> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Apple's App Store rules breach EU tech rules known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) because they prevent app developers from steering consumers to alternative offers, EU antitrust regulators said on Monday.
> The European Commission, which also acts as the EU antitrust and technology regulator, said it had sent its preliminary findings to Apple following an investigation launched in March.
> The EU executive said it was also opening an investigation into the iPhone maker over its new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app stores.
> It singled out Apple's three business terms.
> "None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels," the EU watchdog said.
Thank god, the strangle hold apple has over what I'm allowed to use on my phone is absolutely ridiculous. And their \*attempt\* to be in compliance with the EU was infuriating at best.
Clearly their needs to be increased repercussions for intentional malicious compliance.
Let’s be real, it was not an attempt. They have dozens of lawyers. This megacorporation knew *exactly* that it was breaking the law, but apparently laws don’t apply if you have enough money.
Which is why EU fines scale with companies global net revenue, the richer you are the more you have to pay, if the fines were a set static amount Apple wouldn't have cared.
Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ?
If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space then why is it an issue in the digital space? Shouldn’t it be on the customer to look for the best deal themselves?
>Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ?
This is more akin to Target specifically and explicitly banning manufacturers from writing ***their*** MSRP on ***their own*** merchandise packaging.
Imagine Target banning manufacturers from writing their own MSRP with a link to their own website on the box. You'd think, "Who the fuck does Target think they are?"
Example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY)
Apple's high-handed restrictions are unparalleled in the physical retail space (for this reason and dozens more).
>If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space
Because actually nobody in the physical retail space has done what Apple has done at scale and with significant overall market power.
That’s not quite a valid analogy. It’s more like a manufacturer writing: *“buy it here or go to our website where it’s cheaper!”*
How many physical retailers would allow that on their merchandise?
That’s not the same thing…
No products go around advertising on their box that the price is cheaper elsewhere. Your analogy of someone walking into Target and seeing written on a box, *“You can buy this cheaper if you go to Walmart”* just isn’t something that happens in the market.
> If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space then why is it an issue in the digital space? Shouldn’t it be on the customer to look for the best deal themselves?
You can look for the best deal and choose to not go to Target at all and go to Walmart. In iOS, App Store is the only place you can go to whether you like it or not both for devs and it should not be that way.
The correct analogy is you go to Target to buy and they impose only Visa cards are allowed. Imagine if Target somehow forces you to shop with them along with mandated payment method.
The parent comment isn’t regarding where you can download apps — it is regarding price disparity (i.e. Spotify or YouTube Premium costing more in the App Store vs if you subscribe to them directly on the service’s website).
It’s against App Store rules to allow services to steer you away to their own site to subscribe, bypassing Apple.
So I guess my example was a bit off. It’s like a toy in Target being $10 and the government saying “hey Target you should let Mattel put a sign next to all their toys in your store that says customers can buy the same toy from their site for $7”
You are struggling for analogy because the problem is Apple invented. If what you said happened, nobody will like Target and obviously choose the path of least resistance i.e going to a better place that does not mandate so many rules.
Apple invented this problem because they effectively closed down the store first, so technically imagine Target is the only place you can buy. On top of this they mandate how the business transaction has to happen - this is not a problem you see in retail because like I said earlier there is Walmart, Target each charging their own % but there is choice, you are not forced to go there. But there is no choice in iOS, Apple forcefully indulges between you and developer and then mandate rules on top of it.
Now when I explain these way, the common response is nobody is forced to buy Apple, that's true but they also make up for significant chunk of mobile OS when users depend on everyday. So government intervention in spaces like this is not new, that's why we have net neutrality laws.
The analogy would be ISP mandating they are the only one serving your area, on top of that they ask extra % from Netflix for the privilege of giving you a distribution service + not allowing new ISPs to serve your area.
But your analogy fails as well. You are able to go to Walmart and buy products, and exclusive products as well if you choose.
You are also welcome to go to Android and buy products on their platform. Apple never said it was against their terms of service to switch to Android for the features you want
I don’t grasp how the initial line is not countered by saying people could simply buy a different phone - the phone is the store. You don’t have to use the App Store - you can buy an android or similar.
1. Apple has created a *market* where financial transactions take place. Obviously, markets are more regulated and have stricter scrutiny.
2. Apple is both a user and an admin of that market. This creates obvious conflicts of interest that can be abused.
3. Don't bother with analogies to grocery stores or console game markets: most goods at those markets **can** be obtained at other markets. Exclusives only really matter 1) by scale and 2) by frequency.
4. Price steering: this isn't about brand A at a grocery store getting allowed to write their own price tag **on** the store's label. It's about brand A writing an MSRP or a link to their own store with an MSRP on the item box.
> You are struggling for an analogy because the problem is Apple invented.
This line would work better if your counter argument wasn’t summarized as “business wouldn’t do that because then no one would like them”.
> The analogy would be ISP mandating they are…
That’s a terrible analogy. You already have an alternate ISP to choose from, AND new EU rules already stipulate that you can’t block new ISPs…
> That’s a terrible analogy. You already have an alternate ISP to choose from, AND new EU rules already stipulate that you can’t block new ISPs…
What if the market definition is iOS apps, what choice is there apart from App Store?
Imagine only Target and Walmart exists. You have to choose one of them as your only shopping platform and you are locked out of the other shop.
You can only buy your daily products in this single store you selected and it takes a 30% cut of everything. There are services like barber shops next to the store, but if you walk to them through the main entrance you also have to pay 30% extra to the store. A secret back entrance without that extra fee exists, but the barber isn't allowed to tell you this without getting punished.
> Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ?
That's not what it says. They are not asking for the APP STORE to put a sign saying "you can buy this cheaper outside".
They are arguing they can't offer info WITHIN the app or in any other form (e.g. email, or other type of communication).
There's no real equivalent when it comes to physical products for this.
But what you mention actually exists in real life. It's literally the point of the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price), so that the product sells at the same price across stores. They manufacturers literally putting the suggested price on the stores so that it's obvious they are being overcharged or not.
Bit of a strawman, because that implies you’re in Target of your own volition.
This is more akin to Target being the only store in the entire world, and when it’s ruled unfair Target start silencing people who say there’s alternatives.
My point was that you, the consumer, do have options. Part of buying into Apple (and I only got apple devices in 2020, being opposed prior) is accepting the trade off of a lack of full customisation for simplicity and safety.
just like you the consumer can choose to shop at Target or Walmart. However, I don’t see any shop, real or physical, just letting a manufacturer blatantly advertise “come shop elsewhere for lower prices”. Never mind the increased risk from reduced safety in certain alternative stores.
This is like if Target was a town developer that built neighborhoods, and half the population lived in Target Towns. Some because they like how those neighborhoods are, and some because their friends and family all live in Target Town already.
But the one rule of Target Town is you have to do all of your shopping at Target. If you try to enter with any outside goods security will confiscate them. Target’s prices are the only prices you get to pay.
Target says this is fine because if you don’t like it you can just move to Walmartville.
This isn’t true. Apple isn’t saying you can’t subscribe to services elsewhere. I can subscribe to YouTube Premium directly on YouTube’s website or I can buy it via the YouTube app using Apple’s in app purchase system.
Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins.
Apple is just saying YouTube cannot tell customers “hey btw to get around this markup, go to our website and subscribe directly with us so it will be cheaper”… it’s up to the customer to learn this and do that. I’m not defending Apple — I’m just not seeing a problem here. We don’t do this in physical retail so what’s the problem in digital?
You are missing the **entire** point.
Yes, stores can choose what they carry, but iPhone users can't skip Target and go to Walmart instead, if Target (representing the App Store in this comparison) chooses not to carry lumber, then iPhone users don't get to buy lumber.
This is the problem.
> We don’t do this in physical retail so what’s the problem in digital?
The difference is what I explained above. There isn’t a duopoly platform lock-in in physical retail stores. You can go shop at 10 different retail stores in the same day. That is not true for digital content on an iPhone, except now with the new alternative store situation recently mandated in the EU.
You can buy 10 different phones with one of them being an iPhone. Supposed that all 10 retail stores require you to buy a membership in order to shop in them. You can choose to buy 10 memberships or buy just one or buy 2. The choice is always yours. The more “freedom” you want, the more you pay. That’s capitalism 101.
>That’s capitalism 101.
Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations, and there are no regulators making sure that laws and regulations keep up with technological advancement.
Welcome to the real world.
P.S. Go to /r/Libertarian - be with your people.
> Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations,
Incorrect. There are indeed laws and regulations under capitalism. They just need to be consistent with capitalism, not communism or socialism and they must be applied equally and consistently.
> P.S. Go to r/Libertarian - be with your people.
They are not “my people” any more than Maoists or Leninists are “your people”.
I mean I guess you're thirteen or something? Feels weird talking to a minor.
>>Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations,
>Incorrect. There are indeed laws and regulations under capitalism. They just need to be consistent with capitalism, not communism or socialism and they must be applied equally and consistently.
Do you know what anti-trust means?
Is your reading comprehension so bad that you thought it was some kind of "gotcha" that there are laws against me taking your stuff?
P.S. I meant in the way that you're tremendously naive as to how the world works and/or incredibly dumb - in either case you'd fit right in there.
> I mean I guess you're thirteen or something? Feels weird talking to a minor.
Yes, a toddler would indeed find it very weird to attempt to engage in any meaningful conversation with a thirteen year old kid, let alone an adult.
> Do you know what anti-trust means?
Yes, certainly. How about you, with your limited toddler-caliber knowledge of the world at large?
> Is your reading comprehension so bad that you thought it was some kind of "gotcha" that there are laws against me taking your stuff?
Hardly. I never implied a “gotcha” of any sort.
> P.S. I meant in the way that you're tremendously naive as to how the world works and/or incredibly dumb - in either case you'd fit right in there.
I’m having a hard time understanding your toddler gibberish. Can you please grow up faster and improve your education of the antitrust laws so that we may have an informative conversation?
> Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins.
No, Apple adds a markup.
If a product normally costs $7 directly from Google. And in the App store, it costs $10, and of that, $3 goes to Apple and $7 goes to Google, then Google is charging the same amount for the service in the backend. It's Apple costing $3, and the customer paying Apple $3 for the privilege of using the App Store for payment instead of Google direct.
(Those numbers are just examples, not sure what the real percentages are, it's just to demo the principle)
This is actually not true. Apple doesn’t make Google charge a higher price. Google decides to increase their price on that platform to account for Apple’s cut from their margins.
Google can absolutely sell the same subscription for $7 in both places and let that the 30% fee eat their margin on iOS subs ($4.90 to Google and $2.10 to Apple)…but they don’t want to so they increase it to $10 which allows them to get $7 still and let Apple take $3.
I don't understand how you can claim this. This makes no sense. Let me use a metaphor.
