Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

d686546s said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apple's whole game is the integration. That is what they are and what they do. Integration is their competitive advantage. Everyone seems to think that it is protection; instead it is what is needed to survive in a world that has commoditized tech. Again, take a look at the computer industry post-MSDOS. Hardware became a commodity. And it became a race to the bottom. High quality products went away. Alternative OSs went away. Was it competitive? Perhaps. But everyone was competing the same way over the same thing, mostly $$. When every device worked the same due to the standardization of the OS, there were fewer ways to differentiate your product.
Currently, Apple is able to differentiate their products through the unique services that they offer. For some reason, this is seen as "unfair." Rather the DMA wants every commoditized product to have access to Apple unique offerings without having to pay any cost. Ergo, the value of those offerings are now worth $0. And a competitive advantage, that Apple had, goes away and the value of Apple products goes down.
I understand the desire of the EU to foster competition. But, this type of legislation will eliminate competition and will limit innovation; because the legislation implies that no product can have a unique technological advantage.
 
PlayUltimate said:
Rather the DMA wants every commoditized product to have access to Apple unique offerings without having to pay any cost.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting (apart from that your statement is just factually wrong) that Apple has a significant market position, and by Apple blocking innovation, it is blocking fair competition (and the other way around).

Hardware became a commodity. And it became a race to the bottom. High quality products went away. Alternative OSs went away.
Click to expand...
PCs have constantly become better, challenging the limits of what is possible, while mass production has made some PCs a commodity. And there are all kinds of specialised computers. (And even this is too simplistic)
 
Last edited:
germanbeer007 said:
at the cost of reducing options of the device/ecosystem itself. no longer will people be able to purchase a device/ecosystem that they enjoy because you simply refuse to buy an android device.

now do you understand?
Click to expand...
You think that all these regulations would go away if a few individuals went & bought an android device instead?
because it won’t
 
surferfb said:
How is Apple blocking innovation?
Click to expand...
By dissuading people from buying more advanced and capable watches than those manufactured by Apple by blocking competition from using basic functions, like text messages.

Now you’ll say, ‘but Apple wrote the code’, forgetting about Apple having that significant market position I initially typed about.
 
surferfb said:
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.
Click to expand...

On this we agree.

surferfb said:
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."
Click to expand...

On this we disagree. Apple controls one of two major platforms and the purpose of the legislation is to regulate gatekeepers, this seems compelling to me.

But, as you say, reasonable people can disagree.

surferfb said:
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?
Click to expand...

I suppose there just isn't a win-win solution. The political decision seems to be that gatekeepers and closed platforms don't mix.

A new solution could of course emerge and, as long as it doesn't grow beyond a certain level, still give you what you want.

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

This feels like a straw man and not really what the DMA does.
 
Sophisticatednut said:
Why would millions be forced to download third party apps AppStore? Is the AppStore so ineffective and disliked by developers?
Click to expand...

Because big developers want the 30% cut and can justify the cost of running a separate store.

Sophisticatednut said:
Seems strange that steam can manage to maintain your game even if it’s not sold in the store🤔
Click to expand...

I don't see Adobe suite on steam. Dropbox? ChatGPT? You know, billion dollar companies that would love to have 30% cut.

Sophisticatednut said:
The AppStore on the Mac is simply uncompetitive
Click to expand...

great, that's not really relevant to the discussion about the consequences of opening up iOS and that just proves what I said earlier, devs thought they were going to reach a large audience on Mac app store but they didn't. that's why they came and left which is not the same comparison to steam.
 
surferfb said:
Software integration ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the product. Just because you don't value it as highly as sound quality or whatever doesn't mean it isn't a valid thing to compete on.
Click to expand...
Yes but no competitor on iOS can compete with AirPods seamless connectivity for example.
Because it’s impossible for a 3rd party to achieve that and that’s the point.
 
Sophisticatednut said:
As I previously stated it’s for public communication. Can you find it in actual legal documents? Or the law text?
Cartel is a legal term, antitrust isn’t.

