Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[I7guy]

No, ignoring the facts is what causes you coming back to your opinion all the time. The DMA has been approved by the EU Court, and so can Apple try to make its case there.

No the posters are justifying the DMA using the DMA. That’s circular reasoning. And having been approved doesn’t make it good in any sense.

 

[ToothBlueth]

The WSJ thinks innovation is dead in the eu. The DMA is a shining example why.

Don’t know what WSJ wrote, nor what they argue for.

Limiting innovation to just consumer technology seems a bit shortsighted to me too.

 

[d686546s]

Wouldn't it be prudent to know if majority of people buy Apple products because of its closed nature BEFORE EU enacts the law that effectively kills any major closed system?


It seems selfish to not even know if closed nature is the majority of the will of people before killing it off.

I honestly don't think this question would make any sense to the broad majority of people and you n would get very confusing and contradictory answers depending on which questions you ask and how you'd ask them.

 

[ToothBlueth]

No the posters are justifying the DMA using the DMA. That’s circular reasoning. And having been approved doesn’t make it good in any sense.

It is a law, which is accepted by the court. Of course we use the DMA to determine who falls within the DMA criteria

 

[surferfb]

The WSJ thinks innovation is dead in the eu. The DMA is a shining example why.

The EU government agrees!

Mario Draghi Report Claims Innovation Is Blocked, Hindered Due To Excessive Regulation In The EU | Crowdfund Insider

The Draghi Report explains that Europe is "stuck in a static industrial structure" and too few new companies are emerging in the EU. Innovation is sparse, and

www.crowdfundinsider.com

 

[jfreedle2]

My biggest worry right now is what America is planning on forcing Apple to do in the near future. While European Union I trust way more with their policies support for Users.

And I completely do not trust the EU with hashed random generated data.

 

[ToothBlueth]

The EU government agrees!

Mario Draghi Report Claims Innovation Is Blocked, Hindered Due To Excessive Regulation In The EU | Crowdfund Insider

The Draghi Report explains that Europe is "stuck in a static industrial structure" and too few new companies are emerging in the EU. Innovation is sparse, and

www.crowdfundinsider.com

Draghi is not the EU government, he is an advisor. He is also not talking about DMA, but (as far as I know) about internal regulation for merging and trading and market access, etc.

Anyway, I am happy to see DMA being used and look forward to all the positive effects it will have. Just as much as I am looking forward to some of Draghi’s advise for better internal cooperation, markets, and innovation.

Albeit a bit too late, Europe is realising that its only ally is itself, and I hope we act on this realisation.

 

[germanbeer007]

I honestly don't think this question would make any sense to the broad majority of people and you n would get very confusing and contradictory answers depending on which questions you ask and how you'd ask them.

Those who can’t make sense of this are the likely the ones who don’t care for an open system, which, as you said, would be a broad majority of people.

 

[jfreedle2]

Please let Apple release iPhone mirroring on macOS just like it was intended. Apple’s secret sauce is their tight integration, the ecosystem.


While EU costumers are happy to now be able to use a standard charging port such as USB-C, thanks to the push of EU, sometimes I think they’re going too far. And iPhone screen mirroring is fundamentally a continuity/handoff feature (never knew the difference between them).

With all of the ewaste that was generated in the switch to USB-C, cool.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yeah, Draghi also mentions a lot of need for harmony of regulations across member states and that "the EU should aim as far as possible to be competitively neutral and regulation should be designed to facilitate market entry. The evidence is overwhelming that competition stimulates productivity, investment and innovation."

No disagreement there.

The EU wants more competition, even within a given platform or ecosystem.

 

[Abazigal]

I'd agree that there is a conversation to be had regarding what fair terms for interoperability could look like, but the point I'd think is that Apple (and, for the record, other big platform providers) just doesn't offer access to certain 'ecosystem features' where these are used to push other products or services.

I think Apple would have probably saved itself from a lot of scrutiny if it had offered better interoperability on (semi-) fair and reasonable terms.

Like I said, integration doesn’t just fall from the sky.