- a store has a physical item; this item costs $7, which includes materials, labour and margins; and offers two methods of delivery
- physical store pickup, costs the store nothing, the store already exists, let's say $0.10
- shipping via a shipping company that costs $3 to ship
- Any normal store would say "two delivery options, one is free, the other one is $3
- You are saying: "the *shipping company* doesn't charge $3 to the customer, it is the store's decision" to put that $3 on the customer, they could just:
- make a normal amount of money, using normal delivery (pickup)
- charge the same amount for the other option, meaning they either lose money or not make a profit on that item.
If Google had the option to "just reduce their profit margins" to pay for the App Store fee, then why wouldn't they simply reduce their profit margins for other customers too?
No need for metaphors. I’ll make it simple. Apple does not set the price the customer pays in the App Store for any IAP or subscription. The developer sets what they want to charge. Source: I do this as a developer.
Google sells YouTube Premium for $13.99 on YouTube.com and for $18.99 in the YouTube app on the App Store. Customers can subscribe on either of these and get the same benefits.
Apple’s 30% fee comes from whatever *Google decides* to charge on the App Store. So on $18.99 and the breakdown is $13.29 Google and $5.70 Apple. This aligns with Googles goal of taking almost $13.99 per customer.
Google can absolutely charge $13.99 for it on the App Store if they wanted to. The breakdown would then be $9.79 Google and $4.20 Apple. This does not align with Googles take home of $13.99.
This is why Google decided to charge more on this platform. No need to related it to a physical store as this is fundamentally different. In a physical store manufacturers don’t set the price of their product, the store does.
Yeah, they can set any price they want. They can also stand on a street corner and hand out money if you wear a shirt of a particular colour. Just because they *can* fill in any number on a webform, doesn't mean that it makes sense, or that they ever will.
If a product costs $x, and Apple charges a delivery fee of $y, then the user will have to pay $x+y, and of that x+y, it should be clear how much goes towards the product and how much is for the delivery.
> Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins.
This was my complaint. Apple is charging money to Google, which logically charges it to the customer. The idea of "well, you don't have to do that" is insane.
Let's take taxes. Something costs $100 before taxes. Sales tax is 10%. Then the government decides to raise sales tax to 20%. This means you now pay $120 at the store instead of $110.
You are saying "this doesn't have to be $120, the store could just keep it at $110, and pay (100-(110/1.2))=$8.33 in sales tax, instead of the customer.
Yes, they could. But that's not how the world works. A product has a price. And adding a 30% delivery cost on top means that the customer is paying that delivery cost. *Especially* if the delivery cost is optional (meaning, not baked into the price, because there is a version without that delivery cost.)
Long story short: I think I'm being sensible: a product cost something, and the cost of a product should normally be consistent and predictable. And to my ear it sounds like you're saying "prices don't always have to be the same for the same products, maybe sometimes it's suddenly 25% cheaper if one giant corporation donates charity money to another giant corporation, for the sole reason that it happens to be Apple" That's just crazy talk, man.
Edit, to summarize what I disagree with:
> Apple’s 30% fee comes from whatever Google decides to charge on the App Store. So on $18.99 and the breakdown is $13.29 Google and $5.70 Apple. This aligns with Googles goal of taking almost $13.99 per customer.
No. The product of Youtube Premium costs $13.99. The delivery cost is $4.20, because Apple *is giving you a discount* purely for the sake of rounded numbers. Because 18.99 looks prettier than 19.98. So yeah, Google is deciding on how the rounding goes, and is friendly enough to round it down for the sake of the customer. But Apple is imposing the $4.20 (30%) Apple tax / delivery fee. That's not Google's decision.
My first thought is I'd be annoyed at the wasted paper inside the packaging, and my second is it's not just the sale you wouldn't be allowed to tell customers about -- you can't even have a different price for your product or any of its companion products (think coffee pods or video games) at another store, and you _must_ offer to sell all of the companion products at Target.
Apple maintains a high degree of intellectual control over how their devices should work, and that has for a long time included that the purchase experiences do not require you to go to someone else's purchasing system to perform any purchase. Part of that is maintaining the quality of experience on their devices, and part of that is Apple takes a 30% cut of all of these purchases and doesn't want you dancing around it (see their stiff resistance to 3rd party app stores until legally required to accommodate).
While you could make a physical store comparison like "Target is the seller of your product, they don't let you set up a store inside their store," that's an unnecessarily strict analogy for how Apple sells digital goods and ignoring some of the realities about digital retail vs physical retail. You would need to take a further step with your analogy that Target is not only a storefront but it's wrapped around apartment building entrances, and the renters that choose to live there cannot bring anything in that they bought outside of Target that isn't sold at Target (that has to be sold at the same price) or purchase anything online from their home through the Target-provided WiFi, they have to buy it downstairs. The Apple argument would be that this isn't anti-competitive because the people chose to live there and could've decided to live somewhere else, and don't focus on the real implications of these policies given that ~60% of all Americans now live in one of these Target-wrapped apartments.
Apple (I believe Android too) also bans apps from saying “hey, you can buy this subscription/thing on our site for a little cheaper because we don’t have to pay Apple there” so again like the other person said, it’s like Target banning you from adding a link to your site, on your product for an add on, where it’s cheaper. A lot of companies do just eat the cost
I support all the anti competition stuff but you would think they would be focusing on Amazon or Microsoft considering the actual monopoly those two companies have in certain fields.
Both Amazon and Microsoft are listed as gatekeepers and hold a similar position and responsibilities to Apple.
However neither Amazon nor Microsoft seem to be blatantly breaking the new DMA so.....I'm not sure what's your issue here?
This is not monopoly/antitrust stuff. That's separate.
What happened here is that Europe created new rules for specific types of "gatekeeper" tech products that affected companies of a certain size. They now have to behave in certain ways: allowing certain forms of competition on their platforms, creating clearer separation between some of their products, allowing more interoperation, etc.
The rules went into effect in March. The affected companies made a bunch of changes ahead of that deadline. Apple, Meta, and Google were all notified that the EU is investigating whether their changes were sufficient to comply with the law. This anti-steering decision is just the first to have the outcome announced.
That was all pretty objective but I'll add a bit of opinion now: more than any of the others, Apple was pretty blatantly not following the spirit of the law. While they very technically allow non-App Store apps in Europe now, the alternative App Store/app distribution rules were clearly designed to be so onerous that nobody would create a serious competitor. They picked a "fuck around" approach to DMA and now they're finding out.
I think the other difference is that there aren't European app developers raising a stink over Amazon and Microsoft's practice like Spotify and Epic are against Apple.
To me, this is what this boils down to—Spotify is the EUs golden child. And the EU's competition committee is doing all they can to keep the Swedish streaming service as an example and gold standard of European innovation.
Apple successfully crippled Microsoft all the time back in the day for things like this.
Apple are finally at a level where they hold a significant market share, and they are ones being extremely anti-competitive.
Or more likely, Apple leaves and suddenly android has "monopoly" (considering android phones aren't just one company) and can earn a shit load of money *without* breaking EU laws
Anyone who read the DMA knew they weren’t compliant lol. Apple need to hire more European lawyers or consult with their own EU HQ more often. All of this looks very unprofessional from a company which has access to more resources than many world governments.
I wouldn't label this as unprofessional. They're testing the limits of what they can get away with. Some higher-ups might have looked at the numbers and figured the fine would be worth it.
When Apple announced their alternate App Store rules I said that I kind of admired the chutzpah, because the only two possible outcomes were that they would get away with it or they would be fined thirty billion dollars
% of Global Turnover seems juicy. I hope Apple loses then throws a tantrum and aks US government to intervene like they did when they lost Apple vs Samsung.
The US government would laugh and continue on.
Any penalty Apple faces will be via its EU subsidiary and handled by the EU courts, and has absolutely nothing to the with the US or US government.
It’s not delaying tactics. They’re wanting to challenge provisions in courts and get precedent which may be more lax than the rules. It’s part of a larger, frankly smart, strategy.
It‘s both this and delaying tactics. Apple knows they aren‘t properly complying with the DMA, they also know that the EU moves slow and they get another 6 months at the bare minimum before fines hit (you usually get quite a bit of leeway to introduce changes before fines hit you hard).
Loads of people probably crunched numbers and went „hey, if we bad faith this we can get another $XXX before we need to change for good“.
I dunno, Spotify is not a small company by any means, but I wouldn’t consider them a gatekeeper. They’re just a market leader. There are plenty of alternatives to what they offer and they don’t “gatekeep” other companies in any meaningful way.
Meanwhile Apple sells the most popular computing device in the world and has full control of the software that runs on it. It 100% “gatekeeps” other companies that would like to run software on that software platform. Apple needs to be regulated. That regulation needs to be fair but Apple has been pushing anti-competitive practices for too long.
Now do the same for Nintendo and Sony, for Switch and PlayStation. And their respective stores, publishing rules and payment rules inside content, as well as all payments and subscriptions and offerings, and control over parts, blocking of 3rd party parts, warranty tactics and not a USB-C port on the PS5 in sight (I think).
I think the difference is that the scale of Nintendo and Sony is simply not there compared to Apple and Google. Sony has sold 50M PS5s since Nov 2020. Apple sells 200M iPhones per year. Apple is big enough to distort the market around it in practically all sectors. Sony has a minor distortive effect on video games but not much.
Admittedly Sony sell locked hardware like Apple. However, consumers aren’t buying consoles as general purpose computing devices. There is also a good amount of competition in the gaming space.
I would argue Valve, with its’ complete dominance through Steam on PC should warrant a look from the competition authorities given some of their more anti-competitive policies around pricing.
> for Switch and PlayStation
Those are not general computing devices.
I personally don't necessarily agree with the distinction, but it's very obvious that people don't use gaming consoles to write documents, create slideshows, cut movies, put together PDF documents, etc.
My Xbox has a mouse, a keyboard, a browser, can watch TV, movies, listen to music, browse the web, show me the news, play games.
I can order a new sofa for my house using my Xbox.
I can’t make phone calls on it though I think. Can I use Google Docs to write a draft letter to a solicitor? I think I can. I never tried. Possibly janky.
If I’m not being pedantic yes; they’re not purchased for that intent. You’re right. I was just pointing out what they can do…
Imagine what they could do, with a free market. They’re a PC in a box… same hardware really. Why not? Because Microsoft controls it so.
You can use the Xbox to do that, but most people don’t.
People however have replaced their computers with smartphones as they’re commonly used for general purpose tasks. This is specifically because Apple has marketed them as general purpose devices
I would absolutely call Sony and Nintendo gatekeepers. 100%. But not Spotify, no. Spotify doesn't limit your ability to listen to music to only them, artists are free to distribute through whatever means they choose to. Sony and Nintendo on the other hand, with their exclusive online stores are much much worse.