Considering it’s just competition law
Click to expand...
Like I said, you're being pedantic. A cartel is a trust. A law that restricts trusts is an antitrust law regardless of whether it uses the word "antitrust".
 
germanbeer007 said:
The argument is that the regulations are unnecessary because people can buy an Android device instead.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the range of criteria people have when buying a phone. Not everyone is an Apple fan, nor is everyone an Android fan. Some are not a fan, and some others are not a fan of either of them.
 
d686546s said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is an A+ post

Right on the money. All of it.
👏
 
germanbeer007 said:
Because big developers want the 30% cut and can justify the cost of running a separate store.
Click to expand...
Or being in their own website, while being available in multiple places… or even in the store with their own payment system.
germanbeer007 said:
I don't see Adobe suite on steam. Dropbox? ChatGPT? You know, billion dollar companies that would love to have 30% cut.
Click to expand...
Well… those one have their own websites? But windows store does have them and they have 0% fee
germanbeer007 said:
great, that's not really relevant to the discussion about the consequences of opening up iOS and that just proves what I said earlier, devs thought they were going to reach a large audience on Mac app store but they didn't. that's why they came and left which is not the same comparison to steam.
Click to expand...
They came to the Macappstore and the steam stores. But abandoned the Macappstore. Now why is that?

Your constituencies happens only for a few reasons:
1: the store sucks
2: it cost more than having it literally anywhere else.
3: it’s too restrictive so you can’t maintain a single app but two, the Macappstore version and the non Macappstore version.

For the same reason barely any useful safari plugins exist. Great browser, terrible infrastructure for delivery.
 
ToothBlueth said:
By dissuading people from buying more advanced and capable watches than those manufactured by Apple by blocking competition from using basic functions, like text messages.
Click to expand...
Apple is not preventing anyone from making an amazing watch that functions on Android. They are free to innovate away. They should, and show Apple users what they’re missing!

ToothBlueth said:
Now you’ll say, ‘but Apple wrote the code’, forgetting about Apple having that significant market position I initially typed about.
Click to expand...
28% vs 72%. Seems like there’s a lot more potential for sales with an Android device.

And yes, Apple owns its code and should be under no obligation to make its software interact with competitors devices unless they’re an actual monopoly.
 
Stuwil said:
Yes but no competitor on iOS can compete with AirPods seamless connectivity for example.
Because it’s impossible for a 3rd party to achieve that and that’s the point.
Click to expand...
So? They can compete on sound quality, price, comfort, design, noise canceling, type of headphone, etc.

If Bose makes an incredible headphone that is miles ahead of the completion’s sound quality we don’t say “it’s not fair so Bose has to share their secret sauce”.
 
Stuwil said:
Because there is a big difference
As apple make the OS
They are then selling products like AirPods that give them a distinct advantage over the competitors and it’s got nothing to do with the quality of the product
Click to expand...

Can it not be argued that the integration itself is the product? iOS doesn’t automatically update itself free of charge. That integration doesn’t just happen by itself. Apple does spend a lot of time and resources working on both the hardware and the software to ensure that they play well with each other.

I get that if you are the owner of a headphone company looking in from the outside, it can seem like an unfair advantage (though I argue that too many people these days are too eager to cry “unfair” when they really just mean “not to my advantage”). But at the same time, is it really “fair” to expect Apple to just give away the fruits of their R&D for nothing? What then is the incentive to continue coming up with new ecosystem features if Apple is not allowed to charge a premium for them?

Even Qualcomm and Nokia are allowed to charge for their patents, in the very least, but the idea of Apple charging a licensing fee for access to core iOS features is somehow anathema?
 
Abazigal said:
the idea of Apple charging a licensing fee for access to core iOS features is somehow anathema?
Click to expand...

I don't think they are offering any way, paid or not, to offer the type of integration AirPods are afforded.

Please note: I'm making no statement about whether they should or not.
 
Sophisticatednut said:
Or being in their own website, while being available in multiple places… or even in the store with their own payment system.
Click to expand...

Which bypasses Apple's IAP and they keep the 30% yes that's what I said.

Sophisticatednut said:
Well… those one have their own websites? But windows store does have them and they have 0% fee
Click to expand...

I have no idea what argument you're making.

Sophisticatednut said:
They came to the Macappstore and the steam stores. But abandoned the Macappstore. Now why is that?
Click to expand...
I already explained why.
 
germanbeer007 said:
I don't see Adobe suite on steam. Dropbox? ChatGPT? You know, billion dollar companies that would love to have 30% cut.
Click to expand...

Why would those things be on a video games App Store?


1748904509364.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top