Okay if you think so. Doesn’t change anything.
This has been discussed so many times. And it’s fine that it’s about the dollars. YOU do not have to buy any Apple product, services or stock if you do t like the way the company operates.
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.
Apple Calls Out EU for Contradictory App Store Rules Under DSA and DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would be if Apple wasn't misrepresenting their objections and spreading FUD
They don’t. Users buy package deals. If users love the os, ux, the vertical stack but absolutely hates the locked down iMessage, no sideloading etc then they will do no change if on the other side android have the polar opposite interests
I’d agree with you if apple was doing that. But they aren’t. The only FUD being spread is on this forum.
If I had the objections as voiced in the tones of the many posters there is no way I would buy any Apple product or service. So there is something else going on.
As you point out, no one is being deprived of spending their money and getting exactly what they want since options are available. This shows that the arguments about freedom, competition, innovation, etc. against Apple's position are made in bad faith.
No one is forced to buy Apple products. If you don't get what you want from the walled garden, go completely open with a Linux phone or jail break your Android phone or find a chinese government controlled phone. You have so many choices and they will cost you less up front, though you may pay on the backend when you are hacked, blocked, and controlled by a government or a criminal network.
Last edited:
By the usual AAPL brigade who think your gran will be cloned by an eastern european crime syndicate the moment Apple has to let Paypal have an API for the iPhone NFC chip.
Last edited:
I agree if you divide this by that you get some number. And that stock price is in a way a picture of future revenue. And also side Apple there is nvidia, Microsoft, google and Exxon mobile. However it absolutely does not answer why the DMA targeted Apple.
It wasn’t. Apple doesn’t act any different from Microsoft, intel, facebook, Amazon, google etc etc in the regard of religiously pushing for vertically integration of as much of the customers experience and interaction. As well as entrenching their position as maliciously as possible. The last 100 some tax inversions was 80+ from the U.S.
Apple is just the latest continuously emerging market behemoth as well as smaller actors with the same problematic behavior that EU and nations have been curbing. MNC and U.S. enterprises being targeted isn’t because they’re American, but because they engage in the same kind of behavior that European or even Asian companies just don’t either engage in or gets detected early and curbed nationally
Apple isn’t the target, but the behavior as we don’t want 11 more such players acting the same way
It really looks the rational and justification was…hmm Apple has a small market share but their customers spend big and they are influential. We don’t like that therefore let’s study them, see where they are closed, regulate those closed points and force them to open, make the revenue cap fairly large so we don’t estate Spotify, and then fine them even for business done outside the eu.
And Apple won’t be able to do anything g about it.
Not a good example using the car dealership analogy; why? Some car manufacturers and dealerships will say you have a warranty but it doesn’t mean much as either you are left to prove the manufacturer and/or dealership is liable for it or not and even if they are it doesn’t mean you will get priority service.
Case in point: EV customer had an issue with the car Lithium Ion battery. Manufacturer and Dealership attempted to reproduce said issue, after multiple attempts was finally able to agree with customer, later informed customer it will be months before a replacement battery will be available. Customer purchased the EV brand new, drove it for a month or less and took months to get the other parties to agree that it was a factory issue not something their did, had to wait hence was unable to enjoy the expensive EV purchase and was driving a ICE vehicle since the EV was in the shop for close to a year.
Just because Apple says something doesn’t mean the customer is in the clear, once your data has been stolen and brokered to 3rd parties from an app obtained from the Apple AppStore will you be compensated easily or have to go through hoops.
I don't think China has required side loading in iOS. EU asks Apple to change it's business model/design principles in the name of competition. China is ok with the walled garden, they just ask for their own separate walled garden where they can censor more.
Also I don't think China fines Apple based on money they make in other parts of the world. EU fines Apple (and other gatekeepers) based on global revenue which imo is ridiculous. Fining by EU should be based on EU revenue only. But it isn't because part of the motivation is a cash grab imo.
@psingh01
My main point with the China comparison isn't the specifics, but just that Apple is doing whatever they are asked.
Do you think there is anything China could ask Apple to do that they'd say no to?
(the answer is no, given how over the barrel they have Apple. All of this is about leverage)
They have basically no choice. If the fines aren't punitive enough, they get ignored and factored in as the cost of doing business (i.e. ignored).
This has become the norm in the US, for instance. The bad behaviors are never modified as it's easier and cheaper to just pay fines and keep doing whatever.
My main point with the China comparison isn't the specifics, but just that Apple is doing whatever they are asked.
Do you think there is anything China could ask Apple to do that they'd say no to?