There’s 5ish competitors, you can cancel and switch with ease. You can create a song and reach almost all customers without issue or draconian rules. Spotify doesn’t create their own music, while charging competing bands a 30% tax. Neither do they create songs with words others aren’t allowed to use.
Cancel? Yes. Switch? Not so much.
There is a reason why playlist transferring services exist, and it has everything to do with Spotify etc not wanting you to leave their services
> It’s interesting that Spotify, the only big EU tech company doesn’t meet the definition of gatekeeper
Gatekeeping isn't just about size, but of policy. Spotify doesn't do anything to stop you from downloading competitors.
> They could have easily required Spotify to allow users to switch to Apple, Amazon or Youtube music by transferring your music library in app. You can only do that using third party sites with no safety over who handles your data.
You can literally export your playlists and all your data: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/understanding-my-data/
And it's all on a simple and super compatible JSON format.
That's as far as you can request someone to do the work. Apple, Amazon or Youtube could easily make a tool for taking that data and letting you import it. That's on them, not on Spotify.
Spotify would have no way to import those into the other apps.
Same way the "Android to iOS" app is made by Apple, not Google, for the same reason. They can do the export side, and that's it.
You kinda get YT Music thrown in if you want to avoid ads on YT, since they bundle them in many European countries, I had no trouble canceling my Spotify subscription, and using YT Music on all my devices (home/pc/car on all OS platforms). I wouldn't say that comparison is close to Apple's ecosystem with their Phones/OS.
> It’s interesting that Spotify, the only big EU tech company, doesn’t meet the definition of gatekeeper given how they’re the primary platform for music, podcasts and audiobooks in Europe.
Spotify doesn't prevent steering. Artists are free to link out to any websites or stores they like and sell their music there.
Despite having over 170M Monthly Active Users btw. Spotify was also a leading lobbyist to the EU Commission and has met, in secret (i.e no public accounting or press release on what happened at these meeting), over 60 times with EU Commissioners.
Redditors are mostly too ignorant. The EU Commission has a bigger or on par corporate lobbying machine than Washington, there's a literal whole building known just for it.
EUC is a corpo lobbyist's wet dream. Can manipulate a near entire continent within a single building and commission.
Heck, it was so bad that the EUC, Verstager and co wanted to hire a lead MSFT lobbyist as the head of digital market enforcement, a move so corrupt that the French president, Macron, had to verbally object it before they rescinded the offer.
> Spotify was also a leading lobbyist to the EU Commission and has met, in secret (i.e no public accounting or press release on what happened at these meeting), over 60 times with EU Commissioners.
> Redditors are mostly too ignorant. The EU Commission has a bigger or on par corporate lobbying machine than Washington, there's a literal whole building known just for it.
> EUC is a corpo lobbyist's wet dream. Can manipulate a near entire continent within a single building and commission.
If all these means, side loading, alternate browser engines, JIT enabled PC emulators, interoperable NFC and Watch APIs, I am all in for it!
I think this is exactly what Apple planned. Suggest mild change, have it rejected, try again, have it rejected. Just enough to not be heavily fined, but enough to postpone actually having to implement anything for the foreseeable future
Short recap:
EU: „We want you to open iOS up to third-party software to increase competition“
Apple: Ok, we gonna make sideloading so painful and inconvenient for developers and for users that nobody’s going to use it to protect our 30% upcharge business.
EU: *starts proceedings*
Apple could have prevented all of this by just moving iOS and iPadOS to the macOS Gatekeeper security model. I lost all faith in their leadership: they let the company get too dependent on the App Store and on services revenue and are now paralyzed as governments all over the world have caught up with their plan of holding 15–30% of a significant part of the digital economy for themselves
> they let the company get too dependent on the App Store and on services revenue
They were raking in billions, and Apple became the most valuable corporation in the world. I don't see how they would have voluntarily changed to a model that would have given users more choice.
Good leadership prevents crises when possible: the regulation and the pushback they are seeing from Europe is nothing compared to what could be coming down the way. It’s not hard to foresee governments regulating that platform providers aren't legally allowed to run app marketplaces at all.
An iPhone with Gatekeeper set to only allow apps from the App Store by default would have prevented most (all?) of their worries for a very small fraction of the money they were making. As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market.
>As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market.
There's literally a court verdict saying Google illegally monopolized Android app distribution
True, and if you read the documents they did some pretty extensive and shady stuff. But mindshare is very difficult to build — ask Samsung and their Galaxy Store — and I’m not sure even with strict regulation if it will be possible to break user habits.
That’s why I think we are going straight to a US v Paramount Pictures moment for app distribution, and Apple isn't ready for it.
Different case Google was paying and threatening OEMs from building their own App Store and being unable to use any Google services if they forked Android that how they have kept so much control over what was supposed to be an open source platform.
> An iPhone with Gatekeeper set to only allow apps from the App Store by default would have prevented most (all?) of their worries for a very small fraction of the money they were making. As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market.
That's a very good argument, but I think that Apple just fell into the current App Store model by sheer accident (Steve Jobs initially didn't want users to be able to install third party apps at all and, for a while, was pushing web apps), and after they reluctantly switched course, they just saw the huge windfall the App Store generated and never paused to rethink how it worked.
You're right that a more future oriented leadership might have anticipated the current situation, but it feels like they just never saw the need to rip out the old App Store and replace it with an entirely new version, given the (presumably, from their perspective at the time) very minor upsides and even potential disadvantages. Of course, now that they're in this position, things look very different.
Yes, I concur. Ultimately, I think that app distribution and ecosystem lock-in pose a perverse set of incentives to platform providers. Even if we can disagree on how different countries choose to regulate Apple and Google — Gruber, for example, seems to think that the EU Commission is run by communists — I believe almost any discerning Apple user can come up with some examples of how these incentives have made iOS worse for the user.
Gruber is just making a living as a PR outlet for Apple, while claiming that he will *occasionally* criticize Apple, that he's *completely* independent, and that he therefore should be taken seriously.
I find it amusing to contrast the Apple presentations where everything is warm and oh so right-on, compared to their actual cutthroat business practices
If this stuff is really true then something should be done.
But you really have to wonder why Apple thinks they need to do this silliness.
It seems so petty.
I think if it would be made more public the cr*p Apple is pulling it would hurt them a lot in public opinion.
I think the vast majority would agree it is wrong what Apple is doing.
To me it is not even close. I am embarrassed for Apple.
This makes Apple look extremely pathetic.
Tell app owners they can't tell customers where to get cheaper is about at anticompetitive as you can get.
Could you ever imagine Google doing something like this?
I could easily imagine Google displaying anti competitive behaviour, and being fined about €8B by the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union
Well, that's for 2027 as far as i recall, and hasn't been done by Apple. An example of something they've *actually* done just to follow the EU's demands is imo a lot better
I'm happy with both. Can't wait for sideloading, or just for Firefox to bring a proper Firefox with its own engine to iOS.
Legislation takes time. And the decision of removable batteries being behind us, means we're on track to get them at some near point in the future.
It is just wrong that Apple does NOT allow their partners to share where they can get their products cheaper.
I am embarrassed for Apple conducting themselves in this manner.
Every time someone asks about pulling out of EU is hilarious lmao. Especially as other places are about to make similar laws in the future.
Fuck Apple well, EU!
You are naive if you think business or no business are the only options for Apple. Just this week they announced they are delaying new features in EU and online Europeans are super salty about it.
This is just the beginning. Regulations are a two way street. There is always a trade off.
Well, for me is a big L. I was looking forward to the next iPhones, but without the main feature it does not make any sense to buy the new iPhones.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the EU is doing a great job with the regulations and I am happy about them.
Still it is a pity that mega corporations don’t give a fuck about them.
all of apples privacy talk is just for marketing really, when they stand to make a profit off of your data they will and that's exactly what we're seeing from their AI work
Technically yes, but it’s making it so that Apple is forced to give *extremely* sensitive data to third parties, like literally your entire device’s content, private text messages, photos with your friends’ faces scanned and tagged in them, EVERYTHING. it’s insane to not be able to admit that this is a crazy expectation and a HUGE privacy crisis waiting to happen.
>Apple is forced to give extremely sensitive data to third parties
This is a *wild* take. Does Apple allowing alternative browsers mean that they're giving all your browsing data to third parties? Apple has an API for your health data too, so they're basically handing that all to third parties too, right?
AFAIK the EU hasn’t ruled that all services on the iPhone must be open for competitors, just key interoperable ones like browsers and app stores. For example, the current Siri implementation is not required to be opened up.
> Technically yes, but it’s making it so that Apple is forced to give extremely sensitive data to third parties, like literally your entire device’s content, private text messages, photos with your friends’ faces scanned and tagged in them, EVERYTHING
No, it doesn't. The DMA only requires that users be able to grant 3rd parties the same access they do Apple.
Prohibit? No. Would it likely require interoperability and remove what makes it such a good feature? Yes. For instance, iPhone mirroring unlocks your iPhone from your Mac using the security features Apple has on Apple silicon. The EU requiring it to work with a random Android phone (if that’s what they deem in scope as per DMA - possibly, see [https://twitter.com/giovxu578/status/1804203315388981485?s=61&t=ozFOctMwbFvu2kA4CT80\_Q](https://twitter.com/giovxu578/status/1804203315388981485?s=61&t=ozFOctMwbFvu2kA4CT80_Q) ) would require more work and make the feature, well, worse.
Tough cookies. The (text of the) DMA has been around for years. Apple knew this was coming, this wasn't a surprise halfway through their AI development.
Apple could make it interoperable just fine, but they're doing this to spite the EU. To try and make EU the boogeyman.
“Apple could make it interoperable just fine” - no, that’s actually the entire point of an integrated system, you can’t do that without making it modular and less integrated.
You can be for or against the premise of the DMA, but Apple likely will just forego implementing it altogether if it means opening up access to highly private information to other companies. It designed Apple Intelligence's systems itself so it couldn’t get access to the information: making it usable to third parties requires them to upend that and make it inherently less private. I don’t see it happening.
> without making it modular and less integrated.
Both modular and "less integrated" are good things. Yet you phrase them as insults.
> if it means opening up access to highly private information to other companies
The customer, you mean the customer.
As the customer, you should be able to choose who holds your private information. Apple is just one of many companies, and they're not somehow magically above the others.
Look through the default ad tracking settings on an iPhone, they're not much better than the default Facebook or the default any-website settings. But because it's "Apple" it's magically fine, where as with Facebook, we'd be upset.
I don't like the generic version of OpenAI to have my info. But MS Copilot has access to my Office365 stuff, and it works awesome. And I would be very happy if it was possible to have Copilot play nice with the iPhone, and its AI.
