No I don’t. Apple is entitled to get their revenue after having the eu planning hood.
It’s not up to apple to subsidize the little guy specially after the dma. But it’s interesting that “scholarships”.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AltStore Pal Now Free Thanks to 'MegaGrant' From Epic Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The dam is about playing Robin Hood with apples assets.
Another way is to build competition yourself rather than create it through regulation of someone else’s assets.
Clearly isn’t, imo.
I would think the above is covered with existing law. But yeah the above has nothing to do with app stores.
Wikipedia indicates that’s what the US Government accused Microsoft of. If that’s NOT what the US Government accused Microsoft of, you should make sure that page gets updated so it’s accurate!
Oh, and this page.
Complaint : U.S. V. Microsoft Corp.
U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact
Microsoft was absolutely free (and is free today) to include whatever hardware software combination they want to on devices/systems being produced by Microsoft. So is Sony with Sony products, Nintendo with Nintendo products, Samsung with Samsung products, etc. The issue is not, and never was, what controls a company has over products that they produce. The issue with Microsoft was around what controls a company has over products they don’t produce.
Well, you see, monopoly now means, “I don’t like that a company doesn’t do or make or provide me with the things or features I want!” LOL
It is currently true that no one in a position to legally level a complaint against Apple has successfully received a ruling that Apple is a monopoly. Primarily, because they’re not. Who’s been successful? The one region that explicitly avoided tying any of their arguments to “monopoly”. Because, they knew they’d lose.
No, a monopoly would literally be if you couldn’t buy any device other than one made by Apple.
Now, try that again without using the names of any Apple product. Because, what you’ve described is not a monopoly, it’s “products and services a company owns”.
Kind of, but it wasn’t JUST that, though. For example, if Microsoft was only making Windows unusable on Microsoft produced devices, there would have been no problem. Windows on a Dell or on a Gateway computer would be unaffected. It was primarily about how Microsoft were exerting control over those OEM’s. If the actions they were taking had no adverse impact on OEM’s, there’d have been no case.
Since Apple has no OEM’s, (and has never had OEM’s for the iPhone) there’s no parallel between what Microsoft was doing then and what Apple’s doing now.
Does Apple own all iOS software, even the products they themselves did not make?
The DMA is about encouraging competition instead of allowing "Gatekeeper" companies to restrict or block competition.
It's about giving the market a chance to create and/or grow competition instead of being handicapped by "Gatekeeper" companies restricting or blocking competition.
It had to do with products/services being offered for "free." Small, fledgling AltStore PAL being made "free" is a way to help it grow and compete against large companies which is a lot better than seeing large companies make their products/services free as a way to crush small companies and stifle competition.
One more time, computer OEMs and third party dealers/retailers were NOT prevented from selling Windows machines with alternative browsers or office software.
The point again was that Microsoft was not able to dictate what can or can't be loaded/pre-loaded on their OS and neither should Apple be able to. As I said, some like to argue that people who buy iPhones are only buying the hardware, not the OS and therefore shouldn't expect to be allowed to install/use alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. Well, computer OEMs didn't own the OS either yet MS wasn't allowed to decide what can or can’t be loaded/pre-loaded on its operating system. If MS wasn't allowed to, Apple shouldn't be allowed to either whether it be regarding iPhone retailers or (especially) end users.
The dma is all about hobbling American tech and taking their successful business and giving it to others free.
It’s about hobbling American tech. And what was said above.
It’s about taking a successful business and giving it away for free, the purpose is to hobble American tech. Using regulation to slice and dice the pie and create “competition” is not creating competition. It’s freeloading.
And this “grant” shows this business model is not expense free as previously claimed.
Nonsense. The DMA is about addressing dominance and market power in the tech space.
As far as the grant given to small, fledgling AltStore PAL, even big, well established Apple needed "grants" of sorts (extra subsidies) from AT&T on the iPhone in the early years to help it be more competitive on price.
We obviously can conjecture the underlying motive.
So let’s go back to 2007. Ok. Nobody took the iPhone business line away from apple like the dma gave free access to the App Store to all comers even ones who attempted to defraud apple.