Windows and android are more open, but the downside is that you don’t really see much integration between the various hardware vendors because again, who’s going to pay for it and what’s the benefit exactly if it doesn’t allow you to meaningfully differentiate your product in the market? Devices are devices, and they kinda just exist and do their own individual things.

In the very least, I certainly don’t see anyone willing to create an open source airdrop alternative for windows (feel free to prove me wrong here).

In exchange, you get more market share because more people are able to take advantage of your platform. It just doesn’t feel right to me that Apple built a close ecosystem right from the start with a conscious mind to sacrifice market share for profits (something which the critics have Apple endless hell over because they were convinced Apple was headed down the wrong path), and now people are declaring their entire business model invalid, and the whole argument for doing so is the exact opposite of the criticism being levelled at Apple over the past 10+ years.

It just doesn’t feel right.

 

[turbineseaplane]

In the very least, I certainly don’t see anyone willing to create an open source airdrop alternative for windows (feel free to prove me wrong here).

Have you searched for that exact phrase?

(LocalSend is awesome by the way)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The remainder of the world.

Well there’s a bunch of technological companies across the globe both in EU or parts of Asia that is outcompeting the U.S. and have outright slaughtered their industries 🤷‍♂️. Consumer hardware isn’t all there is about technology.

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".

Well we are speaking about law. And considering the pedantry you and some have been in some regards I would say it’s needed. Especially when the distinction is meaningful. Eu competition law doesn’t target trusts in any meaningful way.

Hence why the constant insistence to say” but Apple isn’t a monopoly they just have 30% market” yes because the legal concept of monopoly is non existent.

And even I know that in U.S. law cartels=/= trusts.

The term "monopoly" cannot appropriately describe the EU concept of "dominant position" because they operate under fundamentally different legal standards and thresholds. EU dominance can be established without meeting any US monopoly criteria, and applying American terminology risks importing inappropriate legal assumptions and analytical frameworks. Similarly, characterizing EU competition law as "antitrust" introduces historical US concepts like "trust-busting" that have no parallel in European legal development. So when you say “a cartel is a trust”, you’re confusing historical U.S. terminology with EU legal doctrine.

So no, clarifying this isn’t pedantry. If anything, casually collapsing these distinctions under a vague Americanized umbrella like ”monopoly” or ”antitrust” muddies the waters. Especially when EU institutions themselves reserve ”antitrust” for public communication in English, not in the actual legal instruments or jurisprudence

• No historical concept of a trust in this sense.
• No legal framework that revolves around trusts as entities.
• The law targets “undertakings” (companies or associations thereof), and focuses on market behavior, not legal structure.
• The concept of monopoly is completely different.

Using US terminology to describe EU law doesn't just misname things, it imports analytical frameworks, burdens of proof, and policy assumptions that don't belong in the EU system. It's like describing German constitutional law using American constitutional terms you lose essential meaning in translation.

 

[Abazigal]

Have you googled that exact phrase?

(LocalSend is awesome by the way)

View attachment 2515850

View attachment 2515852View attachment 2515854

I was thinking more along the lines of an app that comes preinstalled either by Microsoft or by PC vendors, and can therefore see widespread adoption ala Bluetooth. As it stands, this isn’t something I can access on my work laptop since it doesn’t allow me to install additional software. Plus the chances of random people on the street having said app installed on their device is very low.

If it’s third party apps, I used instashare before airdrop was a thing, and I think I was pretty much the only person at work having it on my devices.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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?

Well sir, if Apple con complain about unfair Qualcomm licensing agreements for being to expensive. Then I think it’s kind of fair to say they can either use someone else’s technology or allow the developers to also complain and get fairer licensing agreements.

It’s kind of ironic how Apple complained about the revenue share model Qualcomm had with Apple as percentage of the device selling point (5%) the 7~€ was too much as they wanted 1~€.

 

[Abazigal]

Well sir, if Apple con complain about unfair Qualcomm licensing agreements for being to expensive. Then I think it’s kind of fair to say they can either use someone else’s technology or allow the developers to also complain and get fairer licensing agreements.

It’s kind of ironic how Apple complained about the revenue share model Qualcomm had with Apple as percentage of the device selling point (5%) the 7~€ was too much as they wanted 1~€.

And Apple ended up developing their own modem while at it.