It's literally Apple telling the customer they can't have the freedom they would like. And we need an EU to stop that bullshit. They're still struggling now, but Apple will learn to respect the customers better, even if it's necessary to go through our elected politicians, instead of listening to us directly.
Apple’s entire philosophy is around integration. You can consider modularity good, but it forces compromises. Apple doesn’t want those compromises. It wants a super slick, well integrated whole, which requires less modularization. That’s just the way it is. Personally (and many with me), I find this a great selling point and that’s why I buy their stuff. It just works! I am not insulting modular, compromised solutions, they just aren’t my favorite. (can you tell I am a designer?)
"As the customer, you should be able to choose who holds your private information. "
But you... do. You choose as a \*customer\*. You vote with your feet. If you trust Apple with your info, then that’s a vote for them. I don’t see why every solution has to be open to all companies, which inherently makes it, ironically, less safe.
> Apple’s entire philosophy is
That's great if there are 15 options for a mobile OS, so you can choose the one whose philosophy fits bets for you.
But that's not the case. It's a duopoly between iOS and Android, and the switching cost between them is huge. Not just replacing your phone, but all your apps, and how you use a phone in general.
So, Apple is a gatekeeper, iOS is a core platform, and they have to play nice with others.
If they want to have a philosophy that they're very keen on, then do it on a little corner of your phone, where you put a buddha statue and a tree, and be zen there. In the meantime, keep the giant tech platform, that is being used by half the people, usable for consumers who want to be able to have choices. Like which AI to use, or which browser, or which app store.
> But you... do. You choose as a *customer*. You vote with your feet.
No, that's not an option. Again, duopoly with super high switching cost. That's why we have the DMA. Honestly, this is Antitrust 101.
But Android is not a single phone or platform. It’s actually a lot of providers. You are following European Commission logic in defining ‘gatekeepers', but you can’t have a nice integrated product without switching costs. You can argue they should be minimal, or less severe, but there will be friction.
You are philosophically believing that a government should not allow customers to make that choice for an, in your view, ‘restrictive’ environment. But they do. Apple has even advertised that very reality. This isn’t some kind of bait and switch. The EU is now decided that’s not OK, but if you do go to that extreme you should’ve be surprised if Apple decides not to offer some things at all.
Should AI be open to all, so all your personal information that a personal assistant taps into should be available to any single provider? Because that’s orthogonal to the notion of integrated privacy controls. You’ll be unable to create truly private solutions like what Apple has built in its private compute cloud, for the sake of ‘opening’ it up - not to competition, but also to bad actors.
> But Android is not a single phone or platform. It’s actually a lot of providers. You are following European Commission logic in defining ‘gatekeepers'
I'm being practical. Among *hardware makers* for Android, there is competition. You can tell this is the case by *actual innovation* being done, like folding screens and other such things.
Competition is possible because there are many players in the Android hardware market, but also because the switching cost is reasonable. Replacing one Android for another is as little effort as replacing one iPhone for another.
But it's different for the OS. There are only two mobile phone platforms. Android is Android, and each one has the same Google Store policies applied. That's why Samsung or HTC or Nokia are not gatekeepers, but Google (for Android) is.
> You are philosophically believing that a government should not allow customers to make that choice for an, in your view, ‘restrictive’ environment.
That's the thing, consumers *do not have that choice.* Because there are only two platforms. And that is made worse because the switching cost is so high.
If there are two physical stores next to each other, then you can choose to use one store for some purchases, and the other store for different purchases where you like them better.
Or you can go to one store exclusively if you prefer their "integrated" shopping experience, whatever that means. But you still have the option of easily going to the other one.
But if there are two stores you can choose from, but based on where you have bought your house, one is in your town, and the other one is a 3 hour drive, then you *technically* have both options, but you would put in a huge effort to go there once, or actually buy a house in a different town, to go to the other one. That gives that one store an effective monopoly for their (local) customers.
That is what the App Store and iOS are: effective monopolies for people who have bought an iPhone.
And you know how many factors go into buying a house? Yes, having a store nearby is a factor, but likely not the most important one, and for sure not the only one.
Similarly, if someone buys a phone, then the "philosophy of the app store" might be a factor, it might not be, but there are a lot more factors than that, and for most people it's not the most important one.
That is how Apple users don't have that choice. They choose a phone based on style, based on knowing the user interface well, based on specific apps that are available, based on many factors. And if they don't like Apple's philosophy on something, then too bad.
On the other side, *if we are talking about purely hardware*, then if a user doesn't like how Samsung does e.g. headphone ports, then there is Nokia, Motorola, Oppo, etc, etc. Choice. One of them will have the advantages they are looking for, minus that one thing they don't like about Samsung. iPhone users don't have this choice.
But like I said, Android has the same effective monopoly, which is why they are also forced to "play nice" and give users choices, and when in doubt: give freedom, and not restrictions (or "integration" as you call it)
> Should AI be open to all, so all your personal information that a personal assistant taps into should be available to any single provider? Because that’s orthogonal to the notion of integrated privacy controls. You’ll be unable to create truly private solutions like what Apple has built in its private compute cloud, for the sake of ‘opening’ it up - not to competition, but also to bad actors.
You keep making a difference between Apple and competitors. Apple is *just another company*. Your data is not private is Apple has it. Apple has shown at every turn that they will fuck over users just as quickly as competitors if it means making a little bit more money. The default "privacy" settings in the "ads" part of an iPhone is that Apple tracks your habits and other data for advertising profiling, the same shitty behaviour that we (I do, at least) despise Facebook for. They are not "protecting you" from other ad agencies, they are "locking out" other ad agencies, because they are competitors, while doing exactly the same.
Allowing interoperability also means that you can use some company that actually respects your data. Like switching your search engine from Google or Bing to DuckDuckGo. That is the change that we need, and it's not possible while Apple is saying that noone but Apple themselves is allowed to handle the users' data.
Lol, read the DMA. It will require a huge engineering effort to make AI interoperable. They aren’t going to spend those resources without a monetary reason.
They did spend resources, they did do a huge engineering effort. All the while they were working on AI, they knew exactly what the DMA was.
Apple, from years back by now, specifically engineered their AI stuff, to spite EU users.
Edit: I see from the voting here we like to support invasion of privacy which will do nothing to actually stop child abusers sharing content. Congrats. Well done world.
6 years ago, I already developed a mechanism for encrypting content sent over iMessage. But not everyone will go that far.
Who will go that far? Definitely the people who have something to hide. Which makes the system completely redundant. Even if you break the encryption so it’s not E2E. And even if you scan the messages before they’re sent; they’d be encrypted before they hit the messaging client.
This was done as an experiment back then, but with automation, iPhone can automatically decrypt these iMessages that are received.
There are now shortcuts already dedicated to doing AES 256 cipher encryption.
So good work EU on doing absolutely nothing against those who have something to hide whilst breaking privacy for the rest of us.
You think the EU is doing a great job yet it’s making the business climate uncertain for Apple and now impacting you because you can’t get the latest features. Is the EU doing a great job? Doesn’t seem like you’re benefiting.
Nope, EU is useless bunch of neo-commies. They just ruined Apple experience for users in EU, while the do nothing with serious issues like migration etc.
EU has you covered: [Microsoft charged with EU antitrust violations for bundling Teams](https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/25/24185467/microsoft-teams-eu-bundling-antitrust-violations)
I don’t know… all this fighting plus the AI thing not coming to EU… maybe it’s time for me to think about the alternative. As a customer, I don’t want to be in the middle of this.
All big tech companies are basically US or Asia-based, so they’ll all get hit with DMA stuff. You are just a plaything of large government and corporations.
The EU needs to get bent. Europe is 30 years behind the US in tech and this is a bunch of unelected beauracrats going on power trips for what end, exactly? Europe will never catch up no matter how much regulation they enact.
Members of the European Parliament are elected, however, [they don’t have the right of initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions), unlike members of most national/state/local congresses or boards. Only the European Commission members have that right, and they aren’t elected.
I disagree with the OP, but they are correct that the real decision makers in the EU aren’t elected.
This isn't about catching up to the US but now that you say it the US could really learn a thing or two from the DMA on how to protect their citizens interests by making digital markets fair
You’re enjoying the market dominance and relevance of being a rich region of the world for now. If Europe continues to fall behind on technology and keeps being extremely dependent on the US & China, soon that advantage will start to crumble as well. You have to keep up, you’ve been coasting too much
> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Apple's App Store rules breach EU tech rules known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) because they prevent app developers from steering consumers to alternative offers, EU antitrust regulators said on Monday. > The European Commission, which also acts as the EU antitrust and technology regulator, said it had sent its preliminary findings to Apple following an investigation launched in March. > The EU executive said it was also opening an investigation into the iPhone maker over its new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app stores. > It singled out Apple's three business terms. > "None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels," the EU watchdog said.
Bound to happen. EU are not playing around.
Thank god, the strangle hold apple has over what I'm allowed to use on my phone is absolutely ridiculous. And their \*attempt\* to be in compliance with the EU was infuriating at best. Clearly their needs to be increased repercussions for intentional malicious compliance.
Let’s be real, it was not an attempt. They have dozens of lawyers. This megacorporation knew *exactly* that it was breaking the law, but apparently laws don’t apply if you have enough money.
I think it's more likely that they think they found a loophole, not that they're intentionally breaking the law. They'll get to argue it out in court.
Probably forgot it wasn't the US, where corpors can do a gold job at stopping laws from being passed /s because apparently it's needed
Which is why EU fines scale with companies global net revenue, the richer you are the more you have to pay, if the fines were a set static amount Apple wouldn't have cared.
Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ? If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space then why is it an issue in the digital space? Shouldn’t it be on the customer to look for the best deal themselves?
>Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ? This is more akin to Target specifically and explicitly banning manufacturers from writing ***their*** MSRP on ***their own*** merchandise packaging. Imagine Target banning manufacturers from writing their own MSRP with a link to their own website on the box. You'd think, "Who the fuck does Target think they are?" Example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUZ2sVjLfY) Apple's high-handed restrictions are unparalleled in the physical retail space (for this reason and dozens more). >If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space Because actually nobody in the physical retail space has done what Apple has done at scale and with significant overall market power.
I see, thanks. Out of all responses this actually sheds some light with a more accurate analogy. Finally someone discussing in good faith.
Or even further, if you buy a blender at Target, Target gets a commission on every attachment you buy for that blender
That’s not quite a valid analogy. It’s more like a manufacturer writing: *“buy it here or go to our website where it’s cheaper!”* How many physical retailers would allow that on their merchandise?
In the US? [All must allow it...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act)
That’s not the same thing… No products go around advertising on their box that the price is cheaper elsewhere. Your analogy of someone walking into Target and seeing written on a box, *“You can buy this cheaper if you go to Walmart”* just isn’t something that happens in the market.
