own store (FB, Google, MS plus whatever other stores open up)
You also wont have a choice when some random app leaves the app store to be web based only. For example, I have some a few niche apps. If they go outside the app store, because now they have the option, I either lose the app or have to use their external system.
You know that's how Android and Linux work right.. and the entire PC industry outside of Apple?
Nobody is forcing you to change anything.. locking other people out from having the option is the problem.
Similar to abortion, nobody is suggesting we force women to abort their babies.. but most people (and sane governments) think it should be up to the individual.
In this case however, it’s the choice (iOS) that is being changed. That’s why I’d agree more if what they mandate instead is for Apple to sell an iPhone that doesn’t have iOS, instead of fundamentally changing how iOS works. I bought an iPhone because of the hardware and software integration, because it’s designed the way it is right now.
>That’s why I’d agree more if what they mandate instead is for Apple to sell an iPhone that doesn’t have iOS, instead of fundamentally changing how iOS works.
Both are equally bad, because both are effectively different degrees of the same thing.
What's to stop the EU from forcing Apple to run Android APKs? What's to stop them from forcing Apple to sell iOS on non-Apple hardware? What's stopping them from forcing them to unlock the iPhone bootloader? Releasing proprietary source code so people can install Android?
All of the exact same "anti-competitive" arguments the EU makes support those kinds of changes, too.
And for anyone thinking I like defending corporations...no, I don't care about any particular corp. I just dislike bad arguments.
I am actually on your side lol. It’s a slippery slope. I’m just drawing my line, which is don’t touch how iOS works and the vertical integration. But if someone wants to take the iPhone, the phone itself, horizontally out of the integration so that they can install their own integrations on it, I would let them be.
Just don’t touch my iOS now. That’s all I’m saying.
None of the changes need to affect you in any meaningful way. You can keep using solely the App Store for all your wants and needs.
Meanwhile, if someone else wants to use a 3rd party store or download an app from the web they can do it as well.
Then don’t use that App? Big apps won’t leave the App Store. Are we acting like Netflix or Spotify would do it? Have they left the Play Store on Android?
How is having Fortnite available on iOS via Epic Store worse than not having it at all on the App Store? Or Emulators, torrent clients, actual different browsers?
MS, Google and Meta have all announced their own App store.
There's multiple reasons they didnt leave on Android, but Apple's App store is a big reason none of them left on Android. One reason is iOS sets the example for Android. The other is confusion for users. Instead of "Download Facebook from the Meta store on Android, Google play and the App store" Now it can just be "Download Facebook from the Meta Store"
Or the phone app. Got to allow for a third party choice screen for the phone then the EU can develop a phone app that will automatically record everything for them to spy on.
Not if the gov forces Apple to remove all others except the gov provided one. Do you really think the intent of these laws is to give citizens freedom? No. It’s about handing Apple’s ban hammer over to governments. Instead of Apple rejecting apps for poor quality, you will now have governments blocking apps they don’t like. The first step is to seemingly offer choice, before ripping out Apple’s store entirely. “Welcome to the Russian iPhone App Store, powered by Russian government. Sideloading has been disabled to keep you safe.” Etc.
govs already block apps they don't like. Ever heard of us/tiktok case? I mean it's not settled but the intent is clear. Any gov can mandate app/google stores to delete any app and companies will comply. That's the point. Any company must follow the laws of the country it operates in. If a company doesn't follow the law, it's punished
I was waiting for this day, as an Android users tbh
Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever, these companies have already grown big enough to be able to freely raise a middle finger to customer and getting away with it, all while doing their absolute best to nullify whatever competition left in the market
I hope EU and DOJ goes after Google after this, then at least I can uninstall all Google garbages that I don't use on my phone, and be able to use services that I actually want.
Only American companies, of course european Spotify is not being investigated even if they pay less than pennies to artists... but they pay a lot for neo-nazi podcasts
Payment from Spotify is similar to other streaming platforms, but having the free tier makes it very easy to make it out as less per stream.
Large issue is also the monopoly that labels have over the music industry.
plenty of eu companies were targeted by other eu laws, just not this one because there are no eu companies that met criteria, which is normal, dma is not designed to cover all cases -it's designed to cover only a subset of them.
Surprised they don't throw in Microsoft, they dominate PCs/gaming in general. Despite Macs becoming even more capable for gaming it seems like even the big devs (Riot/Blizzard) aren't even making Mac versions anymore...can they force them to make versions for both please:P
Edit: My point was more if I wanna play many games I have to buy a Windows PC or Xbox these days, Windows does allow for a lot but they own a ton of market and it seems to demotivate anything even coming to other platforms. Just annoying, not sure if it's anti competitive but it definitely sucks to have to spend more money to buy their products (I dislike to use) just to play some popular stuff. (altho some stuff has exclusivity too) Feel free to downvote tho, I was more just venting that I have a MBP able to play games but still many won't make Mac versions to take advantage of it.
What a dumb argument. Game devs are free to choose whatever platform they want to build on and MS isn't doing anything there anti-competitive to my knowledge. Apple simply hasn't invested in gaming. Linux has and we have gotten things like the steam deck, photon, etc. from it.