It's not about giving free access to App Store. Apple can choose to charge apps for placement in the App Store, for developer fees, for advertising in the App Store, etc.
It's about encouraging competition instead of allowing "Gatekeeper" companies to restrict or block competition. It's about addressing dominance and market power in the tech space.
We disagree on this fundamental point of intent. If you want to increase competition from the so-called dupoly, the. Encourage competition from that angle.
Don’t take someone’s successful business, legislate it apart and have the audacity to call it competition. That’s not competion, that’s playing robin hood.
It's about competition and preventing large, dominant, influential companies from having too much control of a market, stifling competition, etc. Obviously, antitrust related laws aren’t about going after the little guys that don't have the market power and influence that large companies wield. Just as the DOJ and FTC have gone after companies like Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, etc. the DMA does as well. It's how antitrust laws, regulations, etc. are designed to work.
It’s about reigning in American tech by playing Robin Hood. There is no upside to these regulations. Consumers will get an illusion of more choice.
The upside is that it gives smaller companies a better chance to compete and grow, and gives more choice to consumers.
That's better than having markets/industries dominated by large companies wielding too much market power/control and using it to try to restrict or block competition.
That's certainly the goal. However, there is no evidence that opening up alternative App Store is the best way to achieve that. It simply lets other people profit from controlling access to Apple's property. That's not competition. After all, we have a decade of evidence that it didn't work on Android.
The upside is that it gives smaller companies a better chance to compete and grow, and gives more choice to consumers.
Simply forcing Apple to allow app types that Apple didn't want to approve would have been much more efficient with minimal downsides.
My top feature request for the App Store would be to allow alternate curators. Click a link and see Epic's curated list of games organized however they want. Epic gets a percentage of the commission including IAP. That would have real consumer benefits without interfering with the existing benefits of the App Store.
Sure because an established business was regulated into allowing any and all comers. Government playing Robin Hood.
The upside is that it gives smaller companies a better chance to compete and grow, and gives more choice to consumers.
This type of government regulation, while done, is not wanted. It’s not better than having large companies, whose products are discretionary wield power. It’s these large companies markets. Let the smaller companies grow legitimately, not by taking a piece of an existing companies business because they were regulated into having to do so.
That's not true.
From the FTC:
"Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers. Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the operating systems market to exclude other software developers and prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software to run with Microsoft's operating system software."
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
It allows for more competition in the app access market whether it be individual developers creating their own stores, or third party stores being created to compete to market apps..
Because of Apple's long-running tight control of iOS, there is pent-up demand for app access alternatives which can create competition leading to lower prices and fees, more flexible terms, more app choices, etc. which can benefit users and developers. How it all plays out remains to be seen.
From the FTC:
"Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers. Microsoft was able to use its dominant position in the operating systems market to exclude other software developers and prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software to run with Microsoft's operating system software."
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.www.ftc.gov
Computer OEMs had the choice of going with more favorable Windows OEM license terns and not pre-install alternative browsers OR less favorable terms and be able to install alternative browsers. They were not blocked from installing alternative browsers unless they chose a license agreement with (some) alternative browser restrictions but it was their choice to make. They were not prevented from making a choice.
Independent dealers/retailers could also install alternative browsers on Windows machines they sold.
Government enforcing antitrust related laws and regulations.
This type of government regulation, while done, is not wanted. It’s not better than having large companies, whose products are discretionary wield power. It’s these large companies markets. Let the smaller companies grow legitimately, not by taking a piece of an existing companies business because they were regulated into having to do so.
It is the type of government regulations that can very much be wanted.
The problem with letting smaller companies "grow legitimately" is that large companies don't always allow that to happen and instead use their market power, control, etc. to restrict or block competition, hence the need for antitrust laws/regulations.
No anti trust found here. Only some regulations which require apple to open up it's app store. As I've repeatedly said, competition formed in this way is not competition.
Or unwanted.
Apple is not using any market power for a small company to grow a competing cell phone business. It's a tough business requiring, capital, knowledge and execution. Incumbants aren't responsible for any of it.