It is a bit similar, the difference is that people aren't required to only shop at Target simply because they have a Target membership card.
> If we don’t have a problem with this in the physical retail space then why is it an issue in the digital space? Shouldn’t it be on the customer to look for the best deal themselves? You can look for the best deal and choose to not go to Target at all and go to Walmart. In iOS, App Store is the only place you can go to whether you like it or not both for devs and it should not be that way. The correct analogy is you go to Target to buy and they impose only Visa cards are allowed. Imagine if Target somehow forces you to shop with them along with mandated payment method.
I’m apparently old enough to remember when only accepting one card type was the norm.
Having multiple card types is a net positive I think, market changed for the better wouldn't you say?
The parent comment isn’t regarding where you can download apps — it is regarding price disparity (i.e. Spotify or YouTube Premium costing more in the App Store vs if you subscribe to them directly on the service’s website). It’s against App Store rules to allow services to steer you away to their own site to subscribe, bypassing Apple. So I guess my example was a bit off. It’s like a toy in Target being $10 and the government saying “hey Target you should let Mattel put a sign next to all their toys in your store that says customers can buy the same toy from their site for $7”
You are struggling for analogy because the problem is Apple invented. If what you said happened, nobody will like Target and obviously choose the path of least resistance i.e going to a better place that does not mandate so many rules. Apple invented this problem because they effectively closed down the store first, so technically imagine Target is the only place you can buy. On top of this they mandate how the business transaction has to happen - this is not a problem you see in retail because like I said earlier there is Walmart, Target each charging their own % but there is choice, you are not forced to go there. But there is no choice in iOS, Apple forcefully indulges between you and developer and then mandate rules on top of it. Now when I explain these way, the common response is nobody is forced to buy Apple, that's true but they also make up for significant chunk of mobile OS when users depend on everyday. So government intervention in spaces like this is not new, that's why we have net neutrality laws. The analogy would be ISP mandating they are the only one serving your area, on top of that they ask extra % from Netflix for the privilege of giving you a distribution service + not allowing new ISPs to serve your area.
But your analogy fails as well. You are able to go to Walmart and buy products, and exclusive products as well if you choose. You are also welcome to go to Android and buy products on their platform. Apple never said it was against their terms of service to switch to Android for the features you want
I don’t grasp how the initial line is not countered by saying people could simply buy a different phone - the phone is the store. You don’t have to use the App Store - you can buy an android or similar.
1. Apple has created a *market* where financial transactions take place. Obviously, markets are more regulated and have stricter scrutiny. 2. Apple is both a user and an admin of that market. This creates obvious conflicts of interest that can be abused. 3. Don't bother with analogies to grocery stores or console game markets: most goods at those markets **can** be obtained at other markets. Exclusives only really matter 1) by scale and 2) by frequency. 4. Price steering: this isn't about brand A at a grocery store getting allowed to write their own price tag **on** the store's label. It's about brand A writing an MSRP or a link to their own store with an MSRP on the item box.
> You are struggling for an analogy because the problem is Apple invented. This line would work better if your counter argument wasn’t summarized as “business wouldn’t do that because then no one would like them”. > The analogy would be ISP mandating they are… That’s a terrible analogy. You already have an alternate ISP to choose from, AND new EU rules already stipulate that you can’t block new ISPs…
> That’s a terrible analogy. You already have an alternate ISP to choose from, AND new EU rules already stipulate that you can’t block new ISPs… What if the market definition is iOS apps, what choice is there apart from App Store?
Imagine only Target and Walmart exists. You have to choose one of them as your only shopping platform and you are locked out of the other shop. You can only buy your daily products in this single store you selected and it takes a 30% cut of everything. There are services like barber shops next to the store, but if you walk to them through the main entrance you also have to pay 30% extra to the store. A secret back entrance without that extra fee exists, but the barber isn't allowed to tell you this without getting punished.
Target is not yours…your phone is!
unless Apple decides it's not. So it's not really something you own.
Your phone is yours, not theirs!! They cannot take it from you…
Apple can easily disable it
> Isn’t this like asking Target “why don’t you allow manufacturers of products in your store to tell the customers (that you brought in) about a sale for this same product at Walmart” ? That's not what it says. They are not asking for the APP STORE to put a sign saying "you can buy this cheaper outside". They are arguing they can't offer info WITHIN the app or in any other form (e.g. email, or other type of communication). There's no real equivalent when it comes to physical products for this. But what you mention actually exists in real life. It's literally the point of the MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price), so that the product sells at the same price across stores. They manufacturers literally putting the suggested price on the stores so that it's obvious they are being overcharged or not.
Bit of a strawman, because that implies you’re in Target of your own volition. This is more akin to Target being the only store in the entire world, and when it’s ruled unfair Target start silencing people who say there’s alternatives.
A better way to put it is like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/0R3uM7WaBb
But you are in Target of your own volition. You don’t have to buy an apple device.
Apple are in the EU market of their own volition. They don’t have to be. Strange how they don’t like it when the turntables.
My point was that you, the consumer, do have options. Part of buying into Apple (and I only got apple devices in 2020, being opposed prior) is accepting the trade off of a lack of full customisation for simplicity and safety. just like you the consumer can choose to shop at Target or Walmart. However, I don’t see any shop, real or physical, just letting a manufacturer blatantly advertise “come shop elsewhere for lower prices”. Never mind the increased risk from reduced safety in certain alternative stores.
This is like if Target was a town developer that built neighborhoods, and half the population lived in Target Towns. Some because they like how those neighborhoods are, and some because their friends and family all live in Target Town already. But the one rule of Target Town is you have to do all of your shopping at Target. If you try to enter with any outside goods security will confiscate them. Target’s prices are the only prices you get to pay. Target says this is fine because if you don’t like it you can just move to Walmartville.
This isn’t true. Apple isn’t saying you can’t subscribe to services elsewhere. I can subscribe to YouTube Premium directly on YouTube’s website or I can buy it via the YouTube app using Apple’s in app purchase system. Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins. Apple is just saying YouTube cannot tell customers “hey btw to get around this markup, go to our website and subscribe directly with us so it will be cheaper”… it’s up to the customer to learn this and do that. I’m not defending Apple — I’m just not seeing a problem here. We don’t do this in physical retail so what’s the problem in digital?
Show me where I can pay for a DOS emulator for my iPhone.
Show me where I can buy lumber at target. Stores can choose what they carry.
Seems like somebody forgot to buy a brain for you.
You are missing the **entire** point. Yes, stores can choose what they carry, but iPhone users can't skip Target and go to Walmart instead, if Target (representing the App Store in this comparison) chooses not to carry lumber, then iPhone users don't get to buy lumber. This is the problem.
Sounds like an argument for someone to avoid buying iPhones in order to have the ability to buy whatever they want. What’s the issue here?
> We don’t do this in physical retail so what’s the problem in digital? The difference is what I explained above. There isn’t a duopoly platform lock-in in physical retail stores. You can go shop at 10 different retail stores in the same day. That is not true for digital content on an iPhone, except now with the new alternative store situation recently mandated in the EU.
You can buy 10 different phones with one of them being an iPhone. Supposed that all 10 retail stores require you to buy a membership in order to shop in them. You can choose to buy 10 memberships or buy just one or buy 2. The choice is always yours. The more “freedom” you want, the more you pay. That’s capitalism 101.
>That’s capitalism 101. Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations, and there are no regulators making sure that laws and regulations keep up with technological advancement. Welcome to the real world. P.S. Go to /r/Libertarian - be with your people.
> Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations, Incorrect. There are indeed laws and regulations under capitalism. They just need to be consistent with capitalism, not communism or socialism and they must be applied equally and consistently. > P.S. Go to r/Libertarian - be with your people. They are not “my people” any more than Maoists or Leninists are “your people”.
I mean I guess you're thirteen or something? Feels weird talking to a minor. >>Right and in Capitalism 101 there is no such thing as anti-trust, there are no laws nor regulations, >Incorrect. There are indeed laws and regulations under capitalism. They just need to be consistent with capitalism, not communism or socialism and they must be applied equally and consistently. Do you know what anti-trust means? Is your reading comprehension so bad that you thought it was some kind of "gotcha" that there are laws against me taking your stuff? P.S. I meant in the way that you're tremendously naive as to how the world works and/or incredibly dumb - in either case you'd fit right in there.
> I mean I guess you're thirteen or something? Feels weird talking to a minor. Yes, a toddler would indeed find it very weird to attempt to engage in any meaningful conversation with a thirteen year old kid, let alone an adult. > Do you know what anti-trust means? Yes, certainly. How about you, with your limited toddler-caliber knowledge of the world at large? > Is your reading comprehension so bad that you thought it was some kind of "gotcha" that there are laws against me taking your stuff? Hardly. I never implied a “gotcha” of any sort. > P.S. I meant in the way that you're tremendously naive as to how the world works and/or incredibly dumb - in either case you'd fit right in there. I’m having a hard time understanding your toddler gibberish. Can you please grow up faster and improve your education of the antitrust laws so that we may have an informative conversation?
> Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins. No, Apple adds a markup. If a product normally costs $7 directly from Google. And in the App store, it costs $10, and of that, $3 goes to Apple and $7 goes to Google, then Google is charging the same amount for the service in the backend. It's Apple costing $3, and the customer paying Apple $3 for the privilege of using the App Store for payment instead of Google direct. (Those numbers are just examples, not sure what the real percentages are, it's just to demo the principle)
This is actually not true. Apple doesn’t make Google charge a higher price. Google decides to increase their price on that platform to account for Apple’s cut from their margins. Google can absolutely sell the same subscription for $7 in both places and let that the 30% fee eat their margin on iOS subs ($4.90 to Google and $2.10 to Apple)…but they don’t want to so they increase it to $10 which allows them to get $7 still and let Apple take $3.
I don't understand how you can claim this. This makes no sense. Let me use a metaphor. - a store has a physical item; this item costs $7, which includes materials, labour and margins; and offers two methods of delivery - physical store pickup, costs the store nothing, the store already exists, let's say $0.10 - shipping via a shipping company that costs $3 to ship - Any normal store would say "two delivery options, one is free, the other one is $3 - You are saying: "the *shipping company* doesn't charge $3 to the customer, it is the store's decision" to put that $3 on the customer, they could just: - make a normal amount of money, using normal delivery (pickup) - charge the same amount for the other option, meaning they either lose money or not make a profit on that item. If Google had the option to "just reduce their profit margins" to pay for the App Store fee, then why wouldn't they simply reduce their profit margins for other customers too?