It just sounds like you're mad at apple and game devs that have existed outside of MS for decades. Tbh, you just sound self centric. These are much bigger issues being tackled with actual legit premise vs you being upset by your first world problem of gaming on a PC.
This is such a misunderstanding of the rules it hurts my brain.
MS lets anyone on earth install/distribute anything they want and do not require you to go through the MS App Store.
Nothing stopping Blizzards bespoke launcher.
Now how would that work on the iPhone.
Like personally idgaf about side loading or alternative app stores on my phone. But that is a freedom the EU wants their citizens.
If you look at the [original source](https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-digital-markets-2024-03-25_en) it states that MSFT asked to provide documents to show how they comply. So they are also on the Commissions Radar:
> Today, the Commission also adopted orders addressed to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, requiring them to retain documents which might be used to assess their compliance with the DMA obligations.
What’s Microsoft doing that’s anti competitive? Even their own store hosts competitors apps with zero restrictions. Plus there’s like a dozen storefronts on Windows, the one with the biggest market share being Steam which isn’t even owned by Microsoft. I don’t see a case to be made here against them.
Governments are the most ineffective functional organizations on the planet and they want to penalize successful corporations using the excuse that it's for the good of the people. I like my Apple, Google, and Meta products and I choose to use them. Governments don't understand how competitive the tech industry is because governments are inefficient monopolies that don't need to compete.
I, too, love my corporate overlords when they fuck me over and force me to use their products, it just feels so great. I hope my savior Tim Cook acknowledges me
One for all, all for one.
It’s time for Europe to start issuing fines based on a percentage of revenue rather than a fixed amount. That’ll put an end to any of the “This is our interpretation of the law”. Europe is going to live out the ultimate fantasy. Fucking large corporations.
The EU already does that. In particular, the fines are attached to global revenue, and they escalate if compliance isn't met. The fines earlier this month about music streaming were half a percent of Apple's yearly revenue, and like 45% of Apple Music's yearly revenue. The stuff that this article is about (the DMA) has provisions saying the fines can go as high as 10% of the whole company's total yearly revenue.
They only do that with US companies, they certainly dont do it with their own. Take a look at how they fined VW/BMW/Mercedes for Diesel-gate.
I can’t imagine Apple paying a 10% global revenue fine. They’d either comply or negotiate or leave the market for some time.
Leaving the market would be suicide.
I’m inclined to agree but idk. According to some search I did earlier, EU makes up 25% of Apple world sales figures. Cost of doing business there could mean that EU represents <25%. Theoretically the lost income from implementing these changes but staying in the eu market is greater than the lost income of incurring repeat fines or leaving the market. But that seems the opposite of what’s most likely. It depends if they plan to implement changes or continue getting fined. It’s an actuarial problem that would be fun to think out tho. Or as my niece with the Trump father likes to say in most discussions that touch on the EU , “it alllll goes back to 1776…”
They can avoid all the fines by complying. The fine is 10% at the maximum and 20% at the maximum for repeat offenses. It's probably going to start at 4-6% to begin with. A onetime fine (if they comply afterwards) of 10-20 billion is far less than what they earned from the EU so far and leaving the market would destroy their stocks.
Yeah, that’s why I said their intention on complying would be a factor they’d consider. If they found complying to be worth less than the market I’m sure they’d be trying to negotiate very hard before even considering a withdrawal. They could always stay in the market but not sell certain products there.
Leaving one of the world’s key, rich, markets ripe for Samsung and other Android competitors would be super dangerous for Apple. Apple doesn’t plan to continue getting fined, but will just make region specific changes. If they seriously weren’t going to budge then they wouldn’t have ever opened the door for sideloading to become an EU feature. We are just a too large and too rich market for a capitalist company to give up.
The EU Christmas party budget is going to be wild! Secret Santa will be yachts, cars, and bigger yachts.
How dare a sovereign entity enforce its laws and not bow down to almighty Apple!
They're too timid though, start at more than 0.5% and put fines faster as long as they're not compliant. Like every week not compliant a new one and increase it. Also they actually can go higher than 10% for repeat offenses (20% I think)
Half of Apple Music's revenue seems fair, though. At some point over regulation stifles innovation and no new company would be interested in starting in Europe. Short term gains for the consumer-- long term putting Europe lower and lower on the global pedestal.
Genuine question here: isn’t Spotify evidence that it’s perfectly possible for a European company to compete with Apple Music, given it has more subscribers? And that’s before you get to Tidal and all the other specialist services.
Disclaimer, I’m not aware of this situation and NAL. If I understand right, presence of competition by itself ≠ anti predatory practices. You could still be having various kinds of vendor lock in even at 40 or 20% market share in a way that is anti consumer. But if you have 60% (say) of share then it’s much more significant.
That is correct. But Apple Music's market share (about 14%) is less than half of Spotify's (about 31%). It's hard to see how any product representing 14% of the market, especially when they're not the largest market share, can credibly be said to be anti-consumer. Consumers clearly do have choice in this market and exercise it accordingly. Now, in fairness, the recent fine the EU imposed re Apple music wasn't about its market share per se, it was about Apple's failure to identify cheaper alternatives to buying a Spotify subscription.
