Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[surferfb]

I wonder what is best for Apples bottom line? To force people to buy the complete Apple package with the risk of fewer users or fully support 3:rd party devices and having more users? Fully supporting 3:rd party devices does not make the Apple earphones or watches less safe so I guess Apple is afraid of real competition in the headphone or wearable space.

Or maybe, just maybe, they actually think their approach is better for users, and so they don't think they should have to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours of their engineers' time to make their competitors' products work better on their platform (that has been worked the same way since Day 1). That they know their customers, their products, software engineering, and business better than a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels who think it's a good idea that every website needs to tell you that cookies exist.

This idea that you're forced to buy anything is ridiculous. I'm wearing Bose headphones that are paired to my Mac right now. Despite the fact that AirPods pair more easily. They're actually, in my opinion, better than AirPods even with the clunkier pairing.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Syncing video production work. What does itunes have to do with anything?

Read it seems to do exactly what iTunes does. Perhaps use something else.

Or just stick with AppStore alone and don't change into this nonsense of having a Mac on an iPhone.

And when your game goes timed exclusive on Epic store? At least with the App Store it's either you can buy or not buy a game. It's never "you can buy it if you install this store on your phone".

When a game goes exclusive on the epic store I just don’t buy it. If I already own it, then nothing changes as it’s in my steam library. And everyone always comes back because the steam store is better

On the iPhone it goes ( unavailable buy Android ), or the developer stops paying their license and it goes( unavailable buy Android ).

What happens when Adobe pulls all of their apps from the App Store and requires you to install their "Creative Cloud" store? Perhaps you should think this through on the consequences of turning an iPhone into a Mac.

I did at the time get it from adobe directly because it was a more capable product regarding plugins and other related features without being artificialy limited to apples strange AppStore criteria.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Starting with an untrue premise/conclusion (that Apple is a monopoly) is called begging the question. In other words, you concluded that Apple is a monopoly, therefore anyone defending Apple is defending a monopoly. However, the EU has not established that Apple is a monopoly because Apple isn't according to EU laws.

Because EU doesn’t have any monopoly laws. So they will never define something they don’t care for.

The DMA is not what might be called classical liberalism (closer to libertarian) or even neoliberalism. It's what can be viewed as an authoritarian, economically "left" policy. "Leaning right" would be more laissez-faire (i.e., less regulation) in this case. Of course, none of this is simple enough to label as "liberal", "left", or "right", but "socialist" is much closer to the truth than this being the action of a "liberal, right learning regime".

It’s Ordoliberalism

Ordoliberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm wearing Bose headphones that are paired to my Mac right now.

With bluetooth! Thank goodness that protocol is allowed and interoperable and not controlled solely by one entity.

 

[robvalentine]

Starting with an untrue premise/conclusion (that Apple is a monopoly) is called begging the question. In other words, you concluded that Apple is a monopoly, therefore anyone defending Apple is defending a monopoly. However, the EU has not established that Apple is a monopoly because Apple isn't according to EU laws.

Applenis a monopoly once in the ecosystem in terms of app stores, ignoring interoperable standards in favour of proprietary ones, and the app store for example. Apple is monopolistic. At least in terms of intent.

 

[germanbeer007]

Read it seems to do exactly what iTunes does.

Nope.

Perhaps use something else.

No.

When a game goes exclusive on the epic store I just don’t buy it.

Sounds like a downside of having multiple stores on iOS. Either a developer chooses to release on the App Store or never reach the iOS users at all. More often than not, a developer would choose to release on the App Store to access those users.

If I already own it, then nothing changes as it’s in my steam library.

Plenty of apps have left the Mac App Store. Now imagine half your apps you bought on iPhone leave the app store. Sounds terrible.

I did at the time get it from adobe directly because it was a more capable product regarding plugins and other related features without being artificialy limited to apples strange AppStore criteria.

Then you'll be required to install iOS Creative Cloud which has its own way of handling things if iOS was more like Mac (custom update process, custom notifications, custom background processes).

 

[turbineseaplane]

Plenty of apps have left the Mac App Store.

And why is that?

You're getting really close to full understanding here...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Nope.
No.

Shame considering the issues you have with it. At least your iPhones have USB C for fast media transfers.

Sounds like a downside of having multiple stores on iOS. Either a developer chooses to release on the App Store or never reach the iOS users at all. More often than not, a developer would choose to release on the App Store to access those users.