No need for metaphors. I’ll make it simple. Apple does not set the price the customer pays in the App Store for any IAP or subscription. The developer sets what they want to charge. Source: I do this as a developer. Google sells YouTube Premium for $13.99 on YouTube.com and for $18.99 in the YouTube app on the App Store. Customers can subscribe on either of these and get the same benefits. Apple’s 30% fee comes from whatever *Google decides* to charge on the App Store. So on $18.99 and the breakdown is $13.29 Google and $5.70 Apple. This aligns with Googles goal of taking almost $13.99 per customer. Google can absolutely charge $13.99 for it on the App Store if they wanted to. The breakdown would then be $9.79 Google and $4.20 Apple. This does not align with Googles take home of $13.99. This is why Google decided to charge more on this platform. No need to related it to a physical store as this is fundamentally different. In a physical store manufacturers don’t set the price of their product, the store does.
Yeah, they can set any price they want. They can also stand on a street corner and hand out money if you wear a shirt of a particular colour. Just because they *can* fill in any number on a webform, doesn't mean that it makes sense, or that they ever will. If a product costs $x, and Apple charges a delivery fee of $y, then the user will have to pay $x+y, and of that x+y, it should be clear how much goes towards the product and how much is for the delivery. > Apple isn’t even saying both prices have to be the same. YouTube adds a markup if you buy it through Apple to account for the margins. This was my complaint. Apple is charging money to Google, which logically charges it to the customer. The idea of "well, you don't have to do that" is insane. Let's take taxes. Something costs $100 before taxes. Sales tax is 10%. Then the government decides to raise sales tax to 20%. This means you now pay $120 at the store instead of $110. You are saying "this doesn't have to be $120, the store could just keep it at $110, and pay (100-(110/1.2))=$8.33 in sales tax, instead of the customer. Yes, they could. But that's not how the world works. A product has a price. And adding a 30% delivery cost on top means that the customer is paying that delivery cost. *Especially* if the delivery cost is optional (meaning, not baked into the price, because there is a version without that delivery cost.) Long story short: I think I'm being sensible: a product cost something, and the cost of a product should normally be consistent and predictable. And to my ear it sounds like you're saying "prices don't always have to be the same for the same products, maybe sometimes it's suddenly 25% cheaper if one giant corporation donates charity money to another giant corporation, for the sole reason that it happens to be Apple" That's just crazy talk, man. Edit, to summarize what I disagree with: > Apple’s 30% fee comes from whatever Google decides to charge on the App Store. So on $18.99 and the breakdown is $13.29 Google and $5.70 Apple. This aligns with Googles goal of taking almost $13.99 per customer. No. The product of Youtube Premium costs $13.99. The delivery cost is $4.20, because Apple *is giving you a discount* purely for the sake of rounded numbers. Because 18.99 looks prettier than 19.98. So yeah, Google is deciding on how the rounding goes, and is friendly enough to round it down for the sake of the customer. But Apple is imposing the $4.20 (30%) Apple tax / delivery fee. That's not Google's decision.
My first thought is I'd be annoyed at the wasted paper inside the packaging, and my second is it's not just the sale you wouldn't be allowed to tell customers about -- you can't even have a different price for your product or any of its companion products (think coffee pods or video games) at another store, and you _must_ offer to sell all of the companion products at Target. Apple maintains a high degree of intellectual control over how their devices should work, and that has for a long time included that the purchase experiences do not require you to go to someone else's purchasing system to perform any purchase. Part of that is maintaining the quality of experience on their devices, and part of that is Apple takes a 30% cut of all of these purchases and doesn't want you dancing around it (see their stiff resistance to 3rd party app stores until legally required to accommodate). While you could make a physical store comparison like "Target is the seller of your product, they don't let you set up a store inside their store," that's an unnecessarily strict analogy for how Apple sells digital goods and ignoring some of the realities about digital retail vs physical retail. You would need to take a further step with your analogy that Target is not only a storefront but it's wrapped around apartment building entrances, and the renters that choose to live there cannot bring anything in that they bought outside of Target that isn't sold at Target (that has to be sold at the same price) or purchase anything online from their home through the Target-provided WiFi, they have to buy it downstairs. The Apple argument would be that this isn't anti-competitive because the people chose to live there and could've decided to live somewhere else, and don't focus on the real implications of these policies given that ~60% of all Americans now live in one of these Target-wrapped apartments.
Apple (I believe Android too) also bans apps from saying “hey, you can buy this subscription/thing on our site for a little cheaper because we don’t have to pay Apple there” so again like the other person said, it’s like Target banning you from adding a link to your site, on your product for an add on, where it’s cheaper. A lot of companies do just eat the cost
so many braindead takes in here “JuSt LeaVE tHE MaRKuT” great thinking Einsteins.
People never even made it to economics 101 to learn about market failure.
I support all the anti competition stuff but you would think they would be focusing on Amazon or Microsoft considering the actual monopoly those two companies have in certain fields.
If I remember, the EU has slapped Amazon or Microsoft as well (in the past).
Both Amazon and Microsoft are listed as gatekeepers and hold a similar position and responsibilities to Apple. However neither Amazon nor Microsoft seem to be blatantly breaking the new DMA so.....I'm not sure what's your issue here?
This is not monopoly/antitrust stuff. That's separate. What happened here is that Europe created new rules for specific types of "gatekeeper" tech products that affected companies of a certain size. They now have to behave in certain ways: allowing certain forms of competition on their platforms, creating clearer separation between some of their products, allowing more interoperation, etc. The rules went into effect in March. The affected companies made a bunch of changes ahead of that deadline. Apple, Meta, and Google were all notified that the EU is investigating whether their changes were sufficient to comply with the law. This anti-steering decision is just the first to have the outcome announced. That was all pretty objective but I'll add a bit of opinion now: more than any of the others, Apple was pretty blatantly not following the spirit of the law. While they very technically allow non-App Store apps in Europe now, the alternative App Store/app distribution rules were clearly designed to be so onerous that nobody would create a serious competitor. They picked a "fuck around" approach to DMA and now they're finding out.
or how about both
They are targeting them. Also they don't make the news Lastly unlike apple they are not doing Malicious compliance
Microsoft and Amazon were able to dodge most of the issues since they were already way more open.
I think the other difference is that there aren't European app developers raising a stink over Amazon and Microsoft's practice like Spotify and Epic are against Apple. To me, this is what this boils down to—Spotify is the EUs golden child. And the EU's competition committee is doing all they can to keep the Swedish streaming service as an example and gold standard of European innovation.
You can have a monopoly. You can't abuse that monopoly. Amazon and Microsoft aren't abusing their monopolies like Apple is here.
Apple successfully crippled Microsoft all the time back in the day for things like this. Apple are finally at a level where they hold a significant market share, and they are ones being extremely anti-competitive.
If Apple and Google both leave the market, what will the EU use? Linux phones? Maybe they can resurrect Symbian.
Or more likely, Apple leaves and suddenly android has "monopoly" (considering android phones aren't just one company) and can earn a shit load of money *without* breaking EU laws
Anyone who read the DMA knew they weren’t compliant lol. Apple need to hire more European lawyers or consult with their own EU HQ more often. All of this looks very unprofessional from a company which has access to more resources than many world governments.
I wouldn't label this as unprofessional. They're testing the limits of what they can get away with. Some higher-ups might have looked at the numbers and figured the fine would be worth it.
When Apple announced their alternate App Store rules I said that I kind of admired the chutzpah, because the only two possible outcomes were that they would get away with it or they would be fined thirty billion dollars
They need to be slapped with a daily fine until they become compliant. Failing this there's also the option to suspend Apple's sales in the EU.
Isn't that the definition of unprofessional though? Professional would be abiding to the intent of the law rather than the wording.
No. Professional means abiding to the interests of your shareholders. If that means testing the limits of a law, then so it shall be.
10% of worldwide revenue (the max amount for the fine) is not something you gamble with.
Doubt they'll be hit that hard. It's their first offense under the DMA, so I'm not expecting anything more than 2-3b.
Well, considering how the Commission has had a hard on for the GAFAM over the years, I wouldn’t bet on it.
> figured the fine would be worth it. I doubt that, the fine scale with Apple's global net revenue which as you can guess is insanely high.
% of Global Turnover seems juicy. I hope Apple loses then throws a tantrum and aks US government to intervene like they did when they lost Apple vs Samsung.
The US government would laugh and continue on. Any penalty Apple faces will be via its EU subsidiary and handled by the EU courts, and has absolutely nothing to the with the US or US government.
> Anyone who read the DMA knew they weren’t compliant And the ones who didn't continue to make up what the DMA actually does and doesn't do
inthink they know. It seems like delaying tactics. Bad yeah it reflects bad in them
It’s not delaying tactics. They’re wanting to challenge provisions in courts and get precedent which may be more lax than the rules. It’s part of a larger, frankly smart, strategy.
It‘s both this and delaying tactics. Apple knows they aren‘t properly complying with the DMA, they also know that the EU moves slow and they get another 6 months at the bare minimum before fines hit (you usually get quite a bit of leeway to introduce changes before fines hit you hard). Loads of people probably crunched numbers and went „hey, if we bad faith this we can get another $XXX before we need to change for good“.
I wonder if the recent right wing gains in the EU will affect this.
[удалено]
I dunno, Spotify is not a small company by any means, but I wouldn’t consider them a gatekeeper. They’re just a market leader. There are plenty of alternatives to what they offer and they don’t “gatekeep” other companies in any meaningful way. Meanwhile Apple sells the most popular computing device in the world and has full control of the software that runs on it. It 100% “gatekeeps” other companies that would like to run software on that software platform. Apple needs to be regulated. That regulation needs to be fair but Apple has been pushing anti-competitive practices for too long.
Now do the same for Nintendo and Sony, for Switch and PlayStation. And their respective stores, publishing rules and payment rules inside content, as well as all payments and subscriptions and offerings, and control over parts, blocking of 3rd party parts, warranty tactics and not a USB-C port on the PS5 in sight (I think).
PS5 has USB-C. In fact the Slim revision has two.
I think the difference is that the scale of Nintendo and Sony is simply not there compared to Apple and Google. Sony has sold 50M PS5s since Nov 2020. Apple sells 200M iPhones per year. Apple is big enough to distort the market around it in practically all sectors. Sony has a minor distortive effect on video games but not much. Admittedly Sony sell locked hardware like Apple. However, consumers aren’t buying consoles as general purpose computing devices. There is also a good amount of competition in the gaming space. I would argue Valve, with its’ complete dominance through Steam on PC should warrant a look from the competition authorities given some of their more anti-competitive policies around pricing.
> for Switch and PlayStation Those are not general computing devices. I personally don't necessarily agree with the distinction, but it's very obvious that people don't use gaming consoles to write documents, create slideshows, cut movies, put together PDF documents, etc.