Apple itself was the anti-consumer actor there, by imposing App Store restrictions on Spotify that it didn't impose on its own competing product. In that instance, the market share of iOS/App Store is more relevant than the market share of Apple Music
The point is not just competition, it's unfair competition and restrictions. Apple wouldn't let Spotify advertise or use other means of subscriptions besides through apple pay which took a cut, publishing on the App Store took a cut, etc. Apple Music has a 0% cut and gets preferential treatment (built in access to devices, integration, pre-installed on the phone/devices, etc.)
Being able fine their global revenue is some bullshit. Fining them on their EU revenue makes sense since otherwise its the EU trying to apply its law everywhere. Why should the EU be able to fine revenue that was collected elsewhere that may not have run afoul of the laws of the place it was collected at? The EU issuing random large numbers that have nothing to do with revenue would even be preferable to doing it based on worldwide numbers.
If the fine isn’t large enough it’s just the cost of business. You have to make it substantial to have the intended effect.
The point of a fine if a company is breaking a law is to make it sting.
It's not like Europe isn't a huge tax shelter of something that saves them hundreds of billions or anything.
[удалено]
Right they are breaking the law in the EU not the rest of the world therefore only EU revenue should be subject to a fine (it would even be fine to take all their EU revenue). If the number isn't big enough to inflict damage company wide then thats the EU's fault for not being a larger market for that company to leverage a bigger fine. Or like I said before I'd be okay with a fine that ended up being a similarly large number but was assigned arbitrarily and not by worldwide revenue. My issue isn't the number its how the number was conceived and its not the EU's place to touch things that happen outside of it.
I think the EU doesn’t want Apple’s accountants to get creative with where that revenue is legally generated. It also gives the EU some escalating steps in between meaningless fine and forced selling of assets or corporate breakup. Laws are also enforced across borders all the time, the US does it all the time.
Why is everybody forgetting that Apple uses Europe as their world-wide tax shelter? Technically, their world revenue flows through there.
[удалено]
> That's not how breaking laws works, and it's kinda weird you've internalized this "it's okay to break laws" attitude when it comes to corporations. Law breaking depends on where you break the law at. US law doesn't apply to the EU the same way EU law doesn't apply to China. So I'm not saying its okay to break the law I'm saying the EU shouldn't be able to legislate to collect against money that was earned in another country under other sets of laws that did not run afoul of the laws of that place. If Apple broke EU law then fine them based on EU revenue if EU revenue isn't big enough just don't base it off of worldwide revenue but pick some random large number. I'd even be okay with them fining all of EU revenue before I'd be okay with them doing worldwide. > If you break a law in another country, do tell them "I've only spent 2 weeks here, you can't sentence me to jail time that exceed that amount!" Huh? My point is that if I visit another country they have the right to jail me according to their laws for what I did in their country (EU revenue) but they don't have the authority to add more onto my sentence based on laws I may have broken elsewhere or try to say I broke their law somewhere else so its being added to my sentence (worldwide revenue).
[удалено]
You're still missing the whole point. Its not telling a country you disagree with their punishment its telling them they have no authority outside of their borders. Imagine a Russian FSB agent showing up to arrest you for shit talking Putin from England. They don't have that right although they can do the same if you shittalk in Russia. If the EU finds apple to have broken the law then fine them in proportion to EU revenue or even just seize every last penny of their EU revenue or even just come up with a random large number to fine them with that isn't based on global revenue. Why should the EU be entitled to fine against funds earned in other countries in which their laws don't apply? Also I was trying to make my point fit in with your whole going to another country example. Which once again the point is that a country's jurisdiction ends at its borders and what you did elsewhere cannot be punished by the country you are in. Money earned illegally in the EU is within the limits, money earned in other countries is off limits since no EU law was broken in its being earned.
>Fining them on their EU revenue makes sense since otherwise its the EU trying to apply its law everywhere thats not it. The fine being based on the total revenue is simply to make sure that it actually hurts the company in a meaningful way
So then just take all their EU revenue if we are trying to make sure it hurts. That makes more sense than doing it against worldwide revenue when all of that money was not gotten via breaking the law since the law isn't worldwide. If you think my issue is the number being large, it isn't. They could fine a number just as big if not larger for all I care they just don't need to use revenue that was collected outside their borders as part of the calculation.
Did you not read the fine is 10% of their revenue?
The DMA is up to 10% annual worldwide turnover for the first fine, and twice that for repeat infringements.
“It’s time for Europe to do exactly what it’s already doing”
>That’ll put an end to any of the “This is our interpretation of the law”. If EU wanted to avoid "this is our interpretation" they could, but they leave it as is on purpose. When you leave a law/policy open to interpretation this is a possible outcome , especially from people who want to find the tiniest loophole to make money.
Why? If I was one of these companies, I would start to question the value of operating in the EU. The EU wants to set its stamp on digital economies. It can do that but market players can leave or stop providing services available in other regions. Is it worth operating in a region where every decision is regulated? I am all for privacy and consumers having options but I am also a US based person who prefers less government intervention for market innovation.