Plenty of apps have left the Mac App Store. Now imagine half your apps you bought on iPhone leave the app store. Sounds terrible.

Now why do you think plenty of apps and games have left to never return, while steam with the same 30% commission seems to get all Mac games anyway?

they always return to steam while providing competitive pressure its seems quite a positive. Not even EPIC paying money with halft the commission can get users and businesses to stay competitive with steam. While Apple can’t convince them to stay?

Then you'll be required to install iOS Creative Cloud which has its own way of handling things if iOS was more like Mac (custom update process, custom notifications, custom background processes).

If it’s better then il pick that. Or another app or use the AppStore

 

[I7guy]

With bluetooth! Thank goodness that protocol is allowed and interoperable and not controlled solely by one entity.

Exactly. That protocol was designed to be public, same for WiFi, cellular infrastructure.

 

[I7guy]

Applenis a monopoly once in the ecosystem in terms of app stores, ignoring interoperable standards in favour of proprietary ones, and the app store for example. Apple is monopolistic. At least in terms of intent.

Okay. Apple is not an illegal monopoly. Apple is a monopoly the same as Honda.

 

[germanbeer007]

Shame considering the issues you have with it.

It's decided by higher ups, not me.

Now why do you think plenty of apps and games have left to never return

Don't really see the relevancy of why they don't return. If they leave, that's a downside of opening up iOS.

, while steam with the same 30% commission seems to get all Mac games anyway? they always return to steam while providing competitive pressure its seems quite a positive. Not even EPIC paying money with halft the commission can get users and businesses to stay competitive with steam. While Apple can’t convince them to stay?

Many games and apps have never hit steam so it's not really equivalent. Many developers thought they would reach an iOS-sized audience with Mac App Store but it didn't.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Okay. Apple is not an illegal monopoly. Apple is a monopoly the same as Honda.

Sir, try and keep in mind in EU. Even if Apple was a monopoly. They can’t be an illegal monopoly because it’s not illegal to be a monopoly. If Apple gets 100%( let’s say fgoogle and everyone just implodes for us antitrust law and Samsung goes up in smoke because of North Korea) of the market nothing really changes outside of some business practices could be considered more abusive.

In the EU, being a monopoly or dominant is not illegal abusing that dominance is.
This principle is enshrined in Article 102 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

“Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it may affect trade between Member states”.

 

[iPadified]

The DMA is not what might be called classical liberalism (closer to libertarian) or even neoliberalism. It's what can be viewed as an authoritarian, economically "left" policy. "Leaning right" would be more laissez-faire (i.e., less regulation) in this case. Of course, none of this is simple enough to label as "liberal", "left", or "right", but "socialist" is much closer to the truth than this being the action of a "liberal, right learning regime".

The other commenter might have been using socialism as a sort of a bad word, but the simple fact of the matter is that this form of governmental regulation is not right leaning.

Firstly EU is not a regime in a classical sense. Secondly, it is mostly described (by the left) as a liberal central right project and I agree. Thirdly, EU is protecting (imperfectly) the capitalistic market economy which is not exactly classical socialist virtues. Locking out 3:rd parties gadgets from a platform is against market economy principles. Is it reasonable that Bang Olufsen headphones, which I like, are excluded from features that the OS obviously supports?

Government regulation has nothing to do with socialism. I see lots of current government regulations in the US that have nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Don't really see the relevancy of why they don't return. If they leave, that's a downside of opening up iOS.

They leave because they don’t like the AppStore, the agreement and restrictions. They leave because better alternatives exist and never return unless Apple improves their terms and services.

Many games and apps have never hit steam so it's not really equivalent. Many developers thought they would reach an iOS-sized audience with Mac App Store but it didn't.

There more games for the Mac on steam than there’s games on the Mac App Store by a large margin. And they have existed for the same amount of time. ( posted it here somewhere)

Just compare black ops in steam and black ops on the Mac AppStore. I regret every game purchase I made on the Mac AppStore

 

[PlayUltimate]

Applenis a monopoly once in the ecosystem in terms of app stores, ignoring interoperable standards in favour of proprietary ones, and the app store for example. Apple is monopolistic. At least in terms of intent.