My Xbox has a mouse, a keyboard, a browser, can watch TV, movies, listen to music, browse the web, show me the news, play games. I can order a new sofa for my house using my Xbox. I can’t make phone calls on it though I think. Can I use Google Docs to write a draft letter to a solicitor? I think I can. I never tried. Possibly janky. If I’m not being pedantic yes; they’re not purchased for that intent. You’re right. I was just pointing out what they can do… Imagine what they could do, with a free market. They’re a PC in a box… same hardware really. Why not? Because Microsoft controls it so.
You can use the Xbox to do that, but most people don’t. People however have replaced their computers with smartphones as they’re commonly used for general purpose tasks. This is specifically because Apple has marketed them as general purpose devices
I would absolutely call Sony and Nintendo gatekeepers. 100%. But not Spotify, no. Spotify doesn't limit your ability to listen to music to only them, artists are free to distribute through whatever means they choose to. Sony and Nintendo on the other hand, with their exclusive online stores are much much worse.
There’s 5ish competitors, you can cancel and switch with ease. You can create a song and reach almost all customers without issue or draconian rules. Spotify doesn’t create their own music, while charging competing bands a 30% tax. Neither do they create songs with words others aren’t allowed to use.
Cancel? Yes. Switch? Not so much. There is a reason why playlist transferring services exist, and it has everything to do with Spotify etc not wanting you to leave their services
They give it to you as a simple JSON. What more do you think they should do?
> It’s interesting that Spotify, the only big EU tech company doesn’t meet the definition of gatekeeper Gatekeeping isn't just about size, but of policy. Spotify doesn't do anything to stop you from downloading competitors.
> They could have easily required Spotify to allow users to switch to Apple, Amazon or Youtube music by transferring your music library in app. You can only do that using third party sites with no safety over who handles your data. You can literally export your playlists and all your data: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/understanding-my-data/ And it's all on a simple and super compatible JSON format. That's as far as you can request someone to do the work. Apple, Amazon or Youtube could easily make a tool for taking that data and letting you import it. That's on them, not on Spotify. Spotify would have no way to import those into the other apps. Same way the "Android to iOS" app is made by Apple, not Google, for the same reason. They can do the export side, and that's it.
You kinda get YT Music thrown in if you want to avoid ads on YT, since they bundle them in many European countries, I had no trouble canceling my Spotify subscription, and using YT Music on all my devices (home/pc/car on all OS platforms). I wouldn't say that comparison is close to Apple's ecosystem with their Phones/OS.
> It’s interesting that Spotify, the only big EU tech company, doesn’t meet the definition of gatekeeper given how they’re the primary platform for music, podcasts and audiobooks in Europe. Spotify doesn't prevent steering. Artists are free to link out to any websites or stores they like and sell their music there.
Despite having over 170M Monthly Active Users btw. Spotify was also a leading lobbyist to the EU Commission and has met, in secret (i.e no public accounting or press release on what happened at these meeting), over 60 times with EU Commissioners. Redditors are mostly too ignorant. The EU Commission has a bigger or on par corporate lobbying machine than Washington, there's a literal whole building known just for it. EUC is a corpo lobbyist's wet dream. Can manipulate a near entire continent within a single building and commission. Heck, it was so bad that the EUC, Verstager and co wanted to hire a lead MSFT lobbyist as the head of digital market enforcement, a move so corrupt that the French president, Macron, had to verbally object it before they rescinded the offer.
> Spotify was also a leading lobbyist to the EU Commission and has met, in secret (i.e no public accounting or press release on what happened at these meeting), over 60 times with EU Commissioners. > Redditors are mostly too ignorant. The EU Commission has a bigger or on par corporate lobbying machine than Washington, there's a literal whole building known just for it. > EUC is a corpo lobbyist's wet dream. Can manipulate a near entire continent within a single building and commission. If all these means, side loading, alternate browser engines, JIT enabled PC emulators, interoperable NFC and Watch APIs, I am all in for it!
Don’t assume it was on accident. All of this looks very suspicious from a company that has access to more resources than many world governments.
I think this is exactly what Apple planned. Suggest mild change, have it rejected, try again, have it rejected. Just enough to not be heavily fined, but enough to postpone actually having to implement anything for the foreseeable future
Just wake me up once all this is over and they reach a final agreement lol.
Short recap: EU: „We want you to open iOS up to third-party software to increase competition“ Apple: Ok, we gonna make sideloading so painful and inconvenient for developers and for users that nobody’s going to use it to protect our 30% upcharge business. EU: *starts proceedings*
I think another issue is that they were still doing a screening for all apps going on iOS, and then blocking apps they didn’t like like UTM
It's always been a pain People will spend months or even years developing things like altstore or jailbreaks just because Apple wants more money
Apple could have prevented all of this by just moving iOS and iPadOS to the macOS Gatekeeper security model. I lost all faith in their leadership: they let the company get too dependent on the App Store and on services revenue and are now paralyzed as governments all over the world have caught up with their plan of holding 15–30% of a significant part of the digital economy for themselves
> they let the company get too dependent on the App Store and on services revenue They were raking in billions, and Apple became the most valuable corporation in the world. I don't see how they would have voluntarily changed to a model that would have given users more choice.
Good leadership prevents crises when possible: the regulation and the pushback they are seeing from Europe is nothing compared to what could be coming down the way. It’s not hard to foresee governments regulating that platform providers aren't legally allowed to run app marketplaces at all. An iPhone with Gatekeeper set to only allow apps from the App Store by default would have prevented most (all?) of their worries for a very small fraction of the money they were making. As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market.
>As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market. There's literally a court verdict saying Google illegally monopolized Android app distribution
True, and if you read the documents they did some pretty extensive and shady stuff. But mindshare is very difficult to build — ask Samsung and their Galaxy Store — and I’m not sure even with strict regulation if it will be possible to break user habits. That’s why I think we are going straight to a US v Paramount Pictures moment for app distribution, and Apple isn't ready for it.
Different case Google was paying and threatening OEMs from building their own App Store and being unable to use any Google services if they forked Android that how they have kept so much control over what was supposed to be an open source platform.
> An iPhone with Gatekeeper set to only allow apps from the App Store by default would have prevented most (all?) of their worries for a very small fraction of the money they were making. As we know from Android, the vast majority of users use the preinstalled app marketplace even when there's choice in the market. That's a very good argument, but I think that Apple just fell into the current App Store model by sheer accident (Steve Jobs initially didn't want users to be able to install third party apps at all and, for a while, was pushing web apps), and after they reluctantly switched course, they just saw the huge windfall the App Store generated and never paused to rethink how it worked. You're right that a more future oriented leadership might have anticipated the current situation, but it feels like they just never saw the need to rip out the old App Store and replace it with an entirely new version, given the (presumably, from their perspective at the time) very minor upsides and even potential disadvantages. Of course, now that they're in this position, things look very different.
Yes, I concur. Ultimately, I think that app distribution and ecosystem lock-in pose a perverse set of incentives to platform providers. Even if we can disagree on how different countries choose to regulate Apple and Google — Gruber, for example, seems to think that the EU Commission is run by communists — I believe almost any discerning Apple user can come up with some examples of how these incentives have made iOS worse for the user.
Gruber is just making a living as a PR outlet for Apple, while claiming that he will *occasionally* criticize Apple, that he's *completely* independent, and that he therefore should be taken seriously.
I find it amusing to contrast the Apple presentations where everything is warm and oh so right-on, compared to their actual cutthroat business practices
If this stuff is really true then something should be done. But you really have to wonder why Apple thinks they need to do this silliness. It seems so petty.
Really simple. No one's ever told them "no" in the language they understand. They won't care until they're fined enough for it to really hurt.
I think if it would be made more public the cr*p Apple is pulling it would hurt them a lot in public opinion. I think the vast majority would agree it is wrong what Apple is doing. To me it is not even close. I am embarrassed for Apple. This makes Apple look extremely pathetic. Tell app owners they can't tell customers where to get cheaper is about at anticompetitive as you can get. Could you ever imagine Google doing something like this?
I could easily imagine Google displaying anti competitive behaviour, and being fined about €8B by the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google_by_the_European_Union
They kinda did with USB-C tho
Wait until you hear about removable batteries.
Well, that's for 2027 as far as i recall, and hasn't been done by Apple. An example of something they've *actually* done just to follow the EU's demands is imo a lot better
I'm happy with both. Can't wait for sideloading, or just for Firefox to bring a proper Firefox with its own engine to iOS. Legislation takes time. And the decision of removable batteries being behind us, means we're on track to get them at some near point in the future.
Waste time. Why implement now if they drag this out for years.
It is just wrong that Apple does NOT allow their partners to share where they can get their products cheaper. I am embarrassed for Apple conducting themselves in this manner.
To be honest I am fine with the current setup.
Every time someone asks about pulling out of EU is hilarious lmao. Especially as other places are about to make similar laws in the future. Fuck Apple well, EU!
You are naive if you think business or no business are the only options for Apple. Just this week they announced they are delaying new features in EU and online Europeans are super salty about it. This is just the beginning. Regulations are a two way street. There is always a trade off.
Well, for me is a big L. I was looking forward to the next iPhones, but without the main feature it does not make any sense to buy the new iPhones. Don’t get me wrong, I think the EU is doing a great job with the regulations and I am happy about them. Still it is a pity that mega corporations don’t give a fuck about them.
That is completely a petty move from Apple, nothing in the DMA prohibits the features in iOS 18
DMA overregulation is a slippery slope for privacy breach, whether you believe Apple words or not.
all of apples privacy talk is just for marketing really, when they stand to make a profit off of your data they will and that's exactly what we're seeing from their AI work
Technically yes, but it’s making it so that Apple is forced to give *extremely* sensitive data to third parties, like literally your entire device’s content, private text messages, photos with your friends’ faces scanned and tagged in them, EVERYTHING. it’s insane to not be able to admit that this is a crazy expectation and a HUGE privacy crisis waiting to happen.
>Apple is forced to give extremely sensitive data to third parties This is a *wild* take. Does Apple allowing alternative browsers mean that they're giving all your browsing data to third parties? Apple has an API for your health data too, so they're basically handing that all to third parties too, right?
AFAIK the EU hasn’t ruled that all services on the iPhone must be open for competitors, just key interoperable ones like browsers and app stores. For example, the current Siri implementation is not required to be opened up.
> Technically yes, but it’s making it so that Apple is forced to give extremely sensitive data to third parties, like literally your entire device’s content, private text messages, photos with your friends’ faces scanned and tagged in them, EVERYTHING No, it doesn't. The DMA only requires that users be able to grant 3rd parties the same access they do Apple.