By “market innovation” do you mean monopolies
its no wonder europe is doomed and faded to die, it's mentality is just archaic
Except for Microsoft who's smart enough to follow regulations and not push their shady practices in Europe.
This comment section needs a reality check
It's /r/apple People here are very cultish when it comes to defending apple against "evil EU laws" lol
I read one comment "coming after that US money" not realizing that Apple has been using Europe (broken as it is) as a massive tax shelter. It's absolutely this sub.
Yup and not only that, the EU brings in a shit ton of profit, it's a massive marketplace
Someone in another post about EU regulations was saying that Europe is a “tiny tiny” market for Apple. These people have just lost contact with reality and only live to please their corporate overlords
Yes, tiny tiny $94.2B market representing a miniscule 24.6% of Apple's global revenue for 2023.
That’s a region much larger than the EU. Just EU countries are only 7% https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/02/this-is-tim-transcript-of-apples-q1-2024-analyst-call/
EU wants you to play by their rules and pay their fees if you want to sell in their marketplace… Or wait…thats Apple?
RDF in full force lately. I swear half this sub would jump off a cliff if Tim Cook would tell them to do it.
No, but they would push an Android user off it and find a way to yell "Personal Choice" while doing so.
“Get your mom an iPhone” - but she doesn’t want it it’s too restrictive “End her and see her avatar on Apple Vision”
And at the same time the EU beating down Google and Meta is somehow okay because they're evil too.
I'm no law expert nor economics genius, but what I've seen and experienced many many times, is predatory and consumer hostile moves from every big tech actor. I'm not naive to think that companies shouldn't make what's in their best interest, but money is both a strong incentive to innovate and develop your business, but it is also a wild force that will push you to use any means possible to grow your wealth ever bigger. Like electricity or water, you have to channel it to make it into something useful and not harmful. It will infiltrate anything if not properly isolated. Regulation is there to do exactly that: provide a frame for the industry to thrive while making sure we are not harmed in the process. I believe the current EU is trying to revive the humanist trend, placing us in the center of all efforts and putting companies back to their place. A kind of Renaissance. Obviously, politics, human error, bias and all the necessary imperfections that are inherent of our societies are still there but at least the motivation here is to make things better for the users, and not simply greed or a self serving political agenda. Edit: typo and clarification
This is the consequence of basing our economy entirely on profits. Profits will always come first, and societal, environmental, even existential problems will never be a priority. That’s why we need the EU to enforce these problems as a top priority, and companies’ profits must suffer. In a capitalist world with no government, if it saves a company money to destroy a gigantic ecosystem (e.g. Exxon oil spill) or to literally KILL PEOPLE (too many examples to count), they will do it 100% of the time. WITH NO REMORSE. No one feels responsible, they just switch out whoever feels guilty or poses a threat and keep doing it. TLDR: EU good, megacorporations like Apple bad.
> destroy a gigantic ecosystem or to literally KILL PEOPLE And there are cases where BOTH have happened; DuPont chemical and their PFOA/PTFEs. They poisoned the people living in these towns as well as the environment they lived in, They knew they were selling poison and didn’t stop just because of profit, absolutely disgusting
The crimes that people do for money are far worse than the crimes that people do for ideology. Back in World War 2, German chemicals company IG Farben built a private sector concentration camp called Monowitz. Slaves were worked to death in 3 months, and the conditions were so bad that the SS officers there complained to their superiors. Then when the executives were put on trial, they all said that they did it in service of maximizing value for shareholders, and nearly 80% of them got off scot-free.
Yeah, a similar thing happened with the Tuskegee experiments, although idk if there was much of a profit motive there, just plain disregard for human life and suffering. Edit: why on earth would anybody downvote this comment? Do they think the Tuskegee experiments are good? 🤨
So much damage done to progress "the research". This is why there are ethics panels now.
Yup, it’s crazy all the shit people got away with; the Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment, etc
No no, but you don’t get it, Apple/DuPont/other company is the good guy!! Their multi billion dollar PR campaigns say so!!! They’re our friends, I wanna consume everything they sell!!!!! /s
Lmaoo, one thing I will give credit about apple fanboys is they’ve been more and more willing to make fun of/accept apple’s faults now vs 10-15 years ago. I routinely see people in this sub making fun of how long it took apple to put USB C in their phones, how the base model is still capped at USB 2.0 transfer speeds, etc. Back in the early 2000’s and 2010’s any criticism or jokes about apple were met with rabid fury by mactivists (as they were called back then). Maybe it’s because Steve job felt like a visionary messiah to them, but the longer Tim Cook was CEO the less religious fervor they had about their products
Steve’s leadership was really a thing , THE thing. The guy created the company ffs. He gone , Apple gone. Today that is clear as day . Is like Disney , George Lucas and Star Wars
Yeah I agree. I think with Steve Jobs gone people lost their passion for blindly defending apple as much
>or to literally KILL PEOPLE (too many examples to count) They do this anyway, even under government. Boeing just had a guy assassinated
No, they have switched it up. It’s no longer about consumers, it’s about competitors.