Though I am not sure how much Apple is still paying Qualcomm in royalties, if at all. But maybe that could change in the future as well.

 

[jfreedle2]

Imagine thinking that that's how any of this works...

If Apple's software is that fragile and insecure, maybe it just shouldn't exist in the first place.


It's worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in EU law that blocks Apple from making screen mirroring available in the EU. Just like there was absolutely nothing that blocked them from allowing PWAs, which they were also called out for by the EU itself. It's why its competitors - despite having to adhere to the same rules - do have these features.


See, that's the difference between the EU and the US. "Market" is not just "corporate intrests". "Market" in the DMA does mean consumers. But you knew that already. Just as you know that this "protectionism" rant is also bs. The DMA is, just like every other country has, just another anti-trust law. By your warped definition of what "protectionism" is, the EU wouldn't be allowed to have any anti-trust rules, and again, you know that that's just bs.

The truth is that the EU does not consider the customers of the devices or environment, but the competitors of the company in question. They believe that no company should excel more than any EU company. So if they suck and have poor security, then all companies must suck and have poor security.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The truth is that the EU does not consider the customers of the devices or environment, but the competitors of the company in question. They believe that no company should excel more than any EU company. So if they suck and have poor security, then all companies must suck and have poor security.

No, that is not "the truth"
C'mon ... 🤔

 

[Abazigal]

See, that's the difference between the EU and the US. "Market" is not just "corporate intrests". "Market" in the DMA does mean consumers. But you knew that already. Just as you know that this "protectionism" rant is also bs. The DMA is, just like every other country has, just another anti-trust law. By your warped definition of what "protectionism" is, the EU wouldn't be allowed to have any anti-trust rules, and again, you know that that's just bs.

I will argue that it’s the opposite.

In the US, antitrust law looks at damage to consumers.

In the EU, antitrust looks at harm to businesses.

The DMA is aimed at benefiting smaller businesses (relative to Apple at any rate), not so much end users.

Sometimes, the consumer benefits alongside the business. And sometimes, their interests aren’t (eg: what’s good for developers may not necessarily be good for users, and vice versa).

 

[turbineseaplane]

In the US, antitrust law looks at damage to consumers.

In the US, antitrust law is basically not enforced anymore.

You now also have to do the bidding of the Autocrat in order to curry favor for your mergers as well.

 

[jfreedle2]

No, that is not "the truth"
C'mon ... 🤔

Yes, all you have to do is analyze their actions and look at the laws and regulations. You will see the intent in how the laws and regulations are written.

 

[Abazigal]

In the US, antitrust law is basically not enforced anymore.

Perhaps, and also not really addressing the key point when you consider the entirety of my post in its full context.

 

[jfreedle2]

Yeah, Draghi also mentions a lot of need for harmony of regulations across member states and that "the EU should aim as far as possible to be competitively neutral and regulation should be designed to facilitate market entry. The evidence is overwhelming that competition stimulates productivity, investment and innovation."

No disagreement there.

The EU wants more competition, even within a given platform or ecosystem.

The EU has no right to fine based on any market out of their jurisdiction, the EU.

 

[jfreedle2]

Draghi is not the EU government, he is an advisor. He is also not talking about DMA, but (as far as I know) about internal regulation for merging and trading and market access, etc.

Anyway, I am happy to see DMA being used and look forward to all the positive effects it will have. Just as much as I am looking forward to some of Draghi’s advise for better internal cooperation, markets, and innovation.

Albeit a bit too late, Europe is realising that its only ally is itself, and I hope we act on this realisation.

I am looking forward to the DMA being voided.

 

[jfreedle2]

I love interoperability. let me choose what devices I want to buy from what companies. All tech should have a limited patent like medication then it should become a standard like iMessages should become a standard any company can tie into and I can install on any device I want. Apple acts so anticompetitively they have to keep fighting not because it's right for their users, as their users would benefit from interoperability, but to protect their shareholders interest... They fight and market and act anticompetitively. I can't wait for the world to do what the EU is doing as it's protecting consumers. Consumers are the ones who get the shaft in all of this.

That is the goal of the EU, the end users get the shaft.