Pretty limited definition. Just like when I got a PlayStation 1 and could only play PS games and could only use proprietary PS controllers and PS memory cards. I don't think anyone would have considered a PS 1 to be a monopoly, based on a marketshare definition. Likewise, based on overall marketshare, Apple is not a monopoly either. However, some like to conclude that Apple is a monopoly because it is vertically integrated. And the EU, generally, does not like vertical integration.

 

[germanbeer007]

They leave because they don’t like the AppStore, the agreement and restrictions. They leave because better alternatives exist and never return unless Apple improves their terms and services.

which just proves that if iOS opens up, millions of customers will be forced to download third party app stores to continue using apps.

There more games for the Mac on steam than there’s games on the Mac App Store by a large margin. And they have existed for the same amount of time. ( posted it here somewhere)

Just compare black ops in steam and black ops on the Mac AppStore. I regret every game purchase I made on the Mac AppStore

Which proves what?

 

[I7guy]

Sir, try and keep in mind in EU. Even if Apple was a monopoly. They can’t be an illegal monopoly because it’s not illegal to be a monopoly. If Apple gets 100%( let’s say fgoogle and everyone just implodes for us antitrust law and Samsung goes up in smoke because of North Korea) of the market nothing really changes outside of some business practices could be considered more abusive.

In the EU, being a monopoly or dominant is not illegal abusing that dominance is.
This principle is enshrined in Article 102 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

“Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it may affect trade between Member states”.

There was no abuse. The eu has all the right to regulate. Doesn’t mean it’s good or needed. And as stated the dma has killed innovation.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sir, try and keep in mind in EU. Even if Apple was a monopoly. They can’t be an illegal monopoly because it’s not illegal to be a monopoly. If Apple gets 100%( let’s say fgoogle and everyone just implodes for us antitrust law and Samsung goes up in smoke because of North Korea) of the market nothing really changes outside of some business practices could be considered more abusive.

In the EU, being a monopoly or dominant is not illegal abusing that dominance is.
This principle is enshrined in Article 102 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

“Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it may affect trade between Member states”.

Your being pedantic here. The EU certainly has antitrust laws. ("Trust" being a single firm or cartel with market dominance.) "Illegal monopoly" is simply shorthand for a firm that is abusing a dominant position in the market.

 

[PlayUltimate]

There's lots of assumptions that are being bandied around. My main concern is that Apple has always focused on vertical integration of their software and hardware. These laws are trying to break that integration; which is part of their DNA. If Apple loses that integration, then the strategic advantage that Apple uniquely has will go away. In essence the phone OS will become a commodity and in a commodity market the lower price almost always wins. Thus, this push to "open" iOS is in fact a threat to the iPhones existence and to Apple overall.
Think about how many computer operating systems existed in the early 80s. You had Commodore, TRS, TI, Amiga, Sinclair, Apple. Once Microsoft was adapted by IBM the push for standards pushed all of those to ruin. Apple itself almost went under as well since it didn't have Office compatible software. The fact that Microsoft said that they would support Office for Mac for 5 years saved Apple. This type of legislation, if successful, will lead to the downfall of Apple as a company. Some may cheer about that. But, if you think about it, in the OS space, Apple is the only viable option to either Windows or Android. And the EU is trying to destroy it.

 

[d686546s]

There's lots of assumptions that are being bandied around. My main concern is that Apple has always focused on vertical integration of their software and hardware. These laws are trying to break that integration; which is part of their DNA. If Apple loses that integration, then the strategic advantage that Apple uniquely has will go away. In essence the phone OS will become a commodity and in a commodity market the lower price almost always wins. Thus, this push to "open" iOS is in fact a threat to the iPhones existence and to Apple overall.
Think about how many computer operating systems existed in the early 80s. You had Commodore, TRS, TI, Amiga, Sinclair, Apple. Once Microsoft was adapted by IBM the push for standards pushed all of those to ruin. Apple itself almost went under as well since it didn't have Office compatible software. The fact that Microsoft said that they would support Office for Mac for 5 years saved Apple. This type of legislation, if successful, will lead to the downfall of Apple as a company. Some may cheer about that. But, if you think about it, in the OS space, Apple is the only viable option to either Windows or Android. And the EU is trying to destroy it.

I don't know, but doesn't the argument that Apple needs vertical integration for its services and products to succeed support the idea that more rather than less competition is needed?

I'd like to think that the company could make compelling products even if they're not the only ones who can pair easily or airdrop. If they couldn't, I'm not sure why we should protect their status quo regardless.