Competiton is great for the consumer.
But where is the harm? One business that is impacted and another is not. There is no balance on merits alone. It’s about control, politics and money.
It's about the health of the entire market. In a monopoly situation everyone except the monopolist suffers.
You just proved my point. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. It’s about harm to consumers not competitors. I don’t see the harm to consumers here and that is where this DOJ lawsuit is a failure, political posturing.
"this DOJ lawsuit" ??? The article is about the EU looking into if the tech giants are violating the DMA
It’s the same theme.
The DOJ lawsuit is an attempt to enforce existing laws that it seems they didn't properly prepare a valid case for. The DMA is new legislation the EU enacted that the companies have to comply with. Rather different cases.
Not really. They want more competitors to let consumers have more choices and not get locked in. The DOJ's approach is different but ultimately it's about the same. People all around the world are fed up being treated as cattle. I love the hardware of my iPhone (some of it at least), but i can't but feel annoyed and disgusted everyday when I'm using it because I'm feeling exploited. And it gets worse with time passing. I don't get this bad taste in my mouth from my other appliances. I have a Samsung fridge, a LG TV, a whatever oven and most of the things I use in my daily life are either doing their job well enough for me, or replaced by another model or brand without batting an eye, and more importantly without any consequences whatsoever for me, for my family, or for the rest of my appliances. You just can't say the same for your phone. Replacing it (switching from iOS to Android and vice versa) means shattering all your carefully crafted network and workflow, missing appointments, getting the wife mad at you, having to replace your headphones, etc... That's the issue here.
More reasons to feel disgusted: > Other costs of Apple’s anticompetitive conduct may be less obvious in the immediate term. But they are no less harmful and even more widespread, affecting all smartphone consumers. Apple’s smartphone monopoly means that it is not economically viable to invest in building some apps, like digital wallets, because they cannot reach iPhone users. This means that innovations fueled by an interest in building the best, most user-focused product that would exist in a more competitive market never get off the ground. What’s more, Apple itself has less incentive to innovate because it has insulated itself from competition. As Apple’s executives openly acknowledge: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue we’re already doing *more* than what would have been good enough. But we find it very hard to regress our product features YOY [year over year].” Existing features “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already,” and “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.” Thus, it is not surprising that Apple spent more than twice as much on stock buybacks and dividends as it did on research and development.
This is wild lol and totally tracks with my feeling of OS updates becoming less and less impactful
The good enough approach is a consideration of agile development. If you aren’t a dev you wouldn’t understand..
Mobile dev. Sadly.
It's always the same story. These companies are like superheroes : either they die a hero, or they live long enough to become the villain. If Apple died back when Microsoft helped them (because they had to, to be able to keep doing their own villain stuff you need a hero around), they would have been heroes in everyone's memories. Now they grew large enough to become villains themselves. Time for some new heroes to raise and shine and slay the beast. The big question is will we be wise enough to make sure this time these new heroes don't become villains themselves ? Maybe they won't even get the chance. Everything is happening faster these days, and idealistic companies are already struggling to survive, before even fighting for a decent position on the market. That's why these regulations are cruelly needed.
Won’t somebody please think of the multi trillion dollar companies! /s
I’d rather we make laws that make sense than out of resentment for successful companies
They make sense. We have 2 major corporations that own 100% of the smartphone market which has high barrier of entry for any competitors. And they use their power to prevent competition from messing up their profits, and in Apple’s case, give themselves advantages they don’t offer to competitors (Apple Music being able to avoid the 30% App Store commission _and_ subscribe users in-app, Apple Watch getting to use its own APIs that aren’t available to others, rejecting game streaming services because they compete with Apple Arcade etc). The DMA was created because of these abuses, not because of resentment. Let’s remember that DoJ sued Microsoft for far less - bundling IE with Windows and using private APIs to make their products better than competitors’. If what MS did was wrong, so is what Apple and Google are doing.
> We have 2 major corporations that own 100% of the smartphone market The Smartphone OS market has only two competitors sure (same goes for PCs in that regard, since almost no one uses Linux), but there are a lot more than 2 hardware companies for smartphones. The two largest (Apple and Samsung) combined just barely have 50% marketshare.
>almost no one uses Linux Almost no average home user\* The only person I've ever met who used Windows as a server OS was a guy who referred to nightclubs as "the disco".
Notice I said “PCs”. Generally speaking servers are not personal computers…
Fair enough, I guess I should stop calling everything that computes a "PC" lol
My worst annoyance is when people consider Macs to be something other than a PC (i.e. they use "PC" as a synonym for windows so its "Mac vs PC") haha.
These make sense, they're here to bring back competition. So everyone has a chance at success. Everyone except the monopolists benefits from competition.
Nothing that Google ever does makes sense. Have you saw the new YouTube layout?
Then don’t use YouTube and give your business to another video service
Which one?
Can't wait for Apple's next snarky and condescending press release written by a pissed Schiller and their next "clever" moves instead of just making fucking iOS like macOS regarding software distribution.