(the answer is no, given how over the barrel they have Apple. All of this is about leverage)
They have basically no choice. If the fines aren't punitive enough, they get ignored and factored in as the cost of doing business (i.e. ignored).
This has become the norm in the US, for instance. The bad behaviors are never modified as it's easier and cheaper to just pay fines and keep doing whatever.
Last edited:
Or because mega corps will just write tiny anaemic fines off as the cost of doing business.
Sure nothing like excessive punishment that doesn’t fit the crime.
I would say that may be true with individuals but with Fortune 500 companies not as a general rule imo
Oh they would if they can. Moving to Apple Silicon makes it easier.
It’s just that the Mac App Store is DOA so they don’t dare to try. It would be product ending level of backlash. 😂
Well Microsoft was a well a Google where targeted for the unique problems of the digital era has brought us that wasn’t an issue when the services and goods were largely just tangible . Nvidia and Exon mobile are targeted by completely different laws than are older that can be sectors specific.
Heck you should check up on United Brands v Commission (1976) Case 27/76is an EU competition legal case concerning abuse of a dominant position in a relevant product market. The case involved the infamous "green banana clause". It is one of the most famous cases in European competition law, which seeks to curb cartels, collusion and other anti-competitive practices,[1] and to curb abuse of dominant market positions.- wiki
And Hoffmann-La Roche v commission (1979) Provided the canonical legal definition of dominance, still quoted today:
"A position of economic strength enabling a firm to prevent effective competition being maintained and to act to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and consumers."
Well it doesn’t much matter what the dealership says when they would still have their legal obligation to provide warranty.
And it’s Fair analogy, but that EV case would fall under product-liability law Apple’s situation is about platform regulation. The DMA/DSA don’t make Apple responsible for third-party stores any more than a dealership is for what happens at a competitor’s shop.
In the Apple analogy, the question isn’t how fast Apple fixes things, but what Apple is legally responsible for and what market access rules require. So comparing Apple to a dealership that acknowledges a defect but drags its feet isn’t quite the same as the question of whether Apple must allow or support 3rd-party stores. One is about customer service efficiency; the other is about regulatory scope and market structure.
only because Apple cares so much about privacy! and hopefully we'll find out soon if that's enough.
why would a global entity be fined based on local revenue? does it sell US shares, EU shares, etc.? and if Apple is so local, why did it set up its EU shop (not to be confused with Apple Store, of which there are zero) in Ireland? surely not because it could pay corporation tax on EU-wide revenues at a whopping 0.005% rate.
The EU is not a world government. Its jurisdiction is the EU. Its laws cover business in the EU or with EU entities not business elsewhere.
So why should EU be able to fine an American company based on business it does in Australia for example? Something that has nothing to do with the EU?
Surely you would think it equally fair for the US government to fine European companies based on business that occurs only in Europe? Or maybe China to do the same for money made by Europeans in South America?
Make a little money in China and a lot in South America. Break some arbitrary law in China and they get take what you make in a different part of the world? Sound fair? It’s only fair if the EU is the one doing it to someone else.
EU doesn't fine Apple 'based on business it does in Australia', it fines a global company, which also happens to be doing business within EU's jurisdiction, based on its global business. your argument would have legs if Apple operated as 'Apple EU' in EU - separate coroporate entity, separate board, separate listing, etc.
this makes no sense.
EU doesn't consider foreign laws, or infractions thereof, in its rulings, what are you on about.
That’s all well and good but where is the precedent to apply this to Apple, google Microsoft in the eu in the form of the DMA. There isn’t the DMA is legislation that threaded the needle to curb apples influence.
No they don't consider foreign laws but they sure do consider foreign revenue that they want to get their hands on 😆
I think the argument is completely going over your head. Or you are intentionally being obtuse. Why should the EU fine based on revenue not made within the EU? It's a ridiculous argument to say well it's a global company so they can fine based on global business, even business that is outside of their jurisdiction.
There are plenty of other "global" companies operating in the EU, many european themselves, that are NOT subject to these kinds of fines. The laws and the fines are not equally applied to everyone. It only applies to "gatekeepers" where the definition of gatekeeper is a moving target. Even the idea of being in compliance with the law is a moving target.
So EU makes laws for how a company has to operate in the EU, but then makes the rules so that it mainly targets foreign companies (except one) and makes sure that it can fine based on global revenue, not just EU revenue.
now you're just projecting.
in which case I'm sure you're fine with Apple just complying with laws of 'local' aka EU jurisdiction, and amending its practices accordingly? no ifs, no buts, no fines.
zZZZzzzzzz...