I will say, though, that I do think Apple's services sometimes lag behind their competitors and the only reason I eg use iCloud is because nothing else can integrate with my iPhone to the same degree. If that protection fell away, Apple would have to step up its game.

 

[ToothBlueth]

And as stated the dma has killed innovation.

Quite dogmatic.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There was no abuse. The eu has all the right to regulate. Doesn’t mean it’s good or needed. And as stated the dma has killed innovation.

Abuse as legally defined broader in EU. We will see. What would you identify as innovation?

Your being pedantic here. The EU certainly has antitrust laws. ("Trust" being a single firm or cartel with market dominance.) "Illegal monopoly" is simply shorthand for a firm that is abusing a dominant position in the market.

The U.S. legal concept for monopolies as well as antitrust is very different.
EU is heavily effect based and doesn’t need intent. And harm to the competitive process, including innovation, fairness, etc instead of consumer welfare harm by price increases etc.

The term “antitrust” is used informally or for ease of communication:
In EU press releases to anglophone audiences, In comparative law discussions
In academic or media coverage
But in legal documents, rulings, and treaties, the phrase “antitrust law” is absent.

The EU uses the term: “Competition law” not “antitrust”:

But here you can look it up if you find it in the founding Treaty. It’s article 101-102 and compare to the U.S.
TITLE VII

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS
CHAPTER 1
RULES ON COMPETITION
SECTION 1
RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS
article 101-109

 

[BaldiMac]

Abuse as legally defined broader in EU. We will see. What would you identify as innovation?

The U.S. legal concept for monopolies as well as antitrust is very different.
EU is heavily effect based and doesn’t need intent. And harm to the competitive process, including innovation, fairness, etc instead of consumer welfare harm by price increases etc.

The term “antitrust” is used informally or for ease of communication:
In EU press releases to anglophone audiences, In comparative law discussions
In academic or media coverage
But in legal documents, rulings, and treaties, the phrase “antitrust law” is absent.

The EU uses the term: “Competition law” not “antitrust”:

But here you can look it up if you find it in the founding Treaty. It’s article 101-102 and compare to the U.S.
TITLE VII

COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS
CHAPTER 1
RULES ON COMPETITION
SECTION 1
RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS
article 101-109

The EC disagrees.

Antitrust and Cartels

Antitrust and Cartels Overview

competition-policy.ec.europa.eu

 

[surferfb]

I don't know, but doesn't the argument that Apple needs vertical integration for its services and products to succeed support the idea that more rather than less competition is needed?

I'd like to think that the company could make compelling products even if they're not the only ones who can pair easily or airdrop. If they couldn't, I'm not sure why we should protect their status quo regardless.

I will say, though, that I do think Apple's services sometimes lag behind their competitors and the only reason I eg use iCloud is because nothing else can integrate with my iPhone to the same degree. If that protection fell away, Apple would have to step up its game.

I disagree that Apple needs vertical integration for its services and products to succeed, and agree they'll still be able to make compelling products (although suspect said products will have fewer features thanks to the EU's meddling).

I'd argue that Apple wants its products and services to operate in a certain way, and the government shouldn't force Apple to change that without a very compelling reason. Given that 72% of the EU market chooses Android, I'd argue there isn't a compelling reason to force Apple to open up and to tell its users who want a closed ecosystem "sorry, you can't have that." Anyone who cares can have an open ecosystem, but now consumers like me literally have no option for a closed platform. How is that fair? ESPECIALLY when it is taking away Apple's property and giving it to its competitors.

I bet Apple Intelligence would be fantastic if it could just take Claude and not have to pay Anthropic anything for use.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

which just proves that if iOS opens up, millions of customers will be forced to download third party app stores to continue using apps.

Why would millions be forced to download third party apps AppStore? Is the AppStore so ineffective and disliked by developers?

Seems strange that steam can manage to maintain your game even if it’s not sold in the store🤔

Which proves what?

The AppStore on the Mac is simply uncompetitive and Apple seems to not be interested in improving it for users or developers in any meaningful ways.

If the Macappstore was great value proposition to developers they would flock to it, but apparently they don’t.

If the Macappstore required floppydisk you would be here complaining if developers could provide their apps without the floppy disk the millions of users will be forced to get rid of their floppydrive