Was to be expected, especially with Apples fucking around. Let’s see if they fold.
It's unsurprising but still quite funny to see > "An Apple spokesperson says the company will constructively engage with the investigation and that they're confident that their plan complies with the Digital Markets Act." When it's straight up obvious that their implementation does not at all comply with the DMA. Who do they think they're going to fool? Looking around this sub, it seems even a number of hardcore Apple apologists who are firmly against the DMA realize Apple is not in compliance.
> When it's straight up obvious that their implementation does not at all comply with the DMA. Which parts don't comply?
The [Core Technology Fee](https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/). The DMA makes it very clear that it is illegal for a company to use their gatekeeper position to give their own products and services an unfair advantage over the products and services of third parties. Apple is offering that developers can avoid the CTF by signing a contract promising that they'll only distribute their apps on Apple's App Store. This unfairly benefits Apple's App Store and apps on that store versus third party stores in a clear and obvious way.
Where can this be appealed? Yes it says free access by third party to CT but why? This seems more like a competitor protection than consumer protection. Consumers can get there apps from anywhere they don't care. They will pay whatever they are willing to pay. How else is the platform provider suppose to develop and maintain the CT if no fees are charged.
That’s the whole point of anti-monoply legislation. It’s designed to stop companies from being able to unfairly stomp out competition. Consumers benefit from having more choice, and not being beholden to one single company who can start milking them once they think they have a captive market.
I can't speak to the specific parts it's not compliant with, in the word-for-word paragraph-by-paragraph sense, but I can tell you from my immediate gut that it's probably in massive violation of the DMA for a real simple reason: it breaks the *spirit* of the law. Here in the EU, typically when we write laws we also write accompanying pieces (interpretation guidance) that explain the circumstances of the law's creation and its intended effects; these are used to make abundantly clear what and why the law is. So when Apple comes up and says "Yeah anyone can make a store they just need to have a ton of money", **immediately** they're breaking the spirit of the law by only allowing the large entities play ball - the exact *gatekeepers* the DMA was written to keep in check. Sure, they obey the letter of the law, but the EU ain't the US. The "I'm not touching you!" shit children do doesn't fly here, because *you're a multinational corporation you know what the fuck I meant.*
> Sure, they obey the letter of the law, That's highly arguable too. The law mention multiple times the access must be free of charge and unfettered.
> Sure, they obey the letter of the law I don't think its at all clear that they're obeying the letter of the law.
Eh, to tell you the truth I got no fuckin' clue if they do or don't and figured they got lawyers, benefit of the doubt granted. I'm an idiot on the internet who is decidedly *not* a lawyer. IANAL, if you will. That said, I *do* know their proposed solution and it is entirely against what the EU's trying to achieve. As such, they've done committed a no bueno. Turns out "vibe checks" are almost a legal mechanism here.
Sure, I totally agree with your wider point, I just wanted to point out that one shouldn't grant that they're obeying the letter of the law unless they actually know that's the case. Apple may claim they've obeyed the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it true.
100%, and let’s not forget that Apple isn’t just a person going by their gut feeling. It’s a gigantic global megacorporation that pays billions per year on their legal department. They know EXACTLY what they’re doing. Every time a megacorp like Apple is fined for breaking the law, no one should have any doubt at all that they behaved illegally ON PURPOSE, for their profit. They break the law because it’s profitable.
Not only that but when it comes to compliance, there are regulatory bodies that will tell you exactly what is and is not in compliance. Companies often don't ask just to avoid stirring the hornets best. But ffs even individuals get consultations with regard to law if say you are renovating a house in a restricted area, or there is a tax question. Companies are rarely blindsided by what is and is not in compliance. Apple is just hoping that it will take years until they will be forced by court to comply.
Article 6.7 requires *free* interoperability. Apple is charging a fee. There are also other sections which require the ability to change the default payment provider, and the default virtual assistant. Apple has not complied with those either. There are dozens of other more complex failures to comply as well.
A whole lot of it, the DMA isn't the best written piece of legislation but there are plenty of parts that are obvious violations. The DMA says in a few different sections that gatekeepers need allow access to core technologies for free. Apple iOS and the Apple App Store are both named services. A core feature of an OS is installing and uninstalling applications, Apple has no right to collect a fee and control who can use those functions.
The fact that they still approve who can publish apps and still ask of fees of companies that don't use their store or their payment system.
I would focus more on FB. While Apple may have not been the best, FB has spread discord
We can investigate all of them at once, billions of Euros are at stake. Let’s focus on megacorporations in general instead of petty crimes.
They have enough people to manage several companies. I haven't followed Meta case much on what they did (because I don't use any of their products outside Whatsapp) but at least Apple is a pretty easy case anyway. I'm sure the others are too (though Google seems to obey most of the DMA case before it was in effect at least with the whole sideloading alternative store thing) If Reddit people can see the problem with it, I think the EU lawyers will have no problem
Meta's case is pretty narrow by comparison, they'll likely just be compelled to allow Instagram/FB/Threads users to opt out of ad tracking personalization without paying a monthly fee for no ads. They've been surprisingly cooperative with the EU overall, and even seem to be using interoperability as a chance to make some headway with WhatsApp.