Prohibit? No. Would it likely require interoperability and remove what makes it such a good feature? Yes. For instance, iPhone mirroring unlocks your iPhone from your Mac using the security features Apple has on Apple silicon. The EU requiring it to work with a random Android phone (if that’s what they deem in scope as per DMA - possibly, see [https://twitter.com/giovxu578/status/1804203315388981485?s=61&t=ozFOctMwbFvu2kA4CT80\_Q](https://twitter.com/giovxu578/status/1804203315388981485?s=61&t=ozFOctMwbFvu2kA4CT80_Q) ) would require more work and make the feature, well, worse.
Tough cookies. The (text of the) DMA has been around for years. Apple knew this was coming, this wasn't a surprise halfway through their AI development. Apple could make it interoperable just fine, but they're doing this to spite the EU. To try and make EU the boogeyman.
“Apple could make it interoperable just fine” - no, that’s actually the entire point of an integrated system, you can’t do that without making it modular and less integrated. You can be for or against the premise of the DMA, but Apple likely will just forego implementing it altogether if it means opening up access to highly private information to other companies. It designed Apple Intelligence's systems itself so it couldn’t get access to the information: making it usable to third parties requires them to upend that and make it inherently less private. I don’t see it happening.
> without making it modular and less integrated. Both modular and "less integrated" are good things. Yet you phrase them as insults. > if it means opening up access to highly private information to other companies The customer, you mean the customer. As the customer, you should be able to choose who holds your private information. Apple is just one of many companies, and they're not somehow magically above the others. Look through the default ad tracking settings on an iPhone, they're not much better than the default Facebook or the default any-website settings. But because it's "Apple" it's magically fine, where as with Facebook, we'd be upset. I don't like the generic version of OpenAI to have my info. But MS Copilot has access to my Office365 stuff, and it works awesome. And I would be very happy if it was possible to have Copilot play nice with the iPhone, and its AI. It's literally Apple telling the customer they can't have the freedom they would like. And we need an EU to stop that bullshit. They're still struggling now, but Apple will learn to respect the customers better, even if it's necessary to go through our elected politicians, instead of listening to us directly.
Apple’s entire philosophy is around integration. You can consider modularity good, but it forces compromises. Apple doesn’t want those compromises. It wants a super slick, well integrated whole, which requires less modularization. That’s just the way it is. Personally (and many with me), I find this a great selling point and that’s why I buy their stuff. It just works! I am not insulting modular, compromised solutions, they just aren’t my favorite. (can you tell I am a designer?) "As the customer, you should be able to choose who holds your private information. " But you... do. You choose as a \*customer\*. You vote with your feet. If you trust Apple with your info, then that’s a vote for them. I don’t see why every solution has to be open to all companies, which inherently makes it, ironically, less safe.
> Apple’s entire philosophy is That's great if there are 15 options for a mobile OS, so you can choose the one whose philosophy fits bets for you. But that's not the case. It's a duopoly between iOS and Android, and the switching cost between them is huge. Not just replacing your phone, but all your apps, and how you use a phone in general. So, Apple is a gatekeeper, iOS is a core platform, and they have to play nice with others. If they want to have a philosophy that they're very keen on, then do it on a little corner of your phone, where you put a buddha statue and a tree, and be zen there. In the meantime, keep the giant tech platform, that is being used by half the people, usable for consumers who want to be able to have choices. Like which AI to use, or which browser, or which app store. > But you... do. You choose as a *customer*. You vote with your feet. No, that's not an option. Again, duopoly with super high switching cost. That's why we have the DMA. Honestly, this is Antitrust 101.
But Android is not a single phone or platform. It’s actually a lot of providers. You are following European Commission logic in defining ‘gatekeepers', but you can’t have a nice integrated product without switching costs. You can argue they should be minimal, or less severe, but there will be friction. You are philosophically believing that a government should not allow customers to make that choice for an, in your view, ‘restrictive’ environment. But they do. Apple has even advertised that very reality. This isn’t some kind of bait and switch. The EU is now decided that’s not OK, but if you do go to that extreme you should’ve be surprised if Apple decides not to offer some things at all. Should AI be open to all, so all your personal information that a personal assistant taps into should be available to any single provider? Because that’s orthogonal to the notion of integrated privacy controls. You’ll be unable to create truly private solutions like what Apple has built in its private compute cloud, for the sake of ‘opening’ it up - not to competition, but also to bad actors.
> But Android is not a single phone or platform. It’s actually a lot of providers. You are following European Commission logic in defining ‘gatekeepers' I'm being practical. Among *hardware makers* for Android, there is competition. You can tell this is the case by *actual innovation* being done, like folding screens and other such things. Competition is possible because there are many players in the Android hardware market, but also because the switching cost is reasonable. Replacing one Android for another is as little effort as replacing one iPhone for another. But it's different for the OS. There are only two mobile phone platforms. Android is Android, and each one has the same Google Store policies applied. That's why Samsung or HTC or Nokia are not gatekeepers, but Google (for Android) is. > You are philosophically believing that a government should not allow customers to make that choice for an, in your view, ‘restrictive’ environment. That's the thing, consumers *do not have that choice.* Because there are only two platforms. And that is made worse because the switching cost is so high. If there are two physical stores next to each other, then you can choose to use one store for some purchases, and the other store for different purchases where you like them better. Or you can go to one store exclusively if you prefer their "integrated" shopping experience, whatever that means. But you still have the option of easily going to the other one. But if there are two stores you can choose from, but based on where you have bought your house, one is in your town, and the other one is a 3 hour drive, then you *technically* have both options, but you would put in a huge effort to go there once, or actually buy a house in a different town, to go to the other one. That gives that one store an effective monopoly for their (local) customers. That is what the App Store and iOS are: effective monopolies for people who have bought an iPhone. And you know how many factors go into buying a house? Yes, having a store nearby is a factor, but likely not the most important one, and for sure not the only one. Similarly, if someone buys a phone, then the "philosophy of the app store" might be a factor, it might not be, but there are a lot more factors than that, and for most people it's not the most important one. That is how Apple users don't have that choice. They choose a phone based on style, based on knowing the user interface well, based on specific apps that are available, based on many factors. And if they don't like Apple's philosophy on something, then too bad. On the other side, *if we are talking about purely hardware*, then if a user doesn't like how Samsung does e.g. headphone ports, then there is Nokia, Motorola, Oppo, etc, etc. Choice. One of them will have the advantages they are looking for, minus that one thing they don't like about Samsung. iPhone users don't have this choice. But like I said, Android has the same effective monopoly, which is why they are also forced to "play nice" and give users choices, and when in doubt: give freedom, and not restrictions (or "integration" as you call it) > Should AI be open to all, so all your personal information that a personal assistant taps into should be available to any single provider? Because that’s orthogonal to the notion of integrated privacy controls. You’ll be unable to create truly private solutions like what Apple has built in its private compute cloud, for the sake of ‘opening’ it up - not to competition, but also to bad actors. You keep making a difference between Apple and competitors. Apple is *just another company*. Your data is not private is Apple has it. Apple has shown at every turn that they will fuck over users just as quickly as competitors if it means making a little bit more money. The default "privacy" settings in the "ads" part of an iPhone is that Apple tracks your habits and other data for advertising profiling, the same shitty behaviour that we (I do, at least) despise Facebook for. They are not "protecting you" from other ad agencies, they are "locking out" other ad agencies, because they are competitors, while doing exactly the same. Allowing interoperability also means that you can use some company that actually respects your data. Like switching your search engine from Google or Bing to DuckDuckGo. That is the change that we need, and it's not possible while Apple is saying that noone but Apple themselves is allowed to handle the users' data.
At least according to you :)
Lol, read the DMA. It will require a huge engineering effort to make AI interoperable. They aren’t going to spend those resources without a monetary reason.
They did spend resources, they did do a huge engineering effort. All the while they were working on AI, they knew exactly what the DMA was. Apple, from years back by now, specifically engineered their AI stuff, to spite EU users.
What about the Chat Control 2.0 regulation they will try to pass on mid July for the 10th time?
Edit: I see from the voting here we like to support invasion of privacy which will do nothing to actually stop child abusers sharing content. Congrats. Well done world. 6 years ago, I already developed a mechanism for encrypting content sent over iMessage. But not everyone will go that far. Who will go that far? Definitely the people who have something to hide. Which makes the system completely redundant. Even if you break the encryption so it’s not E2E. And even if you scan the messages before they’re sent; they’d be encrypted before they hit the messaging client. This was done as an experiment back then, but with automation, iPhone can automatically decrypt these iMessages that are received. There are now shortcuts already dedicated to doing AES 256 cipher encryption. So good work EU on doing absolutely nothing against those who have something to hide whilst breaking privacy for the rest of us.
Apple not releasing its AI features in EU doesn't violate any regulations though.
You think the EU is doing a great job yet it’s making the business climate uncertain for Apple and now impacting you because you can’t get the latest features. Is the EU doing a great job? Doesn’t seem like you’re benefiting.
Nope, EU is useless bunch of neo-commies. They just ruined Apple experience for users in EU, while the do nothing with serious issues like migration etc.
Meanwhile Microsoft is shoving “free” apps like Teams down our throats pushing all vendors out of the market. And that’s allowed
EU has you covered: [Microsoft charged with EU antitrust violations for bundling Teams](https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/25/24185467/microsoft-teams-eu-bundling-antitrust-violations)
I wonder if the EU would allow a digital store to encourage users to use a VPN to avoid higher taxes in EU when purchasing digital goods?
What does the EU have to do with any of that?
goddamn apple making every wrong move over here in Europe, nothing they do is legal here.
I don’t know… all this fighting plus the AI thing not coming to EU… maybe it’s time for me to think about the alternative. As a customer, I don’t want to be in the middle of this.
What is it you’re worried about?
All big tech companies are basically US or Asia-based, so they’ll all get hit with DMA stuff. You are just a plaything of large government and corporations.
You don’t say?! I’m surprised it took them this long to do anything
The EU needs to get bent. Europe is 30 years behind the US in tech and this is a bunch of unelected beauracrats going on power trips for what end, exactly? Europe will never catch up no matter how much regulation they enact.
The EU’s leadership is voted for.
Members of the European Parliament are elected, however, [they don’t have the right of initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions), unlike members of most national/state/local congresses or boards. Only the European Commission members have that right, and they aren’t elected. I disagree with the OP, but they are correct that the real decision makers in the EU aren’t elected.
Not the commission. It has been a sore point for decades.
This isn't about catching up to the US but now that you say it the US could really learn a thing or two from the DMA on how to protect their citizens interests by making digital markets fair
You’re enjoying the market dominance and relevance of being a rich region of the world for now. If Europe continues to fall behind on technology and keeps being extremely dependent on the US & China, soon that advantage will start to crumble as well. You have to keep up, you’ve been coasting too much
It's not about catching up It's more about not becoming Night City irl
hope apple tells the eu to pound sand