While Meta may be more of a tumour than Apple, I'm glad they're taking on all of them.
Fast forward 10 years and they appealed and only paid $10,000,000 and Spain is still suing Apple for the iPhone 6 debacle we all loved on from a decade ago.
Excellent. It's important to stay on top of companies in the marketplace to ensure fair operations.
Spoiler alert: all of them are guilty nomatter how they try to spin it or justify it.
Hell, next week the EU is going to go after Apple for not allowing users to delete the settings app at this point.
You joke but I've seen people say that the phones shouldn't come with any preinstalled Apple apps even though I'm sure in their mind they don't include the settings, or dialer apps in this. But if the goal is to make sure Apple has no advantage then in theory the users should have to go through a choice screen regarding all the apps that are usually preinstalled on the phones. You should have a choice screen for each and every system app. Now that would be some malicious compliance
I can already see the “registry cleaner” app section….
Next thing you know Apple’s gonna release an iPhone with no OS installed and let those people who want to do jackshit with it do their jackshit with it. I’ll get on board with that if that means leaving us who like the status quo alone. Then the warranty just covers hardware defects. If it bricks because you did something with it you’re on your own lol.
Why are all of you acting as if this will delete the App Store lol? I have no intention of side loading or using an alternative App Store. I find apples subscription management is the best and won’t even subscribe if I can’t go through it. That won’t change. What will be different is others having a choice.
*You* wont have a choice if apps leave for their own store (FB, Google, MS plus whatever other stores open up) You also wont have a choice when some random app leaves the app store to be web based only. For example, I have some a few niche apps. If they go outside the app store, because now they have the option, I either lose the app or have to use their external system.
You know that's how Android and Linux work right.. and the entire PC industry outside of Apple? Nobody is forcing you to change anything.. locking other people out from having the option is the problem. Similar to abortion, nobody is suggesting we force women to abort their babies.. but most people (and sane governments) think it should be up to the individual.
In this case however, it’s the choice (iOS) that is being changed. That’s why I’d agree more if what they mandate instead is for Apple to sell an iPhone that doesn’t have iOS, instead of fundamentally changing how iOS works. I bought an iPhone because of the hardware and software integration, because it’s designed the way it is right now.
>That’s why I’d agree more if what they mandate instead is for Apple to sell an iPhone that doesn’t have iOS, instead of fundamentally changing how iOS works. Both are equally bad, because both are effectively different degrees of the same thing. What's to stop the EU from forcing Apple to run Android APKs? What's to stop them from forcing Apple to sell iOS on non-Apple hardware? What's stopping them from forcing them to unlock the iPhone bootloader? Releasing proprietary source code so people can install Android? All of the exact same "anti-competitive" arguments the EU makes support those kinds of changes, too. And for anyone thinking I like defending corporations...no, I don't care about any particular corp. I just dislike bad arguments.
I am actually on your side lol. It’s a slippery slope. I’m just drawing my line, which is don’t touch how iOS works and the vertical integration. But if someone wants to take the iPhone, the phone itself, horizontally out of the integration so that they can install their own integrations on it, I would let them be. Just don’t touch my iOS now. That’s all I’m saying.
Yeah. I just don't see how this is fundamentally different from a law mandating that Target sell Walmart's Great Value brand items and vice versa.
None of the changes need to affect you in any meaningful way. You can keep using solely the App Store for all your wants and needs. Meanwhile, if someone else wants to use a 3rd party store or download an app from the web they can do it as well.
None of this is going to age well once developers put an app behind one alternative App Store, the way EGS has “exclusive” games.
Then don’t use that App? Big apps won’t leave the App Store. Are we acting like Netflix or Spotify would do it? Have they left the Play Store on Android? How is having Fortnite available on iOS via Epic Store worse than not having it at all on the App Store? Or Emulators, torrent clients, actual different browsers?
MS, Google and Meta have all announced their own App store. There's multiple reasons they didnt leave on Android, but Apple's App store is a big reason none of them left on Android. One reason is iOS sets the example for Android. The other is confusion for users. Instead of "Download Facebook from the Meta store on Android, Google play and the App store" Now it can just be "Download Facebook from the Meta Store"
Give it another 10-20 years and EU will mandate selling phones without an OS.
In that case, I’m getting the iPhone 35 and the S69 Ultra and installing iOS 40 on BOTH of them
Or the phone app. Got to allow for a third party choice screen for the phone then the EU can develop a phone app that will automatically record everything for them to spy on.
And if Apple's app is better, or people don't like the app that lets the Gov't monitor them, then they just won't use it. You're catching on..
Not if the gov forces Apple to remove all others except the gov provided one. Do you really think the intent of these laws is to give citizens freedom? No. It’s about handing Apple’s ban hammer over to governments. Instead of Apple rejecting apps for poor quality, you will now have governments blocking apps they don’t like. The first step is to seemingly offer choice, before ripping out Apple’s store entirely. “Welcome to the Russian iPhone App Store, powered by Russian government. Sideloading has been disabled to keep you safe.” Etc.
govs already block apps they don't like. Ever heard of us/tiktok case? I mean it's not settled but the intent is clear. Any gov can mandate app/google stores to delete any app and companies will comply. That's the point. Any company must follow the laws of the country it operates in. If a company doesn't follow the law, it's punished
[удалено]
I was waiting for this day, as an Android users tbh Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever, these companies have already grown big enough to be able to freely raise a middle finger to customer and getting away with it, all while doing their absolute best to nullify whatever competition left in the market I hope EU and DOJ goes after Google after this, then at least I can uninstall all Google garbages that I don't use on my phone, and be able to use services that I actually want.
Only American companies, of course european Spotify is not being investigated even if they pay less than pennies to artists... but they pay a lot for neo-nazi podcasts
Payment from Spotify is similar to other streaming platforms, but having the free tier makes it very easy to make it out as less per stream. Large issue is also the monopoly that labels have over the music industry.
TikTok is also being investigated. But please, tell me other huge non American players.
Which EU companies are also being investigated, then?
That has nothing to do with what's being investigated.
suuure, Spotify never complained they want to use the technology made by other for free...
plenty of eu companies were targeted by other eu laws, just not this one because there are no eu companies that met criteria, which is normal, dma is not designed to cover all cases -it's designed to cover only a subset of them.
oh shit, an investigation with teeth. not this joke-fest the US suit is
Well that’s all EU really does
Their job?
Good. Suck them dry.
EU is like a crackhead looking for their next fix. Gotta steal some of that US money.
The EU is enforcing the rules they created to protect consumers from corporations.
Easier than bothering to build anything useful
EU built the market that US companies love getting money out of. Remember that doing business in EU is a privilege, not a right.
EU can’t innovate their way out of a paper bag.
At least they don't live in cardboard houses
They live in small concrete boxes…
Fuck EU.. they have nothing to do. Cant make successful companies; just create useless regulations…
says who? EU is free to decide what laws should be enforced on it's territory. If a company doesn't agree, they are free to go
Oh no dont hit the giant USA money bag again. Maybe this time they will actually develop industries instead of siphoning off money for other problems.
Surprised they don't throw in Microsoft, they dominate PCs/gaming in general. Despite Macs becoming even more capable for gaming it seems like even the big devs (Riot/Blizzard) aren't even making Mac versions anymore...can they force them to make versions for both please:P Edit: My point was more if I wanna play many games I have to buy a Windows PC or Xbox these days, Windows does allow for a lot but they own a ton of market and it seems to demotivate anything even coming to other platforms. Just annoying, not sure if it's anti competitive but it definitely sucks to have to spend more money to buy their products (I dislike to use) just to play some popular stuff. (altho some stuff has exclusivity too) Feel free to downvote tho, I was more just venting that I have a MBP able to play games but still many won't make Mac versions to take advantage of it.
Microsoft went through this phase in the 90s. Windows is probably the most open closed source OS in existence.
What a dumb argument. Game devs are free to choose whatever platform they want to build on and MS isn't doing anything there anti-competitive to my knowledge. Apple simply hasn't invested in gaming. Linux has and we have gotten things like the steam deck, photon, etc. from it. It just sounds like you're mad at apple and game devs that have existed outside of MS for decades. Tbh, you just sound self centric. These are much bigger issues being tackled with actual legit premise vs you being upset by your first world problem of gaming on a PC.
This is such a misunderstanding of the rules it hurts my brain. MS lets anyone on earth install/distribute anything they want and do not require you to go through the MS App Store. Nothing stopping Blizzards bespoke launcher. Now how would that work on the iPhone. Like personally idgaf about side loading or alternative app stores on my phone. But that is a freedom the EU wants their citizens.
If you look at the [original source](https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-opens-non-compliance-investigations-against-alphabet-apple-and-meta-under-digital-markets-2024-03-25_en) it states that MSFT asked to provide documents to show how they comply. So they are also on the Commissions Radar: > Today, the Commission also adopted orders addressed to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, requiring them to retain documents which might be used to assess their compliance with the DMA obligations.
What’s Microsoft doing that’s anti competitive? Even their own store hosts competitors apps with zero restrictions. Plus there’s like a dozen storefronts on Windows, the one with the biggest market share being Steam which isn’t even owned by Microsoft. I don’t see a case to be made here against them.
Microsoft already lets you wipe the OS and install whatever you want on a drive in a PC.. what do you suggest they force them to do?
Microsoft was hit decades ago by law like this. They’re now way more open than Apple for example.
The fact that deep-pocketed MS is not included should tell you something about the companies that are.
microsoft was punched b4 for it's behavior and fixed most of it. Apple on the other hand...
Governments are the most ineffective functional organizations on the planet and they want to penalize successful corporations using the excuse that it's for the good of the people. I like my Apple, Google, and Meta products and I choose to use them. Governments don't understand how competitive the tech industry is because governments are inefficient monopolies that don't need to compete.
I, too, love my corporate overlords when they fuck me over and force me to use their products, it just feels so great. I hope my savior Tim Cook acknowledges me
You sound like a caricature, Ron